User talk:DrStrauss/Archive 2

Rulers of Russia family tree
Hi. May I know why you removed the parameter from the Rulers of Russia family tree article? I'm asking because somebody else also did this in the past and I was wondering if there is something wrong with the format. That parameter is making the boxes smaller and easier to read/rendered on smaller monitors. The chart is already very wide. --Daduxing (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Daduxing, if you're talking about this diff then it was a semi-automated edit using AutoWikiBrowser aimed at changing the template into a  template.  Those "side-effects" appear to have been identified as a cleanup-type operation which is why you've probably experienced this before.  The difference between the two versions of the article seems negligible but I'll try and find out for you and post back here.  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - last time this happened it was done by a bot which cited a WikiProject Check Wikipedia error which suggests there's a problem with the syntax so I would suggest restoring my earlier diff as it's likely another AWB user or bot will come along and re-do it. I've since edited it because by undoing my edit you also moved the reference tag back to the bottom.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. --Daduxing (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Eleanor McMain article
Hello, you added the tag to the article on Eleanor McMain. I'm certainly glad to address your concerns about this article, but I would like clarification about your concerns. I believe that every point in the article is substantiated by credible references, although some of these may only appear at the end of an article, rather than point-by-point. Again, I'll address the concerns if you could clarify them. Thank you! Nolabob (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you for your feedback.  My issue with the referencing is that some references are used extremely frequently (one is used 16 times).  It might be an idea to provide a wider breadth of sources to show independent verification.  Thank you!   Dr Strauss   talk  09:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DrStrauss, I'm not sure I can find any more references on the subject of McMain. The one that is referred to 16 times is in fact a book, which I have read cover-to-cover.  Being a book, it is only natural that it would contain much information on the subject.  Should we just leave the article as is? Any other guidance? Thank you. Nolabob (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * if you think that no further references can be added at this point you could remove the tag as ther doesn't seem to be any controversial stuff or any claims / assertions being made which means that there isn't a particular impetus for further citation.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. However, reference number 1's syntax appears to be broken.  As I'm not familiar with the source in question, could you fix this?  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  19:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for all your help. Nolabob (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous edit
See here Updating these tags with AWB doesn't help--it obscures older, more serious tags. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi unfortunately I disagree with you on this.  The  tag should be used only on articles that contain zero citations or references of any kind as per the template documentation here.  Near Wild Heaven has one source.  Therefore, it is not eligible for such a "serious" tag and requires the  tag.  I'm going to continue to re-categorise them as it is helpful to editors like myself who attempt to also improve references so we can ascertain the seriousness of each case.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me You are right and I was wrong--I thought you kept the template and updated the date. My apologies. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * that's okay, sorry if the emboldening appeared aggressive! Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all Very polite, actually. Thanks again. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Aura D'Angelo
Please do not add speedy deletes to article stubs which say "expand from French" "expand from Italian" etc. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, please can you link the article in question? Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would apply to speedy deletes on any sourced stub which says "expand from French" "expand from Italian" etc. The purpose of the "expand" tag on stubs is to indicate further information, and sources, are available on the foreign language interwiki. I thought this was mentioned in the speedy deletion tag guidelines? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * can you link the article in question please?  Dr Strauss   talk  16:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aura D'Angelo In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - I have proposed the article for deletion at AfD here. This is after you removed my speedy deletion warning (as opposed to clicking the "contest" button), and removing 's PROD.   Dr Strauss   talk  19:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take more care in reading article history. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you're just making empty statements. I could just as easily say read the policies on contesting and not removing CSD tags.  I read the page history - I always do - where is my page history reading insufficient?   Dr Strauss   talk  21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discuss Aura D'Angelo issues on the AfD page instead of here to avoid discussion fragmentation. Thank you.  Dr Strauss   talk  21:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FTL: Faster Than Light
Check this, this article is marked as videos games developed in China. But the game designer is not Chinese, and the group team isn't, too. Don't you think it's weird? --Beta Lohman (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for alerting me to this and coming to me for advice on the matter. After skim-reading the article, I agree with you and I have removed the page from the category in question.  Do you think there would be a more suitable development location category which we could put this article in?  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  21:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It would probably be a good idea to put a notice on the talk page asking where exactly it was developed, because it looks like it perhaps could have been developed in China, as it was first revealed at a conference there. You should probably hold off on putting a new category onto the article until you know exactly where it was developed. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  22:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Who are you? Maybe you should ask the main editor why they put a category then, anything is made in China, it doesn't make any sense.--Beta Lohman (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I responded was because I though I could help. I saw this because I have this page on my watchlist (totally not a talk page stalker). I just was suggesting that you could either do some research and then put the correct category on it, or you could put a message on the talk page (of the game) asking for somebody else to do the research. Also, Strauss, do you have any objections to me occasionally answering questions for help and such? RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you tell the main editor and ask is this Chinese game. I don't know who but there must be someone, so here is the shortcut I told you. Are we done here? --Beta Lohman (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey : not at all! It's actually helpful because it reduces my workload as well - please continue! :)
 * do you have any ideas as to where the game might have been developed? If so, can you create a new section on the article's talk page and ping myself and Bugz into it?  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  09:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Beenish Raja
I appreciate your work on Beenish Raja but it remains an article without a single viable reference. I note your removal of the PROD, but I now see no option but to take it to AfD. Do you agree  Velella  Velella Talk 10:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - looking at the refs again, it does appear that they are all closely associated with the subject.  Maybe not WP:BLPPROD material as links do exist but there is a case for WP:PROD.  Feel free to re-instate the PROD.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 10:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Urgrund (comics)
Hi, DrStrauss. If I recall correctly, I started the page Urgrund (comics) by pulling material out of another page that went into (it seemed to me) excessive detail on this subject. I am not knowledgeable in this field, not having read these comics-- any, really-- in a couple of decades, so I'm not in a position to expand it. I'll poke around a little and see what I can do. -- Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - that'd be great!  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  09:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Namrata Purohit
Hi, Created a page for Namrata Purohit (trying to get a hang of Wikipedia). You have tagged it as an orphan, but I have now added links back from some of her client's pages. Can the orphan tag now be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfinal (talk • contribs) 07:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your contributions! As long as it's linked to by another page, it's not an orphan so the tag can be removed.  De-orphaning articles is important to integrate them into the encyclopedia.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask - new contributors are always welcome!  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  09:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it's daunting, but fun! So can I just remove the tag from the page? Thisisfinal (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * yes, the tag can be removed. We assume good faith at Wikipedia, so feel free to be bold in your editing!  Thanks -  Dr Strauss   talk  11:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, have removed it! It seems that I'm making more errors than anything, especially in terms of page creation - that seems the most daunting Thisisfinal (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * everyone makes mistakes to begin with: just look at my first talk page archive! You'll get the hang of it and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  12:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging of CSM Roman
Hi DrStrauss,

Thanks for your work in new page patrol. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of CSM Roman - a page you tagged. Please keep in mind that CSD A7 (which db-club links to), does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance, which is a lower standard than the notability guidelines. For the same reason, I will probably decline your speedy deletion nomination of Faith Wood-Blagrove. Let me know if you have any questions :)

Regards,  (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message. In such cases in future, I'll use  or a PROD.  :)  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries, keep patrolling :)  (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Awards by Wireless Monitoring Organisation (WMO)
Hello DrStrauss. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Awards by Wireless Monitoring Organisation (WMO) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the assistance. PROD will do fine.  Regards -  Dr Strauss   talk  19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Please give the time to an user to finish a page before indicating it as advertisement. thank you -User:46aviation (talk).
 * Hi, which article are you talking about? Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  21:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, considering you've just been blocked for advertising-related problems I'll take this trouting with a pinch of salt (water) .  Dr Strauss   talk  21:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub-tag on Naarda
You removed the stub-tag on Naarda through AWB. Would you mind terribly if I re-add it? Although the article is sizeable enough in length/character size, the prose content is ~15 words in 2 sentences, and usually only prose is counted. By any chance, do you have AWB set to automatically remove the stub tag over a certain amount of words? That can be a bit iffy when it comes to articles on taxa above species, because the great majority of the 'words' there are in lists (of species in a genus, of genera in a tribe, etc.), references and the infobox, none of which are conventionally counted when it comes to de-stubbing an article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, yep that's fine! I've had this problem before: is there a way to set AWB to identify lists from prose at the moment?  Thank you!   Dr Strauss   talk  21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, will do. Figured it'd be ok, but in cases like this where there's no hurry, I prefer to ask first just to make sure.
 * Hm, no clue to be honest. I only use AWB to make lists at the moment, really&mdash;and for a fair while, now. Think I last logged in on it in 2014 or so?&mdashh;and while it's something that I happen to come across here and there from time to time, at least within the whole tree of life/taxonomy articles area, though it's not so common an issue that I've really looked into 'how can future cases of it be avoided', just enough to know why it happens. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled
When requesting AP for someone else you need to change the to the username of your nominee, no "User:" required, & preview. Your contributions got assessed by the tools instead of User:Ocfootballknut's. It turned out Ocfootballknut already has AP. I find Tools/Navigation popups useful for quickly seeing what privs a user has:

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thank you, I'll be sure to use it. User:Ocfootballknut is still here so I thought, considering their contributions, that I'd add them.  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The list is 3 weeks old. It only refreshes monthly. I've altered the editnotice on the RFP to give a prompt about nominating other users. If you can cast an eye over it now or the next time you're nominating & see if it's helpful that would be, um, helpful. Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
I am in the process of expanding this entry. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding meets notability requirements as it has received coverage in third-party news sources including but not limited to Al-Jazeera, The Detroit News and Free Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Cavalier Daily, National Public Radio, Patheos, FiveThirtyEight, and the Chicago Tribune (A cursory Google search of the organization reveals its notability.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finelinebilly (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, it's probably a better idea to start off your new pages in the draft namespace or submit them at articles for creation so before they go "live" it has sufficient references on it to ensure that it passes the notability guidelines which require media coverage. I'm not saying the subject of your article hasn't contained significant media coverage but the article certainly didn't convey that.  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Gentium Law Group
Thank you for patroling. Could you please tell me what was wrong in my article so I can correct it and put it back online

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenGECH (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello the article was eligible for deletion due to unambiguous advertising (WP:G11).  I strongly suggest using WP:AFC as opposed to creating it directly as that makes it much less likely to be deleted.  Thanks.  Dr Strauss   talk  10:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

National Communities Resource Centre
Hey. I have categorised, de-orphaned (parented?) and added interlinks, content and three references since you visited the article. Can you check if it meets mainspace requirements yet please?. Thanks for working in NPP. Cesdeva (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've done a tiny copyedit and a ref fix on the article and I've reviewed it. It looks great and meets all the requirements.  Thank you for your contributions!   Dr Strauss   talk  10:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping. All the best Cesdeva (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing The Incredible Kung Fu Mission, DrStrauss.

Unfortunately GSS-1987 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"unsourced and your speedy left it reviewed"

To reply, leave a comment on GSS-1987's talk page.

GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello - would you prefer if when adding a speedy I also tagged it?  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No adding maintenance templates are not necessary when applying speedy deletion. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a bit silly
Tagging a vandalized version of a page for A7 deletion probably was a bit silly Regards  So  Why  12:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * whoops! Showed up in NPF - I'll check the revision history from now on.  Thanks! :)  Dr Strauss   talk  12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Banner
Hello DrStrauss, I provided the requested citations for the article on Maggie Siner could you please remove the banner now? Thanks Morningbastet (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Thanks for your contributions!   Dr Strauss   talk  11:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

New Zealanders AfD
Would you consider combining the several New Zealanders pages you nominated for deletion into one? It might help the discussion to coalesce. The Russian and German editions seem to be duplicated, too Mortee (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure - I probably won't be able to access WP for a few hours - would you prefer to do it personally or can it wait until I'm back? Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason it can't wait, and probably better if you're the one to do it. Thanks! Mortee (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Hi DrStrauss, is the issue that fact that they are Portuguese sources? These are 4 of the top newspapers in the country and there is no "higher" recognition in the ad world in Portugal. On top of this, he has been sited by The Telegraph which is one of the largest newspapers in the world. Is there something I am missing? for the Joah Santos article? Thanks Wallst1Dr (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the trout! I tagged the page for curation in order to ensure that if it isn't deleted (I was not the deletion nominator), issues could be fixed.  The article uses bare URLs which are prone to linkrot which means that at a glance it's tricky to assess.  I probably should have used a  tag in fairness.  Feel free to remove it.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  13:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tag
Hi, I don't understand why you added a does not cite sources tag to here? It's got lots of sources, none self reported. Thanks for the clarification. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedying a stub
At the AFD you filed for The Incredible Kung Fu Mission, you note that you're AFDing it because the speedy was declined. The speedy tag you applied to it (WP:A3) was simply inappropriate for the article as it stood, as it clearly had content, if very stubby, from its earliest incarnation. Let me suggest that if you find something similar in the future, a stub that simply doesn't assert notability, a WP:PROD might be more appropriate than going to AFD; it takes up less of the community's resources and, in the case of a page like this one created by someone with no history of editing Wikipedia, is likely to be successful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete Libraries Without Borders
Hi, thanks for the heads up - I only created a redirect to Bibliothécaires Sans Frontières, but since the NGO seems to have a US subsidiary it could make sense to rename (or not: Doctors without Borders' mothership is also in France but the article kept the French name). Waddaya think? (either way, we probably need to let the guys doing the multiple article (re)creation that they should work on the existing one) Cheers, Popo le Chien throw a bone 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC) PS: The trout thing is pretty cool :-b
 * Hi - is it usually referred to by its French name?  If it's the same with the Doctors without Borders then yeah - continuity would make sense.  Thanks for the vote of confidence in the trout - feel free to use it if you want :) Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I suspect that they use one (in French) for their national operations, and another one for the international ones. I'll look it up more closely and, if need be, recreate a redirect. Cheers, Popo le Chien throw a bone 07:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of Panacea De' Muzzi
Sainthood is certainly a claim of notability, making A7 out of the question. Lady of  Shalott  20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry about that, I'm going to give the CSD criteria another read anyway to ensure I'm up to date with them. Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt Thank you...
DrStruss, An genuine heartfelt Thank you for the suggested link concerning the page Akber Rashid, if at all any specific changes you can recommend it would greatly help me in fixing the page, again much appreciated.Theartiz (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, on Wikipedia, especially on biographies, independent references are needed for verification. If you can find reliable sources to cite that firstly improves the article's verifiability but also cements its claim to notability.  The links I've given should help and the correct way to cite sources can be found here.  If you require specific help with the article in question let me know.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * genuinely grateful!!!! much appreciated.Theartiz (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page for Rob Amberg now available
Thank you for your corrections and review of this new article. The talk page is now open and ready for any further discussion about POV or other issues.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Now seeking consensus on Rob Amberg talk page re: POV.
Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

=== Please discuss the remaining template tags and suggestions for improvement on the Rob Amberg talk page. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dr Strauss   talk  15:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Page move
Hi, I was looking through old page move discussions to close them (attempting to help) but forgot to check the discussion page (stupid, I know) on which consensus appears to be divided. I can't move the page back as it requires page mover privileges. The pages in question is Belle's Magical World and Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World. So sorry for any inconvenience caused. Feel free to me. Thanks! Dr Strauss  talk  18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have moved the page back. For future reference, it is possible for non-admins to undo a page move - if there have been no subsequent edits at the redirect created by the original move. If that redirect has a non-trivial history it takes an admin to delete it any make way for the return move. Huon (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NPP backlog
You mentioned the backlog - I've looked several places and cannot find it. Can you point me to it?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * here.  Dr Strauss   talk  23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank-you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page titled 'Arthakranti'
I am surprised to see that this page got deleted when I could find at least 733 references for it on google news right now. I would like request you to kindly have a look at it. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the article was deleted under CSD A7 - not for its lack of sources although this did contribute to its poor claim to significance.  Dr Strauss   talk  08:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to see if there was any discussion before deletion. Can a long standing article be proposed for speedy deletion? Should I create the article again or some discussion will be needed before creating it or it is being thought that it is not important altogether so no need to create it again? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD can be applied to any article regardless of its creation date. Speedy deletion is designed to bypass the community discussion process for articles which clearly fail notability guidelines.  I myself did not delete it - I tagged it for deletion.  If you want to recreate it I would strongly suggest creating it through the WP:AfC process.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not a new 'new page patroller'. Because "Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions" as per this section. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have the new page patrol user right and I am quite active there. NPP is an instrumental part of upholding Wikipedia's content quality and should not be frowned upon.  Anyway, the fact that it was not me but an administrator who deleted the page shows that it was not just myself who believed that the article in question failed A7 but an experienced administrator.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to follow Assume good faith guideline here and would like to leave it to the 'collective intelligence' of WP editors and administrators. Thanks for your time. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't understand what your last message meant. Can you rephrase or clarify it as WP:AGF is a policy totally unrelated to this discussion.  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean I need not be over passionate about an article. If it has importance, notability, significance (whatever words one wish to use), it will be created again. If it is not important, it will be deleted. I need not worry much about it. Instead of heating the discussion here (because still I feel that you had wrongly tagged it) I shall use this time in more constructive things. Again I had started assuming that you are just doing it because you are new, but that might not be the reality. You might be genuinely interested in some higher aim like maintaining the quality of WP. Hence I feel that it is best left to collective intelligence of WP because I believe that projects like WP can only succeed when people come together forgetting their personal egos to do something great. As I strongly believe this, I may not be able to take part in further discussion here. I leave the decision to your and communities good faith. I am sure you will do what is right. Take care. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not that new to Wikipedia and I'd like to think that I've got a good track record with helping out as you can see from my thanks log and a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Long membership doesn't necessarily mean more experience. Of course I want to improve Wikipedia - I wouldn't be here if I didn't and I've put in a lot of time to contribute and without trying to sound egotistical, I think the community by and large trusts me otherwise I would not have been given the user rights I have. I see you've proposed the creation of the article which I think is the right way of going about it. Thank you. Dr Strauss  talk  11:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC) EDIT - I wholeheartedly agree with you in principle on the cooperation front. Dr Strauss  talk  11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

PROD tags
Hello. Can you please take the time to read WP:PROD and stop PRODing articles that have already been PRODed in the past like you just did for Rumah Akar and you did yesterday for St. Joseph's Degree College, Kurnool? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've read WP:PROD. Am I right in saying that failed PRODs should not be re-PROD-ed but AfD-ed?  I see that as the only possible objection to the PRODs as the rationale behind them is sound.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  10:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can AfD these 2 articles. Although you should check why the PROD "failed" in the first place. You need to keep in mind that St. Joseph's Degree College, Kurnool is likely to "survive" an AfD because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - unless you can prove it's a hoax that is. And Rumah Akar is a remarkable building located in one of the World's most vibrant city, about which reliable sources are easy to find, so you might not want the community to lose its precious time on this one either. But it's up to you of course. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * fair enough with the former but the latter doesn't assert its significance. Tagging pages for deletion often prompts the page's author to properly reference them meaning content isn't lost.   Dr Strauss   talk  10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're deleting your ACTRIAL proposal?
I hope you're not getting down about that. The community really wants a resolution to the problem. Some believe we can implement something locally. I don't see that working as WMF will likely use Superprotect to stop any innovations we might enact. Developing a new RfC to force WMF to acquiesce will likely have to happen. If you want to delete your draft that's fine but I was watching that page and was interested to see how this develops. Enjoy your wikibreak. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, whilst I'm on my wikibreak I will modify my proposal locally and upload it afterwards. Thanks for your concern - I'm sure we'll be able to figure something out but I see that it needs a bit more thought before being submitted to WMF.  Regards -  Dr Strauss   talk  16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

List of lighthouses in New Brunswick
Hi, I saw your template regarding the List of lighthouses in New Brunswick, but the page is only at the beginning and the work is in progress, I prefer update day by day the wikitable because of its length. Chesipiero (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's fine don't worry. I meant to put   on as opposed to   - I've now corrected this.  The issue is that the placement of the inline citations is a bit confusing or at least could be improved with a small introductory section.  Thanks for your contributions!   Dr Strauss   talk  18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance if I sound naive but how do we get notified the next time there is an election. I've patrolled a few pages (most of which have rightfully been acted upon based on my specifications) and would love to continue doing so with the right accesses. Appreciate your assistance. Thanks. TopCipher 13:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * if you have the new page reviewer right, the MediaWiki software will automatically send you a newsletter. To get the new page reviewer right, you don't have to be elected, you just need to apply at WP:PERM and this will give you access to full patrolling which allows new articles to be indexed in Google.  There are some guidelines in terms of how many articles you've reviewed, how long you've been editing etc but that's all explained at the PERM page.  The co-ordinator election you refer to is the method by which an editor with a lot of experience will replace  who is stepping down.  You are an autoconfirmed user so you are eligible to vote in the election.  Regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  13:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see. Thanks a ton for referring me to the aforementioned link. I see there that the right is typically only granted to those with more than 500 edits and 3 months of demonstrated experience. I think I would rather stick around for more edits and after a couple of months to apply then. Again, Thank you very much! TopCipher 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ajene Abongo Mashood Jacob article
I will like to defend the important of the above article, Ajene Abongo is young entrepreneur and researcher who is working to change the life of youth and women and is, therefore, important to have his autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashood1981 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, I can't find any claim to significance. Also, it reads kind of like an advert. This means that it is not notable per WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. All in all, it should be deleted. I would say that it could probably be deleted per WP:A7 and possible WP:G11. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  15:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for handling this one for me. Congrats on getting mangrove swallow to FA by the way!   Dr Strauss   talk  17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL
You have bee stringy advised by many highly experienced editors ad admins that a new and premature RfC on ACTRIAL could damage the very objective you are hoping to achieve. In open defiance of this advice you have gone ahead and created another one which is totally malformed and in the wrong place. Would you now please desist. You have little to no experience of how Wikipedia or its RfC system works and you may be compromising your own freedom to edit if you persist in disruption against all good advice. Please withdraw the current RfC from the VP. 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * I consulted with multiple editors on IRC before posting it including and, both of whom were very complimentary about it.  I'm not sure what the penultimate statement is meant to suggest - I don't want to assume bad faith but it appears to be a veiled threat of a block which would be at best misplaced.  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - just read your reply on your talk page - I'll just re-read it before deciding what to do.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - I'd like to downgrade (if that's the right term) the RfC to a VP discussion but keep the current discussion at the VP going as it appears to be constructive. I'm not too sure how to properly remove an RfC or take it off CENT - please can you do it for me?  Thanks.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a proper place for that discussion and you've been told about it multiple times. Be it on your head if you, as a total newbie, have refused the advice of others and the effort I went to great lengths to explain on my talk page without waiting for the input of others, and scupper the work of years by people who far more experience in these matters than you do.Wikipedia is serious stuff - please do not mess with it, you might not end up being blocked but you might be responsible for the ultimate retirement of not one but several dedicated Wikipedians. It's happened before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * as I say, if you think it's best to remove or close it then please feel free as I am inexperienced in RfC (I'm not too fond of the term "total newbie" because I have had experience in other areas of Wikipedia) - you are more experienced and it'd be a great loss to the community if you resigned.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You've just demonstrated your total inexperience in that  you  are now asking me to revert something you  have started in blatant defiance of all the advice you have been given and refusal to read up on the history. I'd be doing you a  a favour to yourself if I were to block you now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * an editor of your experience should remember to remain civil, someting which you are failing to do. I have made several polite attempts to comply with what you are asking for and you have repeatedly denied to accept.  The only person who would be affected if you blocked me would be you as such actions would be a clear violation of the blocking policy.  I make valuable contributions to Wikipedia in several different areas and as a pioneer of editor retention you should not be so demeaning and rude to other users.  Back on point, do what you see fit with the Village Pump entry.   Dr Strauss   talk  17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although you may not like his methods (I view them as i bit too harsh myself), Kudpung is trying to give you advice on a subject. I could probably rant on and on about this for hours, but anyways, just take his advice. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  18:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * DrStrauss, please discuss these types of proposals thoroughly with experienced editors before pushing them to a main venue. In fact, better yet, don't push them to a broad venue yourself; let an experienced administrator do so, because they'll be more experienced in, for lack of a better word, the politics of the encyclopedia. If a proposal like this is framed the "wrong way", it will fail, and once it fails once, the community has no appetite for considering it again for several years. The damage done by not framing a proposal properly is enormous on such a weighty issue as this. and I disagree on many things, but I believe we're in complete agreement on the fact that ACTRIAL is the single most important and potentially impactful reform that needs to be made to our new page reviewing process. It would set the reviewing process back by years if it were to be proposed and declined due to lack of statistics, thorough explanation, and implementation details (including lots of explanations of how this won't be a repeat of the fate of the original ACTRIAL RfC). I made similar mistakes when I was a newcomer (see Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, which I believe was my worst mistake as a newcomer), and it's extremely important to learn from those mistakes. Advancing proposals that affect how the entire encyclopedia operates is almost never a good idea even for experienced editors, and it's never a good idea for someone relatively new to the inner workings of the encyclopedia. With all respect to  and, they both do a very different type of work on Wikipedia than Kudpung and many of the other "reformers", and they're not experienced in crafting a proposal likely to achieve consensus. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do take notice of what and  have said above. You'll find that my bark is far worse than my bite and I'm known for being highly supportive of new users who are willing to learn. Per WP:WER I wouldn't be the first experienced admin to retire from Wikipedia due to behaviour by a new editor who WP:IDHT - it's founder is one of them.  I've reverted your RfC according to your request. Now please read up on the background of this issue properly, especially the Bugzilla report and please, please,  don't trample on any more acorns we've planted while we're waiting for them to grow into great oaks. Just vote on the big RfC when it comes - trust me, your voice will be heard. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * fair enough, it's just quite frustrating. I'll stay out of the formulation of any RfCs etc and just keep patrolling new pages as per normal but please do keep me updated on any progress.  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  18:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This sort of amateur hour stuff makes me regret encouraging you. As Kudpung has illustrated, this has been an issue years in the making. You apparently mistook my comments about looking for a solution with you just making stuff up. For the rest of the day, every time you hit the "save changes" button remember that I'm still upset with your lack of forethought. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the issue has been resolved, can you try not to restart it please?  Dr Strauss   talk  19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here on English Wikipedia we comment on edits not Wikipedians. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the support. Best,  Dr Strauss   talk  21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I trust this issue is now over and we can move on from it amicably? Thank you for your advice.   Dr Strauss   talk  21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Confusion at British-Israel-World Federation
I see you fixed the hyphenation. But the RM proposal was about adding "The". I reverted your changes (not your move) there before I realized what you had done. I've restored the proposal to add The, even though I oppose it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I take it back. It seems you were trying to do a move to remove a hyphen. That's not right. I reverted the CSD. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * no problem.  Dr Strauss   talk  21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Diwan Manna article marked for speedy deletion
Hello DrStrauss, Here reaching regarding Diwan Manna article marked for deletion. Actually I compiled the article based on information found on internet and might have not done up to mark per WikiPedia requirements as not being usual editor. Kindly guide what seems promotional so can be improved. Best regards. --TajinderSingh (talk) TajinderSingh (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, first things first - have you pressed the "contest this speedy deletion" button on the article in question?  Dr Strauss   talk  13:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Supposed that button was meant to ask how article can be improved to avoid deletion, as it was the highlighted button. I guess that it wasn't supposed to be used. Kindly pardon. TajinderSingh (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the article has now been deleted. If you want to recreate it, I strongly suggest using the Articles for Creation process as this often results in higher quality articles which are much less likely to be deleted.  Also refer to WP:CHEAT and WP:CREATE as they will be helpful in the writing of your articles.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know.  Regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  13:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

FAQs
Heck, no! You do whatever you like on your own talk page! :-) Deb (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks! :-)   Dr Strauss   talk  13:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Strauss!
Dr. Strauss, thank you for the notification on the Daniel Davies (musician) article I wrote, and thank you very much for rating it a "B"! I really went out of my way to get everything right on it, and am happy that the article made the grade. Hope you are well!

Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * that's fine and I'm fine thanks! Kind regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  13:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Volleyballers etc.
Hi Herr Doktor Doktor Professor Strauss,

When I review the flood of new pages about sportspeople, I always check whether they have any references that seem to be more than just team lists, and if they don't, I tag them with "BLP Sources" using WP:Twinkle.

Cheers, --Slashme (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the advice, I usually do that to be honest but there's a specific guideline for reviewing pages made by the user who made the page in question. He created over 16,000 articles and a massive effort to clean them up is underway.  More can be found here.  The flood is very irksome I know!  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  13:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking me to that page. I took a look, and the topic of calling people "former" sportspeople is new to me, so I'll keep an eye out for it. I did notice, however, that the section with the process that mentions removing any cleanup tags has been crossed out, and there's a link to User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Guidelines, which doesn't mention removing cleanup tags. Also, neither of those two articles says anything about processing them through the New Pages feed. I think there's no reason not to tag them if they're not properly sourced (i.e. no links to sources with substantial coverage), and it's quick enough to do. --Slashme (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * don't get me wrong, I use tags on a borderline-guerrilla level, I was just pointing out that there is a specific incident which backed up your point. Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  13:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the clarification and pointers. --Slashme (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

PGA Awards: Long-Form
Hi, I wanted to consult you about the PGA for Long-Form page, because I just linked it to other related articles and I added some source links. So, can I delete the templates? --Vivien Harmon (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've removed the  tag as you have de-orphaned the page.  I have removed the   tag but have replaced it with a   tag as most if not all of its references are from one website.  The following pages may be of assistance in improving the article's references: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fred Oyetayo
Hi, the article Fred Oyetayo is currently being worked on. Give it time to breath and allow the author research and get more contents Towel180 (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you the author of the page?  Dr Strauss   talk  11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I am not. I happen to come across the article and the person being worked on seems to be a notable person worthy of being written about. Towel180 (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying that. It seems that the page has been deleted anyway, clearly the admin in question agreed with my rationale.  The article didn't have the   tag on it and a quick Google search showed that expansion of it was improbable as the subject simply wasn't notable enough to pass WP:CSD.  Regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - just seen your talk page. I speedied it using the page curation tool which apperas to have detected that you were the creator of the article as it seems to have decided to notify you of the tagging.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Laura Marino
Am I missing something here? She passes WP:NOLY. I'm only slightly familiar with the SvG issues, but I thought the standard was if they meet our normal inclusion standards they got included in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the ANI on SvG is here but I was under the impression that SvG articles would be moved back to the mainspace only when they had been fully cleaned up. The one in question is ridden with bare URLs - if I get chance I'll do it myself tomorrow.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - plus I'm not sure if that one was checked for copyvios which was an additional reason I moved it back just to be sure.  Dr Strauss   talk  21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed and moved back to mainspace. Most of the external links I just cut out. There isn't really anything that could be a copyvio in it FWIW. Too small and the language too generic. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for your work on that. Best,  Dr Strauss   talk  10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Kotli Saru Khan
I am facing problem with page of my village Kotli Saru Khan. Whenever I tried to update it, they simple revert. Most of detail is referred from links provided in it but some information is provided in Punjabi Language (not English). Also the history of village in not documented in Government record so I can not provide proof to Wikipedia. I believe that information should be maintained unless you received any complaint. They also blocked me whenever I tried to contact them. There are many User who just editing without looking its actual content. Please help to maintain this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.5.65.196 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, my involvement in this article was cleaning up  tags with AutoWikiBrowser.  Could you clarify what you are concerned about because as far as I can see your block log is empty and there haven't been and deletion discussions about the article?  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: AfD
I've posted a suggestion and a comment at Articles for deletion/Outline of the Bible. The Transhumanist 20:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Request
DrStrauss, please place these tags on the user talk page of User:Wikidude10000; he created the actual pages, I merely created redirects for these items. Also, just FYI, college basketball in the United States is covered by WikiProject College Basketball, not WikiProject Basketball, therefore, the WikiProject Basketball notability guideline for professional clubs is irrelevant in these cases. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wasn't aware of the specific policy on college basketball notability, my bad. I was using the page curation tool to tag the pages so that's a software error which I'll raise with somebody.  I'll remove the speedies and feel free to remove the notices on your talk page.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks! Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Novorossiya
Hi Have you got a solution for the article ? If you merge, what is the solutions for Lugansk and Donetsk flags ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * probably merge as discussed but with the two flags you mentioned, merge those into their respective articles i.e. incorporate the Donetsk flag section into Donetsk. I think it's just the plurality issue and the proposed title which leads me to think such a merge would be more appropriate.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Troy Southgate article
Hopefully this is the correct place to be writing this - I've not used Wikipedia before in this way. I've tried to abide by the advice provided for how to make such entries; hopefully I've gone about it correctly.

I objected to the description of Black Front Press as a publisher of neo-Nazi literature because no evidence is provided for this assertion (the reference, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, provides nothing of the sort). I also believe it to be inaccurate. The only BFP author that could be justifiably linked with Nazism is 'Wulf', whose books on runes BFP have published. However, without presenting an analysis of the content of said books and how they promote neo-Nazism, there are no grounds for the assertion that BFP are a publisher of neo-Nazi works. The majority of their publications are biographies and politcal tracts, none of which, to the best of my knowledge, promote any neo-Nazi ideologies. In my view, Southgate's ideology does not fit into any neat categories, and those that label it 'neo-Nazi' demonstrate that they have either failed to make a sincere effort to understand it, or are simply being malicious, given that his writings regularly denounce Nazism.

92.26.213.204 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for contacting me. As the article is a biography of a living person, I'd suggest removing any poorly-sourced, controversial information and notify the user who added it (looking in the page history).  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  12:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crack3411 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Issues with your GA reviews
DrStrauss, you did your first GA reviews today: seven in the space of under an hour. While we welcome new reviewers, we expect them to do a thorough job. It is not possible for anyone to closely read substantial articles for prose quality and do a check of their dozens of inline source citations in that short a time period, a process that includes making sure that there hasn't been any close paraphrasing of those sources, for example.

The two you failed were for trivial reasons—one even for a reason that is not valid—and in both cases the specific issues were easily fixable. (The Good Article instructions tell you how to put the nominations on hold for the nominator to address the issues raised in the review.) Worse, one of them—Genic—had been waiting for half a year. However, when I read Genic, I see a number of places where the prose is not clear and concise, one of the primary GA criteria, yet your review doesn't mention this at all. I have to wonder, then, how closely you did read the articles you've reviewed, and whether you reviewed them to the actual GA criteria that the checklist you used was based on. Master Apartments, for example, fails to meet MOS:LEAD (part of 1b of the criteria); it doesn't even mention in the intro that they are now a co-op, among many omissions.

Under the circumstances, I think it is quite likely that all seven of your reviews will be reversed pending further examination; both failures certainly will be at least reopened. If you plan to do any future reviews, you should take your time with them. It has never been the expectation that a review should be a quick process or one with an instant result. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I was probably being a bit overenthusiastic and I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp. I'll take more care in future.  Just to clarify, there's no time limit before nominations expire?  Thank you.  DrStrauss 26/02/2017 18:06 (GMT)


 * Just to comment on here, I totally agree. Also, you should viciously check things with the manual of style, but when you do, you should allow the nominator to address your concerns. I remember your review of the mangrove swallow wasn't all too good. For example, you never mentioned my inconsistencies in singular versus plural usage. Overall, you should probably slow down. And not just with reviews, but everywhere. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * fair enough with the GA nominations but why in other places? DrStrauss 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note the horrifying amounts of incorrectly tagged (whether with incorrect stub tags or with incorrect speedy tags) articles you have tagged recently. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  18:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry for using numbered points but it's just a lot easier: Sincerely,  D r S t r a u s s  19:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) You aren't a new page reviewer.  You have no speedy deletion log.  When and if you do become a new page reviewer, you'll be in a position to criticise.
 * 2) "Horrifying amounts" of incorrectly placed deletion tags?  Eh?  Look at my deletion log here.  A few misplaced templates, while still undesirable, are nothing when compared to the amount of correctly placed tags.
 * 3) As you watch my talk page, you will only hear about the ones which have gone wrong.  People tend not to congratulate you when you've done a minor thing correctly but are sure to point it out when you don't.  Therefore, you won't hear about the vast majority of my edits and will receive an distorted picture.
 * 4) A lot of messages saying "WHY DID YOU..." come from inexperienced editors who merely need pointing to the correct policies.
 * 5) Discouraging a Wikipedia editor who makes largely constructive edits (and when non-constructive, they are in good faith) from continuing to edit is completely contrary to the spirit of community which Wikipedia is grounded in.  See WP:RETENTION.
 * 6) I didn't see you complaining about the incorrect GA review of mangrove swallow...


 * Sorry if I came off as a bit of a dick there, I apologize! Anyways, I do still encourage you to slow down, but not stop. Also, I am just talking about the criticisms from experienced editors. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a new page patroller, not that I need that userright to criticize you or anyone. (I also note you don't have a CSD log anymore.) I see we have returned to your problem of having more enthusiasm than foresight. This is something in your hands that you need to address. As they used to say old the old forums, lurk moar. Wikipedia is very easy to learn if you take the time to read everything and come to understand how things are done. Claiming ignorance after 20k edits and a few years doesn't wear well. You can always stop editing and ask questions rather than charge forward. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi DrStrauss. Rather than say what others have already said, I just want to tell you I'm around if you have any questions. I was successful on Wikipedia when I joined because I took things slow, sought feedback early and frequently, and took constructive criticism. That's not to say my early activity was without speedbumps - there were plenty. Asking a few questions can make all the difference, though, and I'm happy to help if you'd like to ask anything in the future. It's a good idea to seek advice from an editor experienced in an area you're unfamiliar with before entering into that area, by the way. A simple "How can I help?" tends to save both you and the community lots of time down the road. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Issues with your AfD nomination
Dear Dr. Strauss,

It appears that you nominated an outline for deletion without understanding outlines or lists. You mentioned that the Outline of the Bible is an essay, when it is clearly a list. And you presented as a reason for deletion, that it duplicated material from elsewhere. All outlines are redundant in this fashion; their main purpose is to present their subject's topics in list format to assist browsing. See also WP:CLN. The set of outlines comprise one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems.

I am concerned that your nominating the page for deletion may have been my fault, perhaps for not explaining outlines well enough. I would greatly appreciate if you would point out to me what in the explanation of outlines led you to believe that this one was not worthy of keeping, so that I may improve the explanation. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 13:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)