User talk:Nosebagbear/Archive 2

Lady of Fatima Church, Krishnagiri
I got you proposal about this page delation. I pull all information from the church artical. I wanted to be in wikipedia so people from all other world cam view this information. I promise I will improve allot and makes this page usefull for the church followers. this is my church I am leaving this this town. Around 400-500 families are member of this church.

Hello? Can you answer me, please?
Hello Nosebagbear, I need you to block an user for vandalism. Please, answer me as fast as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco el estudiante (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

- hi, sorry you caught me shortly after I logged off. Hopefully you have resolved the issue in the meantime.

If not, then let me know and I'll have a look.

The key bit is that I cannot block people as I am not an admin. If non-admins see action they think should lead to someone being blocked then either a) Find an admin and ask them or post directly onto Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However directly posting onto ANI is quite tricky (there are a number of strict procedural and evidentiary rules buried in it).

I'd suggest either asking another user (like you did with me) or, by first preference, find an admin (the people that finish discussions on ANI in the white boxes are generally admins).

Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your most recent edit
I agree with your edit, but It has some dubious sources. --Barstern (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

, Hi - could you confirm which article. I just want to check my "most recent edit" is the one about Matt or whether it was one in the couple before then. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Matt. The outcome of this edit is as if a deipnosophist has written it. --Barstern (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Must admit I'm not quite sure how a learned conversationalist would edit, but in any case there are other edits I could use if you'd prefer. Both are primary sources, of course. Use of the Saracens post seemed reasonable for such basic info, but the RPA probably should have had a secondary source. In any case, I've updated both to use secondary sources. Please let me know if that seems fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

IRC
Saw you had a question on IRC, you left before I could answer (be patient next time!). Primefac (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - fire alarm went off! But thank you for coming and finding me here - I've dropped the query on helpdesk, I might go back to IRC if I conclude my dinner without any more dramatics :S

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edit on Kenneth Pinyan
Hi! This was indeed vandalism and I'm glad you reverted it. Also note that it's not WP:BLP as Kenneth Pinyan died in 2005. BLP can apply to the recently dead Biographies_of_living_persons (up to 2 years after death or so) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for that - clearly read the year too quickly. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Graveyard
If you cannot see any redeeming value then that says more about you than me, sorry. We're not here to sing Kumbaya. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

East Bay Community Energy
Hello,

I made some edits to URls to be anti-original sources. I would appreciate a second look. Please advise. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCirclepoint (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

- Hi. I've had a look - the only edit I can see is the removal of a duplicate section header that was appearing below the refs. This should have gone, so that's a plus, but nothing has shown up yet that has altered any of the URLs.

As far as I know we both are editing the only draft, so it's not as if it has to update from anywhere.

Can you specify exactly what changes you think have (or should have) happened? Cheers. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

- Well, originally, I had original sources, but went it and got secondary/independent sources from smaller media, etc - Things like the Implementation Plan aren't mentioned anywhere else - So I thought providing the plan itself was best. If you can advise on which sentences may need a different source, I am more than happy to make those edits. Thanks!

- the only edit after my comment I can see on the draft is, which doesn't have any source changes. Could you send me a link or link me to the article and tell me exactly when you made those edits? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

- I'm sorry I don't have a link or know how to retrieve that. When I first made the draft, I had poor source from the company's own website, but I went in and fixed them to outside sources. Does that come through on your end when you review?

- have you clicked that diff (the 1 in a box in my previous comment). That shows the only change you've made (that I can see) - it is titled "minor URL changes", but doesn't seem to actually change any URLs. ? Are you positive Draft:East Bay Community Energy is the version you are editing?

- Yes, I see that now. I've gone in and made URL changes to a few sources. Hoping you can take a look and approve please for [Draft:East Bay Community Energy]] Thanks!

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

On Ujjawal Krishnam
I strongly believe that the mentioned article must not be abruptly deleted but should be improved by gathering other references. Do take part in discussion on AfD and keep your point. Thanks. Obliged. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello Nosebagbear: You have objected to edits on the Michele Dauber page and claimed they might be defamatory - can you specify how? For example, explaining that a 501c3 organization is not allowed to be partisan = how is that defamatory? Or, quoting Dauber's own words in which she says she saw the Emily Doe statement before the media - and helped distribute it to the media - how is that defamatory? And finally, the letter written by Harvard Law professors saying "The Hunting Ground" movie was misleading as to Brandon Winston - how is that defamatory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Michele Dauber bio article
Hello,

You removed relevant easily sourced information on Michele Dauber under the claim it was defamatory. I would like to get an explanation from you of what was defamatory and why, in regards to the following points:

1. The movie "The Hunting Ground" - are you aware of the 19 Harvard Law Professors claiming it was misleading in regards to the accusations of Kamilah WIllngham against Brandon Winston? If not, please tell me how to include footnotes and I will put them in, the letter can be accessed online.

Also, the claim Kamilah Willingham was the featured speaker at the first big Recall Persky rally is easily verified, that video is also on YouTube.

2. Michele Dauber's interview with Democracy Now is the source for her admission she saw the famous Emily Doe letter before the public saw it, and that she sent it out to media outlets with the help of one of the makers of "The Hunting Ground"  - this interview is on YouTube - hard for me to see how accurately repeating anything Dauber said in that interview can possibly be defamatory.

In regards to that interview, also Dauber claims "Emily Doe" was "gravely injured" Being "gravely" injured means you are almost killed - in fact, many people who are gravely injured soon die. Police reports online do not back up this claim at all - in fact, they say she has no apparent injuries - and Emily Doe's own statements to the police the next day indicate she was not injured at all, in any way she could detect. The police reports and Emily Doe's statement are in the LA Times People v. Turner documents online = if you can show me the way to put in a proper citation I would like to include them also.

I am not going to argue every point of what the biographies of living persons rules are but these very easily cited facts - which you can all verify yourself in a couple of minutes - support inclusion as best I can see.

Do you have any objection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes Response
Hello Nosebagbear: You have objected to edits on the Michele Dauber page and claimed they might be defamatory - can you specify how? For example, explaining that a 501c3 organization is not allowed to be partisan = how is that defamatory? Or, quoting Dauber's own words in which she says she saw the Emily Doe statement before the media - and helped distribute it to the media - how is that defamatory? And finally, the letter written by Harvard Law professors saying "The Hunting Ground" movie was misleading as to Brandon Winston - how is that defamatory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110 - I've moved your query into its own section. ((PLEASE NOTE - edit clash, this was written after your first post, I'll adapt it to the remainder in a minute))

In response to your question I'm a little confused. Your pending edit was, as far as I can tell, the following:

"According to online reports, Michele Dauber and her husband Ken Dauber accused Michele's older brother of sexual assaulting Michele's daughter  Amanda Dauber at about the age of 5 or 6.  Amanda Dauber committed suicide much later, as a young adult."

That's an issue because it both indicates that others might have committed sexual assault and that Michele and Ken had accused them of it - both BLP issues. The pending changes didn't indicate any other pending edits wrapped into the change, so afaik it was just those three lines or so

Is your bit about requirements on 501c3 organisation or other aspects in your message that I don't understand. The rest of the content wasn't at issue.

Additionally, when it comes to detail about living persons, even if you have a good source it needs to actually be included with the paragraph for it to count as appropriately referenced.

Please respond if that either helps or doesn't help so I can help figure it out. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria
Hello Nosebagbear, thank you for your comments in this AfD discussion. Just a quick note, that a parallel discussion is currently about Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria. I am not sure, that me starting 2 separate nominations was the best idea to begin with, but it's a bit too late for this insight :). Additional feedback in either or both discussions is always appreciated. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, separation or joining of topics in AfDs is always one for dispute Nosebagbear (talk)

Gun culture in the United States
Hello, I'm MC (141.131.2.3). I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gun culture in the United States have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.


 * I'll leave it here for now so anyone coming along can understand my response, but 141.131.2.3, dropping a vandalism template on someone who reverted one of your edits - even if it had been done incorrectly - is poor behaviour. If you have a problem with my reversion and warning (NPOV) please do drop me a message - I'll gladly respond and generally do so rapidly. Template warning is both inappropriate and certainly doesn't help anyone.


 * Nosebagbear (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nosebagbear, as you're already aware, my reply can be found here. Best wishes. Coryphantha   Talk  21:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Rees-Mogg
Just to let you know after recent vandalism, which you reverted on Jacob Rees-Mogg I have made a successful request for indefinite semi-protection on that page.  ImprovedWikiImprovment    ( disputationem ) 20:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well Bronzed Spring, I don't like stopping on clear vandalism so that would somewhat defeat the purpose. You're welcome to take to the barnstar if you like, but I'll leave it here for the moment. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
- many thanks, first time for me on the other side. I was wondering if someone had made a falsely accused barnstar/award I could drop on yours once it was done, I'll have a look once this wonderful case has been dealt with. Currently finished my first checkuser request on two accounts, plus a vandal accusing me of being a bot to mildly delay his account deletion, so it's been a busy evening! :S


 * Thank you for your words, I look forward to my first barn star. As a novice vandal fighter, it's actually my second time, although the first was simply a misunderstanding that I did own up to. It's not my intention to "edit war" and this situation did appear to get more heated than it should have, possibly because it took so long for the user to get a response. In any event, the topic is divisive enough without introducing NPOV language. I'm sure that page has gotten and will get a lot of vandalism considered the heated emotions on both sides. As with all WP pages, it is best to remain neutral. Keep up the fight against vandalism, it isn't easy and I've seen some doozies. It just never seems to end. Best wishes. Coryphantha   Talk  21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

the first AFD is still open so the second one is in error
Please move your comment to Articles_for_deletion/Meddy since Articles for deletion/Meddy (2nd nomination) is invalid.  D r e a m Focus  20:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Have done so - I saw it in its interim stage, and I assumed the original one had been No-consensed with a quick follow-up afd. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Rev Jen Miller
Hi, I edited Rev Jen Miller's page to include that she is an avid wig wearer and collector. I'm friends with her and can vouch for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:703:8F3:D4F4:12E8:9E02:EB05 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi 2601:42:703:8F3:D4F4:12E8:9E02:EB05 - with a living person any unlikely statement needs an actual written source. You might be friends with her, but I've no way of verifying that - I could just as easily claim to be friends and say she hates them. The page has been protected for now, so changes will be pending until authorised.


 * Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Nosebagbear. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANosebagbear enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Jason Lewis
How does quoting someone verbatim (see the cite) violate a policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.124.101 (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The content of the paragraph wouldn't be wrong to include, though be extremely careful that every word written is within the CNN source, since defamation is one of things wiki gets grumpiest about.

The issue here is the header - it doesn't match wikipedia's tone requirements, it also doesn't actually explain what it is when you see it (it just looks like a random viewer-insulting line on its own). For example you can go to (as an example) Adolf Hitler's page and the sub-headers are clear indications of the type of content that will be found, rather than actually stating it in a confusing fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Profimetrics (July 19)
Hi! Thank you for reviewing my submission, but i am a bit confused with the concept of notability when comparing my subject with other similar ones. for instance: why is this company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revionics) an article and mine is not? I beleive my references are far more credible than this ones. I don't get the double standard.. thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmfernandes (talk • contribs) 11:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)




 * Hi there,


 * Thanks for getting in touch.


 * So a couple of things apply here. One is that Corporate notability rules were amended reasonably recently (as in, within the last couple of years) and they became significantly stricter.


 * In response to your specific question on double standard, it's a common query in wiki, not unreasonably. The traditional response is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - in effect, the fact that one thing has an article (or doesn't), doesn't waive an independent judgement of notability on another article. It is a necessary rule otherwise the notability rules would either got constantly stricter or constantly relaxed as people used different examples as justification.


 * If your article had very similar sources and I felt Revionics did satisfy the rules then you could potentially use it as a precedent, but I wouldn't have passed it had I been handling new pages/drafts back then. (It could be proposed for deletion if its sources, both onwiki and elsewhere are viewed to be poor enough)
 * Nosebagbear (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Model United Nations article - have a barnstar!
Thanks a bunch for cleaning up the Model UN article and removing all the promo! :) Hentheden (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Edwin Clark University is for profit.Barolove (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting issues
What formatting issues do you mean? I'm happy to help fix things if Twinkle's gone and crapped all over some transclusion or other, but I'm not sure what your note is referring to. Yunshui 雲 水 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui, Hi, if you go to today's AfDs, then as point 3 it goes "Comment" and then everything becomes a sub-point below then. I flicked through the last edits and it looks like it started when yours did. Obviously beyond Twinkle having a snarl up, there are a couple of other possibilities - the viewing error is on my end, or I'm misreading the error cause, both are certainly possible.

If you can have a look and let me know, at least that would eliminated the first of those.

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That was an issue with the AFD above mine, now fixed. Yunshui 雲 水 12:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake - apologies. I'll delete the commment on the post, since it serves no purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries - already done. Yunshui 雲 水 12:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

CAN Capital page
Hi Nosebagbear, appreciate you taking a look at the CAN Capital submission. You mentioned in your comment that you didn't think the page was written in a neutral POV, so wanted to clarify exactly what you mean so that I can improve the page before resubmitting. I should also mention here, as I disclose on my User page and in the Talk page for CAN Capital, that I do have a COI but am committed to working within Wikipedia's guidelines. Any guidance you can provide here would be much appreciated. Thank you. DI-prosek DI-prosek (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Starting with the intro summary, the only parts I see that could be NPOV are the references to CAN Capital being "one of the first" and "one of the largest" firms in small business financing. However, both statements are clearly backed up by the sources and I feel also key to establishing notability for the article itself. No?
 * The History section is entirely factual and even includes a large section ("In November 2016") that is a quite negative part of the firm's history. Would hope that provides some balance in terms of POV.
 * I see your point on the Criticism section. However I would point out that the sources used (all of which come from reputable publications like Bloomberg, PBS and CNN) do in fact back up the text. The PBS headline is pretty clear - "Small businesses increasingly turn to online lenders when banks fail". In terms of POV, the criticism is leveled at the alternative finance sector as a whole rather than CAN Capital specifically, so I'm not sure how that text benefits or hurts CAN Capital (i.e., it's neutral). However, if you feel the page would be improved by simply deleting the Criticism section then I am open to that.


 * Hi,, thanks for getting in touch.


 * Firstly a more general point - your article can be entirely factual, and well-sourced, and still fail a neutral-POV. Obviously this comes from if either material is drawn selectively from sources, or you just happen to pick more positively minded sources (this can be done accidentally, depending on your search terms).


 * Next up - the intro is fine, unless you were writing a significantly more major article I don't think there is any need to alter it.


 * I did spot that part of the history section, which made it a bit more balanced. It did have its negative characteristic that it was fairly vague, which is its own complaint. The WSJ looks to have a bit more detail on it, so that could be clarified.


 * The criticism section is the biggest case for "I'm not saying it's not true, I'm challenging its neutrality". So firstly I'd note that while it is certainly worthwhile considering the industry-wide controversies, issues obviously do arise that are company oriented. If you didn't want to expand the history section above you could just as well include it here. Secondly, while including content in how a controversy was mitigated, or otherwise not that bad, as I noted before, having a 1/3 content comes across as if you are including it in a pro-forma fashion rather than actually attempting to balance the article.


 * As Jytdog noted on the talk page, the article actually reads better if you raise the various challenges the company has faced and the actions taken to resolve them.

Nosebagbear (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ThePrint
Dear Nosebagbear, Thanks for taking time to go through Draft:ThePrint. I respect your precious feedback that you made on the draft. I have improved the draft by adding more information about the topic and have also added Criticism and Controversy's section and resubmitted it. Requesting you to review the draft again if it now meets Wikipedia submission guidelines and help me out to approve it. Please feel free to make the change if required. Thanks a ton. 49.33.249.154 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!
for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Cathedral, Pazhanji

- Cheers! Usually its only things that trigger a large ILIKEIT wave that go so many non-justified votes, god knows why this cathedral has acquired so many. Not having ever actually drunk bubble tea, I now feel obliged to go acquire some to suitably appreciate your gift :S Nosebagbear (talk)
 * Well I guess, "God knows! " :D :D . Jokes apart, I feel some AfD contributors take the claims of these churches on their face value without digging deeper. There are many notable churches in this area. And hence stiff competition among them as well, to gain max supporters and thereby more cash. Often leads them to indulge in ooutright shocking conducts to beguile innocent illiterates.
 * Yeah good luck, it is certainly refreshing, if made well. Hope you like it. Also do try the Indian Lassi if ever you get a chance. -- D Big X ray  10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 D Big X ray  09:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience
Nice observation at the AfD.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem, always a pleasure to close a straight keep where the !votes actually have some good justifications Nosebagbear (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hi Nosebagbear. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages 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 encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new 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 may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong.
 * 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.

Follow-on
Hi 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110

Having read through your second edit, I think my penultimate paragraph is probably the source of disagreement - an inline source was needed, though it sounds like that shouldn't be too hard. If you can send me a link to the ref (or, if possible, a news article talking about the interview) then I'm happy to add the paragraph, with an inline ref, in for you - if you'd like?

Yours,

Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)