User talk:Modussiccandi/Archive 2

Precious
You are recipient no. 2483 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you, this is really appreciated and unexpected, too!
 * Well, I watch Portal:Germany, and live in walking distance of Wehen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Palaiologos (megas hetaireiarches), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorific title.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

NPP School Graduate
Hi Modussiccandi, You could apply for NPP reviewer user right at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Do mention you have graduated from NPPS and my name incase they need to verify. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia(talk) 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Eva Forest
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, another good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Modussiccandi. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The page I was working on was deleted
I was working on Dasan Machineries as extension to Dasan Machineries K16 as the maker is becoming significant as firearm supplier. I think the article was deleted just couple hours after, because I believe there was no reference given to the article. I cannot spend too long time to make an article, and will need more time to actually input sources as constructing the article.Kadrun (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out. The article was deleted because it appeared like an advertisement for the company. Such articles are generally excluded from Wikipedia. Now, about the problem of not having time to improve a page: you could start your new articles as drafts or in your sandbox. Since those spaces are not visible to the public, you could prepare content for publication without the risk of being deleted. But whatever you do, do not write articles that sound like advertisements, i.e. containing long lists of products and overly positive language. Best Modussiccandi (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Vanguards Die-cast deletion
Vanguards Die-cast isnt a promotional article. Iam a long time fan and collector and have nothing to do with Vanguards or any of their parent companies. Most of the information hasn't been cited because 1. There isnt a whole lot of info out there for Vanguards. 2. A huge portion of my information has come from my paperback copy of Vanguards Collectors Guide 2005. Are there any alternatives to deletion, maybe cutting some un cited content? I have been working on this article on and off for about 6 months and would really appreciate it if it isnt deleted. Yyg850c (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out to me. The problem with the article is this: it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To demonstrate that something is notable we need significant coverage (i.e. a mention of the subject that is more than a brief paragraph) in two or more sources which are deemed reliable and independent. Reliable, in this context, means that the source went through a rigorous fact-checking process and is therefore likely to be accurate. Good examples of reliable sources are national newspapers like The Guardian and books from established publishers like Bloomsbury Publishing. Independent here means that the source has no connection whatsoever to the subject. This of course included material published by parent companies and vendors, but it also includes pieces written with a biased opinion towards the subject. Few subjects are inherently notable. For Vanguards Die-cast to be included we would need to see the above criteria are met.


 * Now, about alternatives to deletion. If the deletion discussion decides that the topic is not notable, there will be no alternatives to deletion. However, the content can still be saved. You could copy it into your sandbox, for example. Your userspace, including your sandbox, will not be affected by deletion. I hope this helps a bit. My general advice would be to make absolutely sure a topic is notable before you start writing about it. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Bed hangings article rating
Hello. I see that you rated the bed hangings article I just created, and I wonder if I might ask you some questions about some of the items that are part of the rating, and an overall question. It has been rated as a C class article--what types of additions would be needed to move this to a higher rating? I am having trouble finding information about other countries' bed hangings, I know that is a lack. Are there other areas where more information is needed to enhance it and move it to a B class? I also wonder about the labels saying attention is needed to grammar and supporting materials. I don't believe there are grammatical errors, and finding 12 sources on bed hangings was, I thought, quite a feat. I would like to make sure the article is accessible, would you tell me what isn't so I can fix it? I am very serious about being a good Wikipedia editor, and would very much like to learn what I need to know. Thank you. TrudiJ (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reaching out. First of all, let me say that the article is already quite good. I believe you have already found the criteria at Content assessment. The referencing (criterion 1) is good throughout. I would have chosen a different referencing style with the pages contained in a footnote. But any style will do as long as it is internally consistent and clear. Coverage (Criterion 2) is also good. Yes, the article is anglo-centric but it'll work for B class. Structure (Criterion 3) needs some work. I have to main suggestions for improvement here: 1. The lead section should be two or three paragraphs long and summarise every section adequately. It should not be a section in its own right. Everything you say in the lead must also appear in the body of the article. At the moment your lead reads like a proper section. More at MOS:LEAD. 2. (a minor point) you might want to add sub headings in the longer section to facilitate navigation. Criteria 4 and 6 are okay, you might do more to meet criterion 5 (illustration). Bed hangings are a fairly visual topic so it would be appropriate to showcase more examples of it, if possible. All in all, not much work is needed to get this to B. I hope this helps. Once you get the article to B, you could try to nominate this for Good Article status. Feel free to reach out to me as much as want about the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: for examples of good lead sections, see these two articles (Denys Page and R. A. B. Mynors) which I brought to Good Article status this year. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This is extraordinarily helpful information! I really appreciate your detailed response and the examples of articles with good lead sections. I actually wasn't familiar with the detailed lists within each rating on the Content assessment, so I will make sure I familiarize myself with it. I will take you up on your kind offer to reach out to you again after I have strengthened the article. TrudiJ (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Later in the evening...I have followed your advice, and made the changes you suggested in the bed hangings article. I wonder if you might take another look at it and let me know if you notice any other problems with it? Thank you! TrudiJ (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done! The lead structure is now far improved. Though I would say that it is too detailed, especially the first paragraph. This one is particularly important because it should establish the subject's notability in a pithy way. The other slight issue is the alignment of your images. When there are several images in one article, it is common to "stagger" them left-right. You can have a look at Manual of Style/Images if you want.


 * These things are near trifles, so don't worry too much about them. Since the article is firmly in B class, I do recommend nominating it for Good Article status. Although this can be a bit of work, I find it's a great way to get one's good work recognised. Once you have nominated, you'll wait for a reviewer to come by (not me because I'm already involved). They'll check the article against the criteria and give you a list with issues, which you will need to fix. Instructions on how to nominate can be found here. I hope this is all useful. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Burgos trials
Hi, I just promoted your Burgos trials hook to Prep 1 for a December 28 special occasion appearance. I add the anniversary to the hook and also edited it this way:
 * ... that 50 years ago today, a military tribunal handed down six controversial death penalties to members of the ETA, a Basque separatist group?
 * Does this read all right to you? Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the hook is fine, many thanks for reserving it for the anniversary. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations! With 6,128 views, your National indifference hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Pretty strong showing for your third DYK submission. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for the message, but I'm not sure I'm the one who nominated that hook. I think it was . Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I'll remedy that straight away. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Adem Kastrati
Yes I just created the new page because it should also be in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wanting to add material from other languages to the English Wikipedia. I've tagged your new page for deletion because it is written as a promotion of its subject. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Adem Kastrati

 * Please sir, this should definitely be in English as well, because in 3 other languages ​​it is. For this I tried hard to do it, knowing that they also read to learn about the great painter adem kastrati. As well as please do not delete this page
 * Look, there are several problems with the article as it is now. The immediate problem is that it is clearly phrased in a way that speaks about the subject only in positive terms and which tries to promote its subject to the world at large. That's why I tagged the article for deletion. Otherwise, the article does not have a single source in it. Readers must be able to WP:VERIFY every bit of information. If an article does not have sources, it cannot not normally be included in Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Burgos trials
—valereee (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aetia (Callimachus)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aetia (Callimachus) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ImaginesTigers -- ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Phrygianics - album
Hello, The album "Phrygianics" shouldn't be deleted from wikipedia. It's an important album. It was recorded in the historical Blue note label. It's the first album of a Greek artist on the label.

With a roster of exceptional and famous musicians, it shouldn't be deleted. please thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by George5454 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the album needs to meet one of the criteria listed at WP:NALBUM. I believe it meets none of them. Of course, if you can demonstrate how exactly one of the criteria is met, I would be willing to listen. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aetia (Callimachus)
The article Aetia (Callimachus) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aetia (Callimachus) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ImaginesTigers -- ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much for the barnstar. It was quite unexpected! Modussiccandi (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and a question
Hi Modussiccandi,

Thank you for your tips and for looking over the Shilpa Ananth page! I had a question about another page I've worked on, which is currently a draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tali_Rubinstein). I was looking here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfC_sorting) and saw that it was given a class C rating, but it seems to be similar in quality to the Shilpa page. I haven't been able to find any discussion around this rating or to see what is recommended to improve it, do you have any ideas or suggestions?

Thanks again! Haveitall07 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haveitall07 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out. First of all, an overview of the different article classes can be found at Content assessment. For c-class, a certain degree of comprehensiveness is required. The page I linked describes start class articles as provid[ing] some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Most sections of Shilpa Ananth only provide a basic outline of her life and career. This is okay, of course, if the sources only give as much details. Draft:Tali Rubinstein simply seems to have more "content", though I'm not sure I'd give it a C if the draft were to move into the mainspace. I would worry about the ratings too much.


 * The most important thing at this stage is to base everything you write on reliable and independent sources. I've seen that this is not currently the case in your articles/drafts. Self-published sources such as YouTube and Spotify are neither reliable nor independent. If an article avoids the use of such sources, they are much more likely to give it a higher rating. In case you're not quite sure yet what exactly constitutes a reliable source, do check out RS and WP:IS. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: you can (and should) sign your post on talk pages by adding four tilde symbol (~) at the end. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (That's how I made this signature, too)


 * Gotcha, thanks for the links and the useful info! I went ahead and removed those sources from YouTube/Spotify, I'll refrain from using those going forward. Just to make sure I understand correctly - the Draft:Tali Rubinstein page could still be published even though it has a C rating? Haveitall07 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course! C is a higher rating than Start, which means it is deemed better than Shilpa Ananth. This would mean it is likelier to be published. However, I should stress that these ratings are really only set once a draft becomes an article and can easily be changed. By all mean, feel free to try and get the Tali Rubinstein draft published; someone else (not me) will have to review it because I feel I now have a conflict of interest because I've given you so much input for both articles. I hope you'll understand. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Mughal carpets
Thanks for the review of subject page. Best regards RV (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

no problem at all! Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Question on article Marco Zunno
Hai, I'm Ken. I saw you added the template of stub in the article, Marco Zunno. Would you elaborate how it's stub ? He played just played 4 matches throughout his career so according to that, all the information are given. Would you tell me ? Thanks. Regards Ken Tony (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * of course I can elaborate. The reason I set the rating to stub has nothing to do with the amount of matches played. These ratings are set on an absolute scale. This means that, even if Marco Zunno got the most out of the available sources, the article may still only be a stub. This is true for many other football players; and the same is true of your article Suresh Meitei: lots of info is given, but that does not automatically make an article more than a stub. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks for your valuable time. Regards, Ken Tony (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Socrates
Thank you. I deleted the draft and redirected it to Socrates. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:54th Venice Biennale has been nominated for deletion
Category:54th Venice Biennale has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 23:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Aetia (Callimachus)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the review of Outline of whisky. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy ::  talk  15:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Blackmon - Page Deletion Inquiry
Hello ~Mondussiccandi,

I see the Jimmy Blackmon page was nominated for speedy deletion under section G4 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. I recently went through an extensive round of edits from the initial page that was created back in early December, and had removed and/or reconfigured the areas of the page that the other Wiki editors pinned as inappropriate. Jimmy meets the notability standards for Bios/Military persons outlined by Wikipedia which I've reviewed in detail, and is mentioned by Marchjuly on 22:35, 11 December 2020. Can you advise whether this was nominated by mistake, or if intentionally, what components of the article are inappropriate/require further revisions and where/how I can get iterative input from Wiki reviewers so that I can ensure the final draft of the article meets the standards before publishing? RRM8993 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out. I became suspicious about the article on Jimmy Blackmon when I saw that a deletion discussion (Articles for deletion/Jimmy Blackmon) had recently taken place and determined that a previous version of the article did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I had a read through the discussion and found that most editors believed that the subject was not notable; this means that, without a substantial change in the availability of sources, there should not be an article on the subject. Yes, one editor in the discussion thought that the subject might might be notable after all. The editor also suggested that the article would have to be re-written from scratch with reliable sources, perhaps starting with a stub-length version first. The article I encountered clearly did not heed this consensus (it was based on a copy of the original article) and so I nominated for speedy deletion for re-creation of a deleted article (G3).


 * Since a consensus of Wikipedians thought that the topic was non-notable, I would say your best bet is to write a completely new article that sticks only to the most basic facts which can be verified by high-quality sources unrelated to the subject. A potential new article may, of course, still be deleted if the subject is still deemed to be non-notable. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: One more thing: I noticed you saying that Jimmy meets the notability standards for Bios/Military persons outlined by Wikipedia which I've reviewed in detail. Wikipedia does not quite work like this. Only the community at large can decide whether a topic meets or does not meet a notability guideline. So, please be aware that notability needs to be demonstrated by more than assertion (reliable and independent sources, for example) in order to convince other editors. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Request on 23:46:36, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Scanlonjd
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am seeking clarification on your comments on the page I created for my father, Draft:Thomas Joseph Scanlon

Hi:

Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Thomas Joseph Scanlon. Apologies, I am not sure how to respond to your comments -- I am still learning!

First, I wanted to be clear that I am writing about someone who is deceased, not living. My father died in 2015. When I created the page, I declared that I knew the person I was writing about.

Second, I wanted to point out that while I could have a COI, I have based the article either on the sources cited or on my father's unpublished memoirs.

Third, as is indicated in the third paragraph of the draft page, my father was recognized by the International Sociological Association's Research Committee on Disasters for his lifetime contribution to the study of disasters, among other recognitions.

Fourth, as indicated in the article, my father's book, Catastrophe: Stories and Lessons from the Halifax Explosion, was just published posthumously. This was the culmination of his life's work in disaster research, though he was also an accomplished professor of journalism.

Given the recognition he received, and given the recent book, I think (please let me know) he meets the requirement for a Wikipedia page, but should I edit out the details of his life that are extracted from his memoirs and only include information that is in the public domain?

I was under the impression I could submit a page about my father if I was objective. The information in the page I drafted is objective, though some it comes from his own unpublished memoirs, so I understand your concern.

Thanks for any and all feedback as I learn how to edit a Wikipedia page.

Sincerely,

scanlonjd

James David Scanlon (Dave)

Scanlonjd (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Before I say anything else, congratulations on getting the article published. Another editor,, helped fix some of the article's issues while I was absent. I think I should still address your original questions, in case you want to stick around to improve your father's article.


 * First, your conflict of interest: Wikipedia's general policy is to discourage all forms of COI editing. Yes, one could in theory write a COI article neutrally but experience has shown that most editors aren't away of the subtle ways in which they introduce bias into articles. For example, your article was way too long and contained unnecessary detail only a COI editor could introduce. To fully comply with guidelines, you'd have to place a box on your userpage declaring your COI. After that, you should try to refrain from editing your father's article directly. Instead, you can suggest changes on the article talk page or talk to other user's about them.


 * Onto sourcing. Broadly speaking, editors one Wikipedia should only use reliable, independent sources. By independent, we mean sources without a connection to the subject. Reliable, in this context, means those sources published professionally through a rigorous process of fact-checking. So, no, your father's memoirs aren't normally a good source for Wikipedia. BUT your father is considered notable because of his career accomplishments and therefore it is in order to source information about him from reliable, but non-independent sources.


 * I hope this helps a bit. If you want to stick around, do read WP:N, WP:RS and WP:IS. These pages are a longer version of my second paragraph. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Judith Weinshall Liberman
Hello! Your submission of Judith Weinshall Liberman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Chiquet Mawet
Hello I disagree with you draftification of Chiquet Mawet. You motivated the move with " BLP without sources". Neither is correct: it was a translation in progress of Chiquet Mawet which has plenty of sources and it was not a BLP, because Mawet died over 20 years ago. Please revert. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me. My apologies for thinking that this was a BLP. I just saw in the page history that this was indeed an ongoing translation. I will restore this to the mainspace. While it's on me that I didn't check the page history, I'd have expected a template saying that the article is still in the process of assembly. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you very much! Happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A page i created was tag by you for Speed Deletion
Hello Modussiccandi, Please i will request if you can reconsider your deletion tag and also help improve it, because i have rewrite the page and correct every violation, i carefully followed all Wikipedia guidelines, the page Seth Santiago O Roberts doesn't promote, advertise a person or brand rather simple biography of a person so it is not ambiguous. i look forward to your consideration Emmaolisa (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, by now an administrator has reviewed the article and decided it should be deleted. But I would not have reconsidered even if I could have. Yes, the article did not look like and advertisement but it contained language so laudatory of its subject that two people (I and the deleting admin) felt it was promotional. Should you want to start another article, my advise would be to force yourself to write in a neutral manner (not in a positive one): only describe the facts and do not use overly positive adjectives ("great", "exceptional" etc.). Also, you need to avoid first person pronouns (I, me, my). They are a good sign that someone is writing in a non-neutral way. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ewan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penrith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the review. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: t | c | a  11:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, the article looked rather splendid. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick Question - Mutant Hunt (1987)
Hey Modussiccandi,

I had another edit page open for a similar type page when creating this one Mutant Hunt (1987)and I thought for sure I was doing it correctly. I did make some adjustments to my references and external links. I edited the info so it would show up with more description than just the link. As for the sources a lot of the movies I am trying to get added on here are very B rated type horror movie links and are not mentioned by any real creditable sources like magazines, newspaper outlets etc. A lot of them are covered by everyday people on their own personal sites. Is it not ok to use them as a source and reference? I really want to get this understanding down as I would like to contribute more in the future. I can assure you it is not my intent to incorrectly add pages, articles, and media. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. SeanRMull (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out; it's nice to see that you want to contribute to Wikipedia long term. In general, only subjects that are deemed notable can be included on Wikipedia. To be notable, the subject needs to have received substantial coverage in two or more reliable and independent sources. By reliable, we mean professionally published, e.g. a national newspaper or a major publishing house. (To answer your question: no, sources published by 'everyday people' are not helpful for Wikipedia articles.) This requirement is called the General Notability Guideline, you will find more about it at WP:GNG. If the film you're interested in does not have coverage in such sources, it does meet the guidelines. However, there is another way for films to be considered notable. That is, if they meet the specific guidelines set out at WP:NFO. There are several criteria but what they all boil down to is that the film needs to be somehow more significant than the level of coverage suggests. If the film does not meet any of the criteria listed at the above link, an article should not be written about it. I realise this may seem discouraging but I hope you now have a better idea of what can and what cannot be included in Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to come to me with other questions if you have them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)



So the movies in question was made by Full Moon Feature and definitely can be a good addition to wikipedia. It is not a movie that I shot in my backyard(though it damn well could've been) that I am trying to upload as I know that would not warrant a page. I feel as though I have seen movies uploaded with less. Like I mentioned I used other movies from the same production company even, edit pages to make sure I could mirror it as closely as possible in regards to what and how to reference. I will keep digging through those articles you mentioned until I get a hang of this! Like I said I would really like to become an avid contributor in the Cheesy B rated horror movie section of wikipedia! SeanRMull (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Modussiccandi
I am new to publishing and wanted to reach out to see how to stop my article from being deleted. I wanted to publish this post because I saw that similar companies have pages similar to that of The Graduate Network. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalentEgg) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Network). So what can I do to stop this article from being deleted?

All the best,

Luke Cambridgehistory (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reaching out. The reason I proposed your article for deletion was that it did not seem to meet our standards for notability. To be notable, a subject needs to have received substantial coverage in two or more reliable and independent sources. By reliable, we mean professionally published, e.g. a national newspaper or a major publishing house. This requirement is called the General Notability Guideline, you will find more about it at WP:GNG. The sources you provided fall foul of this guideline because none of them complies with all three of the above criteria (substantial, independent, reliable). If a topic does not meet these criteria, an article on it is liable to be deleted via a deletion discussion.


 * The only thing that can be done to save an article from deletion is to show beyond doubt that the requirement described above is met. In other words, you'd need to find professional sources (such as mainstream national newspapers, e.g. The New York Times) that describe the subject in depth. Now, I understand that it is possible to find on Wikipedia articles that do not abide by these rules. But that may just be because guidelines aren't enforced uniformly across the board or nobody has made an effort to delete. In general, your best best is to find a topic that meets our General Notability Guideline.


 * Another thing which I'd like to bring to your attention is our position on conflicts of interest. If you are in any way connected to the subject (founder, employee, investor, family member etc.), you are strongly advised to refrain from editing the page in question. Please read WP:COI for more information on this topic. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and helpful review
The title says it all. I just wanted to offer a few words of appreciation for your warm and quick review of Shūkan Bunshun. Best Shoukanai (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Keep up the good work. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Victor Spinski
The Victor Spinski draft has been updated and is ready for review. Thank you for your direction in revising the initial version of the entry. Matthew.kowal (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm currently waiting for the copvyio text to be erased from the article history. I'll have a look once an admin has attended to this. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Four Ds
—valereee (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Judith Weinshall Liberman
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Leipzig school (painting)
Hi, I just added sources for the article "Leipzig school (painting)". Can you maybe check it again? I think it's fine now. Thank you! All the best --KaylaWard (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the problems with the article. I'll have a look at it now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , there are some serious issues with close paraphrasing. Copyvio detection tools don't work on translated text, but even if you don't speak German it ought to be easy to spot. I'd rather not nominate the article for deletion, but if I remove the copyvio, very little will be left. sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you need to rewrite the article in your own words.
 * Looking at this a bit closer, it may be a circular reference. The cited text might be a copy of the German article. Vexations (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for raising this. I do indeed speak German and I'd say that 's text is a translation of the German article in need of improvement. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Though, now that I've gone back to the sources from the German article, I have discovered some more problematic bits of text. Your original point might be valid after all.Modussiccandi (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Luiz Americano
Wow, that was a fast review and addition of a talk page to Luiz Americano! Many thanks.--MerielGJones (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. There's a queue where all new articles appear automatically. The newer an article is, the higher it'll be up the queue. Your article was near the top when I loaded the page. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Thebaid (Latin poem)
 * added links pointing to Juno, Etruscan, Thebes, Episodic and Diana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ted Staunton speedy deletion
I contested the speedy deletion tag. Put details in there. Hopefully the explanations are interpreted individually and as a whole. This is something I'm practicing with and I don't want to find my labours dumped on, please be kind, I would appreciate feedback. Thank you. Tomacpace (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I say anything else, please note that your work isn't being 'dumped on'; Wikipedia has an internal curation process and there is always a possibility that pages may be deleted. I have now repealed the speedy deletion tag because I believe your assertion that the page is not identical to the one that was deleted. There are still problems with the article because of which it might still end up being deleted. Your main issue is the quality of sourcing. The following three things are needed: published sources with no connection to the subject covering his life and career in some depth. (Note how that exclude things the subject wrote himself.) Let me give you an example of why I think most of the sources used do not qualify for this. The article in The New Yorker is from a really good source, but it still doesn't help determining whether Staunton should be included on Wikipedia. That's because the New Yorker article does not mention him in depth. All three of the above criteria need to be met. You may want read Notability for more info. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'm hearing, from what you're saying, the quality of sourcing seems to be dependent (primarily) on a name-brand of a source, which is a concern to me. The New Yorker, in this case, is only minimally supporting to the content of the article as a whole, while other content such as the references to the 150 year old reader's magazine and the publishers journal, and the diversity of the sources all-told, are high quality in own right to any one who has any practical interest in using the notes for what they're there for.  Some particular name brands perhaps tumble a bit on a scale of recognition (a sourcing measure I don't personally subscribe to). The Bibliography is based mostly on GoodReads with many independent reviews all over the map. I fail to see how that would be any less than a highest-quality reference source; I have recently seen a Sunday Times UK article placed in another page, and while that might carry name-brand recognition, the value of the Sunday Times writer itself is written as if it's hack highschool assignment.  I need a better handle on this.  I appreciate the dialog, this is how a person figures the grey area out. Tomacpace (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Soft Deletion: The Graduate Network
Hi Modussiccandi,

Gratias agimus tibi! Thank you for your suggestions re Soft Deletion, I will make edits to the article accordingly. All the best

Cambridgehistory (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Modussiccandi, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AModussiccandi added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gate of Cyrus
Modussiccandi can you wait please? can you help me make the page complete, reliable, and acceptable the site was found only a few days ago and I have no idea how to make the page good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamran Tetra (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, your article isn't gone, it's just been turned into a draft at Draft:Gate of Cyrus. A good start to improving the article would be to extract the information in the source you linked in your own words. Once you've done that, look for other sources on your subject and extract info from them. Don't feel pressured to complete your draft in one day, you can take all the time you need but I couldn't leave it published the way it was. More information about writing an article gan be found at Help:Your first article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of François Guyet
Hello. Please see the nomination page. Moonraker (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

House of Talovac
Dear friend, could you, please, tell me how many inline citations should be in this article to be sufficient. Because there are a lot of articles with only two or three ones. And could you explain what do you mean by "more precise citations"? Thank you. -- Silve ''' rije 22:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course: In general, one should aim to back up every claim made in the text by a footnote. At the very least, every paragraph should have one citations telling readers where the information is from. The "Family history" section has almost no such citations. By 'more precise' I mean references that tells readers the exact place where a piece of information was taken from (for example, which page in a book). I'll give you an example. I found the following extract in the article The members of the family who lived in Slavonia began to call themselves Banić (Hungarian Bánffy) in the second half of the 15th century, as they were sons of Ban. Now, it's hard to find where that info came from because it doesn't have a precise reference associated with it. I hope this helps. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll try to do my best to fulfill these requirements. -- Silve ''' rije 16:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Small thanks to you
Wow, thank you very much! This is very kind of you. Good work on the Hypericum sechmenii article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of G. E. L. Owen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article G. E. L. Owen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StraussInTheHouse -- StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of G. E. L. Owen
The article G. E. L. Owen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:G. E. L. Owen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StraussInTheHouse -- StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)