User talk:DESiegel

Intro

Procedure

This is my talk page. Please add new messages to the bottom 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 a signed 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)

Please do not 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)

Archives

• 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

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, and welcome 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 a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia: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 page foodporn. I'd like you to kindly investigate users Hogohit and Praxidicae. An investigation of Special: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 at Special: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 :)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

DESiegel – now that is a name I have not seen in some time. Your abrupt departure had a few of us at the Teahouse worried. It's good to see that you're all right. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z (1995)

Hi there. From the looks of things, at the very least, either A11 or G3 (hoax) applies. I just checked and there does not appear to be any Dragon Ball film called "Dragon Ball Z: Battle in the Two Worlds", or at least not with that exact title. The two 1995 Dragon Ball films are Fusion Reborn and Wrath of the Dragon. I've gone ahead and retagged it as G3 (hoax). If it's declined again, I'll probably PROD it instead. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I just deleted/undeleted the thing after the oldcsd template penetrated my feeble mind. No G-hits-- looked like a test edit to me. But once declined. . . .

I too I'm glad you are back, though I only just returned myself. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Engelier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iapetus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Buddy Davis (creationist)

I would like a copy restored to my userspace so that I can work on it and try to establish notability, using independent, reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius2018 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Very well, Aurelius2018, I will do so. DES ^(talk) 02:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The page is now at User:Aurelius2018/Buddy Davis (creationist), Aurelius2018. You are free to work on it as you please. But remember that for it to be moved back to article mainspace, it will need to demonstrate notability, using cites to reliable sources, which must be published, and independent of Davis or his employers. Feel free to ask for help at the Teahouse. Please read the previous links, WP:42, and Your First Article if you have not already read them . DES ^(talk) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Keisha Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to American Basketball League and Chicago Blaze

500 Miles High (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to University of the Arts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the help dear DESiegel by 123shob123

=== Regarding my Article Haji Anayat Ali ===
Hello sir, I am grateful for your kind help in resubmitting my article for review which was deleted as i unintentionally submitted the same article twice. It was my mistake and as it was my first article i couldnt figure out the mistake. I am having a lot of fun here because of wonderful and helping people like you. Wikipedia is a revolution and it has completely changed my life. I hope this thankyou note is in the correct format on the right place as this is also my first note. I am extremely grateful to you for your valuable time in helping a stranger like me.123shob123 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your time is much appreciated! MisterMcHugh (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the help! Boeing329 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

PDF in format parameter (Teahouse response follow-up)

Hey David. I noticed a while back that when using pdf links in citation templates, they recognize its nature as a pdf and automatically output both the pdf symbol and "(PDF)" – exactly as they do when you add |format=pdf. So, where I used to add the format parameter, I stopped doing that once I noticed this. I'm wondering if this is an instance of a technical improvement that never got captured in the documentation, and whether at least for pdfs, the format parameter should not be deprecated as redundant--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Coway Co - your deletion

is very likely entirely unjustified because it is counted among the biggest global water-treatment companies (see World Water Index). Even if you happen to find this debatable, I would kindly ask you resurrect a copy for further improvement in my userspace. I never had a ghost of a chance to react to the deletion proposal. Thanks in advance. -- Kku (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku that very well may be. There was no link to World Water Index, nor a statement that this was "among the biggest global water-treatment companies". Speedy deletion is generally based on the contents of the article as it stands, and does not involve any additional research. This is, unfortunately, one of the risks of creating an article directly in the main article space rather than in user space or Draft: space. I am generally considered one of the admins who tries hardest to find some claim of notability and to source stubs I find on checking speedy deletion candidates, and most likely to restore deleted content.

I will restore the article in your userspace, as requested, marking it as an submitted draft. I urge you to make sure that it is not subject to and of the speedy deletion criteria, and clearly establishes the notability of the company via citations to multiple independent, professionally published reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail, before submitting it for review or moving it back to article mainspace. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku, I have restored the article text at User:Kku/Coway Co, marked as an unsubmitted AfC draft. I wish you well with it. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear DESiegel, this is one of the first times I have experienced such considerate behaviour on WP. (Quite the contrary, to be sure) Thank you for that. I will try to make the relevance more explicit. -- Kku (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Kku, I am sorry to hear that you have experienced what seems to be a lack of considerate behavior on Wikipedia in the past. It is my view that editors, and particulalry admins, should be as helpful as possible to others, within the site policies and the general purpose to build an encyclopedia, of course. If I can be of furthre help to you in the future, please do feel free to leave a message for me on this talk page, or to visit the Teahouse, where other helpful editors do try to assist those who need help. DES ^(talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you just compare-

This with the version you deleted last week? Much appreciated- many thanks. Hope you're well. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the version which you tagged and i delted had more or less the same facts, but with considerably more puffery. For example the delted version included the text ". With over 2,700 healthcare technology professionals, CitiusTech serves about 80 healthcare technology companies/ISVs, large hospitals/IDNs, payers, providers and life sciences organizations and has presence in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. CitiusTech offers services and solutions for healthcare software development, healthcare interoperability, regulatory compliance, BI/analytics, consumer engagement, care coordination and population health management." If the current version is in fact supported by its sources (which i have not yet checked) it might not qualify for a speedy as blatantly promotional. But it bears watchign and checking. Thanks for letting me know. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem- will do- thanks for the info too. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15

31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachel Joy Watson

Can I be told which part I did wrong? This is my first time editing and creating on Wikipedia. Thanks Josetorres97 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Josetorres97. I will do my best to answer you. It is largely a matter of what you did not do -- you didn't indicate why Watson is particularly significant. You say that she grew up, got a degree, taught high school, and wrote a chapbook of poetry -- which usually means a very short publication, say 20 pages or less. Lots of people have done those sorts of things, and they do not get noticed outside of their personal circle. You don't say that her work was reviewed by anyone, that it won any awards, or was a best seller. You don't cite anything that anyone else wrote about her. In general a Wikipedia article can only be written about a subject that is notable which normally means that there are multiple professionally-published independent reliable sources that discuss the subject is some detail. For biographical articles in particular, see Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the notability of the subject cannot be demonstrated, there can't be any Wikipedia article about that subject, and that is simply that.

In addition, the tone of the text you posted was rather promotional. It read like an "about the author" blurb on the back cover of a book. Phrases like "wearing overalls, playing outside, searching for bugs and getting sunburned" and "trying to motivate her students to write and read bravely" and "She writes devotedly, paints her joy, and processes disenchantment, grief and courage through poetry." add nothing to the article, they are what Wikipedia calls puffery. Wikipedia articles should be factual and objective. They report what has happened and what other sources have written about a subject. They should include opinions only when they are those of a named person, and we can cite a published source where that person has expressed that opinion. Wikipedia articles should be based almost entirely on the contents of sources which can be cited.

If you want to try again, I urge you to read Your First Article. Then use the Article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This will allow you time to develop the draft, and have it reviewed by an experienced editor, before it need face possible deletion for not indicating the significance of its subject.

While I could restore the deleted version as a draft, almost all of it would need to be removed or changed before it could be accepted. Therefore I think you would do better to start fresh.

I hope this is helpful. I do assure you that there was nothing personal about the deletion, and I would like to do what I can to help you in future editing, if you wish. You might also post questions at The Teahouse, where a number of experienced editors try to be helpful. DES ^(talk) 05:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

UAA report

Apologies for the UAA report of TheDeleteBot123. I had warned this editor, but when I saw the editing pattern, which strongly suggesting socking as well as an inappropriate user name, I thought more urgent action might be justified, hence the report and duplicate action. I should have redacted by report on the editor's talk page. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Velella. I have looked through this user's contributions. They consist of exactly 3 edits, with none deleted (yet): putting a delete tag with reason "G11" on KIT Digital; placing a rather inappropriate CSD warning template on Talk:KIT Digital (it should have gone on the user talk page of the creator, of course); and replacing the CSD template on KIT Digital with another, slightly different one, but with the same reason given. The speedy was declined by you right afterwards. Now I admit that this does not look like a total newbie user, to know CSD templates and CSD criteria IDs right off (although anyone who can read documentation can learn all those easily enough, but few do without much prompting). But this does not seem to me to be socking in the negative sense, there is no attempt to appear to be multiple users here, nor to impersonate an actual user. Unless this is a banned user (which is possible) I don't see any particular urgency. If it seems urgent to you, AIV or ANI might be better venues to report than UAA. But I think you for wanting to deal with what seems at best a dubious editor. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talk

Hello DESiegel. Regarding what you said here, I'm not so sure either. I really didn't mean to suggest that the meaning of our notability guidelines is obvious, but I do think that they are the obvious place to begin when one is trying to determine whether an article is worth writing (or salvaging). I remember very clearly, in my early days here, being baffled when some editors would say a subject wasn't "notable" when it seemed clearly so—and then I read the guideline and it started to make sense. In any event, my comment to the OP was intended to provide a friendlier, less didactic response than the reply immediately preceding mine, and to encourage her to look at the big picture rather than the nuts and bolts. I hope I succeeded in that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

National Women in Blues INC

Hi, I noticed that you declined the A7 speedy request on this, which I agree with. However, the text is purely promotional and posted by an organisation in violation of our user name policy (now blocked by another admin). I therefore speedied as G11. If you think I've got this wrong, please feel free to restore and prod/AFD as you see fit. I'm going to be away for a week from tomorrow, so just letting you know before I go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Jimfbleak, I am the admin who blocked the user who created National Women in Blues INC. I don't think that has any bearing on whether the article was deletable or not. I thought it was somewhat promotional, but not to the G11 level. That was arguable, however. i do think the group is probably notable, my plan had been to source and rewrite when i had time. my plan now is to restore as a draft, source, and rewrite. Also, i hope and expect that the blocked use will rejoin us under a changed username, so i want to preserve the history. Thanks for notifying me. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 500 Miles High

On 18 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 500 Miles High, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the lyrics of the Chick Corea song "500 Miles High" express romantic love, it became a hippy drug anthem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/500 Miles High. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 500 Miles High), and it may be added to the 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 the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good job! —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy del of Hello Neighbor (2016 game)

Hello DESiegel, since you declined my speedy del of the above-mentioned redirect, I would like to reason my request (as I was not able to properly comment using the template/Twinkle): The game in question—Hello Neighbor—is set to release this year, while its very first announcement in 2014, and initial alpha release in 2015. There was never any key event sorrounding the game in 2016 (except for further releases), wherefore the disambiguator is blatantly false. Even if this is a R from move, I felt like the redirect is so very implausible and illogical (nonsensial) that it should be deleted. If am wrong about this, please let me know. RFD would really just waste a lot of time for likely the same result. Lordtobi (✉) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Lordtobi. That does make it implausible, and i will delete on that basis. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to know I could clear this up! Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, Lordtobi. I have deleted the page. Thanks again. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation Templates

I don't know why, but everytime I tried to answer you at Talk:Simon Cohen, It broke the page by interfering with the section header for the next section. Again, I'm not sure why, but the ping didn't notify me of your response. In another section, your reply-to did work. Go figure.

Anyway, thank you for pointing out the unity of style. I've seen that in documentation somewhere, but I couldn't remember where. All I know is that I tend to use whatever style I find. If the author is using a template, I find it easier to use what I find, then to go looking for a template. If they're using just <ref></ref>, that's what I use.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 14:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Myk Streja. If a ping is mis-formed and corrected later, the notification does not happen. See WP:ECHO.

The relevant page on citation styles is WP:CITEVAR. It is fine to simply follow whatever style is in use in the article. If multiple styles are in use, someone else can harmonize them, and that is not urgent. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A7

If you would like to propose an addition be made to WP:A7 requiring a minimum waiting period before tagging articles for deletion, similar to other criteria such as WP:A3 you are more than welcome to do so, although the topic has been discussed repeatedly and has failed to find strong consensus (e.g., [1], [2], [3]). However, that is currently not a valid reason for removing a nomination for speedy deletion under A7. If you have reviewed an article and would like to wait to see if can or will be improved sufficiently so as to pass A7, consider using Template:Hasty rather than removing the tag. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

response about Skaz One Article Notes

Hi DESegel, I'm new to adding local talent onto wikipedia so can you please elaborate a bit on your comments to me? I have found several independent sources that wrote about the reference Skaz One, including The Source Magazine which is a major magazine amongst hip hop music listeners, why would that not be a published reliable source? His following have several articles of his that can contributed, just looking for guidance as to what counts.

There are also major hip music websites that have featured him, lets use for purposes of an example Thizzlerontheroof.com. Can those be sited? That site is definitely independent of him as an artist as well as the few others I have. I've based the page around other bay area artists I've found on Wikipedia and am very confused as to what I'm and other contributors are missing. There is other public info, like spotify listeners and buyers, rankings on charts that are on independent websites as well as plenty coverage on youtube including the page being verified. Also, when I ran the search through google I found more than you referenced in your comment to me. Should those be added as well?

I'm trying to keep this by the book and it appears you've been around for much longer than I! Please get back to me as soon as possible, I do not want my edits to be the reason this guy gets his page taken down. He is truly gaining reputation around here and I do have the internet proof, just need to know what can be used.

Thanks! Ashleyh551 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ashleyh551. I will be glad to help if I can.

• To take your last point first, there is rarely a huge rush on Wikipedia. All edits are saved forever, and an old version can always be reverted to if that is desired. Even "deleted" pages are not truly deleted, just marked so that only those with special rights can see them (I have such rights). If a good reason is provided, a deleted page can always be undeleted.
• In any case, your edits to the article or the deletion discussion are not likely to cause the article to be deleted.
• Sources can be online or off, or a mix. Web sites that specialize in reviewing or assessing this kind of performance are very useful.
• The first question is whether the sources you have found are truly reliable sources. I don't know the hip-hop music scene well. Do these sources have a good reputation for accuracy? Do they have some sort of editor in chief or editorial board who exerts control over what is published? Are articles written by staff members, or are they posted by anyone who chooses to? Are they attributed to named authors? Note: blogs, fansites, and sites run and created by a single person are of limited use, unless that person has a very good rep as an expert in the field. WE want published magazines and newspapers, or web sites of comparable quality.
• Once we have pared the list to reliable sources, the next question is what they say about the subject (Skaz in this case). If they have only a brief mention, say a single sentence, about him, they are of little use in establishing his Notability, which is the task at the moment. Do not include sources that merely give a performance date, or include him in some list, or are otherwise what are called "routine coverage" or "passing mentions". We want reliable sources that discuss him (or his work) in some detail preferable for several paragraphs or more. If they express critical (analytical) opinions of his work, so much the better. Interviews with the subject, or articles clearly based largely on a Press Release from him or his publishers or associates, are of little use, because they are not independent. (What the interviewer says, particularly in the intro, can be used, but when people see that it is an inteview they tend to discount it somewhat. Remember, a few very good sources to cite (say 3-5) are significantly better than 20-30 sources that are of poor quality, or barely mention the subject.
• Once you have identified what seem to be the best sources to cite, since there is already a deletion discussion in progress, post to that discussion listing the sources you plan to rely on. Say that you will be adding them to the article shortly.
• Then add them to the article, including information from the sources, and supporting it with proper citations. Do read Referencing for Beginners. But if you have any problem adding the information, or the sources, or formatting the citations, ask for help at the Teahouse. I will respond if I can, but I may be busy or offline, and there are a number of helpful editors who watch the teahouse. you can include {{ping|DESiegel}} if yoiu want to draw my attention in particular. Or you can post here on my talk page, but then you will ahve to wait until i have time to respond.

I hope this was helpful. Please feel free to respond with additional questions. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Perfect! Thanks you've answered all of my questions basically and I'll check out the links. The online magazines that I am referring to are reputable and have national followings, so they definitely are accurate. I will get all this stuff together and post it in the appropriate places, and explain the sites reputations in the deletion discussion page. I've also found some interesting information about him being a twice published author, with some work I think I can help this guy out a bit. He's pretty talented, for people who like his kind of music of genres of books. I'll include you once I've done my editing so you can see it as well.

Ashleyh551 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Restore deleted talk page

You told another user that you could restore damaged or deleted pages. Could you do that for my talk page? I had an issue where my page was overwritten with data from User talk:Swelling (polymer science). This is the event, redacted because I don't want to bait the troll:

(cur | prev) 08:51, 25 May 2017‎ ???????? (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,505 bytes) (0)‎ . . (???????? moved page Talk:Swelling (polymer science) to User talk:Myk Streja without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)

Hopefully that gives you the time and date to restore back to. If you can do it tonight, I will backup the page and add it back to the page when you're done. Thanks in advance no matter what happens.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 23:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myk Streja (talk • contribs)

Re: The Draft Richard Yelland -- New Revisions Per Yesterday's Input

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland Hi DES, Thank you very much for your help with changes to the Richard Yelland draft document as well as taking the extra time to point out all the important details that aren't obvious to a first time contributor.

My immediate resubmission of the draft last night -- without the recommended changes -- was inadvertent. I submitted when I meant to save. So I hope that it wasn't too much of an issue or red flag the reviewers. I understand that this is not taken well by the volunteers. Because there were many relevant references to be added.

To that end, I focused all the new references that are feature articles on Richard Yelland or references in which there are a significant quote or direct reference. I also added references to replace IMDB references per your input.

The last thing, I believe, would be to get the footnotes put into proper formatting. You began to format for me -- that is appreciated. I tried to follow that lead but it wasn't immediately apparent on how I could do that.

Any help there would be excellent as well as -- you mentioned some kind of extra section for film credits. Perhaps you could elaborate. Or is the article close to the place where it could be resubmitted. Should everything be formatted prior to resubmission? DESiegel Thanks again!

Morgan USA

Morgan USA (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan USA, I would urge you to format the current sources into proper footnotes before submitting again. This will make it easier for future reviewers to read the text, and would help you learn a skill which is essential to working on Wikipedia articles.

Secondly, I do not think the draft is ready for submission. It realy needs some sources that are about Yelland, or at least mention him when discussing his work. Sources thqt discuss his work while not so much as mentioning that it is his work are of reduced value, in my view. Some editors would say they are of zero value.

Thirdly, I wrote of a 'Critical reception" section. For an example, see the section in 500 Miles High which i worked on not long ago. Such a section typically includes cited commentary from multiple sources, ten or more if possible. Most or all sources are backed by a short quote, an attempt to capture the thrust of the review or commentary. Such a section can help document that Yelland is responsible for what WP:CREATIVE calls "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has "...been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is the best route to establishing notability for Yelland, in my view.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Morgan USA, note that pages such as <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675433/awards?ref_=tt_awd> are not "featured articles". That page does verify a single award -- although seeking some other source than the IMDB would be an improvement. But a "featured article" should have at least 5-6 paragraphs of prose about Yelland, or perhaps his work or one of his works. There should be several such featured articles cited to support the draft before it is submitted again. DES ^(talk) 02:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES -- understood on IMDB reference. That one -- and any others that are still in there -- can be replaced with other articles that verify the awards. I'm not sure if you looked at all the new references there now--at least half dozen or more. I have yet to put them into the preferred format yet. Will do so!

I agree. I need to learn if I'm going to contribute now and in the future. Appreciate that urging.  In the meantime, there are several new features, in the makeshift reference section, that offer much more coverage on Yelland--a few features on Yelland himself. Thank you for a taking another look if you have not.

Others chimed in at the Teahouse on the rule that says a creators work being reviewed is sufficient coverage. That said, I have tried to offer a range of reviews of the work and those references that discuss Yelland, as well as a couple that are more features on him.

Re the critical reception section idea -- that might work well here, most definitely. There are a couple of film titles that Yelland directed that were fairly well written about. 12 Miles North -- probably has a dozen articles -- and Sine Qua Non The Psychology of Big Wave Surfing with Greg Long probably has more than a half dozen 

and the crowd-funded film Between Two Harbors probably has between 6 and 10. I would just need guidance on how you might see laying that out. Now the article lists the film titles as short paragraphs. What part of the current article would you suggest keeping as a lead in and what part of it might be incorporated into a critical

Last thing, there is a significant feature documentary that was just released in March to film festivals. One of the contributing reviewers of an early draft of Yelland, it could have been you, added that film title to the article. It's entitle, The Long Way Back. It's a film that made three film festival screenings -- Phoenix Film Festival, where it won Best Documentary, Newport Film Festival where it received excellent reviews and then also the Asbury Park Music and Film Festival. After those initial screenings the film picked up a distribution deal that is soon to be announced. That film will be released internationally through all major media channels in the fall. How would that story possibly integrate with the current article in progress?

I look forward to your input and thanks again

M USA

PS: I tried a few different things on those two footnotes you provided under "reference". When I click "edit" it's not clear where that information is located so that I can add/edit. I added content there and it erased what you did and only left what I was intending to add.  
I tried to go to the reflist link.  I still can't find that information and those links that you originally typed in under 1. and 2. Any of the references help links people have provided has not made it any clearer unfortunately. 

Might you be able to type out a few quick tips? I'm sure once it's pointed out to me it will be very obvious. Unfortunately, right now it's a mystery. Sorry for the trouble and appreciate any help there. Thanks again!

Morgan USA (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan USA (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely sock

On his third edit he posts about sockpuppets on his user page. [4]. Not this account's first rodeo at Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In this edit] Legacypac indicated that three was no problem to solve. Comment above therefore struck but not removed. DES ^(talk) 07:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re: DR case

Thanks (as original nominator) for your recent comment on my DR. My DRs last week were awkward (almost as awkward as my MD participation), and I had no idea how sensitive the userspace deletion issues still are. I am happy, though, to see the discussions now taking place, particularly at the stale userspace draft category, which may result in some degree of actual consensus on how to proceed. I have the impression that in this case the misleading labels in the automated tools are playing a major role in encouraging / sustaining "off-book" CSD interpretations. So anyway, thanks for your rather sane participation in this whole matter. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent speedy deletion of Alan Hart page

Can you please reconsider the deletion of my page outline the bio and contributions of Alan Hart. If this is not the case, then I'd like the content back so I can reconsider edits, etc. There are many in my industry with similar pages on Wikipedia.

-Alan

Abhart (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abhart. The page User:Abhart/sandbox read like a marketing brochure. As such it fell under the speedy deletion criteria U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a free web host) and G11 (advertising or promotion). Phrases such as Hart specializes in marketing and growth for all types of businesses, consults to clients that range from fast growth companies to Fortune 500, Hart successfully built Keen Strategy to inclusion in the Inc. 500[2], and he has founded or served as an executive for eight startups., believes deeply in the power of brands, He’s passionate about sharing ideas, and for the past three years, has spearheaded and produced video and podcast series with some of the world’s top marketing professionals and business leaders, and Alan is an expert in marketing leadership challenges, brand strategy, innovation, marketing effectiveness, and marketing future trends. are all pretty much pure marketing-speak, and do not belong anywhere in a Wikipedia article. The pesudo-interview style in which you quote yourself is another clear indicator of the promotional nature of this text.

Because of all of the above, i will not restore the page

You say that There are many in my industry with similar pages on Wikipedia. Please point out a few, so that I can see that they are edited or deleted if they are really similar to the text you had on the sandbox page.

We are generally looser in applying Wikipedia standards to sandbox pages than anywhere else on Wikipedia, but a few things are still not accepted, particularly copyright infringements and clear promotional pages.

Wikipedia's guideline on autobiography does not flatly prohibit creating autobiographies, but it does strongly discourage such pages. If someone goes ahead anyway, s/he must expect that standards will be applied more strictly than they otherwise would be, just because of how hard it is to write neutrally about oneself and one's own work. Few can avoid unconscious bias in such writing, and many indulge in quite conscious promotionalism.

I will email the wiki-source of the most recent version of the page to you, for you to use as you wish. However, if you decide to create another autobiography, I urge you to start completely fresh, using none of the text from the previous attempt.

Wikipedia articles should be based quite largely on what independent, published, reliable sources say about a topic or subject. What the subject says about him- or herself, or what those closely connected with the subject say, is of much less value and should not occupy the major part of the article. There are cases where it is important to quote the subject's views, particularly where the subject is controversial. But this should be done only where it is essential for the reader to understand the subject. A subject's inspiration and ambition should rarely if ever be included at all. In line with this, the large majority of cited sources should be independent ones, and at least several of these should discuss the subject is some detail, not mere passing mentions nor directory entries or the like, nor routine coverage that anyone in a similar position would always get.

External links, that is, links to sites outside Wikipedia, should occur in an article in only two ways: 1) in inline source citations, displayed as footnotes; 2) in the External links section at the bottom of the article. They should not occur in the body text, although a single link to the subject's official or primary website may occur in an infobox.

I am sorry if you are frustrated by the deletion of the page you created, or feel that it is unfair. Please remember that Wikipedia aims to be an online encyclopedia, not a business directory or marketing medium.

If you want to create other articles here, please read our guideline on Notability, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and Your First Article before starting again. Creating fresh articles is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and few manage it on their first attempt. DES ^(talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Speedy deletion criteria

Sorry to bother you, but isn't userspace and draft space supposed to be exempt from speedy deletion criterion A7? Because this doesn't seem to be reflected in the current draft of the criteria, since a recent edit. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General> the edit may have been reverted, but see the history and ongoing discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Gx criteria absolutely apply to Draft and Userspace. G=General=pretty much everywher. This has nothing to do with A7 and I have no idea why Newimpartial is still worried about deletion matters when he has been warned to stay out of this area. Here is a massive list of areas that need attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog If deletion is REALLY interesting, try some deletion clean up work. Facing a page that has zero use in the project and thinking about what is the best way to remove this page with the least fuss tends to focus the mind. There is nothing like on the job training to learn policy. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy, I volunteered to stay out of XfD discussions, which I have done. I did not volunteer to stop reading discussions or to stop raising questions on Talk pages. Why are you Hounding me?

By the way, I am following the backlog discussions with acute interest. However, I do not agree with you that stale userspace pages are an important area of work. I would rather participate in content creation. Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Newimpartial, A7, and the other Ax speedy deletion criteria apply only to articles. However, the various Gx criteria apply to all pages, with specific exceptions listed: for example G1 and G2 do not apply in userspace, G4 often does not apply in user or draft space, depending on the circumstances, etc. Now where has anyone used to t4ied to use A7 in draft space? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Legacypac to the best of my understanding has not been topic banned from deletion discussion or discussion of deletion policy. And I do think that you are way over focusing on speed in dealing with the so-called "backlog" to the point of ignoring consensus in some cases, and doing harm to the project in others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Now, what do eithre of you want with me in particular? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even tracking what Newimpartial is doing, he just keeps popping up with nonsense accusations I don't know what I'm doing. There is plenty of pages to be fixed/improved at the link I provided. Unreferenced BLPs, empty sections, articles that conflict with themselves etc Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to ensure that you are in a position to notice if any scope creep happens in the current speedy deletion discussions. That is all. I wasn't accusing Legacy of anything. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, Newimpartial, I have been arguing against scope creep and changes I think unwise (and for some i think wise) in the speedy deletion criteria for years, as a look at the archives of its talk page will show. (In fact I think it is on my top 10 list of talk pages by edit count. Checking, the edit counter says I have edited that page some 633 times over the years.) You never know how consensus will change here, but I would be astounded to see any serious proposal to apply the Ax criteria to draft space. Don't worry about that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please re-review an article to see if it has improved?

Hi, you reviewed the Fiona Themann article I wrote and a warning notice keeps turning up about what needs to be added. Would you please be so kind as to see if anything else needs changing and if not, possibly remove the improvement notice. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator10 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dated at TfD

Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Trouble with footnoting & adding critical response section to article draft

Thanks again for your help with the Richard Yelland article draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_Yelland

It seems that the Wiki provision -- stating that critical reviews of a creative work can make a creator notable even without the creator being mentioned directly in the article-- is a point that is key for assuring Yelland's notability. Several editors have brought that up to me during the revision process.

That said, there are a number of references I have added to the list of references to be footnoted, which do mention Yelland directly. For example, a video of Oscar Nominee Morgan Spurlock saying, "Richard yelland is a fantastic filmmaker."

I have tried to add those to the list of two footnotes that you inserted, as an example of proper footnoting. But I run into a block when trying to find the page where the footnotes exist -- is it a general page that exists somewhere else? I'd appreciate any help or direction.

If I add these references to the article, via proper footnoting that you started per above, would I be ready to resubmit ?

Or should I, per your recommendation, add a critical response section? If so, should it be done for one of the films, all of the films, the most prominent one or two of the films?? And, what portion of the article might be suggested as a lead-in to the critical response section if I were to go this route?

Lastly, I'm still interested in learning how to do this myself. But I also am I am happy to hand this over to any volunteer wishing to see it through. If I were to go that route, what's the best way to find a volunteer for the remaining work?

I appreciate the help DES, as always!

MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES (talk) I have posted two of these types of messages, above, to your talk page and haven't had a response yet. Perhaps I could simplify these questions by asking for your advice on one simple, best course of action to take -- so

I might revise the article and get it to a good place for resubmission. I have highly valued your input and attention to date and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again, MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Morgan USA I am sorry not to have responded sooner. Let me try to answer several of your concerns. First about how to do footnotes.

Suppose I am writing an article about Joe Bloggs, a politician. I want to include the statement, "Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998." In my draft, I write the following:

Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998.<ref name="Landslide">{{cite news|title=Blogs Elected in Landslide|url=http://example.com/Ledger/news/1998-11-07-blogs-elected.htm |work=Megacity Ledger |first=Clark |last=Kent |date=November 7, 1998 |page=3 |accessdate=12 June 2017}}</ref>

This will render as:

Joe Bloggs was elected mayor of Megacity in 1998.

References

---

In short after the statement to be cited, you place <ref>...</ref> tags. Between the opening and closing ref tags, you place the citation, that tells the reader how to find the place in the source where the statement is supported. This should include, at the minimum, the title of the particular story or article, the title of the overall work being cited, and enough information to find the place being cited in the work. If possible it should include the author of the work, the date of publication, the page number (if pages are numbered in the work) and a link (full URL) if the source is online. If the source was found online, the "access date" or "date retrieved" is the latest date when you saw it online and confirmed that the link worked. Note that the information form the footnote is included in the text of the article, but is displayed at the bottom, where the {{reflist}} is placed, in the Notes or References section, usually.

A citation I added to the Richard Yelland draft was this:

In 2017 the feature-length documentary ''The Long Way Back: The Story of Todd Z-Man Zalkins'', directed by Yelland, was released.<ref name="NewPortIndy-2017">{{cite web|title=“The Long Way Back” is a Harrowing Ride|url=http://www.newportbeachindy.com/long-way-back-harrowing-ride/|work=Newport Beach Independent Online |date=21 April 2017 |first=Norm |last=Bour |accessdate=1 June 2017}}</ref>

You can use the templates {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite magazine}}, and others to format citations, but you don't have to. I like them and usually use them, but far from everyone does.

I need to go for a bit, but I will return and try to answer your other questions later today. I hope this was helpful as far as it went. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Morgan USA. As to the state of Draft:Richard_Yelland, I would strongly advise looking for several solid critical reviews of his work, published in reliable sources, preferably ones which mention his name as well as the title of the work, but in any case ones which spend several paragraphs discussing the work. If you can find 5 or 6 or more of these, plus what is already in the draft, set up a Critical response section in the draft, quoting each review for a phrase or a sentence, and being careful to provide an inline citation for each quote. Then get the other references properly formatted as inline cites. Then and only then it might be ready for re-submission. That is my advice.

A critical response section does not need to have a "lead-in" as such, but it would normally be put after the section(s) describing Yelland's career. Those should mostly be in chronological order, by the way, unless there is a good reason for some different order.

Things such as the Morgan Spurloc quote are nice, but if it is only the one sentence, it really doesn't do much. We don't need a famous person saying that Yelland is good. We need several discussing at length why Yelland, or his work, is or isn't good. It doesn't matter so much what they say about him -- it matters that they thought him worth discussing at some length and in some detail. Unless Morgan Spurloc went on about Yelland for a couple of paragraphs or more, his comment is of strictly limited value in establishing Yelland's notability. The "celebrity endorsement" is of pretty nearly zero value on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DES -- Appreciate you getting back to me and no need to apologize for the delay. As long as we can keep the dialogue moving, great! I was able to add a reference successfully and now, FINALLY, see how it works. Excellent. I will able to add them all once I'm ready to commit to the format of the article I plan to submit. A critical response section sounds like a plan. Might I include the two films -- 12 Miles North and The Long Way Back - that arguably are the most impactful and thus were most reviewed? I see that you contributed to the 500 Miles High article -- this is a great reference. However, that is one song. In the case of two films, how might I break those two down in the article? Might I do a subhead for each film under the Critical Response section?? Or, under the Critical Response headline, would I write one paragraph for the film, 12 Miles North (2012), and then, to follow in chronological order, one paragraph for The Long Way Back 2017)?

Lastly, as far as the existing draft, might you show me -- perhaps by copying and pasting a portion of the existing draft-- what could work as "the section describing Yelland's career (in your words)" that will act as the lead in to this Critical response section?

Thank you again!! MUSA Morgan USA (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Morgan USA. My advice would be:

• FIRST, move all your "Sources not yet footnoted" into proper inline citations, before you do anything else. Then as you edit, they will be moved with the existing text as you copy/paste it into different positions. You don't have to do it that way, but otherwise you can lose what source goes with what statement.
• Second, by section(s) describing Yelland's career I meant sections not yet created, that would be formed from the existing text.
• To be more specific, after the lead sentence Richard Morgan Yelland (born 1967) is an American documentary filmmaker, commercial director, writer and producer best known for his 2012 documentary, 12 Miles North: The Nick Gabaldon Story and bringing the life of surfer, Nick Gabaldon, to national prominence. (which should end there) I would insert a heading ==Career== After that I would describe Yelland's career in chronological order, staying strictly factual, omitting any reviews or endorsement quotes. After that I would start a new section ==Critical response== (note the sentence case capitalization). In this I would include a number of paragraphs of more or less the form in <publication1> Joe Blow wrote of <film1> that: "<place review quote here>"<citation here> followed by in <publication2> Jane Doe wrote of <film2> that: "<place review quote here>"<citation here>. You can also summarize the rest of the review, or perhaps include a second quote if it is a long review, one for a dramatic line, one for a conclusion perhaps. If there are multiple quotes about the same film, group them together. If there are, say 4-5 or more about the same film, include a subhead ===<film1>=== but this should really only be done unless there are at least 2 different films deserving of their own subsections (4-5+ reviews each). Do NOT include blogs or fansites, only include reliable sources, respectable review sites or publications. Major newspapers or magazines would be particularly good. ideally you should include reaction to all of Yelland's works, if reviews in reliable sources can be found. Do not include 1-3 sentence mentions even in good sources -- each review should be substantial. Any celebraty endorsements can go in the Critical response section, or just be omitted.
• When you added a citation in this edit you omitted the |work= parameter. This parameter (also called |website=) should give the name of the publication (not its URL or domain) like The New York Times or Fred's Movie reviews. It is not a major issue, but it helps provide context to the cite. It is particularly important for cites that are not online. You can also use |publiher= for the name of the company that publishes the work, but don't bother if it is pretty much the same as the name of the work (telling us that The New York times is published by The New York Times Company adds nothing useful).

I hope all that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Apologies for dragging you inadvertently in some fashion into this RFC debacle. I know it was never your intention when you were being helpful on the Tea House. Koncorde (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Koncorde. I more or less invited myself in, and it wasn't nearly as bad as drama boards sometimes are. Part of what I signed up for when I accepted adminship lo those many years ago. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Human Resources Professionals

My contribution just needed slight reorganisation to be as good a start class article as eg Company of Public Relations Practitioners.

'As a compromise' - could a link be added from the livery company list here to the London Wiki page and/or the Guild website until the actual WP page is developed. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, Jackiespeel, but the version of Guild of Human Resource Professionals that I deleted was a long way from becoming a solid start-class article. It could be done, if the sources are there. Indeed that would need to be the first step toward any new version: identifying multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the Guild in some detail. Without such sources, there can be no valid article. Secondly, I would strongly urge that any new attempt by built using the article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project. In that way, an experienced editor will review the draft after you think it is ready, and give you feedback on any problems if s/he deems it not ready to be an article.

As to adding a link: Wikipedia does not do link exchanges, nor add links as a "compromise". Links are added when and only when they are relevant and useful to the readers of the article on which they are to be displayed. Links should never be added as a means of promotion of the target. As the former article said The intention is to become one of the Livery Companies., implying that the Guild is not yet a Livery Company, I am not sure that such a link would be appropriate. But that is a matter to discuss on Talk:Livery company, where I see you have previously posted about the Guild. Any editor may add such a link if it seems proper, and any other may revert the addition if s/he disagrees. No admin help is needed for either process. I see that Livery company does not include links to the web sites of any of the existing 110 Livery companies, nor to those of the several companies in the process of moving toward that status. So it seems to me that a link to the site of the Guild of Human Resource Professionals would be unlikely.

I am not quite clear what, if anything you would like from me? Advice? see above. The addition of a link: you can do that yourself, but it would be better to discuss it on the talk page first, where I doubt it will obtain consensus support. Is there something else that I can do to help you with this? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically - there are only two of us persistently active on London Wiki and there is a red link here on WP - so I was just setting the ball rolling (and WP formatting added) as on other occasions.

BTW - can you find anything on the 'Guild of Human Resources Professionals' (also on the Livery Company list) beyond a statement of intent? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with my sources ?

On the artile 39 Oxley road you put a nead better refrences tag, what is wrong with the current citations ?Zubin12 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources cited, Zubin12. My main suggestion was that additional sources should be added. Several significant facts still seem to be unsupported by citations to sources. My secondary suggestion was that fuller bibliographic information be included in the citations. You have, since I added the tag, done some of that, although the authors do not seem to be listed yet. I said some of this in my post at The Teahouse thread.

Also, when you mention an article on someone's talk page, or on a help page such as the Teahouse, it is very helpful to provide a link, such as 38 Oxley Road. This makes it easy for the reader to go to the article involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nosource-warn

Template:Nosource-warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong,... article is not copied !!!!

You should read it better...please, see FQXI web with several opinions and rates !!! Dapifo (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)