This user may have left Wikipedia. DESiegel has not edited Wikipediasince 6 October 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is my talk page. Please add new messages to thebottom of the page, Please sign all msgs with four tildes (like this ~~~~).Click here to start a new topic.DES^(talk)03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will generally preserve all comments, positive or negative, and archive them when the page gets too large. But I may choose to delete vandalism or nonsense. I would generally prefer that other editors not remove anything from my talk page. Thank you for communicating with me.DES^(talk)03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any removals of content from my talk page may be reverted by rollback with or without notice.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may respond on your talk page, or under your comment here. If i respond here I will notify you with a{{talkback}} template, or a ping, or both, unless you have asked me not to, or have asked editors in general not to so notify you (as some editors do).DES^(talk)21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have left a comment on your talk page, or on an article talk page, you may respond where i left the comment, or here. If you respond where i left the comment, to keep the thread together, dropping me a note or placing a{{talkback}} or{{tb}} template on this page, or pinging me by including{{U|DESiegel}} in asigned talk page comment will probably mean that I see your comment and respond sooner. Please consider doing so.DES^(talk)00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please donot edit the header template (User:DESiegel/TPHdr) used to display these header sections of the talk page unless there is a problem with it -- that template is not a good place to leave messages for me.DES^(talk)21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive 1 My talk page from 10 Feb 2005 thru 6 Sept 2005.
• Archive 2 My talk page from 6 Sept 2005 thru 19 Dec 2005.
• Archive 3 My talk page from 20 Dec 2005 thru 10 Feb 2006.
• Archive 4 My talk page from 21 Feb 2006 thru 21 Apr 2007.
• Archive 5 My talk page from 22 Apr 2007 thru 31 May 2007.
• Archive 6 My Talk page, June 2007 archived while I was absent.
• Archive 7 My Talk page, July 2007 archived while I was absent.
• Archive 8 My Talk page August 2007 through 21 January 2010
• Archive 9 My Talk page 21 January 2010 through 21 March 2010
• Archive 10 My Talk page 23 March 2010 through September 2012
• Archive 11 My Talk page October 2012 through March 2015
• Archive 12 My Talk page April through June 2015
• Archive 13 My Talk page July 2015 through December 2016
• Archive 14 My Talk page February 2017 through February 2018

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check outWikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi there. My wiki interest is editing food pages and you'll see I edit and improve mostly food pages in my time on wiki. I'm currently in a discussion with you and others in relation to the pagefoodporn. I'd like you to kindly investigate usersHogohit andPraxidicae. An investigation ofSpecial:Contributions/Hogohit proves this is merely a vandalism account (as they just created this account 2 days ago with the sole purpose of deleting/vandalising foodporn and 'food porn'. Further, if you look atSpecial:Contributions/Praxidicae, this user just makes wholesale edits, speedy deletion requests, and deletes whole slabs of edits and content on multiple pages without any kind of justification or rationale. This is not helpful for new users trying to learn how to be a wiki editor. I think both users should be perma banned for vandalism. Thanks for your time.PS: apologies my 'wiki speak' still needs some work. I'm learning as I go :)

Hi. Would you please draftify or userfy the subject article, or at least send me a copy of the wikitext? Thanks.   —JeffG. ツ13:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please seeWikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you!Sent by:xaosflux20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —xaosflux^Talk17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mduvekot regards too many references to artist's web-site. I did not have enough time to correct it.The references to artists website could be removed , if it going against of Wikipedia rules. They were created with purpose to give information about collections. Please renew the page so I am able to remove all references to artist’s website. Best regards,— Precedingunsigned comment added byEditorforart (talk •contribs)04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Editorforart, I deleted the article as being very promotional. This is not just a matter of references to the artist's web site, but that the whole text read like an advertisement for the artist, or a CV. I have restored it and moved it toDraft:Oksana Tanasiv, where it can be edited down to a factually based test. Remwember that all statements should be suported or be able to be supported, fromreliabel sources. Please readWikipedia's Golden Rule andYour first article before continuing.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorforart (talk)17:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you for restoring the article to the draft. I would correct the issues and improve the article to the required standards. Also, I would appreciate any of your help or volunteers help in correcting it. Thank you.[reply]

Of course,Editorforart. Plese do not include personal orm uncited opnions or subjective statements about the nature of the artist's work. All statements should be clearly factual, or elswe quoted opnions from reliable sources which are cited, clearly marked as such.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, you declined the speedy deletion ofSikander Menghro. Actually page was created by me by mistake. A page already exist on same person under different name atSikandar Ali Mandhro. Redirection does not make sense because the spelling are wrong, therefore I suggested it be deleted. --Saqib (talk)20:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and help. Very much appreciatedLampGenie01 (talk)19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The passcode is "af". I hope you're able to sign up without trouble and I look forward to having you join us Saturday. Let me know if you need any other assistance.sarahobender (talk •contribs)13:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had problems with your authoritive tones before. If anyone needs to AGF it's you. Consider discussing COIN and not the people who work hard to clean this place up and reduce its misuse. Thank you for your comprehension and your otherwise excellent work at the Tea House.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)17:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, I amDeermouse, Thank you for the grammatical enlightenment. I too know this however I chose to practice the communication skills to improve wiki love. This response to your kind remark is well sent with much wiki love. I hope to improve my editing soon. I have some cleaning up to do over at theHuman nutrition page. I would inquire of this Ambassador program, rather the subject matter MoS.Deermouse (talk)22:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel. I know we wound up at cross purposes just now. My apologies for that. I want you to know that I have been working with reFill for a few months now and have spent many hours working on the citations that it doesn't fix. My efforts are in an attempt to keep theCategory:All articles with bare URLs for citations clear. It has been a good learning experience (and left my typing fingers tired a few times) but it has also taught me that reFill isn't perfect and it certainly isn't designed to accomplish what you are striving for. I think your new template looks good and I appreciatethis edit as it will avoid any confusion over what that program can't do. Again my apologies for any upset I've brought to your evening or day depending on where you live.MarnetteD|Talk02:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, no upset at all. I apologize for my tone. You were correct, using a tag that promised that refill would fix what it in fact won't fix was not helpful. I was thinking of the general purpose of{{linkrot}} but its specific wording didn't really fit this situation, and when you pointed out that that was the issue, i basically cloned{{linkrot}}, changing the wording and removing the references to refill. I think refill has been significantly improved of late, and if that was in part your doing, thank you. I take it that it no longer stuffs extra info in the title parameter as it used to do, and as the earlier tool did?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I am not sure as I don't think I used the earlier version. I haven't seen it stick anything more than the basic title into that field but I have seen some title fields with way more in them than the actual title. Thanks to your message I now know why :-) My wikiprogramming skills are minimal so it is the work of others that will have brought about improvements. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week.MarnetteD|Talk02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier tool wasReflinks by the way,MarnetteD.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks for the link.MarnetteD|Talk02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the template you created for merging withTemplate:Ref expand{{3x|p}}ery (talk)14:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel !

I have had two of my recent additions to Wikipedia deleted by another user.Suzann Christine andDamon Allen Jr. He is an administrator. The reason for deletion was because it seemed promotional. I communicated to him that I would like the opportunity to edit the pages but they were deleted without ever having been nominated. It was quite sudden and startling, considering the pages have been in place for several months now.

I took some time to go through several Wikipedia training courses so that I am better prepared to edit. The admin who deleted the pages has been unresponsive for 24 hours, so I am reaching out to you, as you helped me with the edits on my first page,Charlie Heat . What I am asking is to have the additions restored so that I can edit in a more neutral fashion. I didn't realize that by quoting people who give praise, that I would in turn be adopting a promotional tone. He advised that I drop the quoted material and simply state facts. I understand.

He also questioned if I have been compensated to edit on Wikipedia and I have not YET been paid. I do intend to be paid in the future so I have added the required PAID template to my Userpage.

Please reach out. The pages were deleted last week. I took the topics on as a way to give myself good experience in this setting.

Thank you.

Whitevwins (talk)18:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitevwins, You need to understand first of all that most Wikipedia editors, and as far as I know all Wikipedia admins, are totally unpaid volunteers who edit and perform administrative functions in their spare time. Please readWikipedia:There is no deadline. A 24 hour delay does not usually constitute "unresponsive". No response for a week or two might.Seraphimblade is a well-respected and experienced admin. So isKudpung. As Kudpung told you, asking one admin to undo the acts of another ("admin shopping") is not usually well received. If you cannot come to an agreement with the deleting admin, the next step should beDeletion review, but that shouldnot be tried until a full discussion with the deleting admin has taken place, or the admin has absolutely refused to restore the text in any way, or has been unresponsive for a significant period of time. It is also true that some admins will put paid editors lower on their priority list for assistance than they will volunteers.

Please understand that someone whoexpects or evenhopes to be paid for editing is just as much a paid editor here as someone who is paid in advance, or is on salary, and youmust disclose your paid statusbefore making any further edits on behalf of clients/employers. Failure to do sowill lead to your being blocked from editing. While I am somewhat more sympathetic to those paid editors who comply with the current rules than some other admins are, I am not actually in favor of paid editing, and i will block undisclosed paid editors freely. I see that you have now made a general disclosure. Remember to add specific articles/drafts to that disclosure as you create/edit them for pay.

I briefly reviewed the deleted text ofSuzann Christine andDamon Allen Jr. Both were, in my view, significantly promotional. I might not have done a speedy deletion on either had I been the admin to review them, but I would at least have moved them to draft or user space, and issued a warning. Such language aspassion,To Exercise her activism, andopenly express her talent and ability is promotional and should not be used. When a quote is used, it must not only be supported by a citation, but be attributed to its source in the article text, not just in a footnote. Quotes such asAlways singing, since the age of 5, she loaned her voice to the church and talent shows but she didn't think about turning her passion into a career. carry a strong point-of-view, and are usually best avoided, even if they are accurate quotes. That factual information can be conveyed by such wording asHer work was favorably reviewed by "Geo" of the Philly Music project (followed by the citation). Note also that a ststement such asShe has performed at many events, most notably the N2N Festival that featured a tribute to The Artist Formally Known As Prince. could be read as a form of name-dropping. The tribute to Prince does not make Suzann Christine more notable, but may seem to do so. Even if accurate, such statements should be avoided.

I urge you, if you want to proceed with these articles, to recreate them in draft or user space, doing your best to stick strictly to the facts, without judgments or spin, and submit them for review thruarticles for creation, as Kudpung advised. Avoid adjectives of judgement and opinions except in attributed and cited direct quotes.

I hope this is helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel (talk ·contribs) So very helpful. I appreciate your insight and direction very much. I will take the advice to first edit in draft or userspace and then submit for review througharticles for creation, as Kudpung advised.Whitevwins (talk)22:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, DESiegel!

I have submitted the following links: External Links

• Bulleted list item

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/local-businesses-feed-families-in-need-with-days-of-pizza/article_29e5800c-3f0c-5f08-990f-bf9902bc78b0.html

• Bulleted list item

http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/12-Days-of-Pizza-helps-48-families-this-year-408093315.html

• Bulleted list item

http://www.bhpioneer.com/deadwood/days-of-pizza-take/article_efc1a0a6-cd10-11e6-be88-5b5d3a67ae28.html

• Bulleted list item

http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/days-of-pizza-takes-a-bite-out-of-hunger/article_72ef5156-ecb6-11e7-89b7-ff72578868d1.html

• Bulleted list item

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/gooddeeds/our-good-deeds-days-of-pizza-program-takes-slice-out/article_27c79145-c3f7-5ba3-9a0f-bbd4ce639a0f.html

I hope this meets with your approval. If not, I will be happy to modify as instructed.

I VERY much appreciate your help. Thanks again.

Jkcproject (talk)13:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice you gave me regarding the page I'm writing on the artist from Palestine. I'm new to Wikipedia and I admit that I feel like I'm in a maze. I want to follow the Wikipedia guidelines to a "t" and I want to be an effective and productive contributor. Am I free to contact you with questions as I work towards getting the page ready for approval, or should I always go directly to the Tea House?

George David NH (talk)02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,George David NH, and I am very glad to have been helpful. Do feel free to reach out to me with questions at qany time. However, I am not on Wikipedia all the time, and may go for several days without logging in, depending on what is happening in my non-Wikipedia life. If you want a prompter response, posting at the Teahouse is not a bad idea. Several other regular volunteers there are skilled and helpful.

You may always get my attention by posting here on my talk page. Or you mayping me by placing the code{{ping|DESiegel}} or{{u|DESiegel}} on any talk page where you want my attention, as part of a new signed comment. Note that without the signature, the software does not notify me.

Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices are complex. Each of them exists for a reason, often a good reason. But no one should act harshly towards a new editor who is trying in good faith to act properly. (Some may, but no one should.) Keep your mind firmly on a few key policies:verifibility and the need tocite sources to support most factual statements;notability, the need to only include articles about notable topics; theNeutral point of view and the need to neither praise nor disparage any person, subject, or concept in Wikipedia's voice, but to keep articles factual;What Wikipedia is not, the need not to include inappropriate content, theBiographies of living People policy, the need to be extra careful when writing about currently living people. Stick firmly to these and the rest more or less follows. It is no accident that these basic policies overlap and reinforce each other.

Do you have any current questions or issues you would like help with? In any case, I wish you happy and productive editing.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Can you help me? I'm struggling with the Wikipedia page I've been trying to create. It should be in draft mode but it's live. I don't know how to do my references and I reached out for help on a thread here and got dumped on. Can you look at the page, give me your advice and help me get it back to draft?— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)21:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, you just deleated my draft because "it violates Copyrights"? Please help, those were references, no?Re: Remix Awards (This submission appears to be taken fromhttp://www.youredm.com/2017/02/19/check-nominees-2017-remix-awards/,http://dancingastronaut.com/2017/02/2017-remix-awards-announce-nominees-mmw-event/)— Precedingunsigned comment added byTimBello (talk •contribs)14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,TimBello. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The draft did register very high on our cpyright violation detection tools, but on a closer look that was because the lists of nominees were, of course, te same in the draft and in the sources. Tis is one of the very few cases where such close identity between a Wikipedia page and a source page is acceptable, where the content is basically a list of facts presented in their natural order, with no creative selection. In this case, i should not have deleted it, andShadowowl should not have tagged it as a copyvio. We ll make mistakes.

Accordingly, i have restoredDraft:Remix Awards.However, we do already have an articleRemix awards, and it might be better to work on that. We don't normally have two different articles on the same topic, so unless your draft is intended as a total replacement, it will be a waste of effort. (No we don't either.)

A couple of procedural points. Pleasesign posts on talk and discussion pages, with four tildes (~~~~). Please add new posts to the bottom of my talk page (not the top) or use the "New section" button, which may show up as a plus sign. Most user talk pages have new posts added at the bottom. Happy editing, and feel free to ask for help or advice.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel. I see you have declined my G11 tagging onUser:Attunement/Marvin_Bressler. However, it contains promotional sentences likerenowned educator and scholar,He was a leading figure, It was this intellectual concern that fueled Bressler's research. How is this not G11? Regards, -- »Shadowowl |talk15:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowowl, Please note thatWP:CSD#G11 saysThis applies to pages that areexclusively promotional and would need to befundamentally rewritten to conform withWikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject isnotable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from aneutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. A page that is largely factual with some promotional phrases and some puffery needs to be edited to comply, not deleted, and is not a G11 candidate. Moreover, user pages, which are not indexed by search engines and may be works in progress to an even greater degree than articles are, should be given somewhat more leeway on this point than articles are. This was well outside the parameters of a G11 speedy.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for explaining. -- »Shadowowl |talk18:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Although I would not agree with your assessment of the page, I'm happy to userfy it, but I am not sure that you have been clear enough with this user that he shouldnot edit the page himself, regardless of whether he has declared a COI. I'll put it atUser:DESiegel/Kentucky Today, okay?Deb (talk)19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Deb. I have not been clear about that because I do not agree that any such restriction is required in this case. I will post a connected contributor template, however, after I move it to Draft space. (by the way, the editor has not apparently declared a gender, but has mentioned the name "Robin" which surely could be female.)DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...or male :-) Well, if they carry on posting with that username, they'll get blocked regardless of whether they've declared an interest. I was on the verge of blocking them myself if you hadn't volunteered to work on the article.Deb (talk)07:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was reading your user page (because somebody has to make sure they go to use), whereupon I noticed your typo section. I was curious as to whether your typo of Wikipedia in that section was intentional or exactly the sort of thing you were referring to. (For the record, I found it quite funny either way).—Compassionate727 ^(T·C)00:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,,Compassionate727. No, I did not leave any errors on the page intentionally, and now that you have called my attention to one, I will fix it. That section has been unchanged for quite a few years, now. These days I have spell-check in the browser edit window, so things are better, but I still make typos when i am not careful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DESiegel,You mentioned you would look intoKhaled Malas tagging for notability/promotional. The talk page attempts to address this but has been ignored by the tagger. What can one do? I have tried to do as you suggested and added further citations. Thank you!Coneyislandbaby lou (talk)12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coneyislandbaby lou, I have started a discussion atTalk:Khaled Malas, the proper place to discuss the issue. Please join that discussion. I have also been improving the bibliographic metadata in the citations onKhaled Malas, which will make it easier to see how good the evidence for nhotability is. If you add furhter citations, please provide as compelte data as possible, not just a URL. Thank you.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!Coneyislandbaby lou (talk)16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with my duplicate article merge!

SaturdayLibrarian (talk)19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,You deleted a Wikipedia article about The Bosman Twins. I asked that the article be considered for reinstatement, however, you declined due to the bad behavior of the originator. That is an unfortunate occurrence and should have no reflection on The Bosman Twins or any future submissions. At this point, I am asking you to PLEASE email copy of the original article to me as a courtesy. An email directly to<redacted> will work just fine. I already tried to enable "email this user" and was unsuccessful. As I have said, I am not a sophisticated user of this very difficult Wikipedia widget. Simply put, I couldn't figure out how to do it. I hope this communication reaches you, and that you respond, excusing my ignorance. Thank you PR1775.Pr1775 (talk)16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pr1775, To enable the "Email this user" function, go toSpecial:Preferences. Scroll down to the Email options section. Fill in your email address at "Email (optional)*". Check the box marked "Allow other users to email me". You may wish to check one or mote of the other boxes as well. Then click the "Save" Button.

I did not not deleteThe Bosman Twins. That was done bypacemanSpiff. You asked a Teahouse question about it, now archived at[1] You were advised to ask atWP:REFUND or to start over. Someone editing while not logged in, perhaps you, did that, now archived at[2]. The response was that deletions for block violations would not be routinely restored. You asked again at the Teahouse on March 11, and i responded, offering to email a copy. I will now do so.

I caution you that you should not simply recreate the article using the text I am about to send you. That would violate he copyright of the blocked user and of any other users who contributed to it. Instead, please use this as a basis to rewrite the article in fresh words.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Siegel,

Thanks for your insight on the Lapin issue. I apologize for misunderstanding the disclosure protocol and did not intentionally seek to mislead readers/contributors. My understanding is that you have found some problems with the content in question. Is it fair to presume that I am free to make suggestions and/or request an edit with the proper disclosures and edit summary?

Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Aharonovlaw (talk)21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Eyal[reply]

Hello,Aharonovlaw. Once you have made the disclosure you are free to post onTalk:Nicole Lapin (or any other article talk page) with suggestions, inducing suggested sources, suggested edits, and reasons why you think particular edits should or should not be made, or particular content should or should not be in the article. To call attention to a request for a specific edit, crease a new section on the page, describe your requested edit as exactly as possible, including reliable sources which support it, and place{{Request edit}} below the description. This will add the request to a list monitored by several experienced editors. Detailed instructions may be found atTemplate:Request edit. Other suggestions ca just be made on the article talk page.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh to answer your other question,Aharonovlaw, the problems that I found were that the sourcing may not be sufficient to support the addition of he controversy section, and that laoin's quoted response is not currently cited to any source at all. If you have a source for that quote it would be helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Can you help me? I'm struggling with the Wikipedia page I've been trying to create. It should be in draft mode but it's live. I don't know how to do my references and I reached out for help on a thread here and got dumped on. Can you look at the page, give me your advice and help me get it back to draft?— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)21:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,George David NH. I have movedJudith Weinshall Liberman toDraft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, as you seemed to feel that it was not ready for the main article space, and I agree. I will give more extensive advice on citing sources later, in the meantime please readReferencing for Beginners.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Once again, thank you for your input and advice. I'm reading the Ref for Beginners tonight and taking notes. I appreciate your willingness to help. Once I figure this out I should have an easier time if I write another page. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)00:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to do what I can,George David NH.I am sorry not to be of more help. I see you suggested a physical meeting with another Wikipedian. I am not geographically close enough to you to do that, but perhaps we could meet by telephone some evening? (I am on US Eastern time.)

I have made afew small edits toDraft:Judith Weinshall Liberman. Have a look at them as examples, and note the individual summaries on the individual edits in the history.

Here are a few specific pieces of advice:

• Note that external links should not be used in the body of an article or draft, except as part of a source citation. (Those are links to sites outside of Wikipedia. If a person or topic is mentioned that already has an article onWikipedia, do link to that article (as i just did to the one about Wikipedia). A few links may be placed in an "External links" section. These should usually not be commercial sites, and should be there to inform the reader, not to drive traffic to he sites. seeWP:EL for more detailed guidance.
• On referencing, the most vital part is to select good, reliable sources. A perfectly formatted citation of an unreliable source is worthless, while a bare URL ging to a good soure can fairly easily be fixed.
• Note that sites consisting entirely or significantly of user-generated content with no oversight, like Geni.com or IMDB.com, are generally not considered reliable.
• A citation, using the foot note method, should consist of a <ref>tag, followed by the content of the citation, followed by a </ref> tag. The content should consist of bibliographic data identifying the source, or a URL that links to it (if it is online, or ideally both. The desired bibliographic data are the title of the article, the title or name of the containing work, the name of the author (if available), the page number (if applicable), the date of publication (if available), the publisher (if available and helpful, it adds nothing to say thatThe New York Times is published by the New York Times Co), the ISBN and/or OCLC number for books, and he volume and issue for magazines and journals that use them. Not all of these are needed on any one citation.
• Citations can be formatted usingCitation templates but this is not required. I generally prefer using them, myself.

I hope that list is helpful -- what specific issues are you currently stuck on?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}04:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look atWikipedia:Meetup/Boston,George David NH. I don't see any listed in NH.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, David. Your help is very much appreciated as I'm actually losing sleep over this page I'm creating. Funny thing is, I write tech manuals and edit college thesis papers for a living and I still can't figure out the Wiki rules. Thanks for offering a phone consultation — I'll take you up on that if you meant it. Maybe we could look at my page at the same time and you can walk me through some things I need to change or reformat. I would pay you via PayPal if you have a PayPal account. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Also, one of my main concerns is that I'm not sure how to save my draft while it's in the editing process. I don't want to lose my work before it's ready to go live. Can you tell me how to save my draft as I go? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose sleep,George David NH. Please remember thatthere is no deadline. I did mean it, although we will need to find a time that works for both of us. I am actually at an editathon this morning.

I donot accept money for Wikipedia editing or advice, and anyone who asks for money for that is probably a scammer. I am most likely to be available in the evenings, say starting at 7-9 pm.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to saving a draft, just save each edit with the "publish changes" button. That prevents work from being lost, but doesnot move the draft to the main article space. Be sure that the page name startts with "Draft:"More to come.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of becoming my Wikipedia hero! Could we talk tonight (Friday), tomorrow or tomorrow night? I'll have a list of questions at hand so I don't waste your time. Also, I've noticed that when I've hit "publish changes" its posted the page online. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH "publish changes" does indeed save the changes to the Wikipedia site, where they are available to anyone online. But if the page is "in the draft namespace" (which simply means the page name starts with "draft") it is not considered "live", search engines do not index it, and it does not show up on default searcher from within Wikipedia, although it can be found if one knows how to look. I'll get back to you on my availability tonight.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My wife informs me that I will not be home this evening (Fri) as I'm supposed to help her friend move into her new condo. Could we chat on the phone sometime tomorrow or Sunday?— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)19:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel Hi David. I'll be around all this weekend if you find time to chat on the phone. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)12:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,George David NH. 2-4 pm start time today (Sunday)? See your email for contact info.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}11:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, David.

		The Special Barnstar
		messageGeorge David NH (talk)00:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David.

When you get a minute can you take a look at this page and let me know what you think?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Holocaust_Wall_Hangings

Do you think if I make your editing recommendations I could publish it tomorrow and see how it goes?

Thanks! GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)19:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all,George David NH, i see that there is a problem atFile:The Yellow Star.jpg, the image you uploaded for the draft. Eaxactly what did the artist say about permission when she sent it to youyou ; what emai, address sid you send permisison ino to here at Wikipedia, and when did you send it? Can you forward me a copy of the email that you sent, plesae?
• Also,don't sayEvidence: Will be provided on request, instead describe the exact terms under which it ahs been released. If a named license has been used, give the name of that license. Also, include a statement that release info has been sent to Wikimedia and when. More to follow on the draft itself.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Next,George David NH, there should be page numbers for the cites to the bookHolocaust Wall Hangings. If they are all to the same page or range of pages, put them in the cite with|page= or|pages=. If they are to different pages, use{{rp}} just after the closing of the<ref>...</ref> (or<ref/>) tag. Notice that I have removed the duplicate citation details. That is whatnamed references are for. Read the linked section please.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded two emails to you — they're the ones I sent to Wikipedia regarding the photos. Dave, I've never worked so hard on anything in my life. Ha!

Good,George David NH. Notethe changes I made atFile:The_Yellow_Star.jpg and make similar ones at all other images you have uploaded based on the same grant of permission.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to get to the pages for Hands Up and the Anne Frank photos so I can make the changes like those you made to Yellow Star?— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)22:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would beFile:Hands Up from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg andFile:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg,George David NH. You can find such things in the list of your contributions.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - got it. I made those edits for Hands Up jpg and Anne Frank jpg. Hope I got it right

Yes the edits look good,George David NH. I gave the wrong link above for Hnds up, a copy & npaste error, no fixed but you found the right page.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the cites to the artist's 2002 book using{{rp}} so that it does not appear in the Notes multiple times, but still shows the relevant page number references. Were you going to do a "Critical reactions" section for reviews of the work,George David NH? If that can be added i think this is ready for mainspace.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I tell you this all the time, but I really appreciate you and I could not become a Wikipedia writer without you.

you would manage,George David NH, but I hope I make it easier. Please don't forget tosign each and every talk page comment with four tildes (~~~~).DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)23:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put critical reaction content under "Reception and Exhibitions" by mentioning the NY Times and NBC, etc. But I can change it to "Exhibitions" followed by "Critical Reactions" and mention the NY times and others with some quotes from those who wrote the articles. Would that be better? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)23:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to separate critiques/reviews out, but there is no rule requiring that,George David NH. I think it is clearer to the reader. I missed that those had been included.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the advice of my mentor and separate the two. Once this is ready to publish, how do I move it out of draft? GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)23:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy,George David NH. You use themove function. (follow the link for more details.) Under the Page menu, (in most configurations) you should find a link "Move Page". Click this, and select (article) in the left-hand box. Leave the actual title unchanged. Click the blue Move Page button near the bottom. That will do it.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I separated Exhibitions and Critical Responses. If you like the change then I think we're good to go. Please advise if you think it's still a good time to go to main space and how I should go about moving it from draft to main space. GeorgeGeorge David NH (talk)01:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are good to go. See directions for moving above. I think this is a good article (although a ways from aGood Article).DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks, Jedi MasterGeorge David NH (talk)01:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/administrator-of-the-agricultural-research-service-who-is-chavonda-jacobs-young-141101?news=854693— Precedingunsigned comment added byPearlsa110 (talk •contribs)17:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the following to the ARS Wikipedia page?

ARS' largest research center -- also considered to be the largest agricultural research complex in the world -- is the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland.

http://web.centralmarylandchamber.org/Government-Agencies/Beltsville-Agricultural-Research-Center-1683

Pearlsa110 (talk)17:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just curious if you were still planning to come back around to the Broadridge discussion. I really appreciated your participation in both sections, and am hopeful you can help find a compromise with these requests. Thanks,WWB Too (Talk ·COI)18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see that Gryffindor just gave up the mop for doing what you've done: using tools to override protection to establish your preferred outcome? I understand that essays don't need consensus but I think you have erred in your belief about an outcome at MfD. I've tried to seek a Pareto-optimal outcome and your blind insistence will have repercussions.Chris Troutman (talk)22:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, The page was, and is, move protected to require extended confirmed access for moves. That means that any extended-confirmed user was free to move as a normal editorial action. no use of admin tools was required. The logged reason for protection was an attraction to socks. I am not a sock. I did not change the protection level, or in any other way use admin tools. There was no community consensus not to move the page.

If you think that this should be deleted at an MfD, and that consensus to delete will be found, go ahead. I don;'t think such a deletion would be proper, nor supported by the deletion policy, but it might be that the community will disagree. Or feel free to start an RfC or some other community discussion on what place such a page should have on the project. My move violated no policy as far as i can see -- I reverted an editorial action that I disagreed with, transparently giving my reasons and inviting discussion. i have no intention of move warring if anyone moves this back, or moves it further. If you really think that I have violated some policy on admin actions, I am sure you know what to do.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If youunderstand that essays don't need consensus,Chris troutman, then why did you writeWhy did you move this essay? I don't think you have consensus to move this screed into WP namespace. and then respond toIs consensus required? by writingIt is. Or have you changed your view?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that regard, so I struck that portion. I stand by my opposition to that essay.Chris Troutman (talk)23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of essays I oppose,Chris troutman, starting withWP:DENY,WP:DTTR, andWP:TNT. The usual way to indicate opposition is to make countervailing arguments on the essay's talk page, or to start a countervailing essay with what you think are superior arguments. I'd be happy to see your arguments agaisnt the points made in this essay. Such opposition isn't, in my view, a reason to delete the essay nor to move it out of project space. Not all essays persuade many people here.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAgricultural Research Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAAAS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David, it looks like I maybe wasted your time re that potential copyright violation. Very many apologies. I've learned a valuable lesson re "backward copying".Allan Mungall (talk)18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel,sorry, but I asked for help more than one month ago. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't watch my Wikipeda page in the last month, because of personal reason. Today I saw, you left me a message in Teahouse about my request, regarding with 'Mojo WorKings draft page'. I couldn't find this message.Would you mind, please, send me a new one, if it is possible, I can receive it in my e-mail address: <redacted>Thanks in advance,Karcsúbey (talk)15:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karcsúbey, you can find your question and my answer atWikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 746#Draft: Mojo WorKings. The heart of my answer wasSince the previous decline on 7 December 2017, you added one word to the text, and one general reference to the draft (http://www.bluesvan.hu/index.php?q=mojo+workings&s=keres%E9s) which was not used to support any specific statement in the draft. ... There are many statements in the draft not currently supported by inline citations. You need to support at least some of these, and cite additional publishedindependentreliable sources that discuss this band in some depth, say several paragraphs each or more, for the draft to be accepted. I hope that is helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks
	Thanks for your review but as i mentioned before, it has nothing to do with promotion. Every website is doing something, even if it is a topmost news site. But yes, thanks for your advice. I will work on it.Rahulbtrivedi (talk)21:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, I changed the infobox to delete 'Cuban-American' and just put in 'Cuban'.

But which section title did you mean? A lot have been removed by other editors.

Other editors have played havoc, and I can't keep up with their suggestions -- one editor removed the one reference that I had in 'Notes and References' forcing me to halt all further edits of my own until I search their links. I didn't copy the reference, so now what do I do? That one reference was there before I started editing!

One editor said that "Biography: Wikipedia cannot reference itself". (I left a note on his talk page.) Another editor said 'Fix & format refs, move singel list-defined ref to inline ref' -- I guess this was the one that removed the one reference from "Notes and References", but it still shows up as [1] on the text page. (I guess I have to send him a note, too, on his talk page.)

I left a note at the top of the page asking everyone to please stop editing until I'm done -- I hope this is okay!Leandro Soto Ortiz

This is one of the hardest things I have ever done, and I'm getting mighty discouraged!

Lauraj210 (talk)21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Lauraj210. I am sorry that you are finding things frustrating. Please remember that all the changes and previous versions are saved in the article history, so you can always look at what was present in any previous version. If you look at thehistory (usually on a "view history" menu) you will see a list of every change that was made, the edit summary that the editor left, and the timestamp, and some other information. If you click the "prev' link, you will see the changes made by that edit, which will help you understand what was meant by a given edit summery. For example, i madethis edit yesterday. I commented out the unsupported parameter "ethnicity" in the info box, and changed the section header "Selected Pubications" to "Selected publications" fixing capitalization and spelling.this edit is the one that moved the list-defined ref to the body of the article. As you can see, The cite tohttp://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=103 is still in place, although differently formatted.

The edit summarized as "Biography: Wikipedia cannot reference itself" wasthis. "Biography" here refers toour policy on the biographies of living people which imposes stricter rules than other sorts of articles, to protect people from possible defamation and unsourced statements. It is also the rule at Wikipedia that Wikipedia articles may never be used as sources

The way we generally ask others to hold off editing for a bit is with{{inuse}}. I have replaced your informal msg with this.

Note that in general anyone is free to edit any article at any time. But a polite request to hold off is usually honored for a few hours.

To be honest, this article has not had a large number of edits, many are far more active.

I hope this is helpful. Do feel free to leave me a message here at any time, and i will respond as soon as i can.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, I noticed the{{inuse}} -- thank you! I need a little more time than a few hours -- maybe by tomorrow. (Time is well passed for dinner!) I notice that{{Under construction}} invites others to assist...well, it is what it is! When I get back to work on it tomorrow, I'll replace it with{{inuse}} again, right?

I looked at the history page, but I found the 'prev' confusing...but less so now. I must be getting used to Wikipedia.

I'm now working on Selected solo exhibitions, which was taken out due to a lack of links. In one case, there was no link, so I have added a footnote (which is a duplication of a previous footnote (I used <ref name="name" /> for the second.) Cuba is very behind on internet access. When I get to the Selected group exhibitions, even where there are links, can I still put some footnotes in as well?

When you get a minute, would you check that I'm doing everything correctly?Lauraj210 (talk)02:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraj210, It is looking significantly better, although work is still needed.

• One point, there shouldnot be a link to a web site outside Wikipedia in the body of the article, except as part of acitation (footnote). Those are known as "external links" and should be placed solely in the "External links" section, and then sparingly. (The "website" line in an infobox is an exception, but only for one site.) Using a citation for each fact stated is the preferred way to support stated facts. It should be done whether or not there is a link to another Wikipedia page (known as a "wiki-link") in the statement. Such a link is in no way required.
• Secondly, sources neednot be online to be cited. For example, to cite a newspaper that does not have an online edition, simply give the title of the story, the name of the newspaper, the date and page of publication, and the author/byline if stated. If the paper is not well known, the publisher and place of publication can be useful as well. The template{{cite news}} can be used for this purpose. To cite a printed book, use{{cite book}}, providing the title, author, publisher, year of publication, the relevant page or pages, and the ISBN if available. (Or the same info can be provided manually, not using cite book.) There is also{{cite magazine}} and{{cite journal}},{{cite web}} for online sources that are neither books nor news, and several others. SeeWikipedia:Citation templates andReferencing for Beginners. The basic idea is to give enough info that a reader could, with some effort, find the source in a library or bookstore, and can make some judgement of the source's reliability even without finding the source.
• Note that a citation should not be just a link to a site about an institution or person. It should be to areliable source that supports the statement in the article.
• To mention and link to a template without using it,Template:Tl, which I used several times above, is very helpful. (Note that it gives a link to the template page, where the parameters for the template are normally documented.)
• To display a piece of wiki code rather than using it, put it inside a<nowiki>...</nowiki> construct. You cna optionaly put that inside a<code>...</code> construct to highlight that it is wiki-code.
• Yes, when you are doneactively editing, please replace{{inuse}} with{{under construction}}, and reverse this when ready to resume.
• Using "named references" (the<ref name="name" /> construct) isexactly the correct way to repeat a footnote. Thank you for using them properly.

I hope this is helpful. Feel free to ask further questions on this talk page, or toping me on another talk page. I will respond when i can. Or feel free to ask at theTeahouse.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, DESiegel, I wasn't able to work on theLeandro Soto Ortiz page yesterday... I prefer to talk to you, as you have been so helpful, going forward, if that's okay?

Regarding your first point: Got it! So the only one that has an internal link is Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, and the rest are unlinked, right? Should I make reference to Big Orbit Gallery and Galeria Nine Menocal in the reference section, or is that unnecessary? I notice that other Cuban artists have linked to the city, so I did that for those two, but I have a feeling you'd prefer if I took them out. I also have noticed in other Cuban artist pages, there are ONLY links to the institutions in solo and group shows, and collections. (Adriano Buergo,Luis Enrique Camejo, to name two.Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera didn't use any links at all.) Theroadislong deleted four sections (Solo shows, Group shows, Awards and Collections) because they were unsourced. Confusion here, as I had already spent half a day finding Wiki-links for the Collections (and some external links, which I will eventually delete)...

I have been using the templates for {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and in one case (Blanc Giulio) there is no online reference, but I think I have it covered okay.

I have copied the 'link without using it' and '<nowiki>' (you see I have used it already) in my growing personal Wikipedia file...

I put some Wiki-links into the bio -- I think I've done it correctly.

Regards,Lauraj210 (talk)00:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,Lauraj210. Several points:

• First of all,There is no deadline. Edit when you cna, don't worry about your schedule for editing. You made no promise of when any given edit would be done.
• The lesson from the deletions byTheroadislong is that sources are vital. That is true whether there is or is not a wiki-link. The source for each exhibition should be one that indicates that the exhibition took place, and that Ortiz participated. It should also confirm the date, if possible. Above all it must bereliable. Find and insert sourcesbefore worrying about possible wiki-links or external links. There is no need to cite a source merely to show that a particular gallery exists, but if we have a Wikipedia page about the gallery (or other exhibit venue) it can be wiki-linked. But such a link is in no way a substitute for a source showing that the particular exhibition occurred.
• Wiki links are put in to provide context and to lead the reader to relevant further information. Just what should be linked is a matter of judgement, there is no hard and fast rule. SeeMOS:OVERLINK for some suggestions on what should not be linked.
• Sources doNOT need to be online, provided that they are published, and that a reader could verify them, posisbly only after taking some trouble and spending some money.
• Inthis edit I changed a link that went to a disambiguation pageInstallation to one that went toInstallation art using aPiped link. This is how to make a wiki-link when the title of the page is not the desired link text. It is done often on Wikipedia.

I hope these points are helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraj210, I visited the articles you linked to above,Adriano Buergo,Luis Enrique Camejo, andCarlos Enrique Prado Herrera. In each case there is a serious lack of cited sources. In each case I have added tags pointing this out. The last one may be deleted unless at least one source is added to the article.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, Thanks for the links. I removed the 'performance' link -- everyone knows what that is...but thanks for the piped link. I read the article and I can see that it would be very helpful.

I hope that [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]] will be notified by email, so that he can copy his page before it's deleted, if he doesn't have time to make references right now? I would hate to think of him losing all that information!

Good night,Lauraj210 (talk)03:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauraj210, on theCarlos Enrique Prado Herrera article, no one is ever notified by email of on-wiki actions, unless that person has a Wikipedia account, and has set up automatic notifications for certain kinds of actions. For example, i receive emails when anyone (other than myself) posts to my user talk page. That article was created and largely edited byHerosfanes, who was notified on his or her user talk page. All that is needed to prevent heproposed deletion is for anyone to add a single citation to a reliable source to the article that supports any one fact there. Any editor may do this. (I see that since yesterday some nine citations have been added.) Also, on Wikipedia, "deletion" does not actually erase an article, it merely hide it so that only admins can see it. If an article is removed through proposed deletion, anyone can later request it to be undeleted atWP:REFUND. Even when an article cannot be undeleted, an editor can request a copy of the text by email, and it will usually be provided.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, please be careful with nowiki tags. If the matching /nowiki tag is not provided, any wiki markup on the rest of the page is ignored, which can significantly change the look of the page. One way to mention such a tag is by using the template{{tag}}. This produces output such as<nowiki>...</nowiki>.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, Thanks for the thanks on Selected group exhibitions! And good, I'm glad that [[Carlos Enrique Prado Herrera]]'s editor added references (I spent a half hour trying to figure it out, before I noticed the heading above...)

Is reference #1 okay, or should I take it out altogether, and just leave it in External links? This was already in the body of the text before I started editing...

I added four more solo shows. I can't find a reference for the Vienna show, and the Big Orbit Gallery's archives don't go back that far. Can I still leave at least the Vienna one in, if not the other one?

In Further reading: Marelys Valencia -- the synopsis is in English, but the article itself is in Spanish. When I typed in the ISBN, the doi/tr. was automatically generated. Only one language is allowed, so I think I should take out language=en and replace it with language=es -- what do you think? (I think I leave the doi/tr., right?)

I noticed in one of the artist's pages that the references had two categories: References and Further reading. I'd like to do that too, to make the page neater. Is it as easy as making two level 3 headings? I realize I have to anchor the references...I will re-read that section to make sure I don't lose them.

What's necessary for Collections? I looked up more than forty artists, and of all those who had Collections listed, not one of them had any footnotes. At this point, with all the other footnotes, Leandro is not being fraudulent to say that he is collected among these institutions. I don't know what could be added -- except the contracts! (And I understand that external links are not allowed...) But I don't want [[Theroadislong]] to object once again.

You've been very patient with me for asking so many questions!Lauraj210 (talk)01:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello againLauraj210 I am pleased to help when i can.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Have separated this section of my talk page into subsections, as it was getting a bit long. To respond to your various points, not in order:

• The current ref #1 in the article, the "Guide to the Leandro Soto papers", looks like a perfectly acceptable source to me, and the "biographical note" does indeed support several statements in the article. No problem there that I can see.
• It is more usual to put "Further reading" into a second-level section of its own, but it could be put into a third-level section paralleling the "notes and references" section. Or if you intend that facts from items in the further reading section should be used to support the article as a whole, although not specified statements, the section should be titled 'General references" instead, and should definitely be 3d-level section under the same 2n-level heading as the noted, which are displayed wherever the{{reflist}} template is placed.

• The distinction is that Notes or References support specific facts in the article, while "General references" were consulted and used to help build the article, but ae no being indicated as supporting specific facts. "Further reading" indicates sources that a reader might usefully consult, but which were not used in writing the article, or not much. Any given source will normally appear in only one of these.

• Yes, just changing or adding the section heading makes a section into a different level.
• Yes, the Marelys Valencia source should use|language=es in my view. It lets people know that the major info there is in Spanish. It is a somewhat odd situation for the abstract to be in a different language from the main article, and I don't know of a way to fully indicate this.
• There is no special or specific rule for "Collections". The general rule is that any fact in an article must beverifiable, and that any controversial or negative fact about a living person must be directly supported by a cited source. So must any direct quotation. Any uncited fact about a living person may be challenged, and then must be cited or removed. However, when many facts are already supported by citations, it is less likely that others of a similar type would be challenged. I think you may leave all the collection items in the article until and unless someone does challenge them. Do remember that offline sources are acceptable.

I hope this is again helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown in a couple more alts.©Geni (talk)16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've approved them. Looks good,Geni. Thanks.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have accidentally submitted the contents of my sandbox for your review. (I briefly so a notification about it, but now I can find it.) If so, please disregard it. Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your patience.DrLuthersAssistant (talk)20:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,DrLuthersAssistant. Your sandbox is not currently submitted for formal review (underWP:AFC), and as far as I can see never has been. You did at on4e point ask me to briefly look and comment, but that is quite different. It does look to me like a rather though outline and plan for a replacement article. Good luck. Feel fre to ask any questions you might have, either here or at theTeahouse.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I received this message on Wikipedia last night regarding a photo upload to the Holocaust Wall Hangings page. Please let me know if I should solve this issue by sending the email correspondence from Weinshall Liberman to:permissions-en@wikimedia.org Will this solve the issue?George David NH (talk)14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; orSend an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add{{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as{{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)10:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed an interest in creating a page for me a while back and I was hoping you would still be interested. We just need a simple page so that Facebook won't flag us as fake news.

This is the text I posted on "requested articles" that can be used for your reference:

Kentucky Today (A daily online newspaper and news service based in Louisville, Ky. The newspaper contains original news, sports and feature stories in addition to news provided by the Associated Press. The Kentucky Today news service provides state and government news coverage, college sports and features to 18 local and regional newspapers throughout Kentucky (two sources listed below).

A recent story by Kentucky Today appeared in The Washington Times, Miami Herald, U.S. News & World Report and many other newspapers after being picked up by the Associated Press.

Kentucky Today was launched in November 2015 by the Kentucky Baptist Convention "to help provide Kentucky Baptists with news and perspective on the social issues of the day." The online newspaper free and only requires registration to comment on stories. Kentucky Today requests a brief article in Wikipedia similar to small print newspapers located nearby, such as The Oldham Era and The Kentucky Standard.)

(Sources= Kentucky Today website--http://www.kentuckytoday.com

Examples of newspapers using Kentucky Today's news service-- "Advocate moving Accent, H&G content to A sections"https://www.amnews.com/2017/03/11/advocate-moving-accent-hg-content-to-a-sections/, "Sun partners with Kentucky Today for UK, state news"https://www.winchestersun.com/2017/03/10/sun-partners-with-kentucky-today-for-uk-state-news/

Washington Times reprints story--https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-2/, U.S. News & World Report reprints story--https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-04-22/half-the-man-he-used-to-be-kentucky-pastor-drops-240-pounds, Miami Herald reprints story--http://www.miamiherald.com/news/article209578009.html,

Kentucky Today launch--http://www.bpnews.net/45831/ky-baptists-elect-first-african-american-president

Examples of what we are looking for: The Oldham Era Wikipedia page--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oldham_Era, The Kentucky Standard Wikipedia page--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kentucky_Standard.)

I understand that I won't be able to edit, only suggest edits. But all we need is a page like any other news organization.

Thank you so much!CornetetR (talk)16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I sent theAnne Frank's Hiding Place photo from the Holocaust Wall Hangings page, as well as some for the Judith Weinshall Liberman page I'll be working on, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

On Sunday, I was told on my talk page by a Wiki admin that the Anne Frank photo was going to be removed in a week. So, I sent that photo and some others as attachments along with emails from Liberman confirming that we have permission to use them. Please confirm that I've taken the right steps to have the photo kept on the page. It's confusing.The photo aspect of Wikipedia is probably what I need the most help understanding at this point.George David NH (talk)23:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH, I see that a copy is on commons, atFile:Anne Frank's Hiding Place.jpg, as well as a copy atFile:Anne Frank's Hiding Place from the Holocaust Wall Hangings Collection.jpg on en-Wikipedia. I would re-send copies of the permission email, which i think should be sufficient,m to both permissions-en@wikimedia.org and to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and mention both file names in the email. In addition, I am pingingAntiCompositeNumber andMagog the Ogre to this discussion. While i know the general rules, I do not work with image copyrights all that much, and those editors can probably help us understand what is still lacking, if anything, to make the permission granted by the artist Liberman for that image properly clear. The emails you forwarded to me seemed sufficient, but there may have been some aspect lacking.

Eventually we will want to ahve only one copy of the image, preferably at commons. The article should probably be edited to make sure that the commons file name is used. Then deletion of the copy here on en will not matter.

I apologize for not having responded to your earlier message more promptly.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)@AntiCompositeNumber:DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I will re-send the emails as you recommend. Please don't worry about promptness. I just appreciate the fact that I know I can count on you to get back to me and that you point me in the right direction.George David NH (talk)23:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked,George David NH, and the articleHolocaust Wall Hangings is already using the copy at commons, which seems to have a longer time limit to get permissions issues straight. The copy on en-Wikipedia now seems to be redundant in any case.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add,George David NH, thatHolocaust Wall Hangings has now been approved as aDid You Know? item, and a link to it will appear on the main page of Wikipedia at some not yet determined future time.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. Not bad having an approvedDid You Know? first time out the gate. I owe you one.George David NH (talk)00:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get a DYK credit when it runs, as nominator and co-author. Actually,George David NH, many decent new articles can qualify for DYK with a little extra work. The standards are significantly lower than for GA.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that makes sense. I'm starting to work on the Weinshall Liberman bio page soon so I'll be in touch. I'd like to eventually produce GA quality work.George David NH (talk)01:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You declined speedy deletion of this article on grounds the AfD did not appear to be describing the recreated article - presumably, therefore, becauseG4 excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The editor who recreated itstated that they restored it from a mirror (albeit one 18 months old when the article was deleted) and I would urge you to look again at the deleted version because I believe it was still substantially identical (it was then atJonathan Thompson; unlike you I cannot look at it but there's a contemporary mirror of ithere).

If you still conclude it is ok, I guess that having been copied from a mirror it now falls foul ofWP:RUD and instead the original page should be restored, or at least the histories should be merged, to sort out the attribution problem that now exists.

Dorsetonian (talk)06:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information,Dorsetonian, I will have to look into that further. Because of how the deletion and move of a dab page was handled, I was not easily able to see a copy of the version as it was when deleted by AfD, so my actual basis for declining the speedy is that the reasons stated in the AfD discussion do not apply to the version just created, which would mean that the versions were not "substantially identical". In general a new version that significantly addresses the reasons for deletion will not be deleted via G4. However, if this is taken directly from a mirror, unless it was edited in the process, that begins to look incorrect. I will look into this one furhter, but nor right now -- probably wihin the next 24 hours. i take your points about attribution.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}06:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!Dorsetonian (talk)06:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with[3] - the last diff before the AFD closure. It's a clear repost. Also, the rationale of the nominator shouldn't have any impact on whether a page meets G4 or not.SmartSE (talk)08:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DESiegel

The page I recently created—Root Insurance Company—was deleted for promotional content by you and then protected from future creation by another admin. I’m writing to find out how I can a) make the content less promotional and b) have it either created by an administrator or regain permissions to do it, myself.

Root Insurance is a notable organization, offering insurance based primarily on driving data collected from a smartphone; it’s important for the general public to be informed of the quickly progressing insurance market and tech world.

The article does not promote the business, but rather explains straightforwardly what the car insurance company is and how it differs from others within the market. I have revised wording that may have appeared promotional in my first upload and have backed up all statistics and quotes with reputable external citations. In fact, I’ve used already approved Wikipedia pages with similar content as a reference point. So, I’m very confused as to why it’s been deleted twice.

Are you able to provide specific feedback regarding areas within the article that appear promotional in nature so that I can adjust? Or can you point me in the direction where I can receive more feedback? (I’ve already read the pages on Wikipedia about promotional content and feel like I followed the rules). Also, how do revoke my loss of posting the site? Thank you for your assistance; I certainly wish to follow Wikipedia’s rules and structure.

Sincerely,Sara Starnes (talk)13:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Sara Starnes[reply]

Hello,Sara Starnes. In the most recently deleted version, such phrases asthe nation’s first entirely mobile-based insurance carrier (cited to a press release)Root became the first insurance company in the nation to offer a rate reduction to Tesla drivers who use the AutoPilot feature. (also cited to a Press release)Root’s app was the first UBI tracking device that is automatically installed with the download of the app and doesn’t require an outside device to attach to the car (cited to a news story which reads like a redigested Press release), andinstead of offering UBI discounts as an option after customers are already established,[12] Root uses UBI during the test drive to determine rates based primarily on driving behavior for every policy (sourced to the same news story) are all very promotional in tone, in my view. Much of the article red like a list of selling points or a company flyer, not aneutal fact-based article. Please readour guideline on promotion in articles.

Wikipedia articles should be based largely onindependent publishedreliable sources. This does not include press releases or interviews with company employees, or "news stories" clearly derived largely from press releases with little or no independent verification or reporting. For there to be an article about a company, there must be multiple independent sources which discuss the company in depth -- seeWP:CORPDEPTH andour guideline on the notability o companies. Note that on Wikipedia,notability is used in a special sense. It does not mean importance but rather the degree to which uninvolved third parties have taken note of a topic, generally by writing and publishing about it in reliable sources.

I do not know if you are employed by Root or are connected with Root in any way. If you are, you need to follow the directions atWP:COI for disclosing a conflict of interest, and if you are being or expect to be paid or compensated for editing about the company, you absolutely must follow the rules atWP:PAID. That is a very strictly enforced policy here.

If you think that a neutral, non-promotional version of an article about Root can be created, I strongly urge you to do it as adraft and obtain review before attempting to make the text into a live article. Since the article has been protected against re-creation, such a review will be required to get any article on the topic created.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some steps which, if followed, often produce good results:

• First, review ourguideline on notability,our policy on Verifiability, andour specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether yoursubjectclearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to createYour First Article andreferencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third,If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance withour guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of thePaid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You wantindependent, professionally published,reliable sources witheach discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources,stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use thearticle wizard to create a draft under thearticles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with aconflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article.Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not usepuffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at theTeahouse or thehelp desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

       Thanks,DESiegel, for your thorough reply; I really appreciate it. I'll revamp the article and submit it as a draft.

Sara Starnes (talk)18:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTerry M. McGovern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNew York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope all is well,I'm the artist manager of Omar El Abd (omrr), Recently both articles were deleted, i would like to clarify that omrr is the stage name of Omar El Abd, they are the same person, i thought using the real name and referring to stage name is the best practice, Would appreciate it if you let me know how to improve /fix the issue. Thank you, have a great day.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWisemenandthepainters (talk •contribs)07:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded atUser talk:Wisemenandthepainters#Copyright and paid editing.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}13:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw you adopted me. So what are you going to do and how will I do this?HorsesARENice^{Ride me to mytalk page}15:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WellHorsesAreNice, you must first decide if you want me as a mentor or adopter.

• That means that you agree that you plan to stay active on Wikipedia for a while at least, that you agree to try to be the best editor you can, and to listen to and seriously consider any advice that I give you on how to act as a Wikipedia editor, even or perhaps especially if it is advice you don't want to hear at first.
• If you accept me, I will agree to take questions from you and to respond to them as promptly and helpfully as possible. I further agree to keep an eye on your edits, and if I see a problem, to let you know and advise you what to do or not to so as to avoid or reduce any possible problem. I agree to listen to you, and try to understand you point of view, and if possible, advocate for you if you are having a dispute on Wikipedia.
• I will give you the best honest advice I can in all such situations. I will try to have your best interest, as well as the good of the project, in mind in all our interactions. I will be not onlycivil but friendly, to the limit of my abilities, as the situation allows. But I will tell you the truth if I think you have done or are doing something unwise.
• You will agree to ask me questions if you are unsure in any given Wikipedia-related situation.
• Beyond that we can define the relationship as we please. We may or may not choose to work together on editing articles or other pages. If there is anything you particularly want from such a relationship, please mention it and we will see what we can work out.
• Of course, either of us can end the relationship at any time.

Are you interested in entering into such a relationship on those terms? You can read about me onmy User page and you have no doubt seen me giving advice on heTeahouse, so you have some idea of what I am like in such a role.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,

I am a new user on Wikipedia and my dream is improve the content on Wikipedia and probably become an Admin one day. I want to be adopted, and I will be grateful if you can adopt me.

Thank you in anticipation of your response.

Warm regards,

Jerusalem666 (talk)23:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Jerusalem666. I see that you are already making some small but useful contributions. Please read my comments about mentorship toHorsesAreNice in the section above, and see if you would care to accept a similar arrangement. If you would please post here saying so.

Do be aware that it will take at least 1-2 years of steady contribution to make admin these days. Nor is it that much of a thing, so i hope you will focus more on making worthwhile contributions, perhaps on promoting particular articles to GA or even FA, or other goals on Wikipedia. If you do, adminship may come along in time without you ever expecting it.

Oh, and if you have any particular issues to raise or questions to ask, please do so.

What do you say?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDESiegel. I am very interested in a similar arrangement to user - HorsesAreNice. I am willing to listen to your advice at all times.

Jerusalem666 (talk)00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then,Jerusalem666, we are now mentor and mentee. I have marked our user pages accordingly. Please do ask me any questions you might have. What sort of project or edits are you currently planning on, if any?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}04:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDESiegel for adopting me. Currently, I am making small edits to Wikipedia pages to familiarize myself with the system. I asked for suggestions for pages to edit and it was provided. I will have questions in a couple of days from now.Jerusalem666 (talk)09:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, I went ahead and processed this unblock since the blocking admin had said they were fine with it a few days ago, and I was of the same mind as you. Didn't think you would mind, but I still like telling people when they were already involved. Hope all is well.TonyBallioni (talk)02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On9 May 2018,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleBlanche McVeigh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatBlanche McVeigh's home workshop had a Sturgesprinting press so heavy that the floor needed to be shored up to support it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Blanche McVeigh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Blanche McVeigh), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk)00:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David. I'm working on the JWL page and have two questions that I hope you can answer. I remember that you said that Google makes the call on what's posted on their site, but I want to be sure that there's nothing I need to do on my end to resolve these issues: 1. When I do a Google search on "Judith Weinshall Liberman" this is the first link that appears:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman.jpg Is there a way to remove that?2. The Holocaust Wall Hangings page is still not showing up anywhere in a Google search. It still brings me to 2 pages of deleted image files and one page for the "Hands Up" piece. ThanksGeorge David NH (talk)01:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No,George David NH, Wikipedia has no control over when or how Google indexes or does not index a page, except that some pages are marked with a "NOINDEX" flag, which Google generally honors. New pages are normally so marked for 90 days, or until then have been reviewed by thenew page patrol which ever comes first. I just checked, and no such flag is onHolocaust Wall Hangings. One thing that might help: If there are other articles from which a legit link to the article can be made, they should be. Google indexes pages in significant part by following links to simulate a browsing user, as I understand it, and the more inbound links that exist to a page, the more likely it is that google will find one and index the page. At the bottom of a google search is a feedback form, where users can react to the search results. i do not know how much attention google pays to such feedback. Google is careful not to provide many detail on how it decides which pages to index or how highly, so as not to aid those who might want to game the system.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good input. Thanks!George David NH (talk)02:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a minute will you take a look at the JWLiberman draft I'm working on (I'm redoing the entire page based on what I now know about writing for Wikipedia)? Her parents were fairly notable, so I feel that I should mention them, but how do I incorporate them into the page — or should I omit them altogether? I don't think that a "Family" section is what you'd recommend, but I'm unsure where else to refer to her parents. The rest of the page is going to be completely redone once I figure out where/if to mention her parents.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=editGeorge David NH (talk)23:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look,George David NH.

• You could combine much of the current content of "Family" with the first sentence from "Education" and call it "Early life". In that case i would add a sentence recording the year and place of her birth. However, in that case the sentence about her marriage doesn't fit well. Or you could keep it "Family" or call it "Personal life". In the latter case the sentence about her birth could still be added there, in the former it should probably go in a separate section. The amount of content you now have about her parents and relations is pretty good, there should not be much more unless we have 3rd party sourced comments on how their lives affected hers. The article should clearly focus on her, not on her family members -- i have seen some that give the impression that the article is trying to ride on the coat-tails of other people's notability, particularly articles about a spouse or romantic partner of a pop celebrity. We don't want to look like that. I would be inclined to omit the first names of her children -- there are precedents either way.
• Am i correct that she worked as a lawyer for some time after attending law school and before studying art? if so, that should be made clear.
• I would move her place of birth out of the lead section -- In fact I'll do that much right now.
• Please remember that the|website= parameter of a cite template shoudl never be the full URL. It should be thename of the site, and the web domainonly if there is no other name. Please remember to provide author and date information when available. Please do not include referer info in a cite URL --- edit it out.
• Remember to keep adding cites as you go. I've made a few small changes.
• Please link to pages with Wiki-links, asDraft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, not with URLs, and especially not URLs that leave one in edit mode.
• By the way, are her children's books also Holocaust-themed? The way the lead sentence is phrased seems to imply that. If that is not correct, it should be reworded a bit. If it is, it should be more explicit perhaps.

This looks good so far.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really good info, David. I'll follow your advice. Thanks. My only question is regarding this statement you made as I don't understand what you mean: Please link to pages with Wiki-links, as Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman, not with URLs, and especially not URLs that leave one in edit mode.George David NH (talk)01:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To tell me where the draft was, in your meswsage above in this thread,George David NH, you included the URLhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Judith_Weinshall_Liberman&action=edit instead of the wiki-link[[Draft:Judith Weinshall Liberman]]. The "&action=edit" opens the page in editiing mode, as if i had gone there and clicked "edit". Not usually a good idea.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - got it. I see what you mean.George David NH (talk)01:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)George David NH, you currently have a cite tohttps://decordova.org/art/ on the sentenceWeinshall Liberman studied painting, sculpture and other artistic mediums at the Art Institute of Boston, the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston University College of Fine Arts, Massachusetts College of Art and the DeCordova Museum School. But that site merely describes the DeCordova Museum School, it doesn't confirm that Weinshall Liberman ever went there. The cite shoudl be to a source, possibly her autobio, that says she attended. If th school has published a list of alumni that would also be a reasonable source, but an autobio is ok for that sort of non-controversial fact.

If you are to combine family and education under a joint heading, i would suget 'Biography" rather than "Early life" as by the end of law school and art school this isn't so early. "Early life usually goes thoguh high-school or an undergraduate degree. And by the way if we know what degrees, if any, she earned at those schools, they could be included, particularly the higher ones.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that change (Biography - good idea) and yes, I know what her higher-level degrees are and will mention those.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGeorge David NH (talk •contribs)01:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm not sure how this works but I saw you're up for taking newbies under your wing. I'd love to get guidance to gain an understanding of Wikipedia beyond the basics I've been doing. Please do get in touch, hoping to grow beyond CE & link edits & basic page creation. Thank you!TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,TheOneWorkingAccount. Please read the section#What do I do as an adoptee? above, and the section#I need a mentor. above, in which i discuss what I see as an adoption/mentoring relationship. Please then take a look at the sections#Judith Weinshall Liberman,#Your advice and help and#Leandro Soto Ortiz to see such a relationship in operation. If you like what you see, say so, and we can confirm a relationship.

Please do tell me what sort of things you have been doing, and what sort you hope/plan to do, and what problems if any you have been having. I will do my best to help.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiDESiegel. Yes, I've gone through the sections. Basically I've been making small contributions but I want to do more. However I simply get stuck wondering what exactly to do to grow, I frequently check the New Pages Feed for things I can do but many are things I don't have the right to do (eg - deletion of articles that are clearly not meant to be there and other such tasks) and many that I'm not able to understand. I take on small jobs such as the list of pages which need infoboxes and add those. But I need guidance on how to grow and how to carry out more meaningful tasks.TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)12:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all excellent things to do,TheOneWorkingAccount. Don't worry too much about rights: If you see a page that you think should be deleted, tag it forproposed deletion, or, if and ONLY if it clearly fits one of the criteria, tag it forspeedy deletion. Or simply tag it for whatever problem you see, such asnotability or insufficient sources. Have you enabledTwinkle yet? You will find it VERY helpful with such tagging, I think.

I would urge you to start trying to do more content creation. Find a stub or short poorly developed article on a subject of some interest to you. (If you can't think of one, I can offer some suggestions, particularly if you tell me of any general subjects that interest you.) It could be a long-existing stub, or a recently created one from the new page feed. However, if you choose a recently created item, be careful of conflicts with th4 user who created it and might be working to develop it further. Choosing an older item might be better. Once you have chosen it, look for additionalreliable sources, and use those plus already cited sources to expand and improve the articel. Also remove any promotional or unsupported content. Don't choose a highly controversial topic. What do you think?

Another thing you could do is start reading and perhaps commenting on the discussions atWP:AFD. Read a few and try giving your views on why the article should or should not be deleted. Remember to beWP:CIVIL, and to base your view on Wikipedia policy, not just onWP:ILIKEIT or the reverse.

Shall I mark us as mentor and mentee, then?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look atthis series of edits toMimi Mondal, which you edited recently,TheOneWorkingAccount. This is a start in adding content to a stub.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDESiegel, yes you can definitely mark us where ever it appears! I've now enabled Twinkle, looking forward to getting the hang of it. Yes, content creation is definitely what I'm looking to do, I did create two requested pages from some Wikiprojects. However I do work best when given tasks, so if you point me to some articles I can develop, that'd be great. I'm particularly interested in English TV & film, and want to get into developing pages for various personalities across industries, especially Indians (entertainment, business, etc). Thank you so much for the help, this is greatly appreciated.TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiDESiegel. Not sure how to take this forward, but I noticed this article which needs major clean up.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack.org. I'd assume things like their mission statement would not belong, and it would need CE to reduce its advertorial tonality. Any way you could guide me on getting this article up to standards?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)10:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch,TheOneWorkingAccount. There are several things which could usefully be done. First, and most mechanical, get the proper cite metadata into the sources, such as the changes I made inthis series of edits. That will help indicate who wrote the sources, and whether any are related to the organization. Second, search for and add additional high-quality sources (if the exist) and add any facts properly derived from those sources. Thiard, remove any puffery or promotional language. Fourth, try to evaluate the previously existing sources, and see if any of them are not reliable. If there is a clear case, remove them with an edit summary explaining why. If there is any doubt, post onTalk:Jack.org listing sources that seem less than fully reliable. Fifth, evaluate overall notability, in light ofWP:ORG. If it seems questionable,after searching for additional sources, tag the article as having debated notability with twinkle, or start an AfD if lack of notability seems very clear. If in doubt, just tag. If you ahve any questions about any of that, do ask me here.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Oh, by the way, it is better to provide a links as[[Jack.org]] than ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack.org, in future.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youDESiegel. I have gotten started with fixing the citation metadata, I will also be able to add in any high quality sources as you have mentioned. It is the evaluation of sources where I foresee getting stuck, however I will post those on the talk page as you've suggested. Wish me luck!TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)10:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiDESiegel. Can you help me clean up this pagePrerna Kohli?. I can see that its advertorial in nature and believe the whole section on 'In the Media' is a bit much. But while I'm comfortable with fixing codes etc, this is more subjective and I wouldn't want to remove anything I'm not supposed to. Do let me know, thanks!TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)17:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HEyDESiegel. Don't want to be a bother, but just wondering if you could help with this?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)08:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder abo9utPrerna Kohli,TheOneWorkingAccount. I have made several edits to that article, and will make more, but am out of time this morning (it is am here). The key is to read the supplied sources, and remove anything not supported by the sources. Anyone wishing to revert can do so, and then sources can be discussed on the talk page as perWP:BRD. Improving the source metadata is also helpful, in my view, as it adds context. Feel free to make edits, or to comment further on the article talk page.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to rush you at allDESiegel. It's only because I feel I'll be able to learn by seeing how errors are fixed. I have already commented on the talk page regarding the whole 'in the media' section, which I doubt belongs on the page. Just wanted to check - if information comes from a reliable source, does it always deserve to be on the article, even if it's promotional?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No,TheOneWorkingAccount, we don't includeevery sourcable fact, or our articles would in many cases be huge. We do not want to giveWP:UNDUE attention or prominence to a particular point-of-view, especially a minority orWP:FRINGE POV. We don't want to include unencyclopedic detail -- for example we do not normally include the mailing address or telephone number of a business, although we may link to its official web site that does list such info. SeeWP:NOT for much more on this. What to include is a judgement call and a matter of consensus. However, significant facts that have been discussed in independent reliable sources usualy do get included, even if they are positive and could be seen as promotional. The article should reflect the range of available reliable sources and the opinions expressed in such sources. If many sources have positive things to say about a topic, then our article may well be quite positive in tone, as long as it is factual and does not praisein Wikipedia's voice but only in opinions explicitly attributed to others. When a person is, in effect "famous for being famous" as a number of media figures are these days, we report what the sources say about that person, honestly, without whitewashing or demonizing. Note that the standard ofnotability is used to determien whether or not Wikipeedia will have an article on a topic. But once a tpic is judged to be notable, individual facts about that topic arnot judged by the notability standard to decide if they will be mentioned. Instead they are judged by sourcing, relevance,due weight, and common sense, and any disagreements shoiuld be settled by consensus, on the article talk page if possible, or indispute resolution if need be. Note also that although Wikipedia articles should beneutral, our sources need not be and often are not, as long as they are reliable. Do feel free to examine my edits so far on this topic.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got itDESiegel. In this case, would I be correct to remove the entire 'in the media' section in the article? Because that simply lists topics she's given interviews about, and to what publications. I've never seen that on a page. Or would the correct process be to wait until someone replies on the talk page?TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)07:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Don't want to be a bother, but could you please guide on the above? Thanks!TheOneWorkingAccount (talk)07:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On10 May 2018,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleHolocaust Wall Hangings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that theHolocaust Wall Hangings(example pictured) are a series of fabric banners created between 1988 and 2002 illustrating the plight of the Jewish people and other minorities during theHolocaust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Holocaust Wall Hangings. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Holocaust Wall Hangings), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk)12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as i described in my help topic question i aid in the management of this band and i have removed FALSE information. the sources that were cited are NOT reliable sources just because they were posted on the internet. a gentleman named Ryan Crase used to help this band well over 6 years ago and has falsely taken credit for numerous band accolades. additionally he attempted to hijack the band website and was forced to released control after a lawsuit. the only valid information in the below is the name of the venue where the band performed their first show. we'd like this permanently removed and we will update with accurate facts soon. if you need my email address, company affiliation, email address for the founder of the band etc. i'd be happy to provide to you.

THIS NEEDS TO GO AWAY:

After recording an album under his own name, Seven Deadly Sins, Cook began recording in Memphis, Tennessee with Matt Chamberlain and Soundgarden's Ben Shepherd.[4] Immediately after finishing up in Memphis, Ben Shepherd introduced Cook to his friend, Ryan Crase who would eventually convince Cook to move to Seattle and take the role as his manager. Upon Cook’s arrival to the states Crase knew a suitable band name would be needed to help develop the project further. One afternoon while listening to the album, "LOVE" by The Cult, Crase came up with the name “Reignwolf” when he noticed the track listing on the back of the album cover which features the song "Mother Wolf" listed right above the song "Rain." Some spelling was immediately altered for impact. Cook’s first official show under the Reignwolf moniker premiered days later, at The Sunset Tavern in Ballard, Washington. It was only the 2nd time he had ever played with his new band featuring Joseph and Stitch, who Crase had introduced to Cook only a week prior to that show. [4] Cook performs as both a one-man band accompanying his guitar with a kick drum,[5] and with bassist David "Stitch" Rapaport and drummer Joseph Braley.[4]

Thank you for your assistance!Steve— Precedingunsigned comment added byCopenhagenslang (talk •contribs)21:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Copenhagenslang, I neither need nor want your email address or other contact info, and if you post them I will delete them unread. However, you can send this info to info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a request that they confirm your identity. Include your user name and the name of the article you are concerned about, in this caseReignwolf. However, I do not think it will make much difference, as Wikipedia relies on published sources, not the personal information of those involved in a situation.

The information you deleted, or most of it, and I restored, was and is cited to apparently reliable sources, specifically:

• Bienstock, Richard (September 8, 2014)."How Reignwolf Became a One-Man Blues-Rock Army".Rolling Stone. RetrievedMarch 27, 2017.
• Beckmann, Jim (June 29, 2012)."Reignwolf: A One-Man Rock Show".NPR. RetrievedMarch 27, 2017.
• "Roadies Rocks with Republic".Hits Daily Double. June 15, 2016. RetrievedMarch 27, 2017.

I do not find it credible that any of the above sources were somehow faked, particularly the first 2. Are you seriously claiming that the information which appeared inRolling Stone, or the info which was broadcast by 'NPR was "FALSE"?

If you want this information removed, or different information substituted, you mustfirst post citations to sources of at least equal reliability supporting the different information toTalk:Reignwolf. Then, describe there the change(s) you want made, and add{{Request edit}}. Do not attempt to make these changes directly -- they will be reverted again. I, or another experienced user, will review your request, particularly including the sources provided, and act as may seem appropriate.

Please note that when reliable sources differ on what the facts are, Wikipedia's usual practice is to provideboth versions, with the appropriate sources attributed and cited. so that readers may know that there is a dispute. This is done unless it isvery clear that one version is mistaken, and no reasonable person culd accept it.

Please readour policy on Verifibility and our related policy on thebiographies of Living people which applies here. We do not add content simply because someone claims it is true, without a supporting source.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)@Copenhagenslang:DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! Sorry I haven't replied very much yet. But I have school and I've not been very active over the weekday. I was also on a shortbreak. But I won't finish school until May 31st. But that is when I'll be most active. So I'll agree to be active after May 31st.HorsesARENice^{Ride me to mytalk page}20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine,HorsesAreNice, school or work or other off-wiki activities often have to take priority. Nothing says that you must be active all the time or at any particular time, just a general intent on to be active in future.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response tothis was totally and completely inappropriate. You took a heinous personal attack on myself that was probably veiled enough to avoid sanction, and wasn't obvious to anyone that they were talking about me, and replied to it including a link to my username? In my book, you've just personally attacked me by linking me to their ridiculous bullshit. YOU...not them. You should have redacted their whole statement as trolling. You need to pull your head out of your ass before you start editing, bud. FIX IT, or this isn't over.John from Idegon (talk)16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to such an attackJohn from Idegon is to refute it, not to redact it. Particularity on the Teahouse, i do not redact even semi-legitimate questions, and I revert such redactions by others. Other Teahouse reader need to know that such edits as you made are legitimate, and that complaints are noticed and responded to, not swept under the rug. Many new users incorrectly think that there is a caste system on Wikipedia, which can be exacerbated by the tone some experienced users take at times. This needs to be countered at every available occasion.

I suppose that I could have omitted your user name, but since I was in any event going to link to the article, the history would have made it obvious -- as it was already obvious to any regular. (I was quite sure that you were the subject before I ever followed the links. Confirmation took seconds.) Clearly saying that I did not believe what I am sure was a false accusation is not an attack, but if you think otherwise, remove your name as perWP:RPA. If you really think that I have attacked you by the above edit, feel free to take the matter to ANI. I will not be reverting or altering my edit.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please explain where, in the cited sources, the phrase "There is evidence of efficacy" whichyou restored,Diff is supported by the sources? Thanks, and good luck with getting the next ten years finished! -Roxy, the dog.barcus20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You have made 35 edits, including some to this page, since I asked this question. Is it your intention to answer? -Roxy, the dog.barcus07:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find your response a bit ignorant. ANI? -Roxy, the dog.barcus05:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't responded to you at all,Roxy the dog, for which i apologize. I intend to review the sources more thoroughly and comment on the article talk page. I will not, of course, edit war. I will try to do that tonight, but cannot promise. I had delayed because a proper review of the sources will take more time than the small edits i have done since.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention ANI in any comment aboutTea Tree Oil or about you. Nor do i see any reason for such a mention. Could you have seen a mention of that in thesection above, in my response toJohn from Idegon on a totally different issue?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too. I feel a bit of a chump actually, and hope that you'll forgive me. The only thing that I did sensibly was wait for as long as I could between posts. This has meant that I've calmed down over all this. I've read the sources on a number of occasions, and can't see support for efficacy as wikipedia requires it. What I didn't see is that some may see evidence. I reverted you earlier too. The ANI comment above was me querying if you wanted me to go to ANI over this, something I realise is a silly thing to do. -Roxy, the dog.barcus00:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the advice you gave in the Teahouse, I was hoping you would take a look at the recent edits atPrincess Caraboo. I'm going to step back and hope a resolution can be reached. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45}02:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,TheOldJacobite. I seem to be missing something. I looked atPrincess Caraboo, its history and its talk page. I don't see any apparent edit wars, any recent reverts, any apparently dubious edits, or any obvious issues in need of resolution. Please, what is the issue from which you are stepping back? I am happy to assist if I can, but I could use a pointer here, please.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}11:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It was late, and I failed to check the link. I was referring to the article about the film,Princess Caraboo. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45}11:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I eventually spotted that from your contributions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention,TheOldJacobite.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for derailingyour move discussion. I'm pissed off about that essay and I shouldn't have used that discussion to voice my displeasure. Now a bunch of editors are agreeing that it needs deleted but that's not the forum for such a discussion and prior deletion efforts already failed. My selfish comment wasted your time. I'm sorry about that.(I am notwatching this page, so pleaseping me if you want my attention.)Chris Troutman (talk)00:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several other editors appear similarly pissed off at that essay,Chris troutman and I don't by any means fully support it myself. I could wish that they would concentrate on making their case in a counter-essay, or just ignoring that one until it is actually used to support including such incidents in an article about some particular model or type of firearm. It is, of course, no more and no less in project space under a different (and IMO more accurate) name than under the present name. But no one is holding a gun to my head, so to speak, and making me respond to comments about that essay. Nor is it my discussion, it is the community's, even if I don't like where it goes.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel that your earlier comment was improper or unhelpful, you could strike it or post a revised comment. I am curious, if we assume that the essay will not be deleted or userfied, would you prefer it at the current name or at a more specific name? If you care to answer that, of course.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions to the community and as such, would prefer they have maximum efficacy. My desire to opine wrecked your return on investment simply as a matter of clicking and typing. I recognize you don't have a dog in the fight; you started a discussion which should have led to a consensus for or against the proposition. I think the damage is done; there won't be a meaningful discussion about the essay title especially since the essay's proponents cannot admit their own partisanship. As for me, I provided a couple suggestions in that discussion. The essay is political and the title should reflect such. Gun control advocates often fall into a couple cognitive biases and misjudgments and there's no way I can fix that. We know that Wikipedia has a left-lean so that's not the demographic to reject that essay. Our editors so often want Wikipedia to reflect what they themselves believe to be true it must gall many that Wikipedia hasn't done more to champion the abolition of firearms.

I want to dispel your idea about a counterargument. While free speech principles include the idea that despicable arguments needs to be answered by counter-arguments rather than the regulation of speech, I don't think that works here. We have, for example, essays supporting inclusionism and deletionism on Wikipedia because it's a native philosophical divide in our community. There isn't a consensus view across all of Wikipedia but it's a fair disagreement assuming editors aren't !voting ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Having an essay that advocates using primary source material to address the prevalence of firearms in criminal acts is politically partisan, violating NPOV. It's the thin edge of a wedge meant to draw an arrow from the existence of a weapon to the deaths and injuries resulting. It also invites partisans of that stripe to write anti-gun narratives, displacing pro-gun editors only interested in the apolitical technical details of the gun involved. The effect of this essay is to confuse correlation with causation. The use of something likea scary black rifle in a shooting ought not be covered using primary sources because it allows editors to get away withoriginal research, all of which is faulty because it's selecting on the dependent variable. I actually have a policy degree so I know of what I speak. Allowing the essay to exist in WP space makes it more likely to gain traction. Writing an opposing essay that we should keep gun violence out of gun articles would either be similarly partisan or simply rehash the arguments the first essay discusses. I will think on this and perhaps write up something more coherent forThe Signpost.Chris Troutman (talk)01:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision? This has 8 for Delete, and 1.5 for Keep and appears to be well past completion date with clear consensus.Chrisdevelop (talk)15:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisdevelop, I don't close this, an uninvolved admin will. It will happen when someone gets around to it.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir, Greetings, I have submitted the articleDraft:Vascon Engineers according as per Wikipedia policy. I tried my best to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. We have no intention to promote our company. All we wanted to have a Wikipedia page just like other real estate companies have. Even the article has only two sentence, we are okay with it. It would be great help if you can review the article or suggest me what more can be done to get it approved. Thanks --183.87.201.141 (talk)12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor 141, please see my comments atDraft talk:Vascon Engineers. I htink you will be very well advised to register and use a username/account if you want to go forward with this. Please do note that many perfectly fine companies are not notable and do not have Wikipedia articles.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, thanks for your help. I cannot registered because I have been blocked by an editor SpacemanSpiff as a suspected sockpupet/fake account, even when I was not sock. I was registered on Wikipedia for the first time.User:Fyomancho is my real account.

Sir, I'm working in Vascon and I get monthly salary, will it be called PAID as per Wikipedia's Paid policy?

I believe, Vascon is table as perhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Publicly_traded_corporations.Thanks --183.87.183.51 (talk)14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have been blocked, you must not edit without logging in. You will need to appeal your block if you think it is unjustified.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If you are employed by Vascon, and expected to edit Wikipedia as part of your job, or if your edits will be considered when your job performance is reviewed, or will affect your employer's view of you, or is done during work time, then you clearly fall underWP:PAID. If you were to edit . If it were completly done on your own, in off-time, you would still have aConflict of Interest.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be assisting a block-evanding editor.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank you very much for your help at TeaHouse today. I would be very grateful if you would consider being my mentor for a short time, while I become more experienced?Rob Sherratt (talk)02:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, refSt. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam. I was there. I took the photos. The Photos have DCIm data proving source and location. I spoke with the Papas. I attended the festival on Sunday 20 May 2018, last weekend. I am a first hand witness and credible source. Is this not good enough for Wikipedia? Is there anything else I can do to resolve the "problems" you have flagged, or shall I just give up, because this is taking way too much time and effort for me?Rob Sherratt (talk)13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I did not explain more fully sooner,Rob Sherratt. No a "fist hand witness" is not ever "good enough for Wikipedia". Articles must be based uponpublishedrelaible sources. What you saw is not published, unless you write it up, say as a travel article, and get it published in some reliable source. Note that your own web site or blog would not be considered reliable unless you are a noted expert in the field of travel, or perhaps on that region or some other relevant field. This does not mean that you are not credible in the usual sense of the word -- no unpublished or self-published first-hand account would be accepted. No one else can rad your mind to know what you saw, and a random reader has no way to k now who you are, or what reputation for accuracy you have. Reliable sources have editorial control, so that someone besides the writer stands between the writer and the reader, and helps ensure accuracy. Reliable sources have reputaion at stae, which is an incentive to get things correct, and if they fail to do so, that is part of their reputation and can be taken into account by the reader. Wikipedia, lilke all encyclopedias, is atertiary source. It depends on what other have alre3ady written about, largely in secondary sources, plus some primary sources. SeeWP:PRIMARY andWP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a place to post original accounts of personal experiences, or articles based on such experiences. What is needed in theSt. Nicholas Monastery Church, Mesopotam is to findpublished sources that describe the church and the festival, if possible. I hope that makes things a bit clearer.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David, that makes things much clearer for me. I have arranged to meet Reshat Gega who is an acknowledged expert in Albania with many published papers. I know that Reshat is willing to help provide good reference documents. So please bear with me, I am determined to get this right!Rob Sherratt (talk)14:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another user pointed up this userpage I thought I should point it out here asOshwah seems to be inactive at the moment here is the userpage:[4]ThegooduserLet's Chat03:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't yet then you probably forgot to redact the first userpage revision.ThegooduserLet's Chat03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Thegooduser. I don't think this meets the standard for revision deletion, simple removal by edit should be sufficient.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OkThegooduserLet's Chat03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a gut feeling that that user is a sock. But I could be wrong.ThegooduserLet's Chat03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. Or it might be a former IP editor. Or a user with a new username, but not editing abusively. I don't feel that there is enough here to open an SPI, nor to block preemptively, nor do do aWP:NOTHERE block. However, if the user continues to edit disruptively, a block may well be in order.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to open a SPI like you said, there's not enough evidence. But I'll have their Upage on my watchlist.ThegooduserLet's Chat03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel,

 I have just read a conversation where you responded to Robert McClenon regarding declining my submission. I don't understand from the notification why it was decline. Can you please help explaining why it is decline and how if I resubmit, I can have another reviewer read it for approval that is not Robert McClenon.

I appreciate all of your help,Pandora— Precedingunsigned comment added byPandoraperez04 (talk •contribs)14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I've been working on the Judith Weinshall Liberman bio page. It's not done (especially the last sectionSelf Portraits of a Holocaust Artist) and I haven't added a photo (or two), but when you get a minute can you take a look at it and provide me with your input? She writes children's books, plays, and poetry, creates sculptures and has many paintings outside the three Holocaust series, but I think I should stick to her background, education, and Holocaust-related works (and I can provide external links to info on the non-Holocaust related pieces). Plus, there is very little verifiable information on any of her works other than the Holocaust series — some but not much — for the most part, all info on those things are found on her personal website and sites like Amazon. What do you think?Draft:Judith Weinshall LibermanGeorge David NH (talk)00:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments and suggestions,George David NH:

• In the "Education" section, there is a sentence:Weinshall Liberman returned to Israel and served as editor of the Economic Review, the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, and as a lecturer at the School of Law and Economics in Tel Aviv. I putEconomic Review in italics, since it is a title. It had been linked toEconomy of Isreal. I removed the link because there is no mention ofEconomic Review in that article. Also, she was an editor and a lecturer, but what did she do for or with the Jewish Agency? That is unclar and it makes the sentence read awkwardly in my view.
• Later in the section it says:In 1956, Weinshall Liberman turned her attention to the arts and began taking classes in painting, drawing, fiber arts, sculpture and other artistic mediums at the Art Institute of Boston (now Lesley University) This is sourced to www.lesley.edu/. But that is merely a page by and about Lesley University, it does not in any way verify that Liberman attended Lesley. That sentence should be cited to a source that actually verifies her attendance. A list of alumna published by the school would be ideal, or a newspaper mention of her attendance, but even a cite to her autobiography would be better than the current cite. Indeed no source at all would be an improvement. A source that does not support what it is cited to support is misleading and makes the reader question all the sources in the article. There seems to be a similar problem with the cite tohttps://www.law.umich.edu/Pages/default.aspx a bit earlier. Double check all cited sources for this, a page jsut about an institution that is mentioned, but that does not verify the stated facts, should not be cited. That is what a wiki-link to an article about the institution (if there is an article) is for. Several of the citatiosn near the end of the "Education" section seem have the same issue.
• When citing an online source, the|website= or|work= parameter should be thename of the site. For example if one were citing a Wikipedia article, one would usework=Wikipedia. Do not use the domain of the site unless it has no other name (a form such aswebsite=en.wikipedia.org should only be used on sites with no actual name) andnever use the full URL.
• The section "The Holocaust Paintings" includes the sentencethe color palette of each painting is mostly red, black, and gray to represent the pain, the suffering and death experienced throughout the Holocaust The colors used are a fact, but what they represent is an opinion. This would be better written as "the color palette of each painting is mostly red, black, and gray. According to <noted expert> this represents the pain, the suffering and death experienced throughout the Holocaust." with a cite to where the expert says this, or failign that, a cite to where Liberman herself says that this was her intent.
• Inthis edit I changed a cite to a source that does not support the stated fact to one that does, and improved the citation data. Take note of what I did and do likewise on other cites.

I am out of time this morning and will review the rest of the draft later. I hope this is helpful so far.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, Dave. I understand your recommendations and will attend to them. If you don't notice those changes to the page it's because I may take a break from it for a few days. Not sure.George David NH (talk)14:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you suggested toDraft: Judith Weinshall Liberman and added additional text to finish out the page. Can you take a look and see what needs to be corrected before posting? Also, do you think I should add two photos of her work or should I just leave it at her bio photo? I have to be honest, I tried to include two photos and followed the upload process and coding rules as closely as I could, but I've forgotten how to do it correctly because the images are not showing up. I'm leaving two examples of this issue on the page for you to take a look at. I have reqested that Liberman send me a photo from her Self Portraits collection if you think I should show an example from each series. Thanks.George David NH (talk)19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the changes you made to the JWL page. Thanks. Let me know what else you think should be tweaked before I make it live. I'm getting burnt out on digging around for usable information on Liberman. ha! I started working on that article back in March. It's been a challenge. For my next article, I'm going to try putting together a non-bio. Maybe an article about a location.George David NH (talk)23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here are some suggestions,George David NH:

• We still don't have any indication if she ever practiced as a lawyer before turning to art. If this is known and can be sourced, perhaps from her autobiography, it would be nice to include.
• There is currently no source cited to indicate her attendance at any of the art schools, Not absolutely essential, but again, would be nice, if available.
• I would include a bibliography section, consisting of a bulleted list of all of her published works, art and literature, just listing the publication into for each. Most can be cited to sources already in the draft, although a published work can be an implied (uncited) source about itself, if full publication info that would let a reader find a copy has been provided. One reason for doing this is that otherwise the "Archived books" section looks like a group of UNpublished works. Another reason is it buts her output together in one place, and is usual in an article about a creative person.
• The draft currently has an image of her, and two images of her works are included. That is probably enough for now.
• The section on the wall hangings now reads:Scenes of the Holocaust, Maps of the Holocaust, and Epilogue and are designed with a color palette of mostly red, gray and black – red: blood and fire; gray: suffering and despair; black: death If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite.
• Finish completing bibliographic data for any sources where it is still needed, please.

I hope all this is helpful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1.We still don't have any indication if she ever practiced as a lawyer before turning to art. If this is known and can be sourced, perhaps from her autobiography, it would be nice to include.She never practiced as a lawyer, so I cannot make mention of that.

2.There is currently no source cited to indicate her attendance at any of the art schools, Not absolutely essential, but again, would be nice, if available.There are no records of her attending the schools since it was such a long time ago and she did not earn degrees from any of the schools.

3.The section on the wall hangings now reads: Template:TqqI If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite.I'm unsure what you mean by this. Please advise.

4. Regarding a bibliography of her works, when you have a free minute, please take a look at her website, jliberman.com, to see why I'm unsure how to create one. Her list of work is extensive and runs into nearly every area of art. If you look at the top of the page under Writing, Plays, Musicals and Music, and Visual Art Series, there are many subcategories, and most of the work is unverifiable other than through her personal website or a sales site such as Amazon.com. Should I mention the more notable works only? Some of her artwork is significant, while some appear to be more hobby-centric and certainly not notable. Most of her books are self-published and don't appear to have much going on as far as outside acknowledgment, so should we still include them in a biblio?George David NH (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)To note: I went ahead and created a bibliography of "notable works" — those works of art, literature, and picture books which are verifiable beyond info on her website or a sales page. Let me know what you think.George David NH (talk)03:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses by number,George David NH:

1. The article could say "Although she graduated from law school, she never entered practice as a lawyer". This could be cited to her autobiography, perhaps.

2. Very well, then we will have to leave it uncited, or cite only to her autobio.

3. I am sorry. I made an error in markup. that should have read: : The section on the wall hangings now reads:Scenes of the Holocaust, Maps of the Holocaust, and Epilogue and are designed with a color palette of mostly red, gray and black – red: blood and fire; gray: suffering and despair; black: death If this is the artist's opinion, say so more explicitly. If it is that of some critic, say who, and cite. (I was referring to the meaning or purpose of each color: blood & fire, suffering & despair, and death.)

4. Yes, a selected bibliography is a god idea then. But it should include as much publication information is available, the name of the publisher when there is one, the ISBN when one has been assigned, and anything else that would identify the work or assist in finding a copy, particularly for the books.

Otherwise, things are looking good to me.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Thanks for the input. I created the Bibliography section and included all the pieces mentioned on the page. I'm not sure what else to add since all of her publishing houses are self-publishers. I want to avoid the look of self-promotion. Please take a look at the biblio when you have time to confirm that I set it up correctly. She has 48 picture books and many paintings that are not part of collections. Should I mention a few of those even though the primary source will be her website or autobiography?George David NH (talk)12:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just received the message that I uploaded the photoBoarding twice and I was told that I could lose my editing privileges if it happens too many times. The person removed the photo from the Liberman page. I've been trying to figure out the rights and wrongs of posting photos but still haven't mastered it. I've sent Wiki all the photo permission information I received from Judy a month or so ago, so what's the issue? Any idea what I need to do here?George David NH (talk)20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Here's the message: Your image or other content, File:Boarding.jpg, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding.[reply]

Hi Dave. I changed Bibliography to "Notable Works" - seems to make more sense - let me know what you think.George David NH (talk)18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones (Talk) 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)George David NH (talk)20:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only answer is wait. OTRS for commons is at a 87 day backlog (c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard). OTRS will undelete the image once they have validated the permission. If you tell me the ticket number I will have a look at it (but I'm not good with permissions, so I normally leave them alone - too easy to get it wrong) - I see above you said "I've sent Wiki all the photo permission information I received from Judy a month ago" - I will state, that forwarded e-mails are usually rejected (too easy to fabricate).Ronhjones  ^(Talk)16:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH (talk), can you provideRonhjones the OTRS ticket number? He might be able to help. I would suggest "Selected works" or perhaps "Significant works" rather than "Notable Works" only because "notable" had such a technical meaning on Wikipedia, and we don't want anyone thinking that the article or its author is claiming that all the listed works should have separate articles. But sin e it isn't a complte bibliography, a change is probably a good idea.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the OTRS ticket number and sent a help request toUser:Ronhjones. I also changed "Notable Works" to "Selected Works." Check it out and give me your input when possible.George David NH (talk)02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. An update: I've taken the next step (correctly) to having the photos approved by sending all the necessary information in one email with attached ticket#2018041410007775 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and photosubmission@wikimedia.org. The next step is to wait to hear back from them. Once the photos are approved, I think the article now atdraft:Judith Weinshall Liberman is ready to make live.

User:Bounty_HunterxD what should i do with this, lol...ThegooduserLet's Chat01:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages atCASSIOPEIA's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi DES, Discussion - Same subject above byUser:Thegooduser. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)02:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser andCASSIOPEIA: I don't see any reason why either of you should do anything at all about it. Bounty_HunterxD is not doing anything particularly harmful, although s/he has not done anything particularly useful either. I advise you simply to ignore him until and unless he does something that actually causes a significant problem. What makes you think you want to watch that user page?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser:, Hi DUS, same thought here and thanks for the reply at my userpage. Hi, Thegooduser, just gracelessly ignore the statement made. Cheers and have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)03:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; I am watching that page, because I feel like that user will be making more "attacks". Or I could be wrong.ThegooduserLet's Chat00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish,Thegooduser, but please considerWikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this really isn't pertinent to the discussion of "née" and such, I'm bringing my question here. You said,I have been a professional in a computer science field for over 30 years, with a strong inerest in mathematics as well, i had neveer heard of this usage of "iff" before this discussion. Are you saying that you've never seen "iff" usedin computer science and mathematics, or are you saying that you've never seen "iff" usedoutside the fields of computer science and mathematics? Personally, I learned it in myninth-grade "Introductory to Chemistry and Physics" and (whichever grade-level-appropriate) mathematics classes. I'm just curious, so, thanks for your time. —fourthords |=Λ= |15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fourthords, I am saying that I have never seen it in any context at all. I have seen the phrase "If and only if" frequently, in HS and college mathematics, in professional and non-professional CS contexts, and elsewhere. I have, to the best of my recollection,never seen this abbreviated as "iff". I assumed it was a simple typo for "if", and that is what I would still assume if anyone but you used it, unless the other meaning was made very clear, such as by expanding it on first use. I have been a fairly voracious reader of mathematics literature on a fairly advanced although not fully professional level, ditto for Physics (which was my undergraduate college major). I own and have read things like Krasner & Newman'sWorld of mathematics, theFeynman Lectures and many other works on a similar level. I have a pretty good memory for locutions.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I wasn't challenging your knowledge or awareness on the topic at all; we're just pseudonymous editors here. I just wasn't sure what you were saying on that other page. (b) I used "iff" (and have, in various contexts over many years) because I've assumed that anything I was taught in a ninth-grade idiot-teen-level course is a commonplace shorthand. Mayhap not. Anyway, we actually have more information here on Wikipedia if you're interested:iff#Origin of iff and pronunciation. Be well! —fourthords |=Λ= |19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite interesting. I didn't feel challenged, i was just trying to make the context of my experience and observations clear. Obviously this is not a recent or unattested neologism, based on the citations in the article you kindly linked above. Just one i had not previously encountered. Thanks for the info.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)@Fourthords:DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I ran into an adoptee of yours atUser talk:HorsesAreNice.EEng04:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, it's too bad this went through MFD, because these sorts of abandoned reviews are regularly speedied via G6. There's no history there to save, since no reviewing was actually done. Just so you know for the future...BlueMoonset (talk)23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I would argue that those are not valid G6 deletions. The fact that the GA review was delayed because a reviewer took on the task and was unable to complete it may be relevant history in the future, as may the fact that a particular reviewer took on more than s/he was able to handle. In any case, once any legitimate editor objects, the deletion is not no-controversial, and so G6 does not apply. I was not the only editor to object to this deletion nomination. And the GA reviewing instructions suggest that such deletions are not nee4ded.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history will be there on the article talk page, that a review was opened and closed, and (in the edit summary) why. A G6 is clearly no longer relevant here, but I very much believe that a G6 for never-started and abandoned review pages is perfectly valid.BlueMoonset (talk)01:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission ofMimi Mondal at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!BlueMoonset (talk)00:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with resolving a copyright question a couple of days ago on the Teahouse page. Your instructions are clear and in future I think I'll be able to handle it myself!Lindsark (talk)13:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission ofMimi Mondal at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!Narutolovehinata5^tccsdnew12:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiDESiegel! You created a thread calledWells of Life atWikipedia:Teahouse, but it has beenarchived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussionhere. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, pleasecreate a new thread. Archival byUser:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery byMuninnbot, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or{{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.Muninnbot (talk)19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I started an article aboutKathleen Parker (politician). I just founded out you started an article about the same person also The two articles needed to be merged and I have no problems with that. My apologies for any problems I may had caused with this. Thank you-RFD (talk)10:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I add the citation (and the template citation) at the pageDraft:Tata Nexon. Is correct? Can you move the page inTata Nexon? --Lanciatype840 (talk)11:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David:

I appreciate your offer to create an article on C.N. Otis

I would like to mimic the Frank Lloyd Wright pages with his complete list of works etcI will try to do so in Wikidpad but may move straight to an HTML webpage

then I will send you a link to it and you can decide if it should be on Wiki

While I can understand the need for all the rules and regulations that entail doing Wiki pagesit is more than I want to deal with in my elder years

LewLewis buttery (talk)06:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lew

Hello DES.This post is one of the most succinct yet thorough summing up of that thorny situation that I have seen. Nice work. Enjoy your tea and the weekend ahead.MarnetteD|Talk18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your guidance on adding a page re the TV show "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien." I will follow your guidelines.TomTcampo123 (talk)21:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome,Tcampo123. Feel free to ask further questions here or at the teahouse.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}21:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been helping with this file:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Press_photo_2_Brothers_on_the_4th_floor_A-700x998.jpg#Summary

My issue with the copyright flag is that I was given the photo by one of the artists and the photo is a work for hire, meant specifically for publicity purposes. How do I note the rationale, which I can't even find a way to do that? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Albanymike (talk)22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanymike, If it was a work made for hire, then the hiring party (I suppose the subjects or one of them, or the band as an entity) holds the copyright, not the photographer. I understand that, the picture of myself on my user page was a work made for hire for political publicity purposes, as you can see atFile:David Siegel.jpg. But permission "to use the photo on Wikipedia" is not good enough. If the photo is being freely released, then permission needs to come directly from the copyright holder to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and the photo must be under afree license, one which permits anyone in the world to reuse the image for any purpose at all, including for commercial use, free of any royalty. SeeWikipedia:Requesting copyright permission andWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details on this process. If the photo is not under a free license, it can only be used under a claim offair use which requires a statement, known as a "fair use rationale" explaining how the image's use meets all thenon-free criteria. TheWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains how this rationale is to be constructed. The template The template{{Non-free use rationale 2}} can be4 used to construct such a rationale. I hope this is helpful to you.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES, Good day. I PRODed the above article 2 months ago (April 2018) and the result was a delete. The same title is recreated and I tried to PROD it the again. However, the entry enclosed the 1st PROD and the result (the blue window) along with the new PROD info. As such user Finngall reverted the edit as they thought it was a closed entry. I wrote to Finngall but receive no reply so I redo the PROD again and the edit again reverted by Finngall -[5]. What can be done? Thanks in advance for your assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to CASSIOPEIA on my talk page--feel free to chime in there if you prefer. Thanks. --Finngall^talk07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

includingFinngall, Hi DES, help not needed. Sorry for cluttering your page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)12:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem,CASSIOPEIA. Substantive reply atUser Talk:Finngall,DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly posting in MfD contrary to concensus and against a recent community decision is not helpful. Being unaware of the decision excuses some posts but now that you are aware, please don't undermine the newly codified operating procedure. There is no value in keeping non-notable drafts around for rejection after rejection. It does not encourage editors to take up other topic and it wastes volunteer time. At this point you are also wasting other volunteer time with misleading statements that must be corrected least they be seen as an Admin stating policy. Please stop.Legacypac (talk)22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no slightest intention of stopping,Legacypac. Indeed I expect to accelerate. I will be clear when I am stating policy, and when I am giving my own views. I cannot and do not regard the recent RFC as definitive, and I will continue to argue against what I think is a very poor policy, and to argue for the retention of drafts which i think are being improperly deleted or nominated for deletion.

I have never claimed to be special because I am an admin, and I resent your suggesting otherwise. I ask you to show any diffs where I did so, or apologize. That cums underCasting aspersions. I have not used or suggested using admin tools in any way not thoroughly approved by consensus, nor in any way at all in the current dispute over drafts. Nor have I cited whatever prestige may attach to my admin status (if any) as a reason why my views should prevail. I do claim to be an experienced editor, as worthy of having my views considered as any other such editor, but that does not make them law, and I never claimed that it did.

The "new operating procedure" has not been "codified" in more than the vaguest way. Perhaps my objections will lead to it being clearly codified, or perhaps to it being changed. In any case I will express my objections as long as i see fit, in accord with appropriate policy. If you think that should be forbidden, ARBCOM is over there.

In the meantime, I clearly cannot in good conscience advise users to submit drafts via AfC. Perhaps some alternate informal review mechanism can be devised. No one is obliged to respond to my comments, unless they feel that my arguments are worth engaging.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were misusing tools I am pointing out being an Admin will not be a defense against stopping you from being disruptive. When you say things are a certain way it comes with the implied suggestion they are because you are an Admin.Legacypac (talk)23:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you chose to to read my comments that way,Legacypac. I never said or implied that, i never even referred to my status as an admin in any of these discussions until you brought it up. why? Because i knew perfectly well it wasn't relevant. Are you saying that making comments at an MfD (or several of them) is disruptive and should be sanctioned? Good luck getting that to fly. Are you saying that proposing to make (not even making) abold edit, with full intentions of complying withWP:BRD is disruptive? Good luck on that one too. If I do anything you think is disruptive, you are welcome to take any measures you think proper, but I will insist on diffs and citations of policy that is begin violated. If you can't provide such, I will argue for a solid boomerang result. If you can't point to something I have done that is actually disruptive, you would be well advised not to describe me or my actions as disruptive. I am still waiting for your apology.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implying I'm not following policy at MfD is one problem you need to correct. You are using MfD to advance a position that runs directly against a recent RFC. Keep digging.Legacypac (talk)23:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did you,Legacypac, express the opinion in various MfD discussions that the previous version ofWP:NMFD was "Stupid" or otherwise ill-advised? 20? 30? I suspect I could find at least that many diffs. Your position then ran directly against a recent RfC, much of which is still in place. If my comments are disruptive, so were yours then. But my comments are not disruptive. Deletion policy in particular is often shaped by what happens at individual deletion discussions. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to argue policy positions during an MfD discussion, and hope that the example helps them find traction. Nor have other policies been changed by the recent RfC. In particularWP:BITE is still policy, and I judge that your recent MfD nominations are not consistent with it, although I will grant that you have been acting in good faith and in compliance with your view of policy. Others may disagree, of course.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help with editing, reviewing, moving, etc my Bernstein quote article!Maineartists (talk)18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: I came uponMashoof during some NPP patrolling and thought it might be of interest to DYK. Not my area, but perhaps you'd like to nominate?

Thank you,Vexations I'll take a look.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this as an involved Admin (one actively campaigning for some of the things this essay seeks)[6]You have no business doing that. Along with your continued other actions at MfD including misrepresenting political outcomes your activity at MfD is undermining your credability as an Admin. Please reverse your close.Legacypac (talk)19:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so,Legacypac. I didn't edit the deletion discussion. I never edited the essay, nor its talk page, although I was once pinged to it, months ago. I do agree with some of the ideas expressed in the essay, and I disagree with others. I can't see that this makes meWP:INVOLVED.

I also don't see where I have beenmisrepresenting political outcomes. What statements of mine misrepresent anything, as you see it?

In any case I am not going to undo the close. But what I will do is post atWP:AN, describing this and asking for opinions on whether I was too involved to properly close this. Please consider this a notification that you are about to be mentioned there, although i will post a formal notification on your talk page after I open the thread on AN.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}22:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed to the NPOL issue at your ANi.Legacypac (talk)23:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good,Legacypac Bring out any issues you think relevant. By the way it is AN, not ANI, because that is the place to dispute closes, not that it matters much.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To dispute the close, go toWP:DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk)23:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been DRV, which is the other place to dispute closes. But in this case the only real issue was whetherWP:INVOLVED applied or not, and it seemed to me that that was much more the sort of issue to bring up an AN, than at DRV, which is mostly for when the substance of a close is disputed. But I would gladly post a pointer to the AN thread at DRV if you think that would be a good idea,SmokeyJoe. Do you?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, there is no case that the close was incorrect. The INVOLVED question is a behavioural question, but I presume there is no question that no admin would have closed the discussion any other way. —SmokeyJoe (talk)01:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can think of one who might have,SmokeyJoe. But he rarely closes MfDs.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see Fastily has reopened the MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk)01:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YesSmokeyJoe. And since I am not to close it, I have now commented extensively. Since the repoen was a revert of my edit, I was auto-pinged by it. There were points perhaps worthy of being addressed still in the AN thread, but since this started over a SNOW close, perhaps I am not in a good position to contest a fast close of the thread, and I will not do so.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The later speedy keep by another must feel good. --SmokeyJoe (talk)02:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bad close by DES SmokeyJoe. The topic deserves discussionLegacypac (talk)02:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am gald to see that another editor agreed with my viewSmokeyJoe, although the state of the discussion was rather different than it was when i closed it.Legacypac, if you think my conduct needs discussion, on this or any issiue or combination of issues, feel free to open a discussion on AN, ANI, or at ARBCOM. You said that my opening the AN discussion on my own close was an attempt to preempt a complaint for you. I had no such intent. You complained of my close at the start of this thread, and while i didn't and don't agree, I accept that the complaint was made in good faith. I therefore promptly brought it up for discussion at AN, so that other admins and experienced editors could give their views on whether I was INVOLVED. I did this in the interests of transparency and proper process. I can't see how it preempts you from raising any issue you fele you need to raise, or from gathering diffs for a wider discussion if you feel that one is warranted. While i disagree with your views on drafts and draftspace generally, and with a number of actions you have taken in connection with that issue, I recognize that you are a positively contributing editor, and do not feel any animosity towards you personally. I am ready to account for any of my actions as an admin at any time.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. I see that there is some debate among Wikipedia users over whether or not to remove the Holocaust Wall Hangings page. I read all the comments and come away with the understanding that I should not have written the article in Draft and that at least one individual thinks the topic doesn't meet the criteria for having its own page. Is my writing or editing being called into question, too? Hard to tell in the correspondence chain. Thanks for leading the way in explaining the validity of the article. Please advise what I should differently when developing my next article.George David NH (talk)01:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George David NH can you please link to where this talk occurred? I just looked and could not find any such talk. It isn't onTalk:Holocaust Wall Hangings, and the article hasn't been nominated for deletion atWP:AfD, nor listed forproposed deletion. Those are the only places to formally sugest that an article be deleted.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspaceGeorge David NH (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)I reread the page and the only reference to my work or the H W Hangings page came from you as you used it as an example. Makes sense.George David NH (talk)23:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page and your work on it was also praised bySmokeyJoe, as well,George David NH.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. Any idea why Anne Frank's Hiding Place photo was removed fromHolocaust Wall Hangings (...it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because of no OTRS permission for 30 days)? It's noted as removed today, 7/9 for no OTRS permissions for 30 days. Thanks.George David NH (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Just noticed the Weinshall Liberman's profile photo fromDraft:Judith Weinshall Liberman was also take down today for the same reason. Input or advice for a right course of action to correct these issues?George David NH (talk)20:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can we move the arricleDraft:Tata Nexon intoTata Nexon? I add the correct refenrences. Thanks and good work! --62.98.126.10 (talk)11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just checking to see if you'd noticed you'd been pinged in my revised COI request on theBroadridge discussion page. I appreciated that you were receptive before, although it became clear to me then that I didn't have the goods. I think I do now, but it's been pretty quiet over there lately. Would love to have your input. Best,WWB Too (Talk ·COI)19:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would be extremely grateful if you would consider adopting me so that I may learn from an experienced editor like yourself the ins and outs of wikipedia. My passions are medicine and literature. I enjoy adding new content to articles and cleaning up references to articles.Tirab (talk)13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, please stop by this DYK nomination at your earliest opportunity; it is waiting on a reply from you to proceed. Thank you very much.BlueMoonset (talk)12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel - I believe I have made the changes you asked for. The article is resubmitted for a 2nd review.Katsheron (talk)21:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 4 weeks now since I made the changes. Just sayin'.Katsheron (talk)18:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, I participated in my first deletion discussion for the Chicago Food Truck Festival. You also were one of the people who also voted to keep the article. When time permits please review how they deleted the article was proper. As they say a strong consensus was reached but I dont understand or see that none of the users in the relist discussion used policy. Thanks.Thelegaldude (talk)13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HelloDESiegel, I am looking for an adoptee to adopt me and to teach me everything about Wikipedia as well as the HTML coding language and much more of that stuff. Thank you,Yanjipy (talk)22:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to handle this the correct way, by utilizing the Talk page of this topic and I'll explain why I am here instead.

You raised some great questions regarding Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's Wikipedia page it would seem that editors and/or Admins who oversee this page are very resistant to including anything that states that Kennealy-Morrison's claims are, well, claims. I am hoping you can give me some clarification or some advice.

What I see as a very reasonable, well-researched article suggestions are considered "personal opinion" by a Wikipedia editor (Admin?) while Kennealy-Morrison's claims are being treated as being verified fact.

Link to Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patricia_Kennealy-Morrison

I thought of adding my concerns about Kennealy-Morrison's page to her Talk page but after seeing that my concerns have already been outlined very well and Kennealy-Morrison's version of events remain in place I thought I might be wasting my time.

"As editor-in-chief of Jazz & Pop she first interviewed Jim Morrison of the rock band The Doors in January 1969. After the interview, they began a correspondence, became friends and later lovers. She and Morrison exchanged vows in a Celtic handfasting ceremony in June 1970.[2][4][5] Before witnesses, the couple signed a document declaring themselves wed.[6][4][7] The relationship continued to be long-distance, which she says suited them both just fine. As temperamental artists with their own careers, living together for more than short periods of time may have been too much for either to handle. She preferred a nontraditional arrangement to "domesticity" and had no desire to "wash [Jim's] socks".[8] Morrison could be very difficult, at times loving and gentle, then suddenly brutal, or cold and distant.[9] By the time Morrison was on trial in Miami,[10] potentially facing a long sentence of hard labor, his at times erratic and even cruel behaviour led her to speculate that maybe he hadn't taken the wedding as seriously as he'd led her to believe.[4][11][12] But then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her, and to the Doors, in the fall.[13][14] Kennealy was skeptical by this point, as he was known to vacillate like this in his other relationships, as well.[9][12] Jim Morrison's sudden death at 27 would mean a lack of closure not only for Kennealy, but for the many people in his life.[5][15]"

Ordained minister, before witnesses, they exchanged vows, never filed the legal paperwork, but then Morrison would change his tune yet again and profess his love and desire for domesticity, claiming he was planning on returning to her - as outlined on Kennealy-Morrison's Talk page these statements have only been verified by Kennealy-Morrison.

The title of the book 'No One Here Get's Out Alive' is referenced on Jim Morrison's page as a means to to add validity to Kennealy-Morrison's assertions and yet the book depicts the relationship between Morrison and Kennealy-Morrison this way:

page 295

"In many ways their relationship was fairly typical for Jim. Except for Pamela, there was no one girl that he saw very often or for periods of more than a few days, and in the months since they'd met. Jim and Patricia had been in the same room probably no more than seven or eight time. Nor had there been many phone calls. A sheaf of oddly personal letters, gifts of jewelry and rare books and copies of his three privately printed books, but nothing that signaled a passionate courtship.

Nor was the manner in which Jim behaved towards Patricia different from his style with others."

It would be fair, and given the circumstances, more neutral if the paragraph started with, "In her 1992 memoirStrange Days Kennealy-Morrison claims...", or "Kennealy-Morrison says that before a minister and witnesses..." ?

A link to a legal document was provided where Jim Morrison signed and dated a benefits card and marked himself as single a few months after Kennealy-Morrison stated that they had wed has not swayed anyone to consider that the arguments on this page are not just personal opinion.

Am I wasting my time trying to get changes made on this page? If not, any advice on how to be effective in at least attempting to get changes made via the Talk page? As I said, this page is heavily protected and any changes or edits seem to be frowned upon.

Thanks very much for your time and I apologize if I brought this to the wrong place, I just wanted some insights if it turns out that I should proceed with my suggestions. Any insights you could give me would be greatly appreciated.Leyna010208 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byLeyna010208 (talk •contribs)04:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Siegel,

I am working on editing a page, doing some updates and trying to get rid of the dead link in the references (since it cannot be repaired) but I must be doing something wrong. I have repaired the other refs but cannot fix first link or get rid of the second. I so respect your help and opinion here. thanks always for your expertise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_ChamplinPaulhus15 (talk)20:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On21 August 2018,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleMimi Mondal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatMimi Mondal is the first writer from India to be nominated for aHugo Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Mimi Mondal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Mimi Mondal), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)00:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegal - If you have some extra time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composerSamuel Adler (composer). A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template{{Infobox academic}} to rectify this problem as suggested hereWikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Musicians Project (or "Info box Musical Artist") since Adler was also an active conductor who founded the historicSeventh Army Symphony Orchestra and was awarded the U. S. Army's highestMedal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including theEastman School of Music and theJuilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership inSigma Alpha Iota andPhi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I would be grateful for any insights which you might wish to share on the articles talk page hereTalk:Samuel Adler (composer) Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and contributions to the discussion along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the fututre With warmest regards...104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk)20:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS[reply]

Would you be willing fo mentor me? And if so, what would I be learning about? Thanks,A 10 fireplane (talk)16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HappyHalloween!

---

Hello DESiegel:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyableHalloween!
    –A 10 fireplane (talk)16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A 10 fireplane (talk)16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DES. I've totally confused myself with the protocol for submitting images for use within an article. I have a book cover image I would like to use, and which was given to me by the author, but I'm unclear as to what kind of disclaimer release terminology I need to use. Can you help me?ARD (talk)23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Angela[reply]

Hello, DESiegel. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk)22:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Template:Speedy-Warn has beennominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.^{[UsernameNeeded]}11:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Foryour recent offer on WSE to help a newbie WP editor.Narky Blert (talk)19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you toparticipate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF),08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link:Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience,Trizek (WMF),08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administratorsmust secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website,exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following arecent motion. Thank you for your attention. For theArbitration Committee,Cameron1159802:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they arerequired to "have strong passwords andfollow appropriate personal security practices." We haveupdated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular,two-factor authentication remains anoptional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron1159821:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Establishedpolicy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available atWikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request atthe bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89bot00:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Establishedpolicy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available atWikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request atthe bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89bot00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Establishedpolicy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request atWP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —xaosflux^Talk00:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all is well with you, David. I notice that you often take a complete break of almost exactly 12 months and this is the 3rd time you've been desysoped for inactivity. You should be due to return sometime soon now, and I look forward to seeing you around again.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)22:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HangonUse has beennominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk)22:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DES! I already thanked you over at BN, but I wanted to say that my intent had been only to understand what looked like such an unusual pattern, not to raise a definite objection, as your contributions have clearly been valuable when you do have one of your periods of activity. My objection is to editors who aren't really interested in regularly contributing much but just in keeping the flag, so they come back and do just enough, then wander off again until it's time to go make an edit and keep that flag. Your answer was great, and I appreciate your all-or-nothing approach, and also your intent to make sure you're caught up with any changes. It also explained the fact you hadn't dealt with the talk notifications in August and September. I also appreciate the fact you took the question as not being inappropriate. Best to you,valereee (talk)12:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, You are welcome. I will say that it might have been better to ask a returning (ex-)admin not "why were you gone?" -- there might have been any of a number of reasons that were no one else's business -- but "How active do you plan to be going forward?" which is highly relevant to the operations of Wikipedia. I agree that "hat-collecting" is not a good idea for adminship. But I didn't want to get into that onj the noticeboard.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, David.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)17:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou,Kudpung. Its good to be back.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would have been better! Note to self. :) --valereee (talk)21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just seen that you've posted at the Teahouse. Although we don't know one another, I was quite concerned by your sudden disappearance last year, and had hoped nothing untoward had befallen you. So I'm really delighted to see you back again, and trust you are well. In due course I hope you'll want to re-add your name to the list of Teahouse hosts as, a few months back, I undertook quite an update there, removing quite a number of inactive names, including yours, I'm afraid. With very best wishes,Nick Moyes (talk)19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message,Nick Moyes. It was just pressure of off-line life, nothing horrid, as my recent comments at [[WP:BN}} indicate. I will re-add to the host list.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}19:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

}

Welcome Back! We missed you! --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁21:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Thegooduser.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}21:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you are back. I was wondering where were you since no edits from you for a few month. Believe all is good and well !!! CASSIOPEIA^(talk)09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm contacting you because I think you're the deleting admin for a recent entry I created, "Brendan Gahan". The page was speedily deleted, but I'm not sure why. Would you be able to help me understand what the problem was or problems were? If you could shed any light on the matter that would be very helpful. (If you were not the one who deleted the page and I'm contacting you in error would you please steer me to the right admin?) Thank you for your help.Scruitineer (talk)00:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scruitineer, Yes I deletedBrendan Gahan recently. I did so because it had previously (on 11:56, 9 January 2018 ) been deleted after a discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Gahan. This made it subject to deletion criterionWP:CSD#G4G4. The expressed concern at the 2018 discussion was:

Promotional, reads like an advertisement with puffery (e.g. "Has been called the Don Draper of social video"). No indications of real notability. Notability is not inherited. The listed "Awards" and inclusions in various lists are of no real indications of notability.

While the shorter version I deleted was somewhat less promotional than the version deleted in 2018, it did little if any more to establishNotability. Note please that on Wikipedia "notability" is a technical term meaning "has been written about in some detail in multipleIndependent publishedreliable sources". Please seeOur guideline on notability of biographies.

If you want to proceed with creating an article about Gahan I strongly urge that you create a version in Draft space, that is atDraft:Brendan Gahan, try to ensure that it has sufficient source references, and then submit it for review under thearticles for creation process. An experienced editor will review it and either approve it and move it back to the main article space, or provide feedback on any remaining issues. You might also want to ask for advice at theTeahouse.

If you wish, I am willing to restore the deleted article, move it to draft space, and mark it as an AfC draft. Let me know by replying to this thread if you want me to do this.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes, if you're willing to restore the page and mark it as an AfC draft that would be very helpful. Looking forward to learning more about this process. I appreciate your help.Scruitineer (talk)00:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scruitineer, I have restored the page and moved it to draft atScruitineer. I urge you to find additional sources that discuss the subject in some detail to clearly establish the notability of the subject, if possible. Note that sources must beIndependent to help establish notability. A subject's own website or social media, or those of a subject's employers, business affiliates, or family are not independent. Nor are interviews with the subject, excepot that if there is an introductory statement by a reporter that part alonemay be helpful for notability if it is in some detail. Also sources must bereliable. Blogs and fan sites are not normally reliable.

Note that AfC drafts may not lie untouched forever -- if a draft goes unedited for 6 months it may be deleted for that reason alone. And our other policies such as theBiographies of living persons policy, and the policy agaisn copyright infringement continue to apply nto drafts. I hope this is helpful -- feel free to ask further questions at any time, here or at theTeahouse.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Steven A. Murphy -- I don't mind doing it by discussion instead of speedy. (we really should have an automatic template for notification in cases like this) DGG ( talk)05:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes use{{Speedy-Warn}} to notify taggers when i decline a speedy tag, but it is not automatic, and I don't always do so. Thanks for the notification.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}05:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might useUser:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js ....∯WBG^converse11:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at theTeahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions arearchived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added byDES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}06:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC). (You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

I tagged it as db-g3 because it is blatant misinformation; "He's won multiple national championships and even a world-wide open". On the off chance there was some legitimacy to such a statement, I searched and found nothing. An elementary school kid is not very likely to have won a national championship or world open, and I would be a bit surprised if such an event existed for kids that age. I'm not trying to get you to change it back to g3; I don't care about that. I'm just explaining why I tagged it g3. --Hammersoft (talk)00:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft that makes sense, since G3 includes hoaxes. Perhaps i shouldn't have changed it. Anyway, it will soon be gone under one CSD or another. Thanks for tagging.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DES! I'd actually intentionally left off the very recent resysops because it didn't seem useful or reasonable -- adding that as #19 has left two off the list that would have gone between the end of my original list and that one. (Plus because it's over my signature, now it looks like I added #19 and intentionally left the other two off.) --valereee (talk)16:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee I thought in that case (which is of course my own) the edit pattern after the first desysop was relevant enough to be worth listing. But feel free to revert if you like or remove the item. I think it might be worth creating a second list, perhaps over my sig, with some you didn't include. There are some not noted as being "for inactivity" in the resysops page, but so listed on the appropriate log entries. A more comprehensive list might be of value to those considering the issue. If I do that, i could move #19 to it. What do you think?DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DES, I think a supplemental list that includes #19 would be great! I had suspected there might be some that simply hadn't been noted as such, and more information is always helpful. --valereee (talk)11:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Ongoing good deeds sir;Procode200 (talk)00:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard toWikipedia:Teahouse#Need Feedback on my submission Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche: This is related toUser:Nonsky, the (blocked for promo/socking) subject of the article, who has previously solicited paid editing. I don't know if Vinvibes is aware of the history.—[AlanM1(talk)]—00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information,AlanM1, but I don't really see that it matters at all. Even assumi9ng that Chukwunonso Ezekwueche is known to beUser:Nonsky (which he may be, but it is not known to me) if he is in fact notable, there can and should be an article about him, and if he isn't, there shouldn't be. Whether he is blocked on Wikipedia and why makes no difference, unless he is alleged to be notablefor his Wikipedia editing. If an article complies with [[WP:NPOV\\, demonstratesnotability, is properly supported by sources, and in general complies with Wikipedia policy, that it has previously been edited with promotional intent makes no difference at all. Previous promotion isnot a reason to delete, nor in my view should it be. I might add that making the connection between username and real name here, if it has not previously been made public, might be consideredouting so please be careful.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The connection was, indeed, made by the subject himself. My concern was about potential and potentially undisclosed paid editing. Just making you aware of the history in case you weren't.—[AlanM1(talk)]—01:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,AlanM1 In fact I wasn't aware of it. All I can say is that if the current draft is the best a possibly paid editor can do, it was a waste of money.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are again :) The reason I tagged it for db-promo is the language is promotional "dedicated to sell the best products", includes all their social media platforms...and the thing that did it ultimately for me is the edit summary on creation; "Biography ofMY company/ecommerce store" (emphasis mine). This person is trying to promote their business. Admin Athaenara has already blocked them for being a promotional/advertising account. --Hammersoft (talk)01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft Frankly I think such a block is out of line, but i won't contest it. Many new editors do not understand that we limit to a single link to a subject';s web presence, particularly when none of these is clearly the "main link". If the draft is developed, that will have to be dealt with. Given that "Best" is part of the firm's name, I don't find that line, in a draft where more leeway should be given, excessively promotional. The edit summery suggests COI, but does not make the text any more promotional. Feel free to bring this to MfD if you think proper, but I don't think it would be worth while.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}02:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's one thing I've learned over the years on this project, it's that in situations like this there is no 'right' answer. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, but wrong isn't some catastrophic outcome where people get in a huff and walk out. So, I'm *shrug* at this point. Someone was willing to spend the time to start the MfD. And on Wikipedia goes. --Hammersoft (talk)14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can agree with all that,Hammersoft. The wiki will not fall or even be measurably harmed by this, whichever way it turns out. I have commented at the MfD, we'll see what consensus forms.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated my userpage for deletion and you blanked it. This was not what I requested. I can blank my userpage myself. I requested deletion, so thatuser:Taivo would be a red link. I hope, that this request is not against rules.Taivo (talk)16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry,Taivo There was confusion withTaivoLinguist who was once User:Tavio here, many years ago. I blanked the page to remove the redirect toUser:TaivoLinguist, and apparently did not see your delete request. I have now deleted the page. You are free to recreate it, or leave it as a redlink.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deletingElizabeth Miranda as a blatant hoax. Unfortunately the user has recreated it, and is now removing the speedy tag. They have a long history of rather unpleasant vandalism. Could you delete that one again? I've also reported them onWP:AIV as very clearlyWP:NOTHERE. Many thanks,The Mirror Cracked (talk)04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Cracked DoneDES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance creating the page ofNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal. I also seek to understand more from you about how to make edits of Wikipedia pages about orders passed by NCLAT. While I have made a few successfully, an editorWinged Blades of Godric has reverted one of which is factual and a latest information. The revert onRaheja Developers was done without any discussion on the same, called it whitewashing in the edit summary. As I checked histalk page I have realized that the person replies people using languages like "I don't give a flying fuck" and I decided not to converse to avoid such a discussion. I went into a BRD cycle, hoping that an admin would interfere but I realized that adminRexxS has undone my change. While I understand that it is considered as edit warring, why is the updated information not considered?Prof Pandaa (talk)07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Pandaa Please do notedit war ,under any circumstances. The only way forward here is to engage withWinged Blades of Godric andRexxS both of whom are quite experienced editors and are very unlikely to be committing vandalism -- please do not throw that word around lightly. Moreover, it seems thatthis edit was at least somewhat misleading. It reads as if the insolvency case had been dismissed, but as i read the news stories you cited, enforcement proceedings were merely suspended to allow a possible settlement, and the tribunal was very critical ofRaheja Developers, which was not reflected in your edit. I hope and trust that further discussion onTalk:Raheja Developers can lead to an acceptable outcome. Consider the many paid editors who have been active on that articel, and you can see why editors are more than a bit suspicious. I may post to that talk page myself later if I can.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, apologies for butting in, butProf Pandaa is surely aware that the place to discuss content is on the talk page of the article (or a relevant noticeboard if more opinions are needed). I am not impressed by the behaviour of any editor who simply attempts to force their preferred version into any article and does that repeatedly without ever engaging on the talk page. I an uninvolved with the article, and have no view whatsoever on the content of Prof Pandaa's edit: I only observe that it was made, and re-made twice in response to challenges. Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue better than I have been able to. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTCg

No need to apologize,RexxS, If I hadn't wanted your input I wouldn't have pinged you. I was involved with the creation ofNational Company Law Appellate Tribunal reacting to a speedy deletion tag. But that does not make me an expert on every order of the Tribunal. Of course, I want to help avoid any edit wars that I can. I do not disagree with your comments above. It does seem to me that the news stories thatProf Pandaa tried to add here are relevant, although the attempted edit does not quite correctly describe their content.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking out the time to explain thingsDESiegel andRexxS. I think I have gained a fair idea of how edits should happen on the page, and the kind of response it has due to paid editing. I have already discussed the matter on the talk page a few hours ago and would wait for a healthy discussion to begin on it. Also, let me know if I can be making an edit now with content which describes the content more accurately. Will it still be considered as an attempt to edit war?Prof Pandaa (talk)21:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticedunblock ofRcorsini54, but that there is no notification on his talk page. Should there be an{{Unblocked}} added?—[AlanM1(talk)]—08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right,AlanM1. Now that the ANI discussion has clsoed, and no one has suggested re-blocking, I will place the notification.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}14:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, as was the extended note about the issues. I saw the block and was surprised, too (with all due respect to the blocker, of course). Good job on potential retention of a slightly-misguided wikinewbie who might have some useful subject area knowledge to share.—[AlanM1(talk)]—23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DESiegel,I am writing to you in regards to the Let It Be Art! draft. I appreciate your looking at it but to be honest, it was not based on anyone else's article or taken from anyone's work or quoted from anyone's article. I have re-edited the proposed article. It was completely written without any other's information but just with the facts pertaining to the play. I am hoping it will be accepted. Please be so kind - if I may ask your help to make it right and better, if you still feel it needs work. I believe the information provided about this play and the person it is about would be most beneficial to students and others in the theater in America and world-wide. Thank you. FitwithJanFitwithjan (talk)16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I didn't participate inthe discussion on ANI due to time constraints. Having read it after its closing, I would just like to address your comment on the essence of the argument and clarify what I had said. I didnot claim that 'a request that information is properly cited is ... out of line' per se, or that ' 'readers are expected to use Google or other searches to determine if an article's content is correct', or that 'using a^{[citation needed]} tag rather than simply reverting ... is ... a rule'. In general, my points were not about rules, but about what constitutes decent behaviour and common sense.

First, when one chooses to request a citation or outright delete a claim with no citation footnote attached, I think it's self-evident that it should be because one sincerely believes that one has a reason to consider the claim dubious, controversial or uncertain, instead of just doing it randomly, mindlessly, as a way of wearing out the other editor or in the hope that no editor will happen to notice and/or bother to turn up with a citation. This is not and cannot be 'a rule' that could be 'enforced', since nobody can prove and formally penalise anybody else's beliefs and intentions; it's just a matter of decent behaviour.

Second, if one reverts, and the other editor does not monitor the page (something which IPs typically don't), and no notification of the revert is sent, this is almost guaranteed to mean that the sources will not be provided and the information, however true, useful and widely accepted it might be, will remain deleted. The effect of such an approach is to eliminate potentially good work and valuable information, so, again, not 'a rule', but decent and constructive behaviour requires that one should avoid proceeding in this manner.

Furthermore, if aneditor (not a reader) doubts the information and it can be checked very easily by anybody (Indonesia is a country? Really? It's in Asia? Really? Its capital is Jacarta? Really?), it is, again, decent behaviour, albeit not a rule, for the editor to check it himself and, if necessary, source it, instead of bothering others by putting tags or outright moving to delete the information.

The same applies if one knows too little about the issue to be able to have any meaningful doubts about it - say, if you don't know what an invertebrate is and you don't know what a cephalopod is, choosing to demand citations for the claim that cephalopods are invertebrates or directly deleting it is not a good thing to do, even if it doesn't break any rules. At least one might want to check first what invertebrates and cephalopods are.

This, IMO, is how one has to proceed if one actually wants good information to be in the encyclopedia, which should be the goal of all editors, not just the editor who adds the specific piece of information.

Finally - yes, ideally, every single piece of information on Wikipedia should be sourced. Based on this, every demand for a citation would be a good thing. In practice, however, it is simply not the case that every sentence is followed by a reference - and even when it is, the attribution may still not apply to every element of the sentence, so one may continue adding^{[citation needed]} tags ad infinitum. In the meantime, people do choose what to delete and what to demand citations for.

Regards,--87.126.23.210 (talk)00:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...has reappeared asUser:Rcorsini65. So far, no article edits.David notMD (talk)02:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

do you think I don't still yet qualify for new page reviewer rights? --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁03:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't usually make those decisions,Thegooduser but I note that inthis edit you deleted the signatutre from another user's comment, I assume by mistake. I also think that if the only way you know to submit to AfC is by moving a draft to a sandbox, you have some learning to do yet. But I recently learned thatCASSIOPEIA does some training for NPP/NPR, and that user might be able to give you better idea if you are ready for that.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}03:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of signature was a accident/system glitch.--ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁00:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i received your message of change of username. I have already requested it and is pending approval. Thus request you to give some time to get it accepted and renamed.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTheLister (talk •contribs)05:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi DESiegel and thanks for your driection re: COI. I am indeed the subject of the wiki page, I simply wnated to update the page. I am new to the format and guidelines, and it's not my intention to scam or spam or promote, simply list facts and update. I am trying to figure out how to disclose the COI and when I do I will gladly add that to the page, along with sources for new edits. This new edit was motivated by a friend pointing out that 1) the page was out of date nad more importantly 2) that when they did a google search of my name, the sidebar result was my name and occupation with another David Sereda's photos, links and website attached, though my wikipage and song links were there. I have contacted Google and am working through their policies. I don't wish to go against Wikipedia's, so I thank you for you patience and direction. I will review and try to make amends. Thanks again, davidDavidsereda786 (talk)17:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,Davidsereda786. Do readWP:DISCLOSE to learn how to disclose.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidsereda786, I have placed{{Connected contributor}} onTalk:David Sereda on your behalf. Please send email with proof of your identity to info-en@wikimedia.org giving your user name and identifying the articleDavid Sereda specifically. Explain thyat you are in fact the same person who mis the topic of that article, and you do not wish to be blocked for impersonation. In thew meantime, I advise you to createUser:Davidsereda786 and place

{{UserboxCOI|1=David Sereda}}

on your user page to further identify your connection with that article. If there is another person by the name of David Sereda, andif that person is notable, a separate article might be created about that person, and adisambiguation page created to indicate the distinction. In any case, text can be placed onTalk:David Sereda indicating the difference between teh two persons. There is already some such text there, from more than 8 years ago. I hope this helps.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}00:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DESiegel, re[7]] can you point me to the policy that says how long an article has to exist beforeCSD#A3 applies? Thanks,The Mirror Cracked (talk)06:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror CrackedWP:CSD#A3 saysDon't tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created (I quoted this in my edit summary, IIRC.) Then there is a footnote (no. 6) which says:Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice. Please do not mark the page as patrolled before that delay passes, to ensure the article is reviewed at a later time.Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is a policy page.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it.The Mirror Cracked (talk)06:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Inkthis london.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for revising my Wikipedia page and returning it to form by pitting back the reviews to some of my books, good and bad. David Bret.— Precedingunsigned comment added by86.148.244.22 (talk)09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get where you are coming from and cited the date of birth in this case but there are two player profiles already linked in the infobox which confirm this information (which is considered basic player info much like position, height and weight). It is very typical that date of birth is public for professional athletes - the info appears everywhere from their team’s site to every trading card they appear on.Rikster2 (talk)23:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2 I can see where professional athletes are something of a special case, and I won't edit further now that a source is provided. I don't usually edit articles about professional athletes -- I came to this one from an issue atWP:UAA quite unrelated to his birth date. I still think, as I said onTalk:Damian Lillard, that such dates are in most cases unencyclopedic trivia, but it may be that in cases like this that is less true.DES^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}23:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved of the matter.Dreambar (talk)01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]