User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 5

Help needed
Hello sir, Sir I would like to raise a friendly request to you to do the assessment about this article which I recently created Boss – Baap of Special Services, Firrkie, I M 24, Sab Kushal Mangal, Section 375, Sridevi Bungalow, ABCD – American Born Confused Desi. And also please check whether this article comply with WP:N, if they do not fulfill the criteria then please move this articles to draft space so that I work on it otherwise they would be deleted by any Wikipedia administrator. It would be a great help sir. AR.Dmg (talk)
 * Hey, I agree they probably need incubation. I've moved them to the draftspace per your request, the new titles can be found at User:StraussInTheHouse/Draftify log.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello sir,

Sir I request to you to do the assessment about the article which I recently created and as per my request you moved it to drafting space because they don't comply with Wikipedia policy. But I'm sorry would you revert your edits sir. I'm sorry to trouble you and wasting your valuable time. I can do it myself but I don't want to break Wikipedia policy and also the healthy conversation between the 2 of us. AR.Dmg (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem, you can move them back if you want to.    SITH   (talk)   18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Chairman
Hi, would you mind undoing your close? There's a consensus to move, and most of those being polled were choosing chairperson. I didn't, but I'm happy to do so, and in fact intended to go back and change that just as I saw your close. This may need more than one closer. SarahSV (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , reopened per request. As I’ve relisted twice and removed he closure to allow further consensus to be reached, I’ll abstain from closing it, but I doubt it’ll be relisted again.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. SarahSV (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you're abstaining from future closing, nothing prevents you from summarizing your closing statement as a participant in the discussion. The policy-guideline weighting is particularly valuable, and you can pass that along so that that the future closer can take it into consideration. -- Netoholic @ 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , when I’m on PC (I’m on mobile at the moment), I’ll copy the closure statement in as a comment.   SITH   (talk)   21:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've added the closing statement as a comment. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey?!
Why did you overturn the Utrecht tram shooting move? That was done and dusted long ago and there was a clear consensus for the title which emerged. Please reconsider as this makes no sense. THanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you should not have closed your own Move Review as you were the original closer of the RM. Please undo immediately. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , feel free to revert, I'm tired of this particular issue. It's a real bummer when you try to accurately gauge consensus and then someone files a move review and then someone accusing me of a supervote.  I close RMs all the time and 99% of the time nobody has a problem with it.  Under the circumstances I think closing the move review was justified per IAR as the OP didn't bother coming to talk to me first, but as I say, feel free to revert.    SITH   (talk)   13:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , per Move review/Log/2019 April. I know I closed it myself but all of the participants had noted a relist or no consensus closure would have been better, and I would have probably relisted on request if the MRV initiator had bothered to contact me first.  I always endorse at move reviews if the initiator doesn't contact the closing user.  Either way, it'll be over in a week and I'll leave it to another user to close second time round.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The original close said "No prejudice against speedy renomination for the year". If people objected they should have done that, it would be much more productive than pushing it back to the old title which was already rejected. Please reverse the MRV close, as you are involved. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree, it was an okay closure, but I'm not averse to a relist. As I say, feel free to revert the overturn and the closure of the move review.  I want nothing more to do with it, I'm just too pissed off.    SITH   (talk)   13:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've reopened the MRV. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And sorry if I was rude in my tone above. I appreciate that you were editing in good faith, and thanks for your help with the RM process. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Many thanks    SITH   (talk)   14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say thank you for agreeing to relist the move. I also wanted to apologize if my comments came off as too personal. Keep up the good work.  Calidum   13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem, it was the supervote bit (not of your comment) that got my goat. I genuinely do try to be impartial in closures and sometimes I make mistakes, but I've always considered WP:SUPERVOTE, in an absence of any evidence, just to be assuming bad faith.  Thanks for your message!    SITH   (talk)   13:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Jan Peterson
Hi there, you recently flagged a the Jan Peterson draft I had been working on for potential copyright issues. I followed up with you on your talk page letting you know that I had edited issues with the draft and had hoped it could be re-reviewed. You had said that you would have another look at the source text and would replace the template with a revision deletion request to redact the page history if appropriate. Just wondering where this is at? Thanks. VanIslander1234 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for your edits, I've taken another look and the only remaining matching text is a list, and is therefore okay per WP:NFCC.   SITH   (talk)   18:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, can you remove the "Investigation of potential copyright issue" banner? VanIslander1234 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  SITH   (talk)   18:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! One more question - is this page still considered a "draft" or has it now been approved? I'm asking because it doesn't have the yellow "Review waiting, please be patient" header that I've seen on other draft pages. Should the title be updated to remove the word 'Draft'? What about the comment at the top of the page from Robert McClenon? Thanks again. VanIslander1234 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Defunct radio station page moves
I am aware that consensus favored moving these pages to new disambiguators, but in the discussion it was raised that there are specific problems with some of the titles that were proposed. The biggest problem is with WPNT (Indiana). This station never actually broadcast with the call sign WPNT and there is another station in Indiana that actually did broadcast with this call sign, making "(Indiana)" an inappropriate disambiguator. Furthermore, consensus was in favor of using (AM) as the disambiguator for defunct AM stations, when no other station hold the same call sign on the AM band. However, WCFJ (defunct), KCLA (defunct), KCLS (defunct), KOTN (defunct), KSOS (defunct), WAGL (defunct), WARI (defunct), WAST (defunct), WCFI (defunct), WCKL (defunct), WCUG (defunct), WDCR (defunct), and WGLI (defunct) were not moved in accordance with this consensus.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. Would you prefer for the aforementioned ones to be denominated at a separate RM?  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   07:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. The problem with the recently closed discussion was that so many pages were being proposed at once that few looked at each article individually, instead focusing solely on the larger discussion as to whether "(defunct)" should be used as a disambiguator. WPNT (Indiana) should be in a separate discussion from the rest. I would propose moving WPNT (Indiana) to WDND (1490 AM), since this is the last call sign that the station actually broadcast under. Any location oriented disambiguator would be problematic, as all of the call signs it has held, with the exception of WHOT, have been held by other stations in South Bend, Indiana.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense. As it’s already closed and the majority were correctly targeted, it’s probably best for a fresh RM as opposed to moving everything back to (defunct) as it consensus was that (defunct) was a poor disambiguator.  Feel free to ping me in to the new discussion!  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen_Buckland
Thanks for the advice, StraussInTheHouse. Here is what I have done in response to your previous comments, viz "Bad news: you've used Facebook and five self-published sources to back up claims which should really be supported by secondary sources." 1. I removed the Facebook link and replaced it by a direct link to Tentsmuir National Nature Reserve (Reference 1 at the bottom of the draft wikipedia page). 2. I have transferred the five references that you labelled as self-published to a list of Selected Publications, though note in passing that all of those books have been published by reputable publishers with rigorous refereeing processes. It is a little harder for me to search out further secondary sources but perhaps once the page is live others who know Buckland better, especially ecological statisticians, might be expected to add details of which I am unaware. LowlanderToo (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, those edits have made it much better. I've just filled in the citations so it's easier for readers to get key data from sources and to prevent link rot.  Please feel free to press "resubmit" on the page.  As I said in my initial comment, the awards and fellowship make him notable per the academic notability guideline, it was just the sourcing that needed fixing and a cursory glance looks promising!  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:05:33, 16 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jampiaw
Hello! I'm contacting you regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_American_Social_History_Project/Center_for_Media_and_Learning

I'm unsure of the exact material that seems to be copyrighted in the article. It was written out awhile ago and I don't remember copying and pasting information into it. Do you know of the exact areas that are causing an issue?

Jampiaw (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm pinging in to provide you with the URL to avoid (I can't see it anymore as it has been redacted).  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ashp.cuny.edu/the-911-digital-archive is the URL. You can see it here. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , . Thanks for the help. , that was the URL in question.    SITH   (talk)   10:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft Article
Hello, you just reviewed Shauna Brooks Submission for the Article I Listed 26 Url Sited sources. Could you please HELP me REVISE what you think could possibly get the submission approved. I mean at this point, out of 26 Creditable sources the subject didn’t have at least 3 Major Press links mentioning their noteworthy?Kendollb3 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, per my comment last Thursday, you need to remove references to unreliable sources and replace them with reliable sources, especially those which are self-referential, such as citations 1, 15, 16 and 21. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   14:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sinyi Realty Inc
Hi, how can I fix my "sinyi realty inc" page to be qualified? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtchenry (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you need to ensure you cite significant coverage of a reasonable depth in multiple independent reliable sources to show corporate notability.   SITH   (talk)   12:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Hans Baldauf
Hello Strauss,

I was advised to add in line citations and I wanted to know if every sentence in an article needs an inline citation. I have submitted my article for review using published sources as references in many of my inline citations. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMa1234 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I or another reviewer will be with it within the stated time period. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Strauss,


 * What is the stated time? Best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMa1234 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Template:AFC status  SITH   (talk)   18:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Strauss. I have resubmitted an article for review and have included inline citations from national publications and city of SF publications.  I am including biographical early life information.  Do I need citations in this case?  I am not making qualitative asserations, just stating life facts.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMa1234 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:English. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cmt listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cmt. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cmt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. * Pppery * has returned 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted: Daniel K. Podolsky
Good morning,

I understand that you completely deleted the page I've been working on re: Daniel K. Podolsky, M.D. The draft URL should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Daniel_K._Podolsky&action=edit&redlink=1

Based on prior feedback, I have been working for nearly 6 months on the page and have been rewriting it in my own words so that the language is neutral and reads like an encyclopedia. I wrote much of the website you referenced in your deletion so that may be why it looks like it was plagiarized.

Can you please reinstate the draft page so that I can continue to work on it? I spent many hours compiling the references and need to refer to that work in order to rewrite the content again.

Thanks, Kshear04 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not an administrator and I cannot delete pages, nor can I restore pages I have tagged for administrators to consider deleting. Please contact the administrator who deleted the page in question.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Placeholder
Did you realise she is unquestionably notable as the The George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford? The user needed more specific help than you gave, because it was resubmitted while still inadequately written and documented. Check what I've said there.  DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I did realise that, however the decline was correct and contained a link to No original research which explains the reason we need something other than self-published sources. The standard decline templates aren't meant to comment on the notability of the topic, just the adequacy of the coverage cited in proving a claim to notability.    SITH   (talk)   12:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * of course you were right to decline, and so did I. The problem is indeed that templates are altogethe inadequate. They're OK when the article is unimportant or probably hopeless, and no great effort is worthwhile. But there is a major difference between "not enough sources to show notability, and there aren't all that likely to be", and "not  enough sources to show notability, butt they certainly exist, so put them in."   Since the templates don't indicate the difference, we need to do it outside of the templates.  So I think when it looks clearly worthwhile gettingit fixed properly, that it needs to be supplemented by an additional comment in detail.  I try to do that, but I admit  that I sometimes skip that when I'm in a hurry,  (There was one yesterday in fact, where I should have  said more. )  The alternative, and if I had had the energy I would have done it, would have been to rewrite the article myself, since it's exactly in my field. Obviously no reviewer has to do that, and some people do not think we  should even try. But what I do think we ought to feel obliged to do is give proper guidance, not just apply the nearest template. I think I'll mention it at   page, but without giving any specific example.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , fair enough, I'll bear that in mind in future.  SITH   (talk)   12:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Radoslav_Rochallyi
Hi, I think you should delete my draft. I don't know what to improve. The article may not be on the wiki. Thank you. --Tattinger (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it per G7.   SITH   (talk)   12:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Submission declined to Anna and Elizabeth
Hey there, This submission was declined for reasons of copyright. Can you please point out the copyrighted sections? As far as I know there are no copyrighted segments in the article.

Thank you Giladsom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giladsom (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Anna and Elizabeth (musicians) has been cleared of copyright violations by an administrator.   SITH   (talk)   12:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Re Draft -
Dear Strauss thank you so much for your comments I will try and improve this draft, I have removed all links related to Facebook wikipedia and twitter already and replaced them by different sources like Billboard, I have a question regarding musicians and their works is discogs considered a reliable source regarding albums? I would appreciate any helpful tips regarding my draft. All the best VC — Preceding unsigned comment added by VCMatthews (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. Per this, I don't think so.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:S7000A_(tax_law)
This is a history of the tax law that affects a large portion of New York State.

It has been modified over many months with input from to conform with wikipedia standards.

Can you tell me why you/StraussInTheHouse writes: this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

I would love to modify it to not be contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is written about in the New York Times and it simply was not documented in wikipedia for a long time but it is a part of history and should be documented similar to the tax laws in California etc.

Is it better placed in a wikimedia project? https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/

Ryozzo (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've resubmitted it on your behalf, I'll let another reviewer look at it. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Many Thanks,
 * Ryozzo (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Golden
Thank you for reveiewing the proposed entry for Jeffrey B. Golden. I do not have a URL to provide you as the entry has been deleted, which I understand given the determination you made.

You are correct that the biographic materials were derived from Mr. Golden's expert page on the PRIME Finance. However, a good portion of that material was deleted (as it could be viewed as too promotional). Details were also added on his earlier life and family, material that is not included in the PRIME Finance materials. Further modifications can be undertaken with your guidance, and if necessary a license for the materials could be obtained from PRIME Finance.

Thank you for any further direction you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRiMEFiNANCE (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you want to retrieve a copy, you'll have to contact the administrator who deleted the page. If you wish to freely license the text, you can do so through the OTRS process.  Furthermore, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest on your userpage.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why was myarticle declined
could you please describe more clearly what was wrong with my article so that I may revise it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ponos_Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by BattleCatsBro (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, the draft does not cite enough independent, reliable sources which give the company in-depth, significant coverage for its content to be considered verifiable or the company itself to be considered notable. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   12:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Nimita1989
Good Evening Mate, I started writing in Wiki a little time ago, So I Directly not Submit a page as there are more chances you banned from the Wiki Community. So I write on Sub User Page Firstly but you declined it as soon as I started writing, Please reconsider it and help me to draft the article. Thanks in Advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimita1989 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, apologies for the delay in response. As far as I can see, the only draft of yours I've declined is User:Nimita1989/Doctor in Jaipur, if there was an original it might have been deleted, but I don't seem to have tagged anything with in your userspace for deletion.  Either way, you're at no risk of being banned from the Wiki Community, that wasn't what the decline template is supposed to convey.  If you want to do more work on it, add sources, and so on, please do so, and let me know and I'll resubmit it on your behalf.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Review
Hello SITH I hope you are having an amazing afternoon. I have made the proper edits to the OTL Beezy Draft page that you wanted me to. Ronald337 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. A reviewer will take a look within the stated time period on the yellow template.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vini_Vishwa_Lal
Hi

Request to review The first two sources are simple short biographies that read like a social media bio. Please see WP:RS. SITH (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Regarding above statement if the order of the sources are issue I can very well change that. Also before taking decision on decline please go through the other reliable sources and results of his blockbuster movies and coverage on online media.

Also first two sources, bookmyshow.com is well known movie ticket booking site. filmibeat.com is a movie critics site, not blog mode sites.

You can very well search the object - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4921102/

Go through other sources and take a decision and post if you have any suggestions on improvements.

Thanks EastIndio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastindio (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, a decline isn't permanent, it just means it needs more work in the areas identified in the red template and in the comments below it. If you think you've made enough improvements, please feel free to resubmit.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

RE Draft
Draft:Philip_Morgan_Lewis_(Musician) Hi Sith, Thank you so much for your help, I have removed the references we talked about and have re-submitted it. Best VC — Preceding unsigned comment added by VCMatthews (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem, a reviewer will have a look at the draft within the time period stated on the submission template. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot Review
@StraussInTheHouse: Hope you enjoyed your holiday. I’ve been off the grid for a while but I’m back haha. During my last submission in mid March I was instructed to redraft the plot of my article. I did so and was awaiting reviewal and approval. Just following up. Thank you so much in advance!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you! A reviewer will take a look at your draft within the time period stated on the yellow template at the bottom.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Suki Waterhouse RfC
Greetings. Thanks for assessing this recent RfC. I may have been too vague, but I did specifically mention BLP concerns in my comment, "People only gives an anonymous source for the date of the breakup, which is definitely a red flag per WP:BLPGOSSIP". Would you mind revisiting your closing statement? (Just for the sake of completion, since a "no consensus" result is basically the same as "exclude" anyway, according to ARBBLP.) Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your message. I reviewed BLP and BLPGOSSIP before the original closure, but I have clarified it per ARBBLP, as I was unaware the Committee had issued a decision regarding the meaning of no consensus closures.  While the original rationale stands, i.e. the discussion did not generate consensus, the Principles section of the relevant arbitration case does indeed shift the burden of proof onto those providing claims with citations to ensure they are reliable.  As there was no consensus as to the reliability of the source, the default outcome of the discussion is that the sentence in question should be removed until a different citation on whose reliability consensus exists (and is of the conclusion that it is reliable) is given.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

How do we go about correcting an article?
I am a brand owner and breeder related to the product Broccolini(R), Tenderstem(R) and BimI(R). I have noted with interest the recent requests following our initial attempt to change the wording of the article on the page Broccolini - Baby broccoli.

There is some incorrect information being used within the article which impacts on our rights as brand owners. Whilst we are happy to share information, it is better if that information is accurate, and we would like the opportunity to do this. Our attempts thus far have been rejected without question or understanding from the person checking it. Please could you advise how best we can proceed?

Kind regards Andrew5.104.193.178 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, thank you for your message. I note that two requested move discussions have been opened on Talk:Broccolini (1 and 2).  Before we start, are you saying that the person who opened these requested moves is associated with the company?  If so, please instruct them to declare their conflict of interest.  I can't see the issue of incorrect information raised during those discussions, if there is an incorrect statement on the page and you would like it to be changed, please submit an edit request.  However, it may be of use to note that Wikipedia is not censored and is not for promotion, as we aim for a balanced, neutral viewpoint.  Requests to change article titles should be based on article titling policy, and there is an established precedent for, where supported by reliable sources, using a generic name as opposed to a brand name.  Examples include: Dumpster, Q-Tip and Thermos.  Please let me know if you have any more questions!  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

PA
I assume from your editing pattern that you come from the UK. So do I. I assume that you've never heard the vernacular used in an English pub or informal setting. Save me the lecture on lexicography and semantics, please - I'm a retired academic on the the subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I'm from the UK. I've heard the vernacular used in both pubs and informal settings (I consider the former to be a subset of the latter), I'm not sure what has led you to conclude that I haven't.  I've heard people in such settings call other people terrible names, both to their faces and behind their backs, but to just claim "bitch" is merely "vernacular" in what is far from a pub or another informal setting, as we are building an encyclopedia, is to claim the sky is red.  I'm considering taking my studies to a doctorate level as the philosophy of language is one of my areas of interest, so any tips would, of course, be appreciated.    SITH   (talk)   16:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just  happen to  be extremely  familiar with  's work on  Wikpedia. For a long  time last  year we worked hard together to  convince the WMF that  they needed to  develop and introduce some important changes to  the way  we control the quality  of new articles. Bitch is not  a banned word, but  I  will  remind you  of something  important that  I  remember well but  which  was probably  well before your  time: There was a time when you  could fined in  the UK for  using  the 'F' word in  public (and people of my  generation  still frown on  its use), then there was this. It's a bit  of a topsy-turvy  world when we deliberately  look  for  insult in  the use of language -  particularly  in  a literary  sense, but  also  when the vernacular uses it  in  general  expression. I  would be extremely  surprised if   has anything  misogynistic in  his character, and I  remain firmly  convinced that  the semantics of his statement  were in  no  way directed at   directly. I  was the target  and victim  myself  last year of blatant  misandry,  character assassination, and harassment from the political wing of Wikipedia's women and LGBT faction in  a poorly disguised attempt to  settle an old score. As a result I withdrew my decade long heavy support for these issues.  is not  the first  educated, industrious user to  have been indef blocked recently; I  have just  as much  intolerance for PA as the next person, but  I  guard against  deliberately  taking  people's comments out  of context  to  use them against  them for  the sake of unnecessary drama. I  hope my good friend, for  whom I  genuinely have the greatest respect, will see his way  clear to reducing this terrible block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I think it is hard to escape the conclusion that the comment was directed at a female admin for a very sincere reason: to try and hit a woman where it hurts even more. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung, as I noted elsewhere, "shut up ... bitch ... shut up" is a type of male aggression against women which indicates both rage and misogyny, and which in meatspace indicates an immediate risk of violence.
 * I don't know what field of academia you worked in, but in the real world of women's safety that sort of language has very dangerous implications. Without revealing too much personal detail, I will say only that the last time it was aimed at me was from a man who later did jail time for his conduct towards another woman. I also urge you to consider that it is very common for men to dismiss evidence of a colleague's misogynist conduct, by noting that they have not seen it happen.  That's because it it does not usually happen in their presence. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you please do  me the courtesy  of reading  my  comment  above again. You  are mistaken if you  believe only  women are the targets for  abuse. I  won't  mention  names, but  I  have been subject  to  a clear and orchestrated case of misandry and harassment  myself, out  of the blue,  on  Wikipedia. One in  which  of course I, as an admin, was powerless to  defend myself, because we are not  allowed to. I  do  not  dwell on these things, but  I  believe it  was an attempt  to  settle an old score,  made worse by  the nature of the user's high standing on the project. I  have already  mentioned many  times on  Wikipedia, and it  it  is also  on  my  user page, that  my  field of academic work was in  linguistics and communication. Cross cultural,  socio-linguistics, applied linguistics, and applied foreign languages. I  am always dismayed when people attempt to  take others' words out  of context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung, it would also help if you re-read what I wrote. I did not and do not in any way deny your experience of misandric abuse. I am very sorry to hear that you were subjected to that.
 * However, the lack of remedy for that situation is not a reason to deny a remedy in this. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. And again, I respectfully suggest that despite your great linguistic expertise, you don't list gendered discourse as one of your specialities. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , linguistics is a very broad subject and I  am just  one of many linguists. Anyone who  has studied it  in  depth will have touched on  every  aspect  of it before specialising. I  was a long-time energetic supporter of gender/women's/LGBT issues both  on- and off-Wiki  (outreach) until I  was attacked for  doing precisely  that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung, again, two wrongs don't make a right etc. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, you have said, in this thread, you have said "I  remain firmly  convinced that  the semantics of his statement  were in  no  way directed at  BrownHairedGirl directly" and "I  am always dismayed when people attempt to  take others' words out  of context." But the diff in question is this and diffs, fortunately, carry with them some of their own context. In what sense is this diff not "directed at BHG directly"? Syntactically it certainly is, and connotatively, how can "you are not my mother" be anything other than gendered and personally-directed, although it certainly carries many other connotations. The only one I have seen attempting to take Legacy's words out of context is Legacy himself. I understand that you may be a loyal friend and ally, but surely there is a point at which anyone must reality-check one's loyalties against what is actually happening, rather than offering what can only be seen as defensive rationalizations. Newimpartial (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have never suggested that  there is any  friendship  or loyalty, indeed, in  the distant  past  I  have had my  own serious  issues with , but as far as I  could see and through  our  collaboration  with  the WMF  as the main  community actors  to implement  some important technical progress with  NPP  and AfC, I  was convinced that  he had smartened up  his act. I am obviously  outvoted here and will  therefore stand corrected, and certainly if that  is the case,  has exercised extraordinary  constraint, but I do  believe that an indef block is not in the interests of the project. Apparently he has left  a comment  on  his talk  page. Whether this will  be accepted as mitigating, it  is not  for  me to  decide. I  never interfere with  the decisions of my  fellow admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , for what it's worth, my comment wasn't intended to imply that you hold any loyalty towards Legacypac. As I said, I've found him to be agreeable and useful at times, but I just hadn't frequented the areas where this behaviour was not exhibited.  The same could be said between us.  We have agreed on some things, such as ACTRIAL and NPP changes, but we've had our disagreements.  It doesn't mean we can't work together on a collaborative project, because neither of us has egregiously insulted the other.  Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the situation at hand.  As I said at AN and as  has alluded to above, the insult was needlessly gendered.  While it's still uncivil, "jerk" or "ass" would have conveyed his feelings about the issues he perceives with 's conduct (which, for the record, I don't think has constituted the "stalking" that he claims, all I've seen is an admin doing their job trying to get discussions to run smoothly) without using her gender as a means of criticism.  However, as I said at AN, I would be in favour of reducing Legacypac's block to a fixed length provided he apologises both for the insult and for the aspersions cast and commits to not doing it again.  Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, I've been in that position myself, and I genuinely mean it when I say I hope to see him back.  But those are the only conditions I can see the community accepting a return.    SITH   (talk)   11:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wandered on to this talk page and so pleased to see male Wikipedia editors who can speak up against misogynistic talk when they see it. For me, it's not just a matter of which words that are used but the malice and ill-will directed towards BHG who was simply trying to explain how things were working (or not working) at MfD. It's not like there is a list of "bad words", it's just when they are used, you can tell that a line has been crossed. If BHG had done anything provocative, I could give Legacypac the benefit of the doubt but she was completely reasonable and helpful. And I don't even agree with her about these dumb portals! But she was very diplomatic. It never feels good to have someone point out your mistakes but in a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia, it's the way things work here. We can't be too proud. As for Legacypac, they were going so fast on these deletion discussions, it was inevitable that they'd lash out or make a mistake. You can't be manic (which I mean in a nonmedical way) and keep up consistently good work. Anyway, just browsing on your user talk page and found it interesting, the work you do. Happy editing, Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for the support. Best,   SITH   (talk)   11:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SPW Article
Was the Steven Paul Whitsitt Article already deleted? I didn’t get time to save it. When I tried to edit it it was blank. Please advise.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerlenbach (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, the draft was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G13 as a draft which had been considered abandoned having not been edited for six months. You can request its restoration at WP:REFUND/G13 and an administrator will undelete it for you.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jag Chima Article Advise
Hello Sir,

This is regarding my article 'Jag Chima', which has been rejected twice.

Could you please provide more feedback and advise on what changes are expected to get this article approved and published on Wikipedia.

Any pointers will be highly appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk • contribs) 06:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Answered here.  SITH   (talk)   14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thank you very much for pointing me in the right direction. I have worked on your inputs and resubmitted my article. Please review.
 * Here is the article - Draft:Jag_Chima — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, you don't seem to have resubmitted it, do you want me to do it on your behalf? Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   19:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply. I have edited the article but not able to find the re-submit option. If you can guide be it will be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav Dhingra PG (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, no problem, I've resubmitted Draft:Jag Chima per your request on your behalf. I will abstain from reviewing it as technically I submitted it, but another reviewer will be with it shortly.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate
There appears to be consensus to remove the "by Donald Trump" part of the disambiguator... This is a disaster... We had the opposite consensus after a move request in March... The reasons for the move away from Spygate (conspiracy theory) in March weren't mentioned in the RfC that you closed, and the participants in the prior consensus weren't pinged. Moreover, the many people who supported the proposed move probably wouldn't support the move you made. Will you please switch back so we can sort this out? Otherwise we have to go to DR. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, no problem, feel free to revert. I can't recall closing an RfC though...    SITH   (talk)   21:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh you're right, it was this move request. I guess I assumed it was an RfC based on the unusually high participation rate. I think it would be a lot better if you reverted since you closed the request? R2 (bleep) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging as the admin who actioned the subsequent RMT request (I closed the discussion without realising it was sysop move-protected.  Anthony - please can you revert and reopen?  Per closing procedure, I'm treating 's message as a request to overturn the closure and re-open.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The page is currently at Spygate (conspiracy theory). What do you want me to rename it as? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) was the original title IIRC. Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   14:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with SITH, the idea is to revert back to Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) until it's it's clear that consensus has changed from the March move request. R2 (bleep) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anthony! SITH, there's still the issue of what to do about your close. If you want me to propose moving the article back to Spygate (conspiracy theory) as a precondition to your amending your close, then I will do that. R2 (bleep) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I just noticed this discussion about the close of the request move, do you plan on reopening the discussion? PackMecEng (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * many thanks for your help.
 * I've collapsed the closure and re-opened the discussion, the bot should add it back to the list when it next updates.
 * Regards,  SITH   (talk)   20:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot Accepted
@Straussinthehouse I hope you’ve enjoyed your weekend! Thank you for that information. I only have one question. On 3/18/19 my page was successfully created in the database. Upon careful review, on 3/18/19 my article was removed and moved to the draft space due to the plot needing to be redrafted. All of the other information in my article was accepted. Since my plot was redrafted, submitted on 3/18/19, and just accepted on 4/27/19; do I now wait for someone from your team to move my article from the draft space and back to the database? Thank you again for your help! I’m so excited :) Nineminutesuntil (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I hope you enjoyed your weekend too! Thanks for re-submitting your draft, you are correct; a reviewer will take a look at it and assess it in due course.    SITH   (talk)   14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Mike Wingfield
My intuition that it was copyvio was correct. It comes from the short version of his CV, which cannot be accessed by the copyvio check tool, or even directly searched for. Like some university CVs, it can only be found by first going to his university home page, and looking there for a link to the CV. The Research interest section is a word for word direct copy. Almost unique in my experience, the journal articles section was also: the titles themselves are of course not subject to copyright, but the section in the article had an arrangement I have never seen before "Two selected publications per year from 2011–2016:", and the selection and arrangement was an exact copy from the CV. so I have deleted the whole thing and left a notice. Normally I'd rewrite something like this, if necessary completely, since he is highly notable, but I was so annoyed when I saw the basis for the journal article selection, that I decided not to.
 * As a general rule, for academics I try to find the real CV, which is often hidden and not accessible from Google. If I cannot get there directly or indirectly from the university site, I try to find it in some of the presentations, which sometimes link to it. (one of the reasons to look for it, beyond  copyvio, is that it is often the only place that gives a full listing of degrees and positions in simple chronological order. It is also often the only place which gives the birthdate.

Thanks for your ping, because I otherwise might not have looked again.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And checking contributions, I found they same editor had done what so many do when their draft does not get accepted, and inserted it into mainspace with a variant title Michael J. Wingfield. And furthermore, they created yet an additional version in their sandbox. I deleted these also. Since the contributor haad a corporate username FAB UP, I also blocked both for copyvio and username.

I am, obviously, quite annoyed at myself, for I should have done the check myself when it was first submitted.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , no worries, it was a tricky one to detect, thanks for spotting it after the ping, I'll use that method as well in future.   SITH   (talk)   14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy
HI SITH You originally declined my draft for Sedimentary Isostasy two months ago. I edited my draft shortly afterwards and re-submitted it for review, as per my contact with your user page 28th March. Subsequently it may have been considered by another reviewer as Anomalocaris edited it 35 days ago. I have sought comments from that reviewer but have received no response. Can you please confirm the present status of my submission in the Wiki system? Your 1st March pink 'declined' banner still appears at the top of the draft and a buff 'Review waiting' banner at the bottom. The number of pending submissions has meantime nearly doubled to 3207. I accept the need for patience to get a decision but is my draft actually under review?Geologician (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can confirm that your draft is in the drafts pending review category. Please note that your draft wasn't reviewed by , that edit appears to be a semi-automated edit using a general fixes tool, perhaps AutoWikiBrowser or WPCleaner, and did not have an effect on the status of your draft.  Therefore, your latest submitted version is still dated by when you re-submitted it, which appears to be 28 March.  I have intermittent access as I am travelling until 7 June, so it probably won't be reviewed by me, but by another reviewer.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * StraussInTheHouse: I can confirm that I am a real human being, not a semi-automated automaton, and I do not use any editing tools other than the generic Wikipedia editor. I generally provide fully detailed edit summaries listing every change or category of changes. In this case, my edit summary began "Alt → alt", which reminds me that what brought me to the page in the first place is that it had a lint error of type bogus file options, and as long as the editor was open, I fixed not only the bogus file option but numerous other things that would probably be difficult to assemble into a semi-automated process. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the explanation, I've struck the comment. The arrows in the edit summary made me think of AWB because it automatically does that when doing find and replace operations, so I assumed it was an untagged edit.  In any event, it wasn't my intention to imply that you were a bot, I too am a real person but I also use AWB!  Regards,   SITH   (talk)   10:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Shahbaz Zaman page submition
I add reference for first section. this man is notable. can i submit it? no problem? With respect Omid ahmadyani (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies if the following analysis is surface-level: I’m travelling at the moment so I have to answer on my tablet. I assume you’re talking about Draft:Shahbaz Zaman, not Draft:I'm writing about something close to me, which you created beforehand.  The issue I identified still remains.  It’s not about notability: I haven’t assessed that yet.  The issue is that as a biography of a living person, it requires inline citations to verify its content.  The first section, “Early life”, remains unreferenced so if you resubmit without improving it in this regard, it is highly likely that it will be declined again.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , thanks, let me know if you require any further advice on the draft before resubmission!   SITH   (talk)   16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Astrometric solving review
In my opinion the topic Astrometric solving is obv. notable, though I do agree that the article needs work. I am more concerned about the process here. See this removal of prior AfC reviews that coincided with mainspace article creation. My preference would be to engage User talk:Han.k1959 in a discussion of procedures for new article creation. But I wanted to bring this to your attention and ask for your opinion on how to handle this end run around prior reviews. --mikeu talk 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , hm, the draft and article do have some differences. Despite it being created first, I declined the draft as the topic is already in the mainspace.  Some edits have been made to each page and not to the other by different users, meaning a history merge might be in order after a content merge, however I would probably opt for a merge and then just tag the draft with R with history.  Agree with your assessment on notability though and it's probably best to engage the creator and just note not to create multiple pages on the same topic in future.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   16:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'll followup on the page creator's talk. --mikeu talk 16:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft BAITSSS
Hi StraussInTheHouse,

I never realized wiki is such a mess. I am just confused that every editor put his/her own their own view and it had nothing to do with the written article. What are the reliable sources in BAITSSS, 10 published papers, and 2 USDA mentions, etc, what are knowledge of the editors itself with the subject? Just they feel proud that they are unpaid editor, I have been editing/ reviewer for 20 years to more than 20 journals as volunteer (non paid, that is how it works). As my professor said, don't read wiki articles for science, it is just for people and places, it proved it now. Wiki is not about science.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi 129.130.88.169, it's unfortunate that you feel that way.
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't for original research, and a lot of the papers that were cited have overlap both in terms of personnel and institutions. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a journal article publisher, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, so for science, it should summarise scientific consensus on a topic.  Something written three years ago with most responses having overlap in personnel is probably worthy of a paragraph on the main topic page, in this case, evapotranspiration, but not an article in itself.  For that, we require significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
 * I'm not particularly proud of being an unpaid editor, per the Terms of Use, if you are a paid editor, you have to disclose that that is the case. I don't think either myself,  or  put [our] own view[s] on the draft, we merely applied the established policies and guidelines for content inclusion on Wikipedia.
 * Many thanks,
 *  SITH   (talk)   13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: furthermore, I forgot to mention, as everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does so on a voluntary basis, we have no way of checking the academic credentials of most users. This means that we require third-party, unaffiliated verification in the form of independent, reliable sources, because invoking the authority of a contributor on a particular topic is an appeal to authority, which, as you will know with your extensive journal editing, is not a very sound basis for verifying content.    SITH   (talk)   13:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you being a watch dog for wiki. I tried to contribute science and being fooled for more than 6 months. Please review my talk page. Probably, I will delete this page.


 * Form my talk page


 * Removed multiple citations after Comment: Undeclared WP:SELFCITE is a concern. Worldbruce (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Added citations:


 * https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=348805
 * https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=354882


 * Response: Thank you for the feedback. Removed both diagrams.Open Access Government (https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/) had contacted and featured (https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/water-for-plant-growth-the-foundation-of-the-global-food-supply-and-ecosystem-services/55166/, https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NAA9_web-150dpi.pdf) water management effort utilizing BAITSSS in Kansas. BAITSSS model was incorporated at United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=354882, https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=348805) websites and its benefit is discussed in Interpretive Summary.


 * Furthermore, BAITSSS model had been published in the high impact Journal like Hydrological Processes (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hyp.13458), Agronomy (https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/aj/articles/0/0/agronj2018.10.0636) and Meterological Applications (https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/met.1596) (top 10.00% most cited articles published in Engineering in 2016, current 14 citations (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11738074413392356940&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en). To understand if this kind of models is recognized in a reliable and independent way, probably it is critical to understand how widely they are cited and used by the community. BAITSSS had been widely discussed around the world (Africa, Asia (China), South America and the USA, please review various peer reviewed journal below). The wiki Category:Hydrology models Category:Computer-aided engineering software Category:Numerical climate and weather models have only a few lines description for numerous models which also lacks the independent sources. It is probably due to the fact of the difficulty in getting independent sources (though they had been published and cited independently around the world) in these kinds of topics because of the technical nature, less media attention as well as the lack of general public interest and understanding, and many others.


 * Similarly, How we respond (https://www.aaas.org/pes/how-we-respond) from American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) also had just completed the report about the current effort of water management in Kansas including BAITSSS and will be soon featured in their website. This report highlights communities that have taken on projects to adapt to or mitigate climate change. The profile may be released prior to the June 11-13, 2019 Annual Conference of the Universities Council on Water Resources (https://ucowr.org/2019-conference/).


 * From 1700 word report from AAAS:


 * There, Dhungel created an intricate model that helps capture the evapotranspiration (ET) rates of various crops.


 * When Dhungel came to work with Aiken at Kansas State University, he brought his modeling tool, called Backward‐Aaveraged IiterativeTwo-Source Surface temperature and energy balance Solution (BAITSSS), with him.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)


 * Apologies StraussInTheHouse for contributing here, but this is where the discussion appears to be. For the record I thought that the draft had merit but was insufficiently well supported by reliable and independent sources. What it needed (and still needs) are reliable sources such as a national Hydrological Institute discussing it or a review article in an appropriate academic journal. Primary research that simply used BAITSSS is not an RS. I am hopeful that this may be shown to be notable, and I speak as someone with a lifetime of senior professional experience in the water management industry, but at present it simply doesn't get above the notability line. I would like it to succeed, but I am not going to bend the rules to suit my professional interests.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to get all the references what you have mentioned in science, wiki is a chronological list of newspaper. Please show me a model which had been discussed in newspaper. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't believe that I mentioned Newspapers as potential sources. I am also very unclear what the statement "wiki is a chronological list of newspaper" means. I have a concern that what you may perceive as your critics are being unfairly portrayed as requiring newspaper sources. No so. Science articles flourish in Wikipedia. The charge that other stuff exists has never been an argument to accept an inadequately sourced article.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have enough said, probably I am not going to discuss further. I again apologize, I have given evidence that the majority of wiki article about models had no external reference because of the same logic. Please give me one good example from wiki about the model with appropriate source and what you guys are exact looking. Please direct me in wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)


 * 129.130.88.169, as says, other stuff existing isn't a good rationale for including something else.  Wikipedia isn't perfect.  If users, yourself included, find pages which don't meet the aforementioned notability guidelines, they are free to nominate them for deletion, or consider one of the alternatives.  Neither myself, Velella or Worldbruce said the coverage had to be in newspapers.  Please see Reliable sources.  The scope is much wider than just newspapers.  The main issue is, as I have mentioned above, the overlap in personnel in the academic papers cited, meaning there is a lack of independence in the cited sources.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   09:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate. You guys didn't provide me a single wiki page giving an example what you are looking (saying all wiki model sections are not perfect and defending wiki). I am not questioning about those models in wiki, I think, they deserved to be there (if they are published, utilized by the community, cited, discussed, and had contributed to society), even if they are not notable like human beings or places. These poor models cannot be famous like human. What I can say is having wiki page doesn't help/matter that much. I was trying to add something I think that deserves to be in wiki as per your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)

129.130.88.169, the topic of your draft may well be notable. I don't think this is a case of a topic being non-notable such that no amount of editing can provide evidence of notability. This is why myself, Velella and Worldbruce opted to "decline" the draft as opposed to "reject" it, which means that we think it is potentially printworthy. If you brush up the sourcing as best you can and resubmit it, it may be that it takes a little longer than usual to process as very specialised drafts usually require the attention of a reviewer in that field, but this isn't us saying "this is never going to be included on Wikipedia", we're advising you on how to improve the draft such that it gets included. A key part of that, for all drafts, is to include significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Many thanks,  SITH   (talk)   16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement. Unless someone provides me a real guideline how to improve, it is just an abstract. Probably, I have changed 3000 times because everyone keeps on giving a false guidelines/impression/understanding, no real guidelines (asking discussions outside academia, I provided two discussions in USDA website). I feel really discouraged and stupid putting such an effort in this non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.88.169 (talk • contribs)


 * 129.130.88.169, that's what we want to do, which is why I'm restoring your above comment. Please let us know which piece of advice, specifically, you require clarification on, and we'll be more than happy to explain it.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, added some introductory sentences as per your suggestions, added one more presentations from ASA, invited talk about BAITSSS. There are other presentations, but not sure if they are valuable, until AAAS publish their report. Please let me know if it had been improved.

Orphaned non-free image File:Fresh patch logo (cropped).jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Fresh patch logo (cropped).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ya got me Going in Circles
Round and round I go! wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , oops! Thanks for sorting that out    SITH   (talk)   21:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Autoscribe Informatics
Hi StraussInTheHouse, a couple of months ago you reviewed and rejected Draft: Autoscribe Informatics on copyright grounds - I've fixed the article but I'm not sure whether it's with you to approve or if it can be any reviewer? Any help with the next steps would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycld91 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, it can be any reviewer, including myself. However, it is generally the case that reviewers don't expedite reviews based on talk page requests both for transparency reasons and for the volume of messages.  I can certainly give you some advice on how to improve the draft though.  I note you've resubmitted it but you can still work on it while it's in the queue.  In-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources is needed to establish notability for a company.  Sources 1 is a Bloomberg database entry, which only gives statistics.  Source 2 is affiliated.  Sources 3, 4 and 5 are press releases.  Source 6 is a user-generated content page.  I'm not sure about sources 7 and 8, but if we assume the best, that's still only two high-quality sources for establishing notability.  I won't decline it so it can keep its place in the queue, but for it to be accepted, more work on the sourcing will be needed.  Apologies for my delayed response; if you need any more help, please do let me know.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

/* Draft: Hans Baldauf */
Hi Strauss can you please rereview my article submission. I have included line item citations, and documented as many facts as I can when making assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMa1234 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I or another reviewer will give your draft a formal review in due course. As I explained to another user in the section above, reviewers tend not to expedite reviews based on talk page requests, however, I am happy to give you feedback on how to improve if you don't know whether to resubmit it or if you've resubmitted it and I think further work will be needed.  At a cursory glance, the sourcing looks improved for the most part, however the first section still has sentences which do not have an inline citation, which will most likely result in another decline because all claims about living people must be backed up by a reliable inline citation.  The draft is structured quite irregularly.  I advise you to take a look at Manual of Style/Layout and Manual of Style.  Most often, after the lead paragraph, the table of contents for a biography should look something like this:
 * Early life
 * Career
 * Personal life
 * Selected publications
 * Please let me know if you require any further assistance. Apologies for the delay in response.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Madhu Guruswamy
Hi StraussInTheHouse,@StraussInTheHouse

I have updated what all you mentioned please review. if you want me to do any specific changes please let me know in details.Please help me do better once again thank you very much for your time Playlikeastar ''' 20:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the improvements, I see you've resubmitted it, so a reviewer will be with it shortly.   SITH   (talk)   11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi StraussInTheHouse,@StraussInTheHouse thanks for your quick response last time when you reviewed on  3 January 2019 I have incorporated your inputs, again now you have given few more inputs, cant you approve or it has to be approved by someone else?  Playlikeastar  ''' 15:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your message. Any approved AFC reviewer can review your draft, but it is common practice to not expedite formal reviews based on talk page messages for transparency's sake and so that reviewers' talk pages aren't contacted by the writers of the several thousand drafts awaiting review.  However, I am more than happy to give informal feedback about how to improve your draft, even if you have resubmitted it.  You can still work on the draft while it is awaiting review, indeed, this is encouraged.  Most drafts I come across have the opposite issue to this one; they say a lot about the topic but don't verify the content with inline citations.  In this case, we have a one-sentence lead paragraph, and a short paragraph noting simply that Guruswamy participated, in different senses, in three different films, and then gives a filmography.  The amount of citations you have provided must surely allow for more content to be written.  Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn or IMDb, and we need a substantive biography and maybe a section on the reception of his work to have a substantial article.  Apologies for the delay in response time; please let me know if you require further assistance.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No news two months later on an article initially rejected for copyright reasons resubmitted fixing these
The initial rejection flagged several fragments of the submitted draft that were worded far too close to source referred. No other issues were then flagged. The flagged text highlighted fragments were all reworked and article resubmitted. Over two months later now, I don't know what is happening to that resubmission. Is there anything I can do to find out about reviewing status? Could not find anything in the FAQ on monitoring status after a resubmission. My first ever wikipedia article may have fallen through the crack and am afraid to submit a brand new one before understanding what really happened to first ever one. Please advise. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , please can you provide me with a link to the draft you're talking about? Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I assumed too much about the initial article review process. Looks like follow up must be explicitly directed to the initial reviewer through this interface. And sorry for not including link to my reworked draft article. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Frenchtown,_Washington Hoping this gets to you somehow. Still a learning newbee.
 * LeCanardQuoi (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem, we were all newbies once! I declined Draft:Frenchtown, Washington on copyright or close paraphrasing grounds, it now appears that the submission has been cleaned of those issues.  A reviewer subsequently declined the draft on different grounds, so I am pinging them to invite them to further elaborate on their rationale for you.  Apologies for the delay time in responding, I have been off-wiki for a while.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

WP: Refund re: Jaston Williams
Could I request a WP: Refund as per Casiopeia's suggestion? As per his/her recommendation, I will make sure I correct the potential infringement, writing the article on my own words in neutral point of view and free of copyright infringement, and support the content claimed with independent, reliable sources before resubmitting. I appreciate your help in making this work. Thank you, DIANAHENDRICKS 18:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)18:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianahendricks (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I am not the administrator who deleted the draft and as such I cannot see it nor restore it for you. However, looking at the deletion log for Draft:Jaston Williams, I can see that  deleted it per G12, and as such it is ineligible for an automatic restoration (such as G13'd drafts), however, he, or another administrator, may be willing to e-mail you a copy of the deleted wikitext provided that you ensure that any subsequent resubmissions are not copyright violations.  Apologies for the delayed response.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:5050x2020
Hi, the entry has been revised. Would you mind taking a look again, to see if you think that the issues are resolved now? Thanks so much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:5050x2020 P. PetraPetraK (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. For the reasons I have given other users in the above sections, reviewers usually don't expedite formal draft reviews based on talk page messages.  However, I can see that you have added some good-quality sources such as Reuters.  Due to the amount of sources provided, I can't assess them all in an informal review but if we assume they all give significant coverage to the movement, the only reason I could conceive of a reviewer declining the draft would be on the question of lasting notability, but personally I don't think that's likely.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Anti-Gravity Game Studios
HI, I am the founder of the studio I have no idea what to do ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakemkii (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. If you work for a company and receive any financial remuneration for your edits to Wikipedia you must declare this per the Terms of Use.  You can find out more about how to do this at Paid-contribution disclosure.  For general disclosures not related to paid editing, you should still disclose a conflict of interest per Conflict of interest.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please approve Delhi Football Club
It’s an authentic information & could be confirmed on website: https://www.footballdelhi.com/division/senior-division/

https://www.delhifootballclub.com Bs mehra (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. Corporations, including football clubs, require in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability: existence is not an indicator of notability.  Since the review, you have only added external links to affiliated sources.  I won't decline it so as to give you ample opportunity to improve it, but in its current state, the draft is on course to be declined again.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Todd Hiscock
Hi StraussInTheHouse,

I asked for an advise a while in regards to fixing my article so it can be submitted. I haven't heard from you as yet. Could you please get back to me so I know what sentence I need to support with inline citations? Can I use a copy of certificates to support the education inforamtion or does it have to be all online>?

Thank you.

Marcela McLeod (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I apologise for not getting back to you on your previous message, I think what happened was you left a message when I was travelling and I forgot to turn off the automatic archiving bot, and your message got archived without a response. I note that since my decline you have added some more citations, so inline citations aren't the issue now.  I think what needs improving before you resubmit is the tone and structure of the draft: it reads very much live a résumé, something we aim to avoid.  I suggest starting by removing emotive or subjective language, such as Thankfully, in #Hobbies and charitable associations, and then taking a look at Manual of Style/Layout and Manual of Style for information on how to structure the biography so as to make it read more like an encyclopedia entry.  Please do let me know if you require further assistance.  Many thanks,   SITH   (talk)   10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)