This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:RoySmith.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sept 7, 12:30pm:Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art

You are invited to join theWikimedia NYC community forMet Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expandWikipedia:WikiProject Fashion topics for basic clothing types that can be illustrated by the Met collection, and also past Costume Institute exhibitions! It's the last weekend forCamp: Notes on Fashion, and we will have an intro talk to the exhibit by a guest from the Costume Institute, and participants will then be able to visit it on their own. Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm. With refreshments, and there will be awiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided. Saturday Sept 7Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art (RSVP on-wiki orat meetup.com). 12:30pm - 4:30 pm at Uris Center for Education,Metropolitan Museum of Art (81st Street entrance) at 1000 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan (note this is just south of the main entrance) Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm, and some wiki-visitors may wish to take this opportunity to seeCamp: Notes on Fashion together after the formal event. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 19:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name fromthis list.)

• Collecting Culture (talk ·contribs)
  • User:Collecting Culture (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Hello, I submitted a new page about an Australian artist which was not approved because of copyrighted content. I'm not sure to which section you are referring to? Can you advise so I can correct it? I have used quotes, but have referenced them accordingly. And all unreferenced text are my own words. Article is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cameron_Kingsley_Hayes

Thanks !Collecting Culture (talk)10:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Collecting Culture (talk)10:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• The earwig report I linked to in my comment gives the details. Or, justclick here for the same report. Please note that the copyright violations were just the most obvious issue. The entire article reads like an advertisement. I'm assuming you have some relationship with the subject. Please seeWP:COI andWP:UPE. --RoySmith(talk)15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roy, I just wrote a page for a company called Ritual Supplements and it was deleted under G11, unambiguous promotion. I did my best to make it neutral, however, I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia and a lot of the rules are kinda vague. My goal with the page obviously was not to promote the company in any way as I am not affiliated with them, so I was just curious where we go from here. My main concerns are as follows, what was I promoting on the page? Is the page salvageable, and if so, can you un-delete it for me to make edits? What are your thoughts on this?— Precedingunsigned comment added by2600:1007:B114:A4DB:A953:7211:2405:454A (talk)21:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is to readWP:YFA andWP:NPOV. It is technically possible to restore the page, but given the highly promotional nature, I'm not going to do that, as I believe it is not salvageable. You couldstart fresh, paying close attention toWP:NPOV andWP:NCORP, but my advice is actually that writing an article about a small company as your first wikipedia project is almost always doomed to failure, so I wouldn't actually encourage that path. --RoySmith(talk)21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The See-Saw, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you cancreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

--RoySmith(talk)00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv •Chetsford •Izno

Floquenbeam •Lectonar

DESiegel •Jake Wartenberg •Rjanag •Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc •LFaraone •There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc •Fox •HJ Mitchell •LFaraone •There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to newadvanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes)now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• Arequest for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• Aglobal request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modifyedit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Yeah, I get your point.[10] I used Haukur (which is my given name) on some other wiki projects so I think I have the global username 'Haukur'. I guess maybe I could just switch to using that login.Haukur (talk)17:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's just that I assume I can copy-paste a username from the signature, and then that turns out not to work. --RoySmith(talk)17:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been assisting my son, KBong (musician) in creating a page. The following review and action was noted when he submitted a draft; "This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 21:22, 5 September 2019 RoySmith talk contribs deleted page User:KBongmusic/sandbox (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Tag: PHP7 (thank)"

I see Wikipedia pages for U2, Maroon 5, Taylor Swift, Shaggy (musician) and Stick Figure and am wondering how we can conform. I drafted my son's page which I think assimilated these posted pages, so it puzzled me why it was deleted, in lieu of providing feedback. I'll read through the User Page information, but appreciate any guidance. Thank you.WBong (talk)00:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a bunch of things here. The most obvious is the page itself. The first thing to understand is that comparing your page to other pages isn't very useful; there's lots of really bad pages on wikipedia, and trying to copy them isn't the way to write a good page.

As for the actual page, please understand that we're here to write an encyclopedia, and as such, we have guidelines for what's appropriate and what's not. Using wikipedia to promote yourself is not what we're here for. The article you wrote was clearly designed to do just that, with passages such as, "once you hear his style you’ll be hooked because it’s fresh and pleasing to the ears". Please readWP:NMUSIC for the applicable guidelines for musicicians, andWP:NPOV for some more general guidelines about promotionalism.

Beyond all that, it appears that you're using multiple accounts. I'm assuming thatUser:KBongmusic andUser:WBong are both you. Please seeWP:MULTIPLE. You need to decide which account you're going to use, and the other can be disabled.

And, finally, please seeWP:COI for our conflict of interest rules. You clearly have a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. If you decide to ignore that advice, you MUST comply with the rules laid out inWP:COI, including declaring on your user page that you are a COI editor. --RoySmith(talk)01:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for adeletion review ofMilk N Cooks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Banana Republic (talk)16:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Roy Smith,

I appreciate you taking the time to review the article on QC Ware Corporation. I'm confused, though, in what ways it differs from this approved article of another quantum computing company (Rigetti Computing) that makes it blatant advertising. As far as I can tell, the main difference is that the QC Ware article provided more information on the company's personnel and collaborations. If less information were provided, would it then be allowable?

Thanks so much for your time and effort.

Stanford Schor (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (PT)

The page was originally tagged to be deleted bycreffett. When I looked at it, I agreed with his evaluation; the page was basically just promoting the company, with lists of products, conferences, funding rounds, etc. The references were mostly press releases and blogs. Please seeWP:NCORP for what makes a good article about a company. Also, as you have declared on your user page, you have aconflict of interest. Issues like this is why we strongly suggest that people with COI do not write articles. It never turns out well. Also, comparisons to other existing articles don't matter; each article is evaluated on its own merits. --RoySmith(talk)23:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Roy for your kind words during my RfA. Let me further appreciate and note your deft approach to me in the first place about the drafts you'd noticed I had marked under review for a while. You did this in such a way that I could easily point to NPP School (which I'm glad you think is awesome). This kind of interaction is one I hope to emulate as an admin. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Advocate_(2019_film) and herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocate_(2019_film)— Precedingunsigned comment added by176.12.241.152 (talk)02:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying my best to make sure the article was notable and neutral. I was only midway through my editing and it was deleted.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CarmHarris/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1n. I realize one page being on wikipedia doesn't ensure that another will meet the standard, butAlgoSec andZiften have similar posts that read pretty neutral. I have been reading a lot on the guidelines, are my sources not notable enough? I would like to try again. Happy to read your response on the next steps. Thanks!CarmHarris (talk)17:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems strange. main space article have restrictions on them, such as notability, but your sandbox is supposed to be a place where you can play around all you want. I believe that copyright infringement will get things deleted, though, and I suppose other illegal acts. But notability or non-neutrality should not, as far as I know.Gah4 (talk)18:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox says that copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content might be deleted from a user sandbox. That makes sense to me.Gah4 (talk)19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:G11 applies in all namespaces, including user space. --RoySmith(talk)21:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose so. Hard to say without seeing the page, but since unambiguous is part ofWP:G11, it is surprising that OP believes that the problem relates to neutrality. By the way, I don't ordinarilyWP:TPS unless someone is already on my watchlist, and the edit summary sounds like something I might know.Gah4 (talk)02:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the just-under-one-week delay. Following your decision atdeletion review on September 2, I'm here to ask you to restore the deleted content formerly atEugenia Cooney. If you will, please restore the content atUser:Eventhorizon51/eugenia draft. Thanks.Eventhorizon51^(talk)17:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

done. --RoySmith(talk)21:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm a killer, what's your excuse formurdering Wikipedia?KillerChihuahua18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Self-loathing, I guess. --RoySmith(talk)19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Smith for your guidance. I will review in detail. My son and I have set up separate accounts, so we would like to keep both. I am contributing to other Wikipedia pages.Thank you again.WBong (talk)23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You and your son are perfectly welcome to both have accounts. All that's required is that each of you only use your own account, and both of you also declare on your user page yourconflict of interest. There's no requirement that you disclose your personal relationship (i.e. father-son), but both of you should disclose that you are connected to the subject of the article. This is typically done by putting aTemplate:UserboxCOI on your user page, i.e. something like{{UserboxCOI|1=Kevin Bong}}. --RoySmith(talk)23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I prepare a correction of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Citizens_convention_for_ecological_transition) - which indeed, is a translation from the French(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_citoyenne_pour_la_transition_%C3%A9cologique).

I precised in the « Talk » section of the Draft that it is a translation. Does it comply with your demand now ? Still, I can't figure how to add an interlink to the French version…

Thanks for your help— Precedingunsigned comment added by89.87.26.58 (talk)16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. There's still some technical issues to be resolved, but I'll fix those up myself and get the article accepted today. --RoySmith(talk)16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. I just have seen that the interlink works perfectly.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAlicanteL (talk •contribs)17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for quickly reviewing the article and providing excellent help with removing primary sources! I reviewed the references, and yes, many of them were directly involved in the subject of the article you reviewedDraft:Parks on the Air. So, I've done a lot of cleanup (please see the edited history), and I think that it's ready for resubmission (or, at least is very close). If you have some time to give it another quick looksie, I'd appreciate it. :) ThanksZul32 (talk)18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please seeWP:THREE. --RoySmith(talk)21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks.. I think I'm good withWP:RS for the sources, but theWP:SIGCOV will certainly need to be addressed, so I'll try to cut the number of sources down to 3-4 references as you recommended. I'll do another update when I'm done.Zul32 (talk)15:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not asking that you remove sources from the article. I'm just asking that you list here, or as a comment on the draft, what the three best sources are, to help reviewers like me know what's most important to look at. --RoySmith(talk)15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

OH! OK, well too late, and it was probably for the better anyway. Now, it's reduced down to seven; more significant articles, which actually now reference the phrase 'parks on the air'. I thought this would probably be better since a generic article that just mentions a park that ham radio operators went to and got on the air wasn't notable enough. So, of the seven in the article, #2 mentions NPOTA, and #5 mentions Canada NPOTA, the rest refers to POTA directly. So, feel free to go to any three you want to look at them. Hope that works. ThanksZul32 (talk)16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Aldergrove Star one looks the most on-point to me, but I'm not sure it's enough. My suggestion is to resubmit it and see what the next reviewer has to say. --RoySmith(talk)20:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Emlei (talk ·contribs)
  • Draft:Ready, Set, Food! (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Which part sounds highly promotional and what can I do to improve this?

Emlei (talk)22:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to disclose your connection with the company, perWP:COI. --RoySmith(talk)23:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Rbiweb (talk ·contribs)
  • User:Rbiweb (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landlubber_Jeans I've been told I can't copy and paste text or use copyrighted material even if it is my own. However, I'm not sure where you see a problem. If you will please show me where you found a problem I'd be happy to make corrections.Rbiweb (talk)16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Rbiweb (talk)16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at the comment I left. Where it says, "See Earwig for some copy-paste issues that need to be fixed", the word Earwig is a link. Click on it. --RoySmith(talk)18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I accepted this. You wrote " The only references are to MOMA, i.e. WP:PRIMARY sources. We need WP:SECONDARY sources which talk about the painting."I consider this a misunderstanding. The only primary source that's relevant here is the painting itself. The MOMA catalog information is a reliable secondary source from an unquestionable authoritative institution. It may have some sort ofcoi because it owns the painting, but it is nonetheless universally accepted as the basic reliable source, with the only possible more reliable source a monograph on the artist.. And since it is our practice that any painting collected by a major museum justifies an article,and since MOMA is one of theleading museums famous throught the world, nothing mroe really needs to be shown. DGG ( talk)10:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I defer to your better judgement. --RoySmith(talk)13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

For pitching in onCategory:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. --Worldbruce (talk)03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isQuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods.Andy Dingley (talk)13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in theElectronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk)14:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: RoySmith (talk) I am curious why you want to delete my user page. I have just become engaged with wikipedia activities recently, and merely updated my user page that was already there. It is true I have just developed 2 supplements, having done 40 years research on nutrition and health span, and many scientific publications about my research. I used to have a wikipedia page written about me that was deleted without my knowledge, restored without my knowledge, and then deleted again. I have no idea why. But please help me be more useful in sharing knowledge of how the world can stay healthier and save fortunes by documented simple steps.Rocordman (talk)15:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rocordman: because you are trying to use wikipedia to promote your own business. That is very much what wikipedia is not for. --RoySmith(talk)15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and help as I navigate and learn.Hello-Mary-H (talk)16:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it clear if this was a copyvio?[11] matches, but do we know anything about the order and which was copied from where?

It's also licensed therehttps://encyclopedia.pub/termsofuse as CC-by, so we could potentially use it anyway.Andy Dingley (talk)21:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Interesting. I had looked at the TOU page you cite, but didn't get past section 2, "... the copyright of the website belongs to MDPI ...". It never occurred to me that section 3 might be what they were referring to as, "otherwise stated". I do note that the disk loading vs. power loading graph is noted, "original work by S. Paul Dev of D-STAR Engineering Corp., Shelton, CT, USA, reproduced with permission". I suspect that permission may not include uploading it to Commons, where it's annotated as "own work".

As for the who-copied-who part, I just assumed that since this was a draft, it was likely that we copied from them. Archive.org doesn't have that URL in their database, for whatever that's worth.@Ryanyunjiang: who maybe can provide some additional information, and let's hold off deciding what to do until we hear from him. --RoySmith(talk)21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have deleted the pages in encyclopedia.pub. ryanyunjiang— Precedingunsigned comment added byRyanyunjiang (talk •contribs)19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer the question of what was copied from where, and the copyright permission status of the disk loading vs. power loading graph image. Can you fill in the details of what's going on here? --RoySmith(talk)19:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the article. Because Wikipedia needs to review, I posted the article on another website at that time,too, which published immediately without review. Now I have deleted the article from that website. All information and copyright come from my published papers, which have got copyright permission of the graph from the author.§— Precedingunsigned comment added byRyanyunjiang (talk •contribs)14:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable explanation, thanks. I've restored the draft. --RoySmith(talk)14:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. When will the review be finished?Ryanyunjiang (talk)14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it to another reviewer, so it's hard to predict how long. Unfortunately, the review queue is rather long these days, so it might be weeks. --RoySmith(talk)14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm very busy at present (two weeks), but I am actively looking at this article. As soon as I have some basic tidying done I'll move it live into mainspace.Andy Dingley (talk)15:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

One other point, if this is a summary of your own research, you need to disclose that. Please seeWP:COI for how to do that properly. --RoySmith(talk)15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for restoring this draft. COI is certainly an issue and is much easier dealt with as early as possible. It's no reason at all why the article can't exist, especially as you (Ryan) produced it as a draft and other editors have been working on it since. But WP doesn't like anything where they think something has been "hidden", no matter how innocently, or how wrong an impression that would be.

Have other groups been working in this field and have published? It would be a stronger article if we could cover that too.Andy Dingley (talk)17:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I am looking how to disclose. I don't know if other groups are working in this field.Ryanyunjiang (talk)18:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have disclosed a connection to this article. I am not sure if I did it correctly.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRyanyunjiang (talk •contribs)19:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to assist my draft page with an image of what is called the Brotherhood Building of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. No, what you found is in no way related to Bulgakov’s Brotherhood of Saint Sophia. The photo you found is part of this complex:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sophia%27s_Cathedral,_Kiev. Bulgakov’s group operated out of Paris and I am not aware of any physical landmark in existence for it as I do not think they ever had property associated with their group. If you can give any advice as regards what I do have listed in the current content, such as improper formatting, etc., that would be helpful. I would not like to see the draft for such an important theological movement rejected due to my own incompetence. 🙏DErnestWachter (talk)20:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@DErnestWachter: Hi, and thanks for your note. I'm not an expert on religious subjects, so I'm going to leave the actual review to somebody else, but I can give you a few general thoughts. First, you don't actually say up frontwhat the subject is. Typically, the first sentence of an article like this would read,The Brotherhoold of Saint Sophia was a religious order which existed from..... Or, ifreligious order isn't correct, thenmonastary, orchurch, or whatever the correct term is. Think of the first paragraph as your elevator story; you discover you're sharing an elevator with somebody important and you've got 30 seconds to tell them the most critical things about what they need to know. No time to waste telling them anything that's not super-important. I'd leave off the long list of names, or at least push them down to later in the article.

You should also look atWP:Inline citation for how to format references. I've added a "References" section, and a {{reflist}} template, which gets you a reference list more in the generally accepted style. We don't require that sources be available on-line, but if some of these are available on-line, including a URL where they can be access would be useful. If not, then including an ISBN number would be very helpful for people trying to locate paper copies in a library.

I hope some of that is useful to you. --RoySmith(talk)22:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for therestoration of Template:Infoshops, i was wondering if it is possible to restore the talkpage as well? Much obligedMujinga (talk)17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. My apologies, I should have remembered to do that the first time. --RoySmith(talk)20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• 2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk ·contribs)
  • User:Criosdean (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Hi,Thank you for reviewing my Draft: Battle of Sollas page on 30 September 2019. Unfortunately, it was deleted as you said it contained copyrighted material. I would be grateful if you could tell me what part(s) gave you cause for concern as I thought I had given suitable citations and the information was either out of copyright or in the public domain. I am keen to correct any errors on my part and I would appreciate your assistance as I am sure you can tell I am (very) new to writing an article for wiki.

Criosdean

(2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk)00:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)).

2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk)00:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, removing boilerplate for a personal courtesy notice. It was tagged, and it did meet copyvio; may I suggest that if you decide to work on this, you do so off-Wikipedia until you've gotten all the potential copyvio stuff out? It would prevent possible issues.KillerChihuahua13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --RoySmith(talk)14:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not at all.KillerChihuahua14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roy, i can see you rejected my article. I wanted to start a discussion on the specific reason for doing so. My article link is[14]

Your comments say that the article seemed to be more like an advertisement, where it should be written from a neutral point of view and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.

I have attached around 30+ articles depicting different sources (newspapers from India) which are written by different independent authors as referneces. Can you let me know why you think these are not creditable sources? Each event in the article is substantiated with numerous such articles from different news papers which depict specific events of life of the subject in the article. Can you list the issues so that I can work on those and republish the article?

Awaiting you response on this.Manas.chafekar (talk)00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer. The entire article is written to show the subject in the best possible light. This is not surprising, given that you are apparently a family relation of the subject. This is why editors are strongly urged to refrain fromWP:COI editing. I do not believe it is possible that any amount of editing will make this article acceptable. --RoySmith(talk)00:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is a collection of all the references i sought from internet from independent sources and news papers in India. You can open any article i have referenced in this page and you will see that i have only taken parts out of these references. I am not the one who is portraying the subject in best possible light, it is the references. My article is a mere structured collection of them. Setting aside the bias of CoI, which btw i have already declared, why cant this article be published. I am sure i am not the first person to publish an article which is CoI and can pass. Can you give me a few examples which i may check/ rewrite so that this article can be published. Again, the source is all given in reference and i am only quoting the facts out in public domain. I am eager to make changes so that this article can be published, so i am open to your suggestions, advise.-Manas.chafekar (talk)21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made the necessary changes after my chat with moderators at Kiwi IRC. The person examined my article and suggested me to make changes so that the article is neutral and no superlative verbs are used. I have made the changes to[15] and published them. Can you check if it is now as per the policy? And if not, what further changes do you suggest?--Manas.chafekar (talk)22:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra •KillerChihuahua •Kusma Arcadian •Extraordinary Machine •Xeno JamesBWatson →JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles •SilkTork •Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles •SilkTork •Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Followinga discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added:C2F: One eponymous article, whichapplies if the category containsonly an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• Aspreviously noted, tighterpassword requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• Thearbitration case regardingFram wasclosed. While there will be a local RfCfocus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a globalcommunity consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to theincident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, andwelcomes feedback.

I would suggest you review your close of this discussion, as there may be substantial sockpuppetry among the "keep" votes, based upon my experience closing a related discussion. Cheers!bd2412T15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Done. --RoySmith(talk)16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good work. Cheers!bd2412T16:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with the Draft ofGeorgia Florida and Alabama Railroad and for accepting the article!The Mirror Cracked (talk)00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I review so much garbage, it's really gets me excited when I find something that's worth having in the encyclopedia. Thanks for your help getting it up to snuff, and of course toUser:FloridaArmy for getting it started. BTW, I'm actually thinking it should be,Georgia, Florida and Alabama Railroad, which I see is currently a redirect. --RoySmith(talk)01:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

PS, one of you should nominate it forWP:DYK. The quip about Gopher, Frog & Alligator would make a great hook. --RoySmith(talk)01:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding theBeverly Marsh andBen Hanscom AfD's would you consider relisting so that the sources I posted today can be given proper consideration? Both clearly meetWP:GNG in my opinion, and it's unfortunate that other contributors failed to find the sources earlier in the discussion.----Pontificalibus15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. --RoySmith(talk)15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks - hopefully they get some more input.--Pontificalibus15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roy!

I hope this finds you well. My name is Erica and I wanted to ask about a specific page. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I live in the Bay Area and I have loved seeing Davina Semo's work around galleries. When I noticed that a page for her was in progress, I decided to help it along. I noticed it was deleted under G11 and that that cannot be undeleted. I just want to check in that it's okay if I restart an article for her because I think she's an awesome artist! It told me to talk to you before I started. There is no longer a link that I could send you.

Please let me know!

All the best,Erica (4 October 2019, 1:26 P PST)

Hi Erica. The first thing I need to ask is whether you have any relationship to the subject? If so, please readWP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies. If you want to try writing a new version ofDraft:Davina Semo, you can do that, but readWP:RS,WP:INDEPENDENT, andWP:SECONDARY to find out what we consider good sources. Looking through the deleted draft, I'd say most of the sources there do not qualify. The web sites of galleries showing the artist's work, for example, have a vested interest, i.e. they're trying to sell the art and make money off the sale. You should also readWP:NPOV to understand how to avoid being bitten byWP:G11 again. --RoySmith(talk)21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roy,

Thank you so much for this information! I do not have any relationship to the subject other than liking her art. I'll do my best to find other sources as well! I'll also read over the information--hopefully this time it isn't flagged.

All the best,EricaErica.Mansilver (talk)21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC) 14:26 4 October 2019 (PST)— Precedingunsigned comment added byErica.Mansilver (talk •contribs)

No idea why this is on my watchlist (probably an old discussion from a long tome ago), but my finger mistakenly slipped on to rollback while browsing on iPhone. My apologies.Viriditas (talk)02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the note. I totally sympathize about accidental button presses on mobile. Happens to me all the time! I've even got a bit of custom CSS installed which hides the logout button so I don't accidentally log myself out. --RoySmith(talk)02:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, thanks for your comments at "Talk:Menengic coffee#Chill, everybody" - I have a couple of questions if you have a moment:

First, you said:The original move was fine, in the sense thatWikipedia:Requested moves is only needed when the editor who wants the name change is unable to perform the move themselves due to technical reasons.

I thoughtWikipedia:Requested moves was also needed for "potentially controversial" moves? And that pages should only be moved without discussion if "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move."?

Given the recent history, where this user managed to get the whole article deleted (seeUser talk:Jinian#Kurdish coffee - mistaken deletion? and the section below it) they should have known there would be objections. Anyway, making the move again after I reverted it isn't really ok, is it?

I was trying to follow the instructions atWikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, which includes "if you make a bold move and it is reverted,do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in§ Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." But now that theydid make the move again, I'm not sure what to do next. I'll add some comments about the name on the talk page, but then what? I guess it could turn out that the new title is more appropriate, but shouldn't it be moved back to the stable title, pending outcome of a requested move? Should I follow this:

• Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made atWP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.

Or do I now need to start a requested move myself, by followingWikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, to get it reverted?

PS, thanks for restoring the one reference they removed. They've also deleted some other sourced material and citations - basically any reference to Kurdish traditions - and replaced it with others "that proves its Turkish". I'd like to put some of it back, but I also don't want to edit war. It's clear that there's a shared heritage in the region, but I get the feeling that this user isn't going to be open to describing it as anything other than of Turkish national origin. Do you have any suggestions about how to approach the situation? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk)21:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess I should have realized that anything that is in any way related to Kurds is going to be controversial, even if it's just what they call their coffee. My initial suggestion holds; start a conversation on (what's currently)Talk:Menengic coffee about what the correct title should be for the article. If that fails to build consensus, then I'd suggest bringing it toWP:RM#CM. I suspect if you just move it back to the title you want, it'll get moved again, and then we'll be right back where we are now. To help build your case, I'd suggest searching for both terms and see if there's anything good that comes out of that. If you end up with 10x as many google hits for one term vs. the other, that's a reasonable argument why that term should be the title of the article. Another possibility might be to bring it toWP:3. To be honest, I don't have much experience with that, but it looks like it might be a lightweight way to resolve the disagreement, so worth trying. You might have noticed I'm trying really hard not to take a side here :-) --RoySmith(talk)21:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions... I did some research and added it to the talk page. I guess it will need a formal requested move soon, to push it along and bring some other people into the conversation. I'm not definitely attached to a particular name at the moment, but I think it needs some discussion. I also try hard to stay neutral on Turkish/Kurdish etc. issues, but it bothers me in general when people erase mentions of another culture's traditions. I have an interest in Middle Eastern food articles, and unfortunately it puts me in the middle of these things a lot. In a way it's interesting to see how the various conflicts about national identity politics in the region play out in terms of food, but it does get rather tedious. PS, I apologize that I didn't make the connection today that you were the first commenter in the deletion discussion, so you knew about all that already. I did see your note on the talk page after it closed, thanks for that too... --IamNotU (talk)04:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)