User talk:DESiegel/Archive 10

'' This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) ''

Barnstar

 * Awesome stuff. This work motivates me (and I hope others) to try harder to save articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DES (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just coming to give you one, only to see I've been beaten to it. Excellent work, thank you. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just logged on and saw your message about rescuing. I agree with the above: well done with the article! -- Flyguy649 talk 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephaunelite
A tough call on the surface, I admit, but I feel it's justified. "Stephaun Elite" is his name for commercial purposes, for his drag exhibitions. Had he posted as Stephaun Wallace he wouldn't have been blocked. Had you registered your account as David The Great and made some of your first edits the promotion of David the Great Entertainment Services, that could have been blocked.

Perhaps I should have made this a pure COI block. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Silliness
If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account? DS (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am claiming a violation of WP:BITE and WP:DEL. I think you have been rather quick with the delete button. DRV ho. DES (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts. DS (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't up to you (or me or any other single admin) to "not let people get away" with such things. The WP:CSD are intentionally quite narrow. To delete "user page sillyness" beyond them is the province of WP:MFD where this might be deleted, or might be kept -- either outcome would be in line with past precedents. Therefore such a deletion was not clearly uncontroversial. Note that WP:CSD says: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." and "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." (Emphasis added) . It also says "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination." Note also the existence of SD warn-needed. Placing such warning serves at least three functions. Such warnings can help educate a user as to what pages are not acceptable and why; such warnings can enable a user to correct a page so that it becomes acceptable, which is generally better than deletion, when it is possible; such warnings can help document a pattern of improper editing, when such a pattern exists. I therefore urge you to warn/notify page creators of speedy deletions, although no policy or guideline currently specifically requires this. DES (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Enzymes
If you're going to stalk my deletion log, please read the message I left for the user who submitted that reductase mess. DS (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read it, and it seems to me a clear violation of WP:BITE. I also disagree with the substance of the comment. Do I take it you decline to undelete the article? DES (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And as to "stalking", having found several of your deletions incorrect IMO, i have indeed been reviewing some of the ones in your log, that is one thing the logs are there for. DES (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (uninvolved admin) With regards to Versicolorin reductase, it is a clear copyvio of . On that one, the deletion was proper, just not necessarily the deletion rationale. The user would need to be advised not to copypaste stuff like that; that won't be able to be restored. –MuZemike 15:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q00791 appears to me to be precisely the kind of "list of facts with no creative expression" that is not protected by copyright, given that the facts are readily available at that link, and that the text would need to be significantly reworked to make a reasonable article (and that I'm not sure this individual hormone is notable anyway) I won't push for restoring this page. DES (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and - "Although I appreciate your good intentions", "You are perfectly welcome", "my apologies for the inconvenience" - you consider that to be BITEy? DS (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes I do. The statement, "...what you submitted was not an article. It was a random hodgepodge of data, with no sentences linking anything together. It was such a mess that I decided it would be more efficient to just delete it and start over", although surrounded by polite statements, is likely to be read as "I consider your work worthless". Moreover, IMO it is incorrect. It would be much easier to turn what amounts to a list of facts into a proper article, IMO than to start from nothing. I will grant that I have seen far less polite messages addressed to new editors, and that sometimes we have to say, in effect, "I'm sorry but this is just not acceptable" to well-intentioned contributors. I still think that deleting the page out of process, with that note, was an unfortunate way of proceeding. And it was out of process. If you were aware of the copy&paste, you didn't mention it. If you were not aware, then this didn't remotely fit any of the speedy deletion criteria that i can see. DES (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Process is important. It is not all-important. DS (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will readily grant that. But where was the urgent reason not to follow it in any of the above cases? DES (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ska Vegas
Sorry, I misread the article as describing a ska band, not a ska scene. There is no individual band called "Ska Vegas", which is what I thought I was deleting.

I've restored the article. DS (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Whether this passes AfD is of course a different matter. And anyone can make a mistake -- I make enough of them. DES (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for User:Sodabottle
I gave him one too, for his work at questionable AFDs when others could not be bothered. I am unhappy at how some nominators do not do even the least amount of BEFORE prior to deciding to send something to deletion. I recently found several others by this same nominator where the subject had won or been multiply nominated for notable awards, thus ensuring meeting WP:ANYBIO, and this could have been easily determined by the simplest of searches. So I added the cited recognition to their articles. Might such continued nominations be considered even the least bit pointy when so demonstratably lazy?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they might. In extreme cases an RFC/user has been field over careless or improper AfD nominations, IIRC, and that is surely possible. Note that an absolute requirement of an RFC is having at least two people certify that they each personally attempted to work with the person to resolve the dispute (which generally means putting a message on his page asking him to change his ways, and then discussing as long as discussion seems worthwhile) and that this did not solve the problem, both supported by diffs. DES (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... the many deeds done were done, and conversation after the fact would would not have reversed the multiple AFDs. But yes... a polite note suggesting he might actually check to see if something is fixable before deciding arbitrarily that it is not might do some good in the future. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. On second thought this is not so much a matter of WP:POINT, which is intentionally not following rules/practices/policies as a demonstration or arguing point, as it is simply a matter of poor practice, specifically doing AfD nominations without doing the pre-nom checks described in WP:BEFORE. I have left the editor a note about this. And yes, the best possible outcome is that he act differently in future. DES (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Museum Berlin move
Vielen Dank! :) DBaK (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS I haven't forgotten the redirects - I'll fix a few more asap. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

oldafdfull merge discussion
As a participant in the deletion discussion for the oldafdfull template, you are invited to comment on the followup merge request here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:GameCrush
Hi DESiegel. Could you please explain what you meant by the edit summary to edit 352736339 of Talk:GameCrush, which was "ts"? Thanks Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe this refers to "timestamp", as in the time and date added to DES's signature in the edit in question. This can be accidentally omitted from one's sig if one only hits the tilde key three times and not four. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stalker Chris. ;-) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. sorry for any confusion. DES (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Penex (disamb)
Thanks for your kind note. Raymondwinn (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

School Improvement Grant (clean up)
I believe all the items in the "Further clean up needed" issue have been seen to. Can we have this issue removed? And the COI has been thoroughly addressed on the Talk page, so I think this issue should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clonus44444 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Plus what further Wikification might be needed would you say? Thank you for your assistance. Clonus44444 (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened the intro to School Improvement Grant by half. In your judgment, is it now short enough? Thank you. Clonus44444 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is much improved, and makes it much easier for a reader. Thank you. DES (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Languages
I don't know Romanian, but Google Translate does, and that's a love note. It asks the IP's significant other to call tomorrow, and reiterates that the IP loves the significant other so much and that the significant other makes the IP's life worth living. There is absolutely no reason for it to be on Wikipedia at all, much less for it to be on the talk page for an article about ancient Roman death masks.

In other words:

no, I will not restore it. Go do something useful. DS (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Had you chosen to indicate the actual reason for deletion in the log (something like "attempt to communicate", since you seem to dislike the actual CSD reasons), this exchange would probably not have occurred. Log entries matter. And checking the deletions of an admin who appears very willing to delete whatever the admin chooses, without reference to the CSD or to anyone else, seems quite worth while to me. Many, indeed most, of your deletions are IMO well-judged, but a significant number are not. You also routinely delete without notifying the page creators, which is more than a bit WP:BITEy IMO, and also fails to educate editors who are often in need of guidance, and goes against the wide consensus that such notification is highly desirable, although not mandatory. DES (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR speedys
Replying here rather than at DRV as it's a little off topic. Personally I can think of a few cases when IAR speedys would be appropriate although I would imagine these would be very rare. Examples would be to ensure compliance with the law, injunctions etc (although generally this would be an office action I can imagine cases where an admin got to it first so couldn't strictly do it as an office action), a page that severely broke wikipedia in a technical sense (not sure this is possible but we can never say never) or something which fell under the oversight policy case 1 and which was significantly worrying to warrant deletion until it could be oversighted. Obviously every example I quote would be very rare but I think saying never doesn't allow for situations which we can't currently think of or which are rare enough that no one has yet tried to get a speedy criteria for it. I think any such action would need to be clearly logged due to it's unusual nature and where possible posted an ANI or similar for review. In general I think all speedy deletions should contain in the log the criteria under which they're deleted and, except in exceptional cases (as stated above), if a criteria is not given in the log and the deleting admin fails to give one when asked then it should be an automatic undelete without the need for DRV. Dpmuk (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Office actions are WP:CSD. Non-office people should probably not be doing these.
 * Pages that break wikipedia would fall under WP:CSD Technical deletions.
 * A page that must urgently be deleted (not just blanked) pending oversight would probably fall under WP:CSD attack page or WP:CSD Vandalism.
 * Still if "IAR Speedy deletions" were limited to the sorts of situations you mention, handled as you suggest, i would not be likely to object. DF67's "IAR deletions" (note that IAR is not cited in support of them) do not fit. DES (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I didn't make it clear enough at DRV that those were the type of situations I were referring to, we can never be sure what will crop up and in my opinion that's one reason IAR exists. I will think about how I'll word things at DRV in future. Dpmuk (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But in any case since the deletion under discussion is IMO clearly not a proper IAR speedy, hypothetical cases where one might be proper need only limited discussion in this context. I don't think I've ever seen an actual deletion that would IMO qualify as a valid IAR speedy as discussed above. DES (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Privacy related suppression and redaction can sometimes be IAR type admin deletions first. Admins deliberately do not advertise the reason for these deletions with transparent deletion summaries for obvious reasons. These are not necessarily vandalism or attack pages although they could be. So there are valid reasons for non-transparent IAR type deletions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that such deletions are valid (though i think sometimes they are overdone). i wouldn't call them IAR deletions, as I think the Privacy policy authorizes such deletions. If it doesn't it should. I also think there should ideally be a useful log somewhere even if not publicly visible. But that is a technicality. In any case, those also are very different from the sort of deletions that started this discussion. I'll amend my comments to say that unilateral deletions outside the CSD may in some rather exceptional cases be valid, but usually are not. DES (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, some of these deletions can be in the truest spirit of IAR-which is to go ahead an do something whether or not you know of a specific policy that supports it. When an editor sees an edit that seems inappropriate and then contacts an admin who may or may not be well versed in the nuances of the deletion policy but does the deletion based on the content in my opinion that is a good application of IAR. Reflexive criticism of the people involved because they did not clearly state the reason for their actions can discourage people from getting involved. While I understand that there a reasons that people monitor deletions of admin, I think that we need to recognize the excessive scrutiny can have a negative effect and that needs to be taken into consideration, too.
 * Additionally, the way that policy and guidelines are written is based on documenting the way that stuff is done. While it can be appropriate to discuss changes first, (and I agree that this is more true now as Wikipedia has matured,) there are still times when doing something that is not yet documented in writing is appropriate. Only after it is done with good results, then is documenting it as policy or a guideline a good idea. One admin/functionaries related decision along these lines was the decision to redact or suppress content from logs. A few people started doing it, it was deemed appropriate and in some instances highly desirable so policy was rewritten to reflect the change.


 * We need people to take the initiative to try new and different approaches, so IAR is a key policy in my view. I would like to discourage people from making reflexive dissent based on lack of policy. I have concerns that the this type of dissent is stifling Wikipedia's potential to become high quality as a community and as a reference work.


 * I appreciate the chance to express these thoughts on your talk page. :-) Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

removal of comments
You removed some comments at the bottom of this edit, I re added them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, i screwed up an edit conflict. Thanks for notifying me. i restored a further comment caught in the same edit. DES (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A7 standards
This is in response to your answers to my questions at your RfA. I greatly approve of your suggestion that you would look into the issues and try to improve dubious articles with potential where possible. Thank you for that.

One point i would like to emphasize, is that the standard of "claim of significance or importance" used in WP:CSD is is a significantly lower bar than notability. Articles that clearly do not establish notability, but make some statement that might, if perused, lead to establishing notability, are not subject to an A7 speedy, and the standards of the various notability guidelines are IMO of only limited relevance to an A7 question.

Still I think you will make a good admin, and good luck. DES (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi DESiegel, and thank you for your response :).


 * I think i didn't phrase my answer correctly, as you are absolutely correct that notability is a higher bar then a claim of significance. I think that my usage of "notability" in the answer i gave is similar to the use of the word "wiki" to refer to "wikipedia", which is technically incorrect as well even though many people tend to mix both phrases. What i intended to relay was that if an article claims "notability (Read:significance)" in some way, it passes the A7 criteria. It may absolutely not be notable at all, but a claim is sufficient to pass the A7 speedy at least.


 * I referred to the specialized guidelines as being helpful in determining what "A claim to significance" might be. Since we have a very wide variety of subjects someone reading an article might not know what claims are valid for a certain subject area. For example, someone might easily tag an article about an academic as A7 since he or she might not realize that being a professor is by itself a claim to significance.


 * But i will definitely keep your advice in mind. A7 (and to a lesser extend G11) are the categories in which most mistakes are made during CSD patrol so handling these takes a bit of extra care. Seeing you are an ARS member and an admin - and seeing my RFA seems to be going well - i would like to invite you sample a few of my removals every now and then. These days i think i make few mistakes when tagging article's, but i was also lulled into thinking about my vandalism patrol during my first RFA. Therefor i am always open for a little nudge if i appear to be pointing to much in a certain direction. Note that this link doesn't apply entirely, but it is easy to rephrase the NPOV argument to "Deletion versus Inclusion".


 * Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your through response, I have sampled some of your tags from your contribution lists, and saw no problems, although of course that was not even an attempt at a :comprehensive survey.
 * On A7 vs WP:N, your statement above is IMO much more accurate. I would point out that in some areas something that starts to approach but clearly does not pass an area specific guideline might still get over an A7 bar. For example, and article about a band that says they have released one LP. WP:BAND specified two, and from a major label or significant indie label. But it is possible that a single album stirs up enough buzz to pass the GNG, so i would treat it as a claim of significance, to go to Prod or Afd if it doesn't pan out as notability.
 * One practice you might consider, one which i promised to follow at my RFA some years ago and still do, is "tag & bag" aka "four-eyes". This means that if I find what seems to me a speedyable page, whether on newpage patrol or in any way, that now one has tagged for speedy, i will tag it myself for another admin's review, not simply delete it. I follow this except in the cases of blatant vandalism and attack pages. Other admins have slightly different exception lists, or may not follow this practice at all. I recommend it -- speedy deletes should be fairly speedy, but having more than one set of eyes checking is good, because we all make mistakes. It seems to me that you are likely to pass your RfA, so congratulations and good luck. DES (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for your encouragement and additional advice regarding the placement of CSD templates on pages which don't necessarily meet the N criteria or its sub-guidelines. Besides, i wholeheartedly agree with the "Two sets of eyes" methodology you use and i was considering to use it myself even before you mentioned here. I mentioned the two-tier deletion system in Q13, and in general i think it is an asset rather then an inefficient hindrance. A fraction of my speedy deletes still get denied these days, thus i say it is wiser to tag as any regular user unless it is a clearly a Duck. Being able to actually delete things is just another reason to be careful not to overdo in my eyes. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Emergency Situations move
The "(Russia)" qualifier is superfluous as there are not yet any articles about other agencies with the same name in other countries; as such, no disambiguation via such a parenthesized qualifier is necessary. I ask that you reconsider the request. I don't see how this could be controversial; we don't pre-emptively disambiguate last time I checked. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am checking the "what links here" now. But I do thing that for a page that has existed for some time, as this has it is almost always better to propose a move on the talk page first. DES (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ DES (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MD Rabbi Alam
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is MD Rabbi Alam. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ska vegas
What Google News hits did you find to support contesting the proposed deletion of the article (not that any are required)? I found nothing relevant. Note that the article should probably be called "Vegas ska scene", but I did not find coverage from multiple reliable sources using that search term either. (I do, however, concede the article is not blatantly on a subject "made up one day", since it claims that the scene started in the 1970s.) PleaseStand (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respond at Articles for deletion/Ska vegas if you can support keeping the article. PleaseStand (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, DESiegel. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

are you watching ...
I saw that you had some comments about the article now titled (in keeping with similar articles) Glossary of ancient Roman religion. I was wondering whether you were watching the page, and had any thoughts about its current state of development. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Protein name redirect
Thought you might be interested in this. I'll watch for any answers there, so no need to reply on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Titin redirects listed at Redirects for discussion
I've started a discussion to address the redirects associated with Titin. Since you edited one or other of the redirects at some point, or discussed it on one of the talk pages, I wanted to notify you of the redirect discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You helped once, so now it's your problem too
Not really, but if you hadn't helped before, I probably would be beyond help now. I created a page for Lewis John Carlino a while ago, but nobody has reviewed it. Actually, I was surprised there was no page for him because I was in one of his original productions in 1959, but was not asked to appear in the version which ended up on television. You might be interested in this because Carlino did the original writing and screenplay for Resurrection and was nominated by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for the Saturn Award for Best Writing of 1980.

I am particularly concerned because much of this article links to other pages rather than citing to original sources. It seemed to be a little clumsy to do that and I felt it would require trying to rewrite several of the articles which refer to his work.

I am working on a couple of other articles, but wanted some feedback on this in order to get some additional direction. Thanks. --Komowkwa (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

test page
Do you still need User:DESiegel/db-mult test? If not, maybe it should be deleted or the template be subst'd or tl'd, so that it doesnt' show up in the list of db-g2's "what links here" list as a transclusion. Cheers, Waldir talk 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

deleted article Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network
Hi

Is it possible to get a copy of that article dumped into my sandbox ?

There was talk of merging it with Ukrainian Internet Association and if there is any information contained in there of use I would certainly like to attempt a merge.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cite press release/temp/test
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Nn-warn-reason
An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Nn-warn-reason, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you
You've really helped me become a better wikipedian who handles frustration better than I used to, so thank you, keep up the good work. Longevitydude (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inktel DIrect


The article Inktel DIrect has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Redirect typo based on improper page creation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zeusu 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Drs. Hedayat & Vaez-Zadeh.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Drs. Hedayat & Vaez-Zadeh.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Roundart
Template:PD-Roundart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Roundart-70
Template:PD-Roundart-70 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Roundart-US
Template:PD-Roundart-US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource
Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource
Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of page St. George's College, Agra Page
Hi, I am trying to create a page for St. George's College, Agra but I found that there already was a page which has been deleted. Can I know the reason for the same? Also, if possible, I want to check the content of that page. St. George's College, Agra is more 130 years old school located in Agra (India) and has its own history and that in relation of India. I would like to add the page for the same. Please help! Palakmathur (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Back after long illness
Dear Mr DESiegel, I really hope you will still remember me after such a long time? You helped me a lot to create the Polo Piatti page and we were very advanced, working at it together with your extensive help. Unfortunately I became very ill (acute pancreatitis and big troubles with my gallbladder) and was forced to spend a long time in hospital. After several operations I am more or less well again, back at home and willing to finish the article - that is, if you are able to continue help me? If you do, please send me a short message and we'll take it from where we left, about a year ago. Many thanks in advance for your response. Magiko (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

isfdb
Hi,

Spotted that you put a comment regarding the author David Robbins (David_L._Robbins_(Oregon_writer) at en.wiki) questioning the name here on Wikipedia. Well I'm glad to announce I've finally found a definitive source through the LoC authority records which resolves the issue. /Lokal_Profil 14:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan East Sea naming convention
I am reviving a discussion on the naming usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Nomination for deletion of Template:Speedy-Warn
Template:Speedy-Warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Timesheet Enterprise
It's back, with the deckchairs rearranged, and I've speedy nom'ed it. Just FYI. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nn-warn
Template:Nn-warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Proposed deletion endorsed
Template:Proposed deletion endorsed has been nominated for merging with Template:Proposed deletion/dated. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nothanks-sd
Template:Nothanks-sd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Europris
Could you please explain why our page has been deleted again. We cite text from our own website and indicate the source, but for some reason we seem to end up violating copyright. This is taking up an extraordinary amount of time to set up a small article. FraserBryans (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WHJG-LP
Since you are 4 to 1 on the !vote count for the AFD (it is a SNOW keep) and radio stations are covered under strong, solid consensus, and the article has been updated with plenty of sources ( 7 6 as of this post), I respectfully request you withdraw your AFD. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FigHunter Restoration
Hello, and thank you for considering to restore the FugHunter page to my user-space. However, this is no longer needed as the FigHunter community have rallied round and are producing a new draft of the page in another user's user-space as a special page, or so I believe, although I am not currently actively involved in the creation of this article.

Although I do not need the page moved to my user area for editing, would you consider reviewing the page once it has been completed, to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for articles that are present on the mainspace?

The article in its current state can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Merlinsorca/sandbox

Thanks again

--Phoenix Pyres (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly would. Of course I am just one editor, and I have no veto power nor is my view always in line with a larger consensus. But I do have some experience and I think i can advise a bit. Please let me know when the article is ready for review. 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disraeli
FYI. :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but why are you informing me of it? I have not edited the pages in question not commented on that notice board -- although i have told versions of those insult jokes in the past, although not, as far as i can recall, on wikipedia. DES (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear. The above diff itself includes a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive_L#True_and_encyclopedic_inclusion_of_insults_and_derogatory_characterizations Remember?  :-)  Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had completely forgotten that exchange, thanks for calling it to my attention. DES (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, my pleasure. Those were some excellent insults.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

SAS Institute
I pasted AlphaQuadrant's feedback from October 2011 onto the Talk page for reference.

I'm also working on improving the instructions page right now. If you have any feedback on it, I'm still routinely tweaking all these templates, etc. as I troubleshoot it.

User:King4057 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine and a useful reference it is. But when, under an edit request template, you state that an article "has been vetted by multiple editors" etc, I expect to see those reviews on the draft's talk page, or to see links in the edit request section. DES (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's on the Talk page of the SAS Institute article (at the top), but I did make it difficult for you to verify a nearly 1-year old review. ;-) User:King4057 05:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw the review by AlphaQuadrant, but that was the only review I saw, and it is several months old. I now see, on User talk:Analytics447/DRAFTSASInstitute a positive comment by User:Charles Edwin Shipp, obviously the "charles" referred to in Talk:SAS Institute. However that is a pretty general comment. I will ask him for further feedback. A link to his comment would have been helpful in the Request edit section. But now I have the reference. So this is just an FYI for future cases. DES (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Feedback accepted. User:King4057 07:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I owe you a huge thanks for chipping in btw. I really believe in the Bright Line, but it only works if editors are willing. (and COIs are willing). For barely notable organizations with simple reputations, small articles and where the stakes are basically low, this is not as time-consuming a task. When you get into the 4,000+ word articles I contribute, I'm not sure how much time editors spend reviewing it, but I imagine your thoroughness in particular was very time consuming. User:King4057 07:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you do take on the McKinsey request, I should point you to my post on My2011's Talk explaining the confusion about sources (see below) that is mentioned on the Talk page. He had posted citation needed on each sentence that didn't have a source. I explained that when multiple consecutive sentences rely on a single source, we only cite once.

McKinsey History

Hi My2011. Thanks for chipping in on the McKinsey history section. You may have noticed I filled out the Recent History a bit more and made other improvements in early July. I also went in after you posted feedback and condensed several areas based on your suggestions.

I don't want to fuss over tags (this happens a lot with COIs), but it's actually proper format on Wikipedia to only post a citation once when multiple, consecutive sentences rely on the same citation. That's why, for example, the first paragraph of "2000 onward" has only one citation. The whole paragraph is from the same source.

In any case, let me know if you think it's ready for article-space yet. It has been up in draft form since May and can be further improved once posted. I also wanted to see if you could move the Office Locations section in. I think we agreed on this in May, when we talked about replacing the list of office locations, but it never got moved in. I should really do it as a non-controversial edit, but I am being extra careful. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University
I felt the Strayer University discussion was getting ridiculous excessive and made the edit boldly based on your copy, the COI's response with some tone tweaks. I have made a few comments to the effect that some s tend to get out of hand, because editors are not bold, resulting in an army of too many editors swooping down to debating the finer points of an inconsequential edit to a minor article, so I try to clear them out when the edit to be made seems reasonably obvious. User:King4057 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I rather feel that input from multuiple editors is a good thing in such cases, but if you feel ready to make the edit you are of course free to be bold and make it where you do not have a COI. However, where discussion is still ongoing, please do not change the edit request to "declined" in future. DES (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, which one are you referring to? I'll go fix it. User:King4057 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see the one you're referring to. Sorry about that. User:King4057 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Media Introduction Event and Public relations
I see your other comment about neutral citations and understand what you're requesting. I"ll do that for the Public Relations page. For the "Media Introduction Event" page, I inserted numerous citations; purposely to make it neutral and journalistically objective. I think, however, that my slashes were put in the wrong place. Another editor said something about slashes having to follow "ref" instead of being prior. I need to go back and read exactly what they were referring to. Did you see all those citations in the Media Introduction Events page? And, btw, where the heck IS the page now? I don't know where to even find it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlysonDutch (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello: Thank you so much for your kind help. Just finding where to respond to you is a mystery! I hope this is correct. I did see the "Media Event" page and it has nothing to do with a "Media Introduction Event." A "Media Event" is a happening that a publicist might produce to get publicity for a client, or a studio might do to get the press to report about a film. There is no money exchanged. A "Media Introduction Event" is a brand new sector of the public relations industry and is not a tool like a Media Event is, but a new paid-for marketing methodology and an industry in and of itself. It's specific to the marketing industry, so I can see that it may appear to be similar as some of words used are the same. As such, what do you recommend?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlysonDutch (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I apologize if I - like others - assumed a Media Introduction Event was the same as a regular Media Event. It may still be that this should be added as a section to the article on media events. I've been heavily involved in maintaining the article for public relations for years, but never through a concentrated effort - it could use work. For the Media Introduction Event, what I would suggest is creating the article in a draft space, like User:AlysonDutch/draft, then discussing it with editors. You can also consider using article for creation - they'll provide feedback on draft articles.


 * Just a heads up, when posting on someone's Talk page, you want to post at the bottom of the page. User:King4057 00:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look at the articles and make a substantive response shortly. As King4057 mentioned, the convention is to add new threads at the bottom of the page, the "new section" or "+" link at the top does this automatically. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ) The wiki software will convert this into a timestamp and signature. Like the following one. DES (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure just which comments of mine you saw. if you look at my contributions, you will see that I edit in quite a few different places. I have not, however, previously edited or commented on either Media Introduction Event[ or Public relations. DES (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now looked at Public relations, where AlysonDutch added a paragraph and King4057 reverted the addition, asking for sources. I'm not sure that i agree this is the sort of thing that absolutely needs sources, in the absence of a challenge, but sources are always a good idea. Adding in a reliable source that supports the comments would be good. And In any case I don't think that i for one agree that all public relations is a form of marketing, although much of it surely is. DES (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now looked at the old version of Media Introduction Event that you edited. It does not use footnotes (the tag ) correctly. It has wiki code like this:
 * Instead such an article should look something like this, assuming the same basic text:
 * I second King4057's suggestion that you use the article for creation process. Failing that, create something like User:AlysonDutch/Media Introduction Event draft and ask an experienced editor for assistance. You might want to read WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes. AS the article stood, it effectively had no references, despite the extensive use of the Ref tag. A citation should indicate where the reader can find a source that supports what a specific statement in the article says. Think of footnotes in an academic paper or publication, or in a high-school or college term paper. If I can be of further help or this is unclear to you, please feel free to post here again. DES (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh you asked "where the heck IS the page now?" assuming you meant the Media Introduction Event, another editor converted it into a "redirect" to Media event. This means that anytime anyone clicks on a link to Media Introduction Event, s/he will be automatically taken to Media event. This is an edit that can be undone at any time, and your version is still in the history, but as written your version of the article would have been subject to deletion at any time. If you want I would be willing to move it to a draft page in your userspace (with the incorrect ref tags removed) or into article for creation process, but you might almost be better to start over. But that is your option. Let me know if you want me to do any such thing. DES (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second King4057's suggestion that you use the article for creation process. Failing that, create something like User:AlysonDutch/Media Introduction Event draft and ask an experienced editor for assistance. You might want to read WP:CITE and Help:Footnotes. AS the article stood, it effectively had no references, despite the extensive use of the Ref tag. A citation should indicate where the reader can find a source that supports what a specific statement in the article says. Think of footnotes in an academic paper or publication, or in a high-school or college term paper. If I can be of further help or this is unclear to you, please feel free to post here again. DES (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh you asked "where the heck IS the page now?" assuming you meant the Media Introduction Event, another editor converted it into a "redirect" to Media event. This means that anytime anyone clicks on a link to Media Introduction Event, s/he will be automatically taken to Media event. This is an edit that can be undone at any time, and your version is still in the history, but as written your version of the article would have been subject to deletion at any time. If you want I would be willing to move it to a draft page in your userspace (with the incorrect ref tags removed) or into article for creation process, but you might almost be better to start over. But that is your option. Let me know if you want me to do any such thing. DES (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it would be appropriate to change the definition of Public Relations without sources. Both because I disagree with the content added and because the current article includes some of the most popular and credible definitions. The topic of defining PR is a major topic within the field, one that the PRSA, our largest professional association, seems borderline obsessed with. I and others believe this is a trivial pursuit, but it is an area where there is substantial discussion on how to define the field and where I have spent substantial time in covering it in a reasonably ok way. On the other hand, I would be comfortable with it under Methods, Tools and Tactics. We could create an entire sub-section on news-jacking, which is a portion of public relations the proposed content is most relevant to. It should be obvious and therefore not require sources that part of public relations characterized by news-jacking (maybe we can find a friendlier word) is to find intelligent ways to tie clients into current news cycles. Additionally, the article is weighted towards spin, front groups and other issues, I suspect because of the general opinion within the Wikipedia community on the PR profession. However, in such a case where editors may disagree, a resolution can be sought on the Public Relations Talk page, as I do not own the article. User:King4057 02:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Good Morning:

Did you receive my note about the difference between "media event" and a "media introduction event?" They aren't related. Do you have a regular email to send to? I"m not sure if I'm doing this correctly. I'm Most appreciated.

Alyson Dutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.28.136 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did receive your note, as i think you will see if you read above. I do have email, and you can use the "Email this User" feature if you so choose. However I much prefer to conduct any Wikipedia business on-wiki, and if you email me I will quite likely post the contents here unless they are confidential. (In fact I get an email notice for each edit to this talk page.)
 * Please read the links in the "welcome" section on your talk page. It is generally considered unwise to post an email address on a wikipedia page, and most editors will remove it as soon as they see it, as I did above.
 * Please learn to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one with four tildes (like this: ~ ). the wiki software will convert this into a signature and timestamp.
 * To have the article you drafted on a "media introduction event" remain live in the article space, it will need to be supported by citations to independent reliable sources -- that is, to published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact checking. (Books published by major publishers, mainstream magazines, and reputable newspapers are often reliable sources, blogs and press releases are generally not.) This is essential, and is the major problem in the draft you posted. Can you supply such published sources? I await your response. DES (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Request edits
Nice work on the Cyber-security regulation page. I was going to close the request edit with an "O" for "omissions or one-sided" but I remembered your preference and I think I should be less bold here, now that we have several editors manning the queue.

I also took another crack at the instructions page, taking your feedback in mind and toning down the "be bold" language. I thought you might be interested in a proposed template and essay that are both related as well if they interest you.

User:King4057 03:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the instructions, you seem to have removed all mention of the R parameter to Request_edit which seems undesirable. DES (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * on the proposed template, i don't like it in its current form, and I have commented on my reasons on the template's talk page and on the RfC. I also disagree with teh essay, at elast as worded, and I have commented on its talk page. DES (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have made some changes to the instructions page and the template based on your feedback. Bignate may revert or discuss my changes on the template and the discussion will go on. I didn't feel there was anything for me to do to the Bright Line essay, as I am not proposing it as policy, the debate is documented in the essay and it includes a section on following it "in-spirit" which address non-controversial edits. However, I suspect I will end up keeping it in my userspace, so I can at least link to it for personal use. I find that when I introduce myself to new editors, their assumption is that I will directly edit and they must therefore defend the article. In the future I will explain that I follow the Bright Line in-spirit and link to the essay. User:King4057 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding back a mention of the R parameter.
 * As a statement of principles and practices that you (and perhaps other editors) choose to adhere to, i have to no quarrel with the essay at all. But it sounded to me as at least a suggestion for a way to implement existing guidelines or a proposal to alter them -- and thus as a set of behavioral rules that are to be enforced on others. I can easily see people linking to this -- particularly if it were moved to the Wikipedia namespace -- to support reversions or even blocks -- some IMO block far too quickly for COI even now. If the intent of the essay were to be clarified a bit that would IMO help. However an essay is a statement of opinion and you are surely entitled to express your own opinions in your own way. I will re-read and perhaps supplement my comments later.
 * As to the template, I will examine and perhaps comment on your recent edits later today. DES (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the misunderstanding is in the lead. It says it is a "proposed policy" by Jimmy Wales. This is factually accurate, but may lead to the assumption that it IS policy. On the other hand, since Jimbo is often a media spokesperson when companies are humiliated in the media, it is important to educate companies on his stance and provide the approach as an option - all of WP:COI being merely "advice."


 * I consider myself to have a COI with the subject of COI, so while I may boldly edit templates and such, I am not sure how comfortable I would be boldly introducing a controversial essay which has already attracted so much opposition. But I imagine as I use it, some editor will find it helpful and move it to main-space, which may net the same outcome. User:King4057 19:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it sounded as if it were a work of advocacy for the proposed policy, and it is really the idea of making that proposal into policy that i object to. In any case it is well written and may well be helpful to someone. I do think that wikipedia essays can be very worthwhile. My own largest and IMO best, and probably most objected to, essay here is Process is Important which I wrote the first draft of, although others have edited it since. DES (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I have only just met you, but somehow that essay seems like a good match to your persona. The lack of process on Wikipedia is something frustrating for companies, but COI is also one of the areas that lack process compared to other areas of the project. My efforts with request edit are largely to inject process.


 * Question: Do you think Request edit | Rs should (as a matter of routine process) be inspected for omissions? I do my best to convince clients that it is in their best interest to merely include or disclose controversial areas, however this is no easy matter. I would much rather just give them the choice of disclosing the information or accepting a longer delay and waiting for an editor to choose to balance the page.


 * Obviously it would be much easier if a company just created a genuinely neutral article, however it is basically the whole point of COI that most will not add information that could be detrimental to them. Additionally, there are many purely bureaucratic obstacles. No one within a company would want to take responsibility for adding controversial content, nor do they want to officially endorse/recognize criticisms (from their point of view) by adding it to the page.


 * I wonder if we shouldn't add to the Request edit | R template to evaluate for omissions. Our ability to do this is limited by our resources, but same basic efforts can reasonably be expected, especially by asking regular contributors and subject-matter experts that can identify omissions at-a-glance. User:King4057 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In hasn't thought of your essay and request edit work as an attempt to create useful process, but I do see your point. Thank you for the compliment, and I take it as such. Mind you I am one of those generally opposed to WP:IAR, and if I were the Czar of wikipedia, it would be marked "Historical" in an instant. But if you care to look through the talk page of WP:PI and pages that link to it, you will find a good deal of controversy, mostly stale by now.


 * I think that checking for omissions in major request edit submissions is a good practice, and I may edit the instructions to mention it.  But realistically, some editors are not going to be willing to do independent research to find omissions, and that is what it would take. (In fact the number unwilling to properly comply with WP:BEFORE before nomintign an articel at AfD is very saddening to me.) But from the company's POV, if they fail to include negative info, and it is uncovered by the responding editor, that may lead to the edit request being rejected altogether, or to only the negative info being included. That would be a violation of NPOV of course, but people are people and those apt to lash out at "deceptive" behavior by a corporation are not uncommon here. DES (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * DGG made a comment that got me thinking how my COI work is accredited to me even though it is actually the work of dozens of people and I merely serve as ambassador and consultant. DGG is not comfortable doing proxy edits for a COI, but I don't think I am even comfortable taking such a responsibility on behalf of my own clients (in some cases). Just as PR people are forced to endure unwittingly spamming journalists from their personal email address at the demand of their clients - often with pitches not even written by them - it is not that different on Wikipedia. Just as journalists will often decline those pitches, so may Wikipedians.


 * This discussion shouldn't be taken to lead to presumptions about my current request edits. I have found the best clients are companies with such great reputations, a "neutral" article reflects well on them or those that are so risk-adverse, they will seek risk-avoidance over "results". This is a tiny niche market compared to those looking for suppression services.


 * I imagine I will continue to emphasize (even more) the statement of ethics in my contracts (this scares off most companies with poor intentions) and do the best I can to consult companies off the ledge, while attempting to improve our request edit system in such a way that - when clients do not accept my consult - any obvious omissions will be found anyway. Instead of trying to earn the trust of the community, I should perhaps accept that it should not be a trusting relationship and encourage skepticism within reason. I am only a tool of each client and can only deliver a modest degree of consistency across a diverse client-base. User:King4057 04:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Justin Matthew page issues
Hey, thanks for reviewing it again, and again it seems the mysterious editor made it to the page before the reviewers:

did you by chance edit/add/delete things, or did you just look at the page how you found it?

yep, there had been links added that are not mine and that do not belong (Dylan's home page....).

I will try to reformulate things. However, he works in sales, and I think it needs to be shown that he is one of the good guys who perform at their jobs. He came in and turned around a venture that was about to disappear, by changing the scope, content quality, and introducing professional business management. Google is on a path to change our entertainment, the print media seem to ignore this news front, as are the TV/cable/satellite providers. Looks like they don't want to look at it, so there is few print 'news' about YouTube and new media strategies. That this guy is not just a loonie but in the middle of things, that people listen to him - he is not a lone publisher as there are many on the 'net, I think using the new measurements that are coming up, pending ever renewing mathematical models to handle the Internet graph, is a very good idea: these tools to exactly what has not been done so far: distinguish between a person who merely has a Million followers but no interaction, or a many tweeter who tweets hundreds a day but nobody looks at it, forwards it, or reacts to it. I'll try to reformulate as much as possible, still trying to show he is one of the top persons in his profession. I'll discuss also in the talk page to the page each link that I leave in.

so, if you could pls quickly tell if you added links, or edited in any way, shape, or form....

thx

Mike

03:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nittmann (talk • contribs)


 * I made no changes to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Matthew except for adding a comment, marking the draft as under review, and then marking it as declined. No one else made any changes except that another reviewer also added a comment. There was no "mysterious editor". Precisely what change so you think this "mysterious editor" made?
 * The point is that you must write any wikipedia article from a neutral point of view. You must not set out to show that anyone is a "good guy" or a "bad guy". You must instead summarize what published independent reliable sources say about the subject, and make no statements not supported by such sources. Statements of opinion as to the quality of his work or his other merits must be clearly attributed to a specific named individual or entity -- they can't be your opinions nor "people say" nor left in the air nor stated as fact. You will do well to consider how to accomplish this and not worry about anyone else's edits. The history tab will show the exact edits of any and every editor who makes any changes to the draft.
 * If there are links that don't belong, remove them. Don't worry about who added them unless someone argues or restores them.
 * A few points of procedure: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~) . The wiki software will convert this to your user name or signature and a timestamp. Please leave a link when starting a discussion of a specific page like this one -- I visit and edit and discuss a lot of pages, and may not know which page you refer to.
 * Is this at all clear? DES (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not accept your tone which is way out of line: 'Is this at all clear' is way out there! There is no reason to act defensive, because if you would have followed the origin of the page: my copy is a sub-page under my account the pages that are now flying around are part mine, part moved from the sandbox of a user jmhhacker, which does not exist any more. So I found that on the 28th the original was edited and replaced my submission. Same happened today: the (bad) links to self propelled junk re-appeared. Now I am not sure if you did not work from a different copy of the page in a different area, under talk or under AfC. That does not matter at all. I had to ask before I waste time to dig into the history of this page.

Since I know now that someone out there is watching this and wants her/his point in it before it is even approved (my version is not 'clean', I know, but I am working on it, if I could that is): I just abandon that one for now. Be welcome to delete the page (not the sub-page under my account, I wish I could protect that, will check later for preference settings) that you denied, it's all cool.

However, your out of whack style will be reported with my next key stroke: this is not acceptable, what you wrote. This is Wikipedia and not some junk bulletin board where any clown is an admin.

Mike

Mike (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bottoms
Thanks for the help on The Bottoms page. It's my first article to actually work. I'm not sure about other books by Joe Lansdale as most haven't received the accolades this book has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. A book does not need to be an award winner to have an article, nor to have received huge accolades. What it must be is notable, which usually means that several independent reliable sources have written about it in some depth, more than a mere passing mention at least.
 * It is also considered highly desirable that an article about a book be more than a plot summary -- that it discuss the critical reception to the book, or how it influenced others or in general how people responded to it and wrote about it.
 * Don't worry too much about the formatting details -- more experienced editors can and will take care of those if need be. What would be helpful is finding some reliable sources that indicate how the book was received, and writing a section based on what those sources say.
 * Note also that terms like "recently" are better converted to precise dates. Consider what the reader will think if the line is still in the article in 5 or 10 years.
 * A couple of points of procedure: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~) . The wiki software will convert this to your user name or signature and a timestamp. Please leave a link when starting a discussion of a specific page like this one -- I visit and edit and discuss a lot of pages, and may not know which page you refer to. In this case i did.
 * I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips.PKDASD 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs)
 * You are welcome. DES (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In case you were wondering my user name stands for Philip K. Dick-A Scanner Darkly, one of my favorite novels by one of my favorite writers. At the time I couldn't think of anything else. My real name is Chris.PKDASD 05:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs)
 * I rather suspected that. I admit that I prefer The Man in the High Castle, but tastes vary. I am more than a bit of an SF fan myself, and i also volunteer at the ISFDB from time to time. I first encountered Lansdale when entering content from old Whispers magazine issues into the ISFDB. DES (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that to sign your posts you should not type your user name and a timestamp, you should very specifically use four tildes (~), not three or five.

High Castle comes in second. I must admit I'm a bit of a Joe Lansdale fanatic. To me he's Larry McMurtry, Stephen King, Cormac McCarthy, and Elmore Leonard rolled into one. I thought I typed 4 tildes. Here goes again.PKDASD 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs)
 * responding about signature on User talk:PKDASD. DES (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons image JustinMatthew.jpg
yep, I did upload exactly this one which I got for use from Justin, but it was already there, so I used the already existing copy. Oh, wait, no, I had a different name, but the SW said it is a copy of.... and showed that one, so I used the reference of that picture then. Not important until I know what's going on. The existence of this pic is of course a show stopper, I'll get a new one (obviously he likes this one).

Mike Mike (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is the sourcing and licensing of the picture. Who took the photograph? where was it obtained? who holds the copyright and where and when was it released under a free license? Without that information, any picture is likely to be deleted fairly promptly. DES (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

justin matthews page
I saw you undid the change from earlier this morning....

Guess what, I got the password, found it was someone close, and do have permission to remove that one which I agree was just a commercial. I will at a later time continue with the other page, and one person saying he is not notable of what, 1700+ reviewers: who cares... .0what percent of? Just maybe do something different first to get a feel how it should sound. However, I did find lots of examples with no flags that are at least 'as bad as'; you will then have to either flag all of them or accept mine as being with the trend of where things are going. I found very losely formulated recreational bio pages.

So, just you know, all is good, and the guy who sent you the beer is the next for an honorable mention at wiki etiquette: rogue 'power mongers' have no place reviewing things value free and fairly.

Either wiki is what it says it is, or it is the playground of power mongers who have 'power' hiding behind an anonymized ID and their screen and kbd. Underwear shooters in the dark! Let's see what it really is at the end of the day.

Mike

Jmhhacker (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, please be very explicit about which draft you would like deleted, giving a link here if possible, or placing the tag db-self on the page you want deleted.
 * Secondly, I think you will find that few if any reviewers would pass the draf in its current sate -- many would be far more dismissive than I. Note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the state of current wikipedia articles is quite inconsistent, so if there are others "as bad or worse" that no one has yet gotten around to deleting, that is not an argument for letting another stay, or pass AfC review. At least it is not an argument anyone will pay any attention to here -- that was established long long ago, well before I first edited here. If you find pages that don't seem to conform to the policies, feel free to tag them or nominate them for deletion, but don't expect to cite them as useful precedents.
 * While wikipedia editors, including AfC reviewers and Admins, vary in their qualities and views, and some are more tactful or patient than others, i have met very few if any "power-mongers" in my years of editing here - and I have not been shy to engage in conflict when I thought there was a good reason, nor to object to what seemed to me misguided actions. Read my talk page archives if you want to see some of that. I choose to edit under my legal name -- most here do not, including most of our highly productive and valued editors. There are various good reasons for that. (I note you don't seem to display your legal name either.)
 * I note, and others have noted, that you signed the above as User:Jmhhacker, but also with the nickname "Mike" and wrote it as if you were User:Nittmann. In an earlier post User:Nittmann denied that he was the same person as User:Jmhhacker, if I recall correctly. With some quite limited exceptions, the general rule is one editor, one account. As Sock puppetry plainly says:
 * "'Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account.'"
 * also as Username policy says:
 * "'Any user account should represent an individual and not a group.... Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.'"
 * If User:Jmhhacker and User:Nittmann are really the same prson, or if one has allowed the other to elarn his password and share his account, it would be best to say so openly and promise not to violated these policies again. This matter is now under discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Jmhhacker and my advices is that you should read that page and also read Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance before responding.
 * I really have tried to be as helpful as I could in our interactions. DES (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bob Corker - Sale of Protected Wetlands
Hi DES, a couple of weeks ago you were able to help me with some new paragraphs for Bob Corker's "Early Life and Family" section and I was wondering if you would be able to help with another revision? I've recently prepared a revision for the "Sale of protected of Wetlands" section of Sen. Corker's article, aiming to correct some invalid links, better detail the timeline of events and remove a biased quote. If you can help with this, please see the request that I placed here, on the article's talk page. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI case
Thought you may be interested. I opened an SPI on Jmhhacker/Nittmann at Sockpuppet investigations/Jmhhacker. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thurmant (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Laura Mercier Cosmetics
I am not adamant about my stated position on the Talk page and defer to your judgement as a more experienced editor. On the other hand, as a PR professional, I have some perspective that may be helpful as you work with PRs in future request edits.

PR agencies generally measure success by attention, attained through news-jacking and thought-leadership ("subject-jacking" being the Wikipedia equivalent). Each of us have done some work with the Heritage Foundation along these lines. This can be a good thing for Wikipedia, since many PRs represent orgs whos viewpoints should be included.

Corporate PR departments look for consistency. Success is often measured by whether the intended key messages are consistently reflected in the media. For all intensive purposes, if successful, they will be reflected on Wikipedia as well as we rely on media sources influenced by their PR. What we need to be watchful of is when the journalist actually says something and where the journalist merely reports that the company says/said it. PR departments will look for consistency with their corporate messaging, which may or may not be a good thing for our readers, depending on the situation.

Corporate Minion 04:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not aware another Wikipedia consultant was involved - making my participation rather inappropriate. I'm going to leave the request edit queue alone and hope other editors will continue to support it. The process still needs improvement, but I'm confident we can make it a positive and working process. Corporate Minion 04:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Laura Mercier Cosmetics update
Hi, DES. Your comments on the draft in my userspace were helpful and I'd be interested in your input again following some suggestions by Corporate Minion. Do you think you'd be able to have a look? Minorvariation (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on Mike Duncan page
On August 16 you edited the article on Mike Duncan to indicate that he would become the President and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity on Sept. 10. Could you please update the article to show that he has officially assumed that position? I was also wondering if it would be possible to add a sentence about the position to the opening paragraph of the article? As I have stated on the talk page of the article I have a COI with the subject. Thanks for any help. Namk48 (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to edit on PEN, New Zealand Society of Authors
Hi Many thanks for your comments on PEN Canterbury and Dunedin and NZ Author. Also Flash the Newsletter/Newspaper that was around in Auckland in the 1970's.

PEN is still a world wide organisation. They have a website. New Zealand Author (Inc PEN) Incorporates PEN. Most famous New Zealand writers have and those alive still belong to it. That is why it is worthy of a NZ Wikipedia entry. There is a committee that deals with PEN matters within The New Zealand Society of Authors (Inc PEN).

Flash was the first Community/Newspaper of Auckland. It is now been superseded by other as cited in the article. It contributed to a drive by people who disenfranchised in the Auckland City, Council of the 1970's to have their voices heard. The ward system of Auckland came about because of this activism. It is hard to find information on Vince Terrini but I have asked the Auckland Library for information as he was + well known in the seventies as he was not only a well respected architect, University lecturer, Chairperson of the Grey Lynn, Westmere, Newton Community Committee, but also ran for Parliament under the banner of the Cheer Up Party against Muldoonism. I am hoping to Post a page on him soon and be able to cite the references in other related articles. I will follow thjrough with your instruction re Wikipedia links e,t,c many thanks again Christos. Christos Evangeli (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

re Marathovounos
Hi David, The Goodwin reference has been updated. I cannot at the moment find the publication date but will add it ASAP by writing from New Zealand to Cyprus. Goodwin collected this information and I think printed them informally. He did at least four numbered editions. I don't think they have an ISBN number. I changed the u-tube and wikipedia references. The photo taken in the 1950s by the British Army was removed. I tried my best to find the original source. I think it is the property of the British Government but it is widely published in Cyprus in different web sites and newspapers. Is a newspaper reference enough???? Again many thnaks for your input. Christos Evangeli Christos Evangeli (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Marathovounos
Hi David, I have confirmed that there is no ISBN number for the Goodwin book as it was a private publication. I have ordered the 4 volumes of George Hill's History of Cyprus the most authoritive pre 48 history of Cyprus and will add page numbers as soon as it arrives. Again thanks for your help. Christos Evangeli (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)