User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 28

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)

REGARDING THE DELETION OF EVANS KARIUKI WIKIPEDIA PAGE
Hello Sir/Madam In regard to the article : [] Kindly do not delete the article - took me a lot of time to edit. I am working on getting more references. I am from Nairobi Kenya and I found that he is a public figure of sufficient public interest. He heads EYA Kenya. He is also the founder of FirebrandNation. He is a pastor at Eternal Life Harvest Center - KnoxVille Tennessee, where he has been greatly involved in ending Gang-related violence in the area. Please consider this. You can email me back at daggieblanqx@gmail.com Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaggieBlanqx (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello! I understand your concern and frustration. Wikipedia does have criteria for inclusion of article subjects, based on what it calls "notability" as described at Notability. I understand from your comments why you find him worth writing about. The gist of notability, though, is that Wikipedia doesn't make its own direct judgments as to whether someone's background and activities are worthy of note. Wikipedia is neutral, and doesn't have its own opinions on the value or importance of someone's acts. It looks to see if others have noted them to the extent that substantial coverage of them appear in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:Golden rule for a short summary of these requirements.
 * If you can identify qualifying sources with substantial coverage of Kariuki, you should bring them to our attention at the deletion discussion for consideration by all who participate.
 * As for my edits to the page, removing all the external links, see Wikipedia's linking guidelines, particularly the notes at WP:ELPOINTS. Wikipedia doesn't link an article to external information about everything mentioned in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

RAC & Alan Sonfist
Thanks for your deletion and attention to my work, I moved to the artist page. Jon Phillips (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

foxtenn
Whilst you refer to the text that you removed as both colourful an product differentiation, my intent was to present it with a precise technical slant, the hawk eye technological reference was meant to present the technical evolution/advantages from one technology to another. These lines were meant to be comparative, not "differentiative". Is there a wiki article available to better-understand "product differentiation?". Further still, is there also a wiki article people can consult that clearly explains the distinctions between colourful language vs. technical language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Pierre Boucher (talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC) But you know what, just show me how to delete my article.
 * Hi Jean-Pierre, I just found this article (and reverted your blanking of it - even if it does get deleted, which it probably shouldn't, blanking is only used for pages that have major WP:BLP issues or other legal problems). Since this is the only Talk: space discussion regarding it I'm replying here instead of on your userpage, hopefully you see it. While it's difficult to quickly sum up how to tell what content is and isn't encyclopaedic given that those rules have to cover the entirety of human knowledge, it may be worth having a look through WP:POV and WP:NOTJARGON. I don't think the speedy deletion (or edit summary about "colourful language") were justified, but the use of " is an innovative " is a pretty big red flag on any article creation, since that's a verbatim copy of a generic advertisement. I hope that helps clear things up slightly. Sellyme Talk 08:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sally, it was never my intention to make this article as some promotional piece. I don't work for Foxtenn nor am I associated with them in any way. As the initial creator of this article I should have the right to completely delete it. One random example, take the article on say Smoke signal, it starts like this: "The smoke signal is one of the oldest forms of long-distance communication...." its author was allowed to us a qualitative statement (oldest) I used innovative (a qualitative statement also) I certainly wasn't going to refer to it any other way. Please respect my wish to have the article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Pierre Boucher (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's right, an article's creator has the right to change their mind and request CSD:G7 deletion, or to blank it, in which case someone else will, unless someone else has added substantive content to the original.

No one is going to interpret a statement that smoke signals are among the oldest forms of long-distance communication as an advertising or even as peacock language. It's a stone cold encyclopedic fact, and "oldest" a concrete word with a specific meaning.. "Innovative" says nothing specific while sounding like it's intended to be impressive, like many marketing buzzwords. It's a subjective evaluation possibly based on concrete facts.

For a product whose advantages over other products have been the direct focus of coverage in reliable sources, a larger article might observe that in the detailed part of the content, in describing, say, a clear pattern of moving away from earlier technology to newer technology. But, in conjunction with the other issues I mentioned, in a three-sentence article the whole thing gave the impression of bias. It did occur to me that the article leant it self sufficiently to being whittled down, which is why, after I initially submitted it for speedy deletion, I changed my mind. Largoplazo (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Of The Page NK Realtors
I want to edit the page and update the content for as an encyclopedia. How can I create a page NK Realtors? Kindly guide me how can I create the page without getting it deleted. --Biplabnkr (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Biplabnkr
 * Wikipedia strongly discourages conflict-of-interest editing, and between your previous draft and your user name it's clear that you have a COI and publicity is your goal, so my best advice is to wait for someone independent of the company to write about it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello
I`m not computer or something else. Maybe my EN is to poor, but first of all to write about some kind semi-ghost football clubs like FK NFA is very problematical. In LT i could not wrote more. And for good tranlation needs Victor Hugo or some romanist. :) I did all, what i could in this situation. You know, it`s nice to look at EN_wiki about greek or SCO football clubs. They have long history and it`s pleasure to write something about them, but east european clubs very poor about representing themselves. Sometimes and problems with links exist. Have a nice day. Regards. Makenzis 15:47, 6 October 2018 (EEST)


 * Hello! I am sorry but, here too, your English is difficult to read, and I don't understand several things you wrote in the article. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and your interest in filling gaps on English Wikipedia. But this is why it's great that there are Wikipedias in so many languages: so people can contribute in the languages with which they are comfortable. In the same way, I can get along for days speaking only French or only Spanish when I travel, but I don't write either language well enough to create articles for French or Spanish Wikipedia. I do encourage you to keep improving your English, as I try to do with my French and Spanish. Regards, 13:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey Largo,

You've asked for a third opinion, but as there's no discussion taking place - the other editor doesn't seem to be following the TP - a 3O would be useless. I removed the request, and suggest you approach WP:AN3 (or another relevant board) instead. François Robere (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:AN3 was the first place I had in mind to go, but I thought that under the circumstances I needed to be able to say I'd gone to WP:3O as a matter of following protocol. Indeed, there was no verbal dispute about which to seek a third opinion, since he refused to answer, but I thought the two-party dispute was implicit in his actions: He's reverted my changes twice. The second time was after (a) I had explained my changes to him; (b) I'd given him several days to digest my commentary, during which he made several rounds of edits on other articles, so I know he was here; (c) I tried to prompt him by telling him that I was interpreting his silence as acquiescence; and (d) he had made one more set of edits so I knew he'd seen my final comment and still hadn't responded.


 * Under the circumstances, I'd thought that that constituted a two-party dispute and that, to be able to show that I was following protocol, I should go through WP:3O before heading to the next round of resolution. So, really, I should just forget about that and move on to WP:AN3? Largoplazo (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that one could opine simply based on the changes, but I'd like to think 3O helps resolve discussions, not just disagreements. If no discussion is taking place, then a 3O is as arbitrary as one's understanding of another editor's actions, and I'd be hesitant to give one. I think you did well to try, regardless.
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia has a policy lacuna on dealing with non-responsive editors. You can try AN3, but the result depends on the admin that catches it. If that won't work, you can try claiming WP:DISRUPTIVE and hope it'll work. François Robere (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AN3 appears not to apply until 3RR has been broken. It also occurs to me that since my initial set of edits was to remove material that had been added at some point in the past, that maybe I'm the one who'd be seen as "reverting", and I certainly don't want to be the one charged with violating 3RR. All I want is outside judgment on this. Should I make an RFC out of it, to get consensus that my changes were appropriate? Then I'd have a solid claim against him in an ANI report. Largoplazo (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed back the nine out of the original 13 pages that he reverted for second time. (He'd reverted all 13 the first time.) I guess I can also see if he does it again with no edit summary, and then I'll be able to base a case on unexplained changes and failure to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct, however if the conflict continues then it'll quickly go down that path. As for who's reverting - it's not you: the material has to have been added relatively recently for the removal to constitute a "reversal".
 * An RfC can be a good idea if this continues (keep it clear, short and with an example edit that people can refer to). Bear in mind it's binding and won't necessarily go your way, but it is a learning experience of sorts even if it doesn't. Good luck! François Robere (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Glover
He's admitted he owns the press in a now deleted article talk page post. COIN? Doug Weller talk 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Page review
Hello,

My name is Maria Dima and I am writing on behalf of Tello Mobile.

Thank you for your recent review on the newly added page on Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tello_mobile.

I could sure need some help with it, if you don't mind, especially since I don't really understand why the content is viewed as an advertisement. I've listed facts about the service, an objective short description of how the service works and references from widely-known sites like CNET, AndroidCentral, and PCMAG that covered Tello in one of their articles.

Moreover, I've used as an example this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ting_Inc. that has the same type of service, Wiki content, and references.

Can you please help me with this?

Thanks, Maria

Mihaela.georgescu.uratoriu (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello! Since you are writing on behalf of Tello Mobile, you have a conflict of interest, so you need to read WP:COI, and pay particular attention to the rules regarding editing in connection with an arrangement (employment, a contract) for which you are paid. You should also understand that COI editing is strongly discouraged.
 * Details of "what customers can do", how payment works, the absence of additional charges for this or that service, all fall under the heading of marketing. Anything that isn't an inherent, objective fact about the product but that deals with specifics meant to entice prospective customers, which isn't appropriate here. Wikipedia articles are neutral, and Wikipedia doesn't communicate to people why they should or shouldn't consider a product or service.
 * I've just tagged Ting Inc., as it suffers from the same undue attention to marketing details. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS about the perils of picking other articles for comparison! Largoplazo (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

clean up aisle 5

 * Thank you!! Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI
You just requested protection for an article that has been deleted. (Sooo, no more worries about vandalism I suppose... ) - wolf  11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Indefinite protection against creation, which is applicable pretty much specifically to articles that have been deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That makes sense. Otherwise, at a glance, it just seemed odd. Thanks for the reply. - wolf  11:19, 16 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)

New article review
Thank you for reviewing this new article. I'll be adding to the article and supplementing it with additional sources to correct the issues you cited.Allisev23 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

non liquet
this aritcile is correct as to the notion of legal gap and its sorts but it is suspicious as to the notion of non liquet since this notion concerns rather the question of proof than the question of operative law and it should be not equated with a lacuna and gap or loophole which all mean more or less the same. The diffrence bewteen lacuna and loophole is rather none. The loophole is a gap extra legem as the lacuna in its common usage. That is, the article should start from legal gap (lacuna, loophole) and at the end mention about non liquet as a far less common name of a legal gap.


 * Hi. Article discussion goes not in hidden comments in the article but on the associated talk page, in this case Talk:Non liquet.
 * Because your remarks recapitulate my own feeling that there are problems with the article, that vocabulary is being used with imprecision and the commentary is meandering, the tag I placed there is appropriate and should remain until there is greater clarity as to what the article should say, and the article has been revised accordingly. You removed it, so I replaced it.
 * By the way, when you leave remarks an an article or user talk page like this one, you should sign your contributions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the second paragraph is totally stupid, but try to delete something in the wiki. You will be charged with being a vandal if not a scammer. I may try, but ...

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

COXWOLD POTTERY ARTICLE
Hi Largoplazo

Thank you, very pleased to note that you have now moved the article into ‘Issues’, rather than threatened with ‘Deletion’. I can assure you this is a valuable and relevant addition to the material available on the UK Studio Pottery field.

However, if you won’t mind, I have a few points I would like to make:

1. I note that on the ‘Talk’ page you have left your own adverse comments on the article in place, but my rebuttal seems to have disappeared! Since I believe I argued cogently that the article had a valid place and fulfilled Wikipedia principles, I really would like this reinstated. Don't you feel that third parties should be able to read what has been said?

2. I would be most interested to know exactly what your status is? How was it that you alone looked at this article first? I’ve been looking at your ‘User’ page, and I note that you are a highly experienced Editor – but I also note that in your interests list, none of them relate to what we might call cultural activities, such as arts and crafts! I think you might be an American, because of your immediate assumption that it was a piece of advertising? You talk about it promoting the ‘shop’ - no British person would have read that into it. It seems to me as well that you were a bit hasty in condemning it in the way you did? Would it not have been fairer to have left it alone and communicated your concerns to me via the ‘Talk’ page?

3. It seems to me that this highlights a conundrum at the heart of Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants everything to be a verifiable fact, which as a professional person, I have no problem with. But it is also a fact that (especially in the pre-internet era), it may not always be possible to locate material? I know that everything in the article was a true fact (if I agree a little subjective in places!). Coxwold village has a Newsletter, and I am absolutely sure that early editions of this would have regular mentions of the Coxwold Pottery. But how are we to locate these? Sometimes, you just have to take someone's word for it.

4. If I could now turn to the 'This article has multiple issues' header, I'm not sure that this is very fair either! I appreciate that this is a standard inserted block, but:

- 'May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations'. As argued, the article is not about a company or organisation ‘per se’. It is an attempt to ensure that Peter and Jill Dick as potters are properly recognised for their place in the modern post-war British Studio Pottery world.

- 'Is an orphan, as no other articles link to it' This is surely not correct, as I established plenty of links, especially to the two other relevant articles on ‘Wikipedia’, ‘Studio Pottery’ and ‘List of Studio Potters’? I note that you seem to have deleted the link from their names to the ‘List of Studio Potters’ page, for whatever reason I cannot imagine, but I would like to reinstate these links.

- 'Relies too much on references to primary sources' I don't think this is true either. The article is essentially full of verifiable facts to which there are links – Wikipedia’s own and accepted articles on Winchcombe Pottery, Michael Cardew, Peter Dick’s own article in his own words from ‘Interpreting Ceramics’, a highly respected international Journal. Not sure if you read this article, but you will see that most of the facts are confirmed in this article.

- 'Tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia'. OK, I accept some of that! I regret that some words are too subjective, as I listed them to you and I will remove them, but apart from that I believe the style in which the article is written is clear and concise and uses appropriate grammar and vocabulary.

Perhaps you could consider these points and if persuaded remove the ‘Issues’ heading? As I said in my previous ‘Talk’ contribution, if the article is up there, others with an interest and knowledge of Peter and Jill Dick will hopefully contribute, making the article more reliable and better verified.

Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, ArchaicW. In order:


 * 1. User:DGG and, possibly, you did something odd when the article was moved to the new title. The entire conversation should have been moved to, and then proceeded it, Talk:Coxwold Pottery. Instead, the original part of it, your follow-up, and DGG's comments were left add/added to the talk page of the original article under the redirect statement. You can see that talk page without it being redirected.
 * 2. My "status" is that of any Wikipedian who is interested in helping out the project by patrolling new pages, identifying any that warrant or might warrant deletion, those that should be marked for improvement, and those with issues that patrollers may choose to remedy themselves. See WP:New page patrol for more information.
 * I already explained why it looked plainly like advertising to me. Since advertising isn't allowed and is a misuse of Wikipedia, there was no apparent need to discuss it first. If "no British person would have read that into it", then you're telling me that how an article looks to people who don't already have background on the subject isn't of consequence, but that would discount the impression an article gives to a great many people who use Wikipedia, to find out about subjects they don't already know about. Also, it's pretty surprising to me that you would say "no British person", implying that Coxwold Pottery is known to all Brits. The fact that precious little can be found out about it online seems inconsistent with a nationwide awareness of and appreciation for it.
 * 3. If material can't be found to corroborate assertions made here, then the assertions don't belong here. Wikipedia isn't a place to record your own observations, and there are guidelines on "original research" saying so. I know Wikipedia looks as though it can be used like a blog, or like an article you would submit to a magazine or journal for publication, to record what you know to be true, to report on your own research, but it isn't. See Wikipedia's verifiability policy. No, we don't have to take your word for itwe don't take your word for it! Not allowed.
 * If you disagree with a core principle on which Wikipedia operates, then you need to try to get consensus on a discussion page associated with that principle, not on the Talk page of a particular article where you would like that principle not to apply.
 * 4. Re: "It is an attempt to ensure that Peter and Jill Dick as potters are properly recognised for their place in the modern post-war British Studio Pottery world." Again, you're misunderstanding the nature and goals of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't exist to give people their "due". There's no concept of "deserving" an article here. Wikipedia is interested if others, in reliable sources, have recognized them; then that existing recognition can be acknowledged here by publishing an article based on what those sources have had to say. Also, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
 * You're misinterpreting "orphan" (see WP:ORPHAN). Each Wikipedia article should be integrated into this hyperlinked publication by having links to other Wikipedia articles and being the target of links in other articles. At this moment, there are no articles with links, either directly or indirectly, to this one. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Coxwold Pottery.
 * Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, and treating them as such is circular. We can't have Wikipedia claiming that "such-and-such is true because Wikipedia says that such-and-such is true". Peter Dick writing about himself is the epitome of a primary source.
 * What you say about the tone comes across as "Except where I understand the tone is inappropriate, the tone is fine." :-/ OK, then the tone isn't fine. More generally, it reads like a reminiscence than an objective encyclopedia article.
 * I hope this clears a few things up. Please understand that if notability can be demonstrated for either Coxwold Potters or for the Dicks, then it will be great to have an article about Coxwold Potters or about the Dicks. I'm not harboring any hostility toward these subjects.. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment about how "Coxwold village has a Newsletter, and I am absolutely sure that early editions of this would have regular mentions of the Coxwold Pottery." Several responses: 1. Local coverage is largely considered insufficient. 2. Your comment is circular: Sources are needed; you don't have the sources but you're sure they exist. That still leaves us needing sources. 3. On the other hand, you have a fair point, which is that coverage that we routinely expect to find available online if a subject is notable often isn't for older subjects. There's an essay on this at Recentism. 4. On the other other hand, you say the shop operated until about six years ago, well into the Internet age. That doesn't mean there it doesn't have notability associated more closely to its earlier years, but it's something to keep in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Teal Swan page
I see you have assumed my edit was completely biased. It is true that I should not have completely deleted the initial form, for the controversy exists. However, some aspects of my change are not subjective, such as the watkins list reference (which by deleting you seem not to be willing for it to be there purposefully), the infobox(!), part of biography and teachings(also present on wikipedia pages of other spiritual teachers). Thus, I believe we should be considering both sides and not delete aspects which are not subjective. Connectingtosource (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't assume anything. I saw what you'd written. And since you'd also removed material that didn't seem right to remove, instead of feeling obligated to pick through what you'd written and restore what you'd removed and then make sure it all worked together in a cohesive fashion, I reverted your edits. If you want to go back and integrate objective, reference-quality material attributable to secondary sources into what's there, that's fine. Largoplazo (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right that I should have left the infobox there. Largoplazo (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

rebut
This is still a new resouce as it stands, this artcle fits the notability criteria within its respective community and more resources will be added such... Spinnin Records Highest Chart rank 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAudioArtistSubmiter (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

erroneous shared IP tag
Thanks for removing that; I do so many of these, anon & registered both, my eyes sometimes glaze over and I forget where I am. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Fanny Moser
I see that you marked this page for speedy. I am not sure if I can take Fanny Moser (nee von Sulzer-Wart) back to Fanny Moser, which is where it belongs and where it was before all this started, but my guess is an admin will have to do it. Do you know? If her daughter's article is ever created in English, it would be styled as Fanny Hoppe-Moser, or Fanny Moser-Hoppe, as she is known in English per multiple sources. A hat note would be sufficient to refer them to each other. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Telmple
How i make telmple in my gerated page (maso sahar)? Skr sahar (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what you're asking meI didn't know what "telmple" and "gerated" are supposed to be. I think I've figured it out only because I looked at the page's history and saw that you've been trying to imitate an infobox template.
 * If you question is, how can you add an infobox template to that page, see Help:Template for information on how to use Wikipedia templates. For information on the particular template you need for that article, see Template:Infobox settlement, which can be used for any named area where people live. See any article that uses this template for examples of how to use it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please kindly help
Dear Largoplazo

Just for the test, to see that i can add something to wikipedia or not , i insert some link yesterday. i do now have any knowledge about how to work with wikipedia articles and ,... and i did absolutely wrong. today i received email and it seems that my username ( which consist my surname ) and my company website has been mentioned in WikiProject Spam. i would like to ask you to do me a favor and accept mu apology and help me to be remove from this page.

Thank you for understanding and your help.

You can't undo a report, though it will eventually be archived (removed from that page and saved to an archive page under it). It's nothing to worry about, actually, and I agree with that other editor that you appear not to have had any ill intent and that you understand now that Wikipedia articles aren't to be used to draw attention to particular websites. If you don't do it again then you'll have no further trouble. Largoplazo (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)