User talk:Drm310/Archive 15

Lilastav
Dear Drm310,

Thank you for your message and for giving me the necessary info. I appreciate it. As I have stated when first creating the article, I have no connection with the research discipline described in the article Behavioral Signal Processing. I only used the info I found in the University that claims to be doing the research as it's not even related to my academia background.

Given the above, I am not receiving any compensation for that. I understand the confusion as my profile as a contributor is empty. However, the reason for not being a more active member is that I live in Turkey and as I have been informed by Wikipedia in my communication with them, even with the use of a special service I cannot do any contributions (there is no access to Wikipedia here). I would love to do more etc (I used to have a profile here years ago, doing mostly corrections but that profile was connected to an old lost mail).

Therefore, my only chance to actually use Wikipedia and be active is when I am travelling outside of the country. Now, on the article I have created, I used the info I found online. However, as it was rejected I decided to let it go given my inability to add anything more.

I am sorry to see it deleted but the rules are here for a reason and that's what makes Wikipedia great.

I hope you have a great day, Best, Lilastav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilastav (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your position. I am sorry that your access to Wikipedia is limited. I am very disturbed that a government would deliberately censor Wikipedia for ideological reasons. Unfortunately, creating new articles is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and regular practice is best way to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and editing culture. I hope that you won't be discouraged that your initial efforts were not successful - a lot of new editors don't succeed on their first attempt. I also hope that your access to Wikipedia in Turkey will restored someday soon, and you will want to try again. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

proof of employment
I have been asked to give proof of employment but have no idea how to do this - whenever I click through, it doesn't seem to take me to where I need to be!

Please help - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkihoresh (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Go to your userpage, located at User:Nikkihoresh.
 * 2) Paste the following code in the edit window:
 * 3) Substitute the name of your employer and client in the appropriate places.
 * 4) Click Publish changes.
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing
Please do not undo my edits. I am trying to update a page. If you read the page you can see the latest information is from 2015. The information I am posting is current and up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COSMO1994 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edits are in dispute and you have no right of ownership or editorial control over the article's contents. Please address these concerns at WP:COIN. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You have no ownership either. My edits are accurate and yours a wrong. I will file against you for posting wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COSMO1994 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Aaand blocked. Buh-bye. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

How can I improve the credibility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusemek#Nomination_of_Our_Planet._Theirs_Too._for_deletion

Thanks Drm310 for your comments! I had the impression that the referencers I have included on this subject, credibly indicate why this organization is important and significant, and why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia: after all, this is an organization that has established a national "observance day", and that is active in multiple countries around the world, as the references clearly indicate. What else could prove higher credibility? And while we're at it, regarding the "Citation Overkill" issue - how can one provide multiple referencers to an article that is only a few sentences long, without getting into Citation Overkill? Thank you! KSK (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You have gotten some good advice from on your talk page, so there isn't much more that I can add to it. If you're writing about the organization, then the reference have to discuss the organization in depth - not the events it puts on or the people who run it. Also, primary sources (those affiliated with the organization) and self-published sources (blogs, social media and message forums) won't count towards establishing the organization's notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Blockchain sanctions notifications
Please log blockchain/cryptocurrency sanctions notifications at WP:GS/Crypto, as the procedure requires it for warnings to be effective. Thank you for helping to stem the tide of SPAs. MER-C 20:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done, and thanks for the reminder. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I have no idea what to do with your conflict of interest. In some sense there is now a conflict of interest with Terry Rusling. When I originally put him there was no such conflict of interest because his music was not available for sale. Recently doing research I discover good quality recordings of his work and a CD will be made. So when the information was originally put up there was no possible CD. I knew him through his nephew. His tapes have turned up and so there is the possibility of making a CD. A CD with little chance of recovering its costs with a pressing of 25 to 50 copies. Sales are unlikely, most will be given away to a few interested parties. Which of course speaks to his irrelevance except some music which is owned outright by CBC was be heard by millions in which he was generally uncredited by CBC. He wrote a theme for CBC Nightly News. This project is being done in the hope that he is generally not forgotten. Now in what I have stated I have perfectly made your case both for conflict of interest and his general irrelevance. And yet you have articles on the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and Penthouse. In the former two how can this not also be advertisements for enormous cooperations. So you conflict of interest automatically makes popularity a defence against conflict while someone or some project who is rather unknown is taking advantage of Wikipedia. Your relevance also then sides with those people or projects which are famous or historical, who require little digging to find mounds of information on other sites and other forms of media against smaller projects which more some people like me do more interesting and relevant work. Because there are not thousands of "fans" these folks are suspect while you have no problem populating your pages, say for instance Alice Cooper or Beyonce, who need no introduction to for the vast majority. One thing that I have been involved in and in general which you do have listings for is Artist Run Centres like A Space. I have been involved myself with a number of these organizations and by definition these organizations have a "conflict of interest" because artists sit on the boards and these same artists often have shows in these spaces. Because this is a small world it could hardly be any other way. I have sat on these boards and many of the people have direct conflicts but in most cases one cannot find suitable candidates who are both non-artists or artists without conflicts. The reasons that people like me start small presses and music labels is precisely because very few people are willing to release books or CDs where is limited chance of cost recovery and where there is there is also little hope of substantial profit. This is why we have arts granting systems in Canada, because commercial galleries rely on sales and these artists may not have anything to sell. In some cases people start in small labels, publishers or artist-run centres and eventually make it big. These folks are "relevant" by your standards while the others are posted due to self-interest and are in conflict, when the money we speak about is a pittance, rarely enough to live on and often they make no money worth mentioning. So please feel free to remove everything I ever posted. I have no desire to be accused of profiting by entering articles for which in most cases any sort of commercial activity is overall a loss. Not sure I bothered with this rant but please consider anything posted by me as tainted and please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you believe that Wikipedia's considerations of what is considered worthy of inclusion is unfair or biased. The policies and guidelines have been developed over time by Wikipedia's community of volunteer editors, and that consensus can change. You are welcome to dispute this at Wikipedia talk:Notability if you think you have a convincing, rational argument for change. Nothing you say here will change the notability guidelines, nor the actions that result from it.


 * You seem somewhat emotionally invested in the topics, which kind of proves the point about conflict of interest. Having a personal involvement with a topic impairs your ability to contribute objectively and maintain a level of professional detachment from your contributions. I will also reiterate that if you are employed by one of the subjects that you have written about, it is mandatory that you disclose this information. Editing a topic where there is an undisclosed paid relationship is taken very seriously. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

signature did not work
Drm310, I thought I signed it. I put signature, but it did not work. I do not know why. Sorry about that. hUffSlushh:) 16:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC) (sorry if this does not work either) Huff slush7264 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to tell you. The instructions I left should have worked. Unless you're contributing from a mobile device that is doing something bizarre... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

explanation
I meant that when i tried to sign it, it did not work until you told me how to. thanks Huff-Slush 20:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huff slush7264 (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Thank you for your instructions --TomCa (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC).

Conflict of Interest
Thank you for your message and for giving me the necessary tips. I appreciate it but I have no connection with my writings. I am just interested in writing about topics in my country. Is there any additional advice?? Shammahamoah (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I don't have any additional advice for you at this time, so I wish you the best of luck with your contributions. Cheers. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Please review
Hi, would you review Draft:Mads Moslund? Thank you - have a great day! Kathrinelilholtnielsen (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are my thoughts:
 * The IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it consists largely of uncurated, user-generated content. Please refer to WP:Citing IMDb for more information.
 * The Burstout source is very short and does not discuss this person in-depth, meaning that it fails the requirement of significant coverage. Burstout also appears to be little more than the public relations mouthpiece of the production company CapriTaurus, which makes it a source of dubious provenance.
 * The Danskefilm source is just a list item, which again does not count as significant coverage.
 * Therefore my opinion is that - unfortunately - this actor does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as defined in WP:NACTOR. Try to find better quality, third-party sources that discuss his work at length. If no such sources exist, then it is probably too soon for him to have an article. Wikipedia does not accept articles on up and coming people or things; we require a person to be already notable to have an article here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I added a new source. Will you review again?
 * Draft:Mads Moslund
 * Kathrinelilholtnielsen (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2018‎


 * I think you've gotten all the feedback you need. This looks like a lost errand. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

thanks re: San Jose Taiko speedy deletion nom
Just wanted to thank you for the speedy deletion nomination for the article I wrote on San Jose Taiko. I am in waaay over my head and scrapping this article seems like the best next step, followed by looking for an outside person to research and write an article for the group. Thanks again for your help. 2600:1700:43B0:D7D0:6867:135D:E5E2:D5A5 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your Message Response
Spectra29485 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC) No I am not getting paid anything to make updates to the page.


 * The preponderance of evidence suggested otherwise, and an admin has acted accordingly. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

re: Conflict of interest
I am not receiving any compensation for edits I make. Thank you for the concern and advice. I'd appreciate anymore advice/insights you have as I am new to editing on Wikipedia.

Dymopasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.79.60.147 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Daweibj
Can you watch a user named Daweibj? The user is the most contributed editor of StarTimes article, and made other StarTimes-related articles. But the user cited third-party sources when editing articles. So I don't know if the user works at StarTimes or is just a passionate editor. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Judging by their edits, I don't have any major concerns. As you noted, they seem to be making an effort to use third-party sources and the tone is fairly neutral. I couldn't find any evidence of a conflict of interest, so the course here is to assume good faith. Single-purpose accounts aren't always necessarily a problem... in this case it could be just because their subject-area interests are narrow. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

re "Disclosure of employment"
hi there, thanks for your message. no, i am not being compensated directly or indirectly by this business. i will be re-instating the page with additional citations, most likely this afternoon.

Ryanckulp (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, but clearly you have some kind of professional connection to this company. Please review Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make any appropriate disclosures. Please note that we strongly discourage editors from writing about topics where they have a COI. This is due to the inherent difficulty in writing about it from the required neutral point of view, taking information from only third-party sources, and having a promotional tone . --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ryanckulp, like Drm310, I cannot understand why you persist with this article if you don't have a COI, and it's likely that I'll block you if you recreate. Note also that it doesn't meet the current updated notability guidelines for organisations and companies, and that reliable sources do not include those linked to the company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. as nominating admin Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * this editor is one the most blatant examples of UPE that  I  have ever come across. 10 out of 16 of his creations have been deleted for advertising and/or suspected UPE. He has even recreated an article under different names to avoid salts, and has asked other users to remove CSD templates because as creator he can't do it himself.  I don't think there is any need for further discussion or a lengthy COIN case before going ahead with an indef block. Persistent creation of spam and non notable articles is enough.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, that's good enough for me. Indeffed as WP:Not here with your remark above as a rider Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Interpublic Group of Companies
Oh my Dear Lord I admit, since creating an account on Wikipedia, I have apparently and unknowingly broken more laws and regulations in one day than I have in the entirety of my life combined thus far. I am not compensated to create a Wikipedia page but I am employed by the company. I wasn't hiding that, I just didn't think it was relevant since I was posting objective, empirical, fully referenced information (not propaganda or sales material). Can you please direct me to someone who can help me? This is bordering on the farcical at this point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berwitz (talk • contribs)


 * A couple of technical points first:
 * Please sign your posts on discussion pages. It is necessary to distinguish who said what, and when, so that the discussion flows in a logical and chronological manner.
 * Place your comments at the bottom of the page or relevant section. Same reason as above.
 * Indent your comments to make them more readable as the discussion progresses. Replies should be indented by one level more than the last post in the discussion, using the colon character at the beginning of the line.
 * As for your question, let's continue this at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I don't want to have the discussions split up across several locations. I will post my reply there. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please bring back the original Stockholm School of Entrepreneruship article!
Hi. I edited the page about Stockholm school of entrepreneurship yesterday and today I find it deleted. Is there any way to at least revert it to the earlier version? or if you please could guide me so I edit the information properly? Again I wish to emphasize that the article about Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship is not promotional in any way. It is an academic institution and the information provided is purely intended as informational only. I am new to editing articles in Wikipedia, so maybe I do something obviously wrong. Please help me correct this! Thanks in advance!

--OlaGustafssonsses (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Before you make any further edits to an article about SSES, you must first make a mandatory declaration of your affiliation per Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy. You are employed by this organization and are representing their interests, therefore this declaration is not optional.


 * The article was deleted by the administrator under the WP:G11 criteria (exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with NOTFORPROMOTION). You can request that your text be restored via Requests for undeletion, but it will not be restored to the main article space. You can ask for it to be restored to the draft article space or your user sandbox.


 * Please understand that Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. We only care about the opinions of neutral, third-party writers working for reliable sources. Basic facts and figures can come from primary sources (those affiliated with the organization) but that's about all. Below are a list of links that you should review before making any further edits to Wikipedia:


 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * WP:FAQ/Organizations
 * Paid contribution disclosure
 * Notability criteria for organizations
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

MultiChoice
Regarding the below:

''Hello PeterPieglMultiChoice. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to MultiChoice, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.''

I do not have an "undisclosed financial stake" in promoting this topic. I am an employee of MultiChoice South Africa and as such, I was tasked with creating this page. I have only ever used Wikipedia to create this entry, so maybe I missed something in your Ts& Cs? What are the next steps to getting the page back to where it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPieglMultiChoice (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Writing about a company as an employee means that you have a financial stake, as you are being compensated by them. However, I see that you have now disclosed your employment on your userpage, so fortunately you are in compliance with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure policy.


 * Just so that you and your superiors are aware, a company (or the subject of any article, for that matter) does not have any right of ownership or editorial control over an article. Basically, Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed, as Wikipedia cannot be used for promotion or publicity. We're only interested in the writings of reliable third parties as source material, written from a completely neutral point of view. Primary sources such as a company website can be used to verify basic facts and figures (e.g. names of subsidiaries, number of employees, etc.) but any interpretations of those facts must come from secondary sources. Company-authored press releases will be disqualified, as will self-published sources such as social media, blogs and message forums.


 * This also means that you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses.


 * If you want to make changes to the MultiChoice article, I would advise you not to edit the article directly. Instead, I would post a request on the article talk page using the request edit template. This will put your request into a queue that will attract the attention of other uninvolved editors. They will review your request and either post your changes or suggest further revisions. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making. If civil discussion on the talk page does not resolve disagreements, you can engage in further dispute resolution mechanisms.


 * If you haven't done so already, I would suggest reviewing these pages before making any further edits:
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * FAQ/Organizations
 * Paid-contribution disclosure
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Trazmo page
Okay thanks for the info.

I guess it's too soon, i see all big artists with a wikipedia page so i thought i should make one. But it's the other way around.

Thanks for your explanations, you can proceed with deletion of my page.

Regards, Trazmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trazmo Music (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

SolarCoin deletion
Hello. can we talk about the deletion of SolarCoin? It is a pretty important project operating in 68 countries. We are members of the UN climate chain co-alition and have been good actors for 4 years in the social blockchain community. We have incentivized 11 TWh of global solar energy and support a few charities. Nick Gogerty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgogerty (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello would like to discuss the solarcoin deletion. the project is pretty important to a lot of people and has done a lot of good. we don't try to attract speculators. Feel free to research my background etc. happy to discuss. Nick Gogerty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgogerty (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you haven't done so already, please review the following Wikipedia pages. They will explain in detail why we discourage someone who is personally involved with a topic from writing about it:
 * Conflict of interest
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * FAQ/Organizations
 * Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
 * Please realize that I am not questioning your organization's work or reputation. It may very well be a worthy cause, but its suitability as a Wikipedia topic cannot be objectively judged by a person who is involved with it.
 * If, after reviewing the links I have listed, you still genuinely believe that this organization is suitable topic for a Wikipedia article, then I would encourage you to try one of these avenues:
 * Requested articles/Business and economics/Organizations - this is a queue of potential article topics that have been requested, to be written by other uninvolved editors. Note that there is a backlog of article requests so it may take a long time for others to notice and adopt this request.
 * Articles for creation - this will let you create an article in draft form outside of the main article space and at less risk for deletion. Once you have finished your draft, it can be submitted for review by an uninvolved editor who will either publish it to the main space, or send it back to you for revisions. Again, there is a backlog here, so it could take several weeks for your article to be reviewed.
 * In either case, it would be wise for you to review Your first article to help avoid making the typical "newbie" mistakes and save your hard work from being deleted. Also a proper disclosure of your involvement with the organization is recommended... and if you are being paid by the organization, it is mandatory. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Royal Society for Public Health and Shirley Cramer
Hi Drm310

Thank you for your comments and guidance.

To confirm I am an employee at the Royal Society for Public Health and I was recently requested to update the current page on the organisation and create one for our CEO. Obviously my lack of experience in editing wikipedia pages is on full display so apologies for this. In the first instance I have added my connection to RSPH to my user page as suggested.

In terms of the pages for Royal Society for Public Health and Shirley Cramer in question, I want to do my best to ensure that these adhere to the necessary requirements. I have tried to be as objective as possible on both but appreciate that this may not have come across and there is the accusation of being to close to the subject which is fair. RSPH is a charity not a business so I hope that helps to shed some light on the nature of our objectives.

In terms of secondary and tertiary sources RSPH is regularly referenced in news articles such as https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980893 and https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/flash-points-photography-public-health-challenges_uk_59b916c1e4b0edff9717d9b0?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=dqBQ7DNLm5pWxm544Cvkxg - do those count?

Likewise for Shirley, a quick Google search has revealed the following:

https://www.health.org.uk/newsletter/here%E2%80%99s-healthy-future-qa-shirley-cramer https://openforumevents.co.uk/speakers/shirley-cramer-cbe/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/shirley-cramer/ https://apha.confex.com/apha/142am/webprogram/Role620525.html

Would these be acceptable?

I look forward to your reply as well as any other guidance you may have.

Thanks Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe G Jennings (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am a bit occupied for now, but I will reply when I have some time to devote to looking at your sources above. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the lateness of my reply. Here are my comments on the sources you listed:
 * Reliable
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980893 - the BBC is an established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
 * Not reliable ❌
 * https://apha.confex.com/apha/142am/webprogram/Role620525.html - self-submitted bio on a conferencing website.
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/shirley-cramer/ - just a link to a piece written by her, but not about her.
 * https://openforumevents.co.uk/speakers/shirley-cramer-cbe/ - bio from a conference production business, who employs her as a speaker. Obvious conflict of interest.
 * https://www.health.org.uk/newsletter/here%E2%80%99s-healthy-future-qa-shirley-cramer - interview with the subject. These are considered primary sources because the information is coming directly from the subject. In addition, the interview was posted on the website of an organization involved with the one she represents, so there is another conflict of interest.
 * Unknown
 * https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/flash-points-photography-public-health-challenges_uk_59b916c1e4b0edff9717d9b0?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=dqBQ7DNLm5pWxm544Cvkxg - would not render the page. I chopped off the parameter variables from the URL (everything including and after the "?" character) and the page loaded, but I was confronted with an Oath "consent to this" dialogue box that I refused to agree to. Therefore I could not view the article.
 * On the reliable sources noticeboard, the consensus is that the Huffington Post is sometimes a reliable source, but it depends on the writer and the context. If the writer is an actual HufPo staffer, then their work would be subjected to editorial scrutiny and considered reliable. However, if the piece being cited is from the "contributor platform", then these outside writers are not subjected to even a minimum of editorial oversight. Such an article would not be considered reliable.
 * I hope this helps. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circle Drive Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPR Bridge ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Circle_Drive_Bridge check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Circle_Drive_Bridge?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)