User talk:Modussiccandi/Archive 5

ISO 18404:2015
RE: deleted page ISO 18404:2015 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:SystemicPeter, also on Commons)

I am unsure why my page on ISO 18404 has been deleted and this is not the first time. ISO is an international body of expects and ISO 18404 was approved by various sub-bodies across the world. Any company or organisation can achieve certification, and any consultancy and training body can teach and assess them for certification. All they can to do is register with the scheme owners and purchase the standard from a number of standards bodies. It is no different to many other ISO standards e.g. 9001.So why has it been removed again?
 * thank you for reaching out. The deletion of your article has nothing to do with the subject of the article itself. Rather, your article was deleted because we (the deleting administrator and I) felt that it was phrased like an advertisement. Wikipedia tries to cover its subject in a neutral way using preferably reliable third-party sources. If an article is not written in a detached, encyclopaedic fashion, it runs the risk of being deleted. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential edit warring at salad dressing article
It appears you are beginning to wage an edit war at the salad dressing article. You should certainly know better than that.

As I have explained there and at my own talk page, I merely copied that image from Wikimedia Commons. If you don’t like it, take it to Talk, and go delete the image there yourself. But do not leave attacking and threatening messages on my talk page, or persist in this edit war. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * let me say this: the image in the article is fine. I don't know why you keep referring to it. The article had a copyright violation in the text which I dealt with. It is standard procedure at NPP and AfC to post this message on editor's talk pages if they inserted the respective content. For now, I have decided to disengage on the page itself since both of us have reverted once. The matter has been referred to an admin. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

As I indicated on my talk page, the template you posted at the salad dressing article, and the one at my talk page, are both opaque, and do not clearly indicate what the beef was. Further, as I also indicated at my talk page, I did not initiate that content or copy it from anywhere else other than an existing page at Wikipedia, from which it was relocated along with the rest the text of that page (prior to further edits).

This is a whole lot of hullabaloo over something very minor, which I have no idea how came to your urgent attention. The copy had preexisted at the salad page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much. Look, we need to delete copyright violations whenever we see them. I was patrolling new pages and followed the standard procedures. I now understand that it wasn't you who initially introduced the violation. This problem could have been avoided if the original violation had been detected before you'd moved it into a new article. I apologise for the message on your talk page; please understand that we deal with copyright violations a lot and this is a template used in combating them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I assumed you were on new page patrol, by how things panned out. Isn’t there a tool where one can locate a passage of text and determine when it was introduced and by whom? I would swear I have seen it in the past, but I’ve seen 1 million things behind the scenes at Wikipedia, far, far too many to remember.

I apologize for getting my quills up, but both templates are opaque. And, obviously, the alerting (and rather harrowing sounding) one at the talk page user talk page would not be necessary if that user was not the one responsible for the offending con tent. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. My response was interrupted and prematurely published by a bug in the smart phone interface. I just went to make a simple editing change, and the moment I tried to insert the cursor into the text my response auto published as is. Oh well, all the critical points have been made by both sides, apologies issued, and so far at least on this end accepted. Here is to a more amicable meeting next time. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk)
 * thank you very much for these words. Apologies happily accepted. Those templates are intended to scare off vandals and unconstructive editors. I should have recognised that you were neither. There is an essay (Don't template the regulars) whose message I should have kept in mind. Happy editing from now on. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Very generous of you. Yes, that sounds like a useful template. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

당신을 위한 반스타!
Thank you for this barnstar! It is very much appreciated. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Article Approval
Thank you for approving my article, I really appreciate it! I will continue trying to improve my submissions in the future and create articles for Wikipedia!

Nickazzemani (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Crowther Hurley
OK, I will work on it in draft space. Being a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science really does make you notable. It is equivalent to the Royal Society in UK. I thought that by starting it, I would attract others to work on it. Now it is hidden away and there only me to work on it. We increasingly make it more difficult for editors to work together. --Bduke (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that I'm doubting Andrew Crowther Hurley's notability? Your mistake was to include no sources. Without sources, even notable subjects are liable to be moved to the draftspace. If you want to know more about this, have a read through WP:V and WP:CITE. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The current Draft:Andrew Crowther Hurley has two sources which together cover all the material in the article, but I need to sort out using the sources to cover everything. The references are just put in random places for now. It needs more work, but here in Melbourne, Australia I am off to bed. Another issue is that he is known as Andrew Hurley, but that is another article. I know all about WP:V and WP:CITE. I was an admin for 13 years, but I resigned as I can not handle it at my age. I am 82. Bduke (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for telling me all this. Feel free to move the article back to the mainspace if you feel it's ready; I won't stand in its way. About the name, perhaps a disambiguated title could work? I should also apologise for my earlier message to you on here; I made the wrong inferences about you as an editor from the state of the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have submitted the Draft:Andrew Crowther Hurley through the normal process. Let us see what they make of it. I'm not the editor I used to be!! It could take months! --Bduke (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Aline Abboud
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cambridge Greek Lexicon
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Julia Mouce
Thank you for your feedback on the page I created -- I see what was meant by the citation and biography. I believe I have fixed those. Could you take a look at the adjustments I made to the page and let me know if it is up to muster? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Julia_Mouce

In terms of independent publications and significant coverage, with some exceptions, freediving as a sport/industry is almost exclusively covered by Deeper Blue. which also needs a page and I'm looking forward to covering that site. From looking at a few other freediving pages on wikipedia, I see that Deeper Blue has been often cited as an acceptable new outlet for freediving and diving related news.

I appreciate your help as I am a new editor so I'm looking for more feedback. If the writing needs to be more neutral, please let me know. I'm looking to learn. Especially because I plan on making many more pages for the freediving's most notable figures and industry definitions as there are many, many that are missing.

I'm currently in the works to make the Freediving competition records and wikipedia better for freediving and notable freediving figures. I've made some updates to and submitted another article (Constant Weight Bi-fins) as there was not page for this specific category of competitive freediving yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Constant_Weight_Bi-fins

I am not being paid to do this- just a passionate freediver and the topic is not well covered (even in wikipedia) so I am looking to help the sport/industry as a whole.
 * thanks for reaching out and trying to improve the draft article on Julia Mouce. The referencing is much better now though some gaps remain. (For example, what's the source for she was the first Argentinian woman on record to achieve those depths?) I would also try to remove all external links from the body of the text; there's a separate section for that. I will not now review your draft again since I'd prefer to leave it to a different editor with a fresh set of eyes. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

In Response: The source for her being the first women to achieve those depths is because that is what the definition of having a National Record is. I'm going to ask AIDA for records from their database- their website is not clear/poorly maintained but they are the officiating body for all AIDA national freediving records.

Thank you for your thanks. I removed all external links and am adding some categories. Could you clarify what you mean about the external links and there being a "separate section for that"?

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much for this barnstar; I appreciate it. What I wanted to say above is that there exists in some articles a section at the very end entitled "External links", where relevant links can be displayed (e.g. in this article). Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Aham Rochas
@Modussiccandi Thank you for taking time to review my draft Draft:Aham Rochas, and for offering specific critique as to how the article can be improved. having addressed the issues raised with regards to verifiability by adding references for his Cambridge degree and date of birth, I have humbly resubmitted the article while acknowledging a measure of bias in this issue. My work with the Rochas foundation does indeed predispose me to see things in a certain light, but having acknowledged my bias I resubmit based on the grounds that the subject of the proposed entry is indeed of note and the tone is from a WP:npov, and not promotional, having taken careful notice of WP:GNG the article does have the requisite coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject.

I would like to humbly request a re-review of the article while assuring you of my wholesome intent to contribute. Morayce (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for trying to improve the draft on Aham Rochas. I think it is best if a different reviewer were to have a look at your draft. You might have to wait a bit but eventually someone will re-evaluate the submission. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, warm regardsMorayce (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

L. D. Reynolds scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you! I didn't see this coming at all because I hadn't nominated the article at TFA. I have no objections to the blurb, so thank you for writing it as well. Have a great weekend, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for L. D. Reynolds, introduced: "I'm presenting you an article on the Welsh Latinist Leighton Durham Reynolds. Spending his entire career at Brasenose College, Oxford, Reynolds was a textual critic whose work revolutionised the study of Seneca's Letters. He also wrote the most successful general introduction to his field, a small book named Sribes and Scholars."! - I have a little song on the same page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again, in the context about my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of L. D. Reynolds
The Latin tutor I mentioned at Brasenose has suddenly made big progress with trying to locate photographs of L. D. Reynolds that you might be able to use. Specifically he is in indirect contact with Reynolds's daughter, and has managed to obtain copies (they look like mobile phone photographs of printed originals) of three colour photographs, which from the backgrounds appear to taken in Brasenose. He thinks that she owns the originals and that there is a reasonable chance that she would be prepared to release them for use on Wikipedia, but probably only if someone else does as much as possible of the admin work. If you're interested in following this up, and don't mind contact off wiki, could I ask you to email me at my Brasneose address and we can take things from there? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much indeed! You will receive an email from me via your Brasenose address. I forgot to tell you that the college archives weren't able to help me because the college didn't own the rights to the image after all. Now this sound like a splendid opportunity. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eduard Fraenkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin West.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Lea Ypi entry
Thanks for reviewing my first attempt at an entry for Lea Ypi. I have tried to strengthen it by adding references to reliable sources. Deltavictor (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have accepted the article just now. It would be ideal to add some third-party sources to the article (e.g. newspaper articles about her). Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

l. d. reynolds
hello, Modussiccandi! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is it appropriate to state that reynolds spent his entire career at brasenose college? both the blurb and the article lead seem to make this assertion.  however, reynolds appears to have spent the first years of his academic career at the queen's college, though i do not know if he simultaneously spent time at brasenose during those years.  also, the years reynolds served in the royal air force could arguably be considered part of his career, though perhaps not his academic career.  i am assuming that it may be more accurate to state that he spent his entire teaching career at brasenose, though i admittedly do not know enough about the subject matter to know if this qualification is necessary or appropriate.
 * to me, the use of the phrase "the works of the historian Sallust", in both the blurb and the article lead, suggests that reynolds wrote critical editions of all of the (extant) works of sallust. is this true?  the title of the publication by reynolds suggests that it only includes selected fragments of historiae, though if this includes virtually all extant fragments that can reasonably be analyzed, i think that would be complete enough.  admittedly, i do not know if my reading of the phrase is too strict, so feel free to ignore this point if you think it is.
 * was his main academic achievement the critical edition of letters, the associated monograph, or both? the article text seems to treat the two as one accomplishment published in two parts (and three volumes), while the blurb and article lead seem to treat the two separately, remarking in separate sentences that the former is considered the standard edition of letters, while the latter was the central accomplishment.  (also, i am assuming that the main achievement is the work rather than its publication.  if that is the case, perhaps something along the lines of "The central academic achievement of his career was his monograph The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters (1965)" would be more appropriate.)
 * by the way, i noticed your discussions regarding the use of a photo of reynolds, both during the review and in a section above on this talk page. has an appropriate photograph been located?  if so, i am hoping that, in addition to being featured in the infobox, it would also be appropriate for the blurb.
 * thank you for taking the time to read the article carefully. I will responds to you points individually below:
 * Re. reaching career: your observation is correct. He spent some time as a research fellow at Queen's College, Oxford. I believe the reason this inaccuracy has crept in is that we normally treat non-permanent positions as secondary. One example of this is the omission of such positions in the "Institutions" of the infobox. With that being said, I think it would be reasonable to add the word teaching to the article and the blurb to better reflect the content of article.
 * Re. Sallust: I believe the formulation is fine as it is. The Oxford Classical Tetxs series, together with Germany's Teubner series, is the world's leading publishing authority on Classical primary texts. Given that their stated aim is to publish the work of all main authors in antiquity, I think we should accept their judgement that the works of Sallust edited by Reynolds are all the educated public would ever want to read by this one author. So, while you're technically right, I think we would be unhelpfully pedantic if we made the phrasing of the relevant bit more precise.
 * Re. Seneca's Letters: yes, you are right to assume that the work itself, not any of the publications is his most important academic achievement. If you want to get into which of the two publications was more important, it would have to be The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters because it presented the scholarly groundwork that lead to the edition. I'm willing to take on your re-formulation of the relevant sentence, but I must say that the difference between 'publication' and 'monograph' strikes me as trifling.
 * Re. image: there has been some off-wiki activity to secure a free, high-quality image of Reynolds, but suspect the image will not be available in time to feature in the blurb.


 * I will make the changes adumbrated above. Thank you for your input. Happy editing and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * haha, yeah, i will readily admit that the point about the publishing was really trifling. i decided to bring it up because i had a question regarding that sentence anyway, and raised the point in a parenthetical to note that it really was not an important point.  also, i actually had no issue with the word "publication", and i apologize if i had suggested that i did.  using "his publication" (instead of "his monograph") would have addressed the issue as well, but i had suggested "monograph" to attempt to make it more clear that this work was distinct from the critical edition.anyway, your edits look good, Modussiccandi.  also, my suggestion for making the phrase re sallust more accurate would have been to simply drop the "the", but after reading your explanation, i agree that this is unnecessary.  thanks for the clarification and for addressing these issues!  dying (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Help! Page facing deletion!
Hello there, regarding this page I have created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_Mink_Press

For the alias behind it - Liam Howe (this was a request by himself), I was asked to create a Wikipedia page. Currently, the artist Ape Mink Press is very new and so sources for references at the moment are quite scarce. This page is vital for Liam right now, as he can edit this one instead of his main page Liam Howe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Howe

I see it faces deletion, PLEASE, I have added as much information readily available but in time it will increase, so then people can edit as much as they want. I am very new to this (only started two days ago), so forgive any unprofessional editing.

Many thanks, Curtis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis8516 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for reaching out about the article. First of all, please be aware that it is not-ideal that you've been asked by an involved party to write a Wikipedia article about their venture. Whether or not Liam Howe cares about this page is irrelevant to our project. You have what we call a conflict of interest. Editors with such conflicts should a) publicise this on their userpage and b) only submit their articles via the Articles for creation process, where you write a draft which will then get reviewed by an experienced editor. (This is were your article is now.) You may feel free to develop your article in the draftspace, but don't attempt to re-publish it yourself.


 * To prove that your topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia, you'll need to demonstrate that it is what we call notable. The best way to do that is by finding reliable, third-party sources that cover the subject in depth. Examples of this can include newspaper articles, book chapters, etc. If you cannot demonstrate that such sources exist, your subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia article. I hope this gives you some pointers as to what to do next. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eduard Fraenkel
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * already? I did not anticipate this. Thank you for reminding me and all the cheer that you bring to this community! Modussiccandi (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive
Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 108 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Heather Goodchild
Hi and thanks for your recent review the helpful feedback that accompanied it. Now that I read your comments, I just realised I'm an idiot, because there is another Toronto Star piece that covers her in depth (plus a more brief NPR source). I've added them both now, would you reconsider?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heather_Goodchild CT55555 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, I will have a look, but from what I saw the source looked good. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * it's my pleasure to have contributed to a worthy effort! Thanks you, too, for the cup of tea. Happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manuel_A._Mor%C3%A1n
Hi. I am wondering if you can flesh out a bit more why do you claim that "Much of the draft is unsourced". I find that claim to be baffling, for it is not accurate. Especially when we compare this biographical entry with -for example and a bit randomly- the Ralph Lee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lee) entry, the Joan Maynard entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Maynard_(preservationist), the John W. Cooper entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Cooper) or the Pedro Pietri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Pietri) entry. Among many many others. This article is well-sourced.

I have seen TONS of youtube and imdb sources in my years engaging with Wikipedia, but this is being made an issue here. In this specific instance we are talking about only one youtube source FROM A BONAFIDE news source (the channel for a solid news org, Notiséis360) that serves as witness to Dr. Morán work, and two imdb sources that can be easily removed. Yet, it doesn't strike me that the imdb sources are the main issue here. Those are easy to deal with. The article sources include El Nuevo Día (newspaper of record in Puerto Rico), UNIMA's official website and The NYTimes.

To conclude, when comparing with other bio entries this is as well or better sourced. But this is by itself solidly and carefully sourced by a phd and expert of the puppetry field. I wonder if the fact that a sizable portions of the sources are in Spanish is part of the issue?

The work of Dr. Morán is undeniably important; he is also a well-regarded member in and of the international puppetry community. These repeated and baffling declines are denying researchers and users the chance to find his contributions on Wikipedia.

Thanks, and happy holidays.

74.72.105.90 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Angel "Monxo" López Santiago, Ph.D. (curator of the exhibition Puppets of New York at the Museum of the City of New York)
 * Thank you for reaching out. I'm more than happy to elaborate on my comment on the draft page. What I meant by "unsourced" is that the draft fails to give the exact source for its content in some places. To give you one example, in the "Puppetry"-section it says: He holds a puppet collection that represents over 50 countries. There is not footnote, which means that readers cannot trace back where this claim is from. To my mind (and for the purposes of Wikipedia), the information is therefore unsourced. In light of this, you will understand that I'm surprised by your claim that the draft is "carefully sourced". I recommend that everything in the draft be thoroughly referenced before resubmission. On a different note, why would it be a problem that some of the sources are in Spanish? I'm a citizen of Spain myself and there are many other good editors on the English-language Wikipedia who speak the Spanish. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any more questions. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hola. Gracias por contestar. Entiendo lo que dices sobre esa oración en específico, pero a la misma vez siento que se está aplicando un estándar bien distinto a este artículo cuando lo comparo con muchos otros. Lo que me escribes suena como que tengo que citar sources tras cada oración, y obviamente ese no es el caso en la inmensa mayoría de entradas biográficas en Wikipedia. Miremos este ejemplo de Jim Henson, creador de los Muppets >>>

"Henson began developing puppets in high school. He created Sam and Friends (1955–1961), a short-form comedy television program, while he was a freshman at the University of Maryland, College Park in collaboration with Jane Nebel who was a senior. A few years later the two married. He graduated from the University of Maryland with a degree in home economics, after which he and Jane produced coffee advertisements and developed experimental films. In 1958, he co-founded Muppets, Inc. with Jane, which became The Jim Henson Company."

Como ves, no hay ni un solo source en ese párrafo entero; párrafo que tiene una serie de datos que bajo el criterio que indicas deberían todos estar sourced. Pero ahí está. Voy a tratar de source lo más que pueda, pero espero se nos trate con la misma vara que todos esos artículos que te cité. Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.105.90 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Gracias por tu mensaje. Admito que existen muchos artículos que no satisfacen los estándares oficiales de Wikipedia. Si tuviéramos el tiempo y los recursos, eliminaríamos ya esos artículos deformes. Todavía somos voluntarios y no podemos detectar todos los párrafos problemáticos. Te pido que no te dejes inspirar por aquellos ejemplos malos. Mires, por favor, mi articulo sobre el latinista R. A. B. Mynors — este articulo mío ha conseguido Featured Status (un título que se imparte a los artículos que ilustran todas las normas de la enciclopedia). Este es el estándar al que deberíamos aspirar (en un mundo ideal)... Muchos saludos y happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! I wish you and yours a merry Christmas, too! Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
Seasons greetings and thanks for the great work you've done this year. I'll be reviewing your latest GAN as soon as I've recovered from today's excesses. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * what a nice surprise! I'll look forward to it! All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eduard Fraenkel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eduard Fraenkel 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Nicholas Horsfall
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Eduard Fraenkel
The article Eduard Fraenkel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eduard Fraenkel 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year (and you can help me here...)
Hi Modussiccandi, best wishes for 2022, and well done with the Fraenkel article. If you want to help me a little, how are you on Anglo-Saxon kings? I'd like it if someone got the peer review for Edmund the Martyr off the ground, but will totally understand if you don't feel able to help. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * no problem! I'm not very well versed on Anglo-Saxon Britain, but I'm quite interested in medieval history more broadly. I'll be sure to comment on the PR sooner rather than later. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship
Thank you for being around, and your good wishes! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your RfA goes well! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for sharing these with me, Gerda. The way the RfA is going is actually a pleasant surprise; I had expected a very different experience. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Wehrle
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

from sherry howard. hi, I'm inserting info on Benjamin Britt from a Word Doc. Can you PLS PLS PLS wait until I'm finished to edit so I don't lose what i'm inputting. THANKS!!! Sherryleehoward (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * no problem (it's a nice topic, too)! But I can't promise that other editors won't meddle since your article is already published. You might want to work on unfinished articles in the draftspace. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Geoffrey Aori Mabea
I declined this for a G7 speedy deletion (actually it was prodded, but I read it as a G7 request by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know the correct process) largely on the grounds that you had been heavily editing the page. However, that's quite a marginal decision as your contributions can be taken as cleanup rather than substantive. So if you agree to deletion on that basis, I will go ahead with it. SpinningSpark 09:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * my edits were indeed only intended to be clean up. Please go ahead and delete the page if that is what the initial editor wants. I still think the subject might be notable, but perhaps it's better for an article to be written when there is more substantial third-party coverage. Anyway, thanks for giving me a heads up. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A new admin??
Great content! If I weren't namespace-banned, I'd support. I hope you pass. 🐔dat (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for your kind words. Your encouragement is much appreciated. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, though with 75 supports already I don't think you need another one. 🐔dat (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just in case, I've ordered you one of these. Good luck. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 05:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting re adminship
If you turn out to be a sock of a blocked editor I'll be very annoyed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * there is no need to be worried about that prospect; my nominators are aware of my off–wiki identity and would certainly provide reassurance. Thank you for supporting my candidacy. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it. And I'll expect you to remember that I cast the deciding vote ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Adminship
Wow, you're reaching as high as 118 votes right now. It's most likely you'll attain adminship. Congratulations! Severe storm  28  14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the encouragement, but I think it's too soon to congratulate. Let's hope that the RfA continues to go well. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well except something terribly were to go wrong, I see you passing this, so allow me be the first, (or am I the second?) to congratulate you in advance. In fact some editors have already asked that WP:AVALANCHE be evoked. Remember though, when you do get the admin toolset, as you promised when answering my question, please do remember to lend a helping handing in countering less than ethical practices(UPE) Congratulations once more. Celestina007 (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your kind words here and at the RfA page. I shall definitely keep this in mind. In the meantime, if you ever think I could be of help to you (including but not limited to UPE), do feel free to reach out. Thank you again and happy editing in the future, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do, Once again, congratulations in advance. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm calling it - congratulations on a successful run, thanks for putting yourself forward. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arggghh, I was hoping to be the first to hit them with an “I told you so” 😂. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Louie Coronel
I already added references in the education section Bearbear97 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you for that. I wrote you a talk page message saying that I clicked the 'review' button right after you added the references. You can simply re-submit the draft and someone will swiftly take a look at it, I'm sure. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Not one to pile on at Rfa, but seeing it does give me the chance to thankyou for your work, and wish you luck. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you will pass the RfA and become the first admins after 5 months. Thingofme (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RFA
I never seen an RFA go better than yours. Only 1 Neutral vote and no Oppose!!! Its really amazing. I would like to congratulate you before hand since maybe in an hour or two you will be a new administrator. So hearty congratulations to you. May you be one of the greatest administrators that this community would ever see. Regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your RFA
Primefac (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the first admin after 5 months! Thingofme (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * +1 Congratulations -- Megan B....  It’s all coming to me till the end of time  13:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hearty congratulations!  Java Hurricane  13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the unopposed RfA run! Welcome to the mop corps. Your gem-encrusted mop is currently on back-order, set to be delivered in Error-date unknown years. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and we all agreed ;) - Would you be willing to help WP:ITNN, looking at recent deaths to be promoted to the Main page? If yes, Spencer and PFLai might be trainers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * +1; Congrats on your unopposed RfA!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Felicitations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the administrator corps! --   LuK3      (Talk)   16:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and welcome aboard! I see you have already been given the traditional T-shirt. But there is some other admin bling you are now entitled to. You already have the userbox, but there is other stuff available; see User:MelanieN/Admin bling. Also, I gather that page protecting isn't on your to-do list right now, but there will be times when you see the need for it; in that case you might find User:MelanieN/Page protection to be helpful. I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)