User talk:DESiegel

sockpuppets, Johnuniq, admin Drmies helping COI/OR/OWN editor DrChrissy

Dear Des

I'd like to draw your attention to the sockpuppetry related to a COI/OR/OWN editor DrChrissy and her gang, please see links below fore more information

COI/OR case of DrChrissy on the notice board

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=598600602#Marian_Dawkins_COI_editor_adding_OR

DrChrissy admitted she has a gang and ask other to join:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&oldid=598909701#New_Animal_Welfare_templates

CYl7EPTEMA777 identified Johnuniq as a sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CYl7EPTEMA777&oldid=595674883#Johnuniq.27s_censorship_and_sockpuppets

Many editors had similar negative experience with her, Drmies told other editors that she has a sockpuppet farm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timelezz&oldid=597320318#Censored_comments_on_admin_noticeboard

Johnuniq, Drmies and other similar accounts has been follow, harass, defame editors who want to correct the POV/OWN/OR/COI problem of DrChrissy.

The gang's illegitimate censorship of other editors talk pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CYl7EPTEMA777&oldid=598022872#Censorship_of_your_talk_page

My edits are repeated blocked by the gang. They also revert my comments that expose their misconducts on noticeboards and other places around the site (such as edit summary).

You can see some of their censorship in the recent history of two users talk pages: CYl7EPTEMA777 and timelezz. You can also find evidence of censorship in recent edit history of 'animal welfare'. They removed normal editing summary.

This is an example diff of censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACYl7EPTEMA777&diff=598616155&oldid=598615884

The comments they censored are considered normal by multiple editors. You can see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=597722520#What_to_do.3F

They just blocked indefinitely another major editor who tried to add balance to the articles, user CYl7EPTEMA777. The reason of block was problematic. They said they found CYl7EPTEMA777's edits from IPs (without login). So they block CYl7EPTEMA777 for sockpupetry etc.

The gang is best at confounding black and white. They accuse editors for exactly what they did to others. A transparent/open discussion of the issues on wikipedia website is not possible at this moment. Because, one side of opinions are constantly censored. The gang is in de facto control of many animal related articles. Their activity undermine the neutrality and collaboration of Wikipedia. If you need more evidence and information, please let me know.

Regards,

124.168.20.158 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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 :)

More opinions for Bob Corker requested edit

As you were involved in fulfilling an edit request in the past for the Bob Corker article, I was wondering if you had the time to leave an opinion in this talk page section, as i've trying to suss out a consensus. Silverseren^C 03:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey

Hi DES. I noticed the time investment and thoroughness of your request edit reviews are substantially above average. I thought I would bring this one to your attention as a particularly challenging and complex topic where your experience would be of value.

It’s one of those issues where anything could be said depending on which sources you use and which points-of-view or facts are chosen for inclusion – and where there are a lot of bias and conflicting sources - definitely a challenge for any editor.

Your feedback, if you choose to provide it, would be welcomed. Corporate 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Fire sprinkler (disambiguation)

Fire sprinkler (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Fire sprinkler (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Fire sprinkler (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Judith Krug to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Judith Krug, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Appreciate you help on Master of Homeland Security. FabianB3 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing and editing my page "Thomas and Mary Poynton". Thanks also from the 30 13 year olds in my class who did the research and prepared the material for this project.

Kind Regards Beth BethKub (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back

Welcome back DES. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES There seems to be some doubt about whether or not you are actually reviewing my page. I asked the teahouse about how long the review is and they said that the reviewer (you?) had tagged the page as for review without actually reviewing. They also said they were detagging it. Can you please tell me if you were actually reviewing my page because now I have been waiting and watching for 11 days since you tagged it for review and I'm feeling really disappointed to be going backwards. Thanks BethKub (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review or no review?

Hi DES There seems to be some doubt about whether or not you are actually reviewing my page. I asked the teahouse about how long the review is and they said that the reviewer (you?) had tagged the page as for review without actually reviewing. They also said they were detagging it. Can you please tell me if you were actually reviewing my page because now I have been waiting and watching for 11 days since you tagged it for review and I'm feeling really disappointed to be going backwards. Thanks BethKub (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I started a review, and was checking sources. i found it took more time than i had estimated, and got caught up on off-wink matters, always intending to return and finish the review "real soon now". I should have untagged. I hiope soemnone else review this page promptly. If it is still unreviewed when i next have time to do reviews, i will do it in a single session, unless you indicate an objection to that. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it has been taken care of. Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethKub (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

I suggested a merge of the Signers section of the new article with Mayflower Compact article on the Mayflower Compact Talk Page. I trust that is what you meant. I do not understand this though I have read it many times! If this is not what you wish, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, let's execute

If you get a page in user space, I will put some content in...you can add/modify. You can then move it. (I think plomping on top of the redirect is the best bet. Leave the dab alone as a few Halons are not technically BFCs.

article

Bromofluorocarbons (BFCs) are molecules based on carbon, bromine, and fluorine. The most common use has traditionally been in fire suppression systems. The brand name "Halon" is frequently used interchangeably for BFCs. However not all Halons are technically BFCs (some contain chlorine also).

BFCs attack the ozone layer even more aggressively than chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Nevertheless, BFCs are still used in many ships and aircraft, because replacements are not as effective..^[1] As production of BFCs was banned by the Montreal Protocol, remaining use depends on old inventories and on recycling.

BFCs are extremely inert. In a fire, in addition to physically excluding oxygen, the molecules liberate bromine radicals which interfere with combustion reactions. BFCs tend to have higher melting and boiling points than fully comparable fully fluorinated molecules.

References

category: organic chemicals category: ozone depletion

See User:DESiegel/drafts/Bromofluorocarbons

I moved it to article space. Thanks man.71.127.137.171 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The collaborator award
	For Help Desk work. TCO (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Convention card, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACBL (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) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution?

Are this and this edits a good solution to those mirror articles? Is ok to remove the templates in place that way? Osplace 15:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, turning a duplicate article into a redirect to the previously existing article is a good idea. It also means that any additional data that may have been in the duplicates is still available in the history for merging into the main articles. Anyone except the article creator can remove speedy deletion tags if the issue has been solved or if they have good reason to think that the tag was inappropriate in the first place. Removing those tags in a case like this was fine. Good job. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in this case. We, the WikiVolleyball Project members are thankful for your help. Osplace 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability vb

Hey, there is not a volleyball notability guide. I have been working with volleyball and beach volleyball articles from ancient times and is urgently needed. Please check my draft and please please please tell me how can we add this content to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Osplace 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports pages are not mostly my thing, so I am less experienced in that realm than other editors might be. That said, I would suggest that you move your suggested draft onto a page of its own (such as User:Osplace/Volleyball notability), and then start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), linking to your draft, and see what the response is. Try to discuss calmly for best results. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask your other project members to commetn on the draft first. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page restore request: User:Finalius/Guitar Legends Greatest Hits

I would like to request the recreation of a user subpage. It was an innocent diversion (fictional setlist for fictional music video game) that I would like restored for my own personal reference. I want to copy the contents of it onto a Word document, for nostalgia. Is it possible to restore this page?
Thank you, regardless.
(page title: User:Finalius/Guitar Legends Greatest Hits)

Finalius (gibberings) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Note that the page was actually at User:2D Backfire Master/Guitar Legends Greatest Hits but i have moved it to User:Finalius/Guitar Legends Greatest Hits. Note that it said that content had been copied. Please re-mark for deletion after you have again copied the content, as this does not appear to be a legit draft article, unless I have misunderstood. DES ^(talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks a bunch!! Finalius (gibberings) 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naqvi Orientation

I have decided to take this to WP:Articles for deletion/Naqvi Orientation because it is clear that your PROD is going to be contested, after deletion if not before - the author is arguing against deletion on the talk page, and has already posted twice at WP:REFUND. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JohnCD. Frankly I expected the author to remove the prod before this. I expect a snow delete. DES ^(talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

???

What's making you think that StarryGrandma (talk · contribs) is responsible for this edit???? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An error in going back through the history, (SG first added the section to which the edit was incorrectly attached at first. I have self-reverted, and now apologize. DES ^(talk) 22:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no apology necessary. For a second I thought i was going insane, and wondering what you saw that I didn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi there DES! I thought I'd leave you a message here because my comment on the Help desk page isn't on the main page anymore.

Yes, my draft is here: User:Calstarry/Ramtha's School draft. Did you have a chance to read it? Calstarry (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PDIU and many others

Hi DES! I want an opinion on an issue I consider as serious. I know I should be going to the Incident Board regarding any article which needs special attention, but this is not about just an article.
I have been working mainly (actually almost) only on articles related to Albania. More than once it happened that I come in conflict with a Greek editor, Alexikoua (talk · contribs). Hi continuously changes, reverts and add material to Albanian related articles, giving references which are Greek and in Greek language. The result is that all that hows up regarding Albania in Wiki contains a pro-Greek touch in it, and try to imply the axiom that "Greek people" are being persecuted, and Albanians are the persecutors. The articles contain not only incorrect information, but even irritating.
Just query the number of "Albania" related articles, and how many he/she has edited out of those, and you get the picture. Similar behaviors from his friend Athenean (talk · contribs). My feeling is it is the same person, but I have no way to prove it.
The last incident concerns the article PDIU. The main discussion is related to a Legal Act that the party in the article proposed, as always it goes in disfavor of Greek interests and here Alexikoua comes into action. The result is that the article, instead of showing what the party stands for, did or does, talks how the Greek-Albanians have been oppressed during the Communist Era. We have opened a discussion in the article's talk page, useless, somehow he/she feels that has the right to apply the last edit.
How to deal with this?
Thanks! Mondiad (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you develop a clear consensus on the article's talk page, and an editor edits in defiance of that consensus, and refuses to stop after you point this out to him and attempt discussion, you can go to WP:ANI for assistance. Or there are other relevant notice boards depending on the exact issues. There is also dispute resolution. But in each case the start should be clear, calm (on your part) discussion in which you abide by the WP:AGF and WP:NPA policies, and attempt to develop a WP:Consensus. Disputes over ethnic identies and culture clashes can be among the most contentious on Wikipedia -- I mostly steer clear of them. I hope this is of some assistance. DES ^(talk) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback (from Schneile)

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

Hello, DES. I left you a detailed message on Oct. 11 on my User talk:schneile page regarding your question of whether the Willis Resilience Expedition is Notable and providing substantiation for same. I would very much appreciate your assessment. Thank you for your continued willingness to help. Schneile (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Schneile[reply]

Responded on User talk:schneile. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello again, DES. Thank you for your reply on my User talk:schneile page. I have added what I believe is an appropriate disclosure to both the Parker Liautaud and Willis Resilience Expedition articles, and would like to request your assessment of these to ensure I have followed guidance and disclosed correctly. Thank you, Schneile (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)schneile[reply]

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Hello DESiegel, and thank you for your reply. What I would like to ask is the following: After some practices on my Sandbox, I'm ready to make "live" a new article regarding the trance music label Avatar Records. My problem is that a page with the same name exists, because there is another music label with same name. As I understand from the help pages, the article name has to be unique. I don't have ant idea how to use another name, because this is the real name of the label. Can you advise please how can I solve this issue. Petrols (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question was answered on the Help desk, you use a parenthetical term to distinguish the two such as Avatar Records (Tel Aviv firm). However as you were also told on the Help desk, your article is NOT ready to go, it might well be deleted promptly if you take it live. You would be well advised to add inline citations to reliable sources to better demonstrate Notability. There are also some formatting issues. I suggest you use the Articles for Creation mechanism. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DESiegel, can you give me please your opinion now, after the changes I made? Petrols (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant improvement. I have made a few edits to fix grammar, add wiki-links, make formatting more standard for Wikipedia articles, and fig references a bit. About references, it is not usual to reference a section heading. Instead reference one or more items in the section, using a named reference when the same source supports multiple items as I did here.

Some of your references are probably online. if they are, a link would be helpful, but is not required. Your ref #10 (GoaHead Book 'Les annees folles') needs more details, such as the author and year, and a cleaerer indication if "GoaHead" is the publisher or what. You mihgte want to use {{cite book}} The link for your ref #5 seems not to work in its present form at least for me. Your ref #1 should be split up, giving the page number for the listing in each year, and links if available. Ref #2 should have an article or column title if possible. So should Ref #8. Ref #4 should make it clear which is the magazine name and which is the author, you might want to use {{cite news}}.

It would be very good if you could find a source or sources that actually discuss Avatar in some depth, not just list its performers or releases. I hope all this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 14:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot, I will try to double-check / implement all your remarks. Petrols (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A digression from our CSD talk, transplanted here.

I was going to post this over there, but I figured we really are digressing into deeper matters of philosophy, so I'm posting here instead.

As you said, CSD indicates pre-established consensus formulated into unambiguous criteria. It is a "safe harbor" for deletions. There is solid consensus to delete many things outside of what CSD covers that may not be able to be formulated into the sort of bright-line unambiguous test that a new CSD requires. An administrator making a deletion of such material unilaterally isn't going against consensus, if the consensus really is to delete such material, and the deletion of the content (rather than the way the deletion was done) is uncontroversial.

The irony in your position is that by rejecting tags on a deletion that is sure to be uncontroversial that many admins would just unilaterally delete means you've actually taken power away from non-admin users and given special privilege to administrators, which seems to be the opposite of your goal. Non-admins are the only ones that absolutely have to use tags.

All that said, judging by the discussion at WT:CSD, maybe there isn't actually solid consensus to delete the type of page that we were discussing, so this philosophical conversation is moot regarding the case at hand. Anyway thanks for the discussion. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote " An administrator making a deletion of such material unilaterally isn't going against consensus, if the consensus really is to delete such material, and the deletion of the content (rather than the way the deletion was done) is uncontroversial." I strongly disagree. My view is that outside of the CSD, there is NO consensus to delete without going through an xFD discussion or PROD, and that an admin who does should be reverted and warned, and that an admins who does so repeatedly should be desysopped. On one case several years ago where an admin had such a pattern, I took the matter to DRV, got many articles restored, and the admin warned. See my talk archives if you really want to get the details. If admins are NOT allowed to delete except via CSD or as the result of a process open to all, all are equal, admins have no special status in deciding what should be deleted, as they should not. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many admins and arbcom disagree with you. I think we will have to leave it at that and agree to disagree. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been an arbcom case that squarely involves this issue i am not aware of it. But even if there were it would probably not change my view. I think the deletion policy is clear on the matter. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A7

I am sorry, but just releasing a not notable album on a not notable indie record label does not indicate notability and passing of A7. Do you know how many two-bit artists would have their articles taken to AfD if that was true? If I really wanted to, I could release an album on iTunes or Amazon right now and then a week later someone else could create a short article on me, and that said article should then pass A7 deletion right? The exact same article was speedy deleted multiple times under the titles Chunk (rapper), Chunk (musical artist) just earlier this week, but the article creator just moves it to a different name to avoid salting im guessing. There is literally no difference between the current article, and those previous articles, so there is no reason for this one to slip by. I would like you to reconsider your judgement. STATic message me! 20:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, STATic no. A7 does not require notability, any credible statement, referenced or not, that might possibly indicate notability is enough. This lists multiple albums with allmusic cites. I have seen worse than that survive an AfD. Not likely, but possible. If other admins failed to see the claim, that is not my fault. They shouldn't have speedy deleted this either, in my view. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can release an "album", and AllMusic has alot of that general stuff for older acts, no bio though unsurprisingly. Not to mention, the creator blanked the article, saying he was going to work on it more and recreate it. But his blanking was reverted for some reason, probably because it was thought to be vandalism. STATic message me! 20:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the blanking, STATic. I will look into that, later today. I am curious, would you think this was a valid speedy? it was also tagged for A7 and declined, and I and others then worked on it. Take a look at its current state, but only after checking how it looked when it was tagged for A7, please. DES ^(talk) 20:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe at the time being, it all depends on the expertise of the article writer. Articles I have created such as Chevy Woods, Dizzy Wright, Chris Webby, Gudda Gudda and Rucka Rucka Ali had been speedy deleted and deleted over the years, until I created them with the proper references that should be required in all BLPs. Coverage can always be there for newer artists, but some rush to create illformatted promotional-toned articles, without taking the time to expand it and correctly reference it. The major difference here is this an artist from the 80s-90s were no new coverage is going to exist.

Luckily I just found this, compare it to Chunk (musician) and looks like a very obvious copy violation to me. STATic message me! 21:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted as a copyvio, actually it is marginal, as lists of facts are not copyrightable, and if they are arranged in a natural order such as chronological or alphabetical, neither is the arrangement. But enough ogf the text was copied or closely paraphrased to count, in my view. Thanks. Mind you there might be enough from this and the other sites to do a proper article, but there might well not be either. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Phenakite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilmington (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) 11:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brightside

Hey I noticed you had moved the brightside band page to the author's userspace for him to presumably improve. Wanted to also point your attention to EP_(BrightSide_EP) which you may want to move as well. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sulfurboy, I belive that I will. Since he contested asking for time to get sources, I gave it to him. {{userspace draft}} is very useful IMO. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EP_(BrightSide_EP) seems to have sources -- in Greek, but sources -- so i didn't move it. DES ^(talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me Sir

Sir,

user loveoffood007 nominated my article about V Star Creations for deletion.I didn't understand what is the reason for this nomination. I checked the wikipedia guidelines and all those things, I didn't feel my article violated the rules of wikipedia. Article doesn't have any promotional or advertisement element. V Star Creations is quite famous in India especially South India. And its subsidiaries are V Guard, Veegaland,Wonderla.Sir I kindly request you to help me for solving this issue.

Thank You! Neena Vineeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neenavineeth (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the deletion has been proposed on the grounds that the company is not "notable", a word which is used in a special way on Wikipedia. A topic is notable if reliable sources have written about it in a substantial way. Read our general notability guideline and our guideline for notability of companies for more information. The best way you can help is to find published reliable sources that are independent of the company and add them to the article or at least mention them in the deletion discussion. Note that such sources should not be self-published, no blogs or the like, and should had a reputation for accuracy. Major newspapers, books published by major publishers, and academic studies are very good. Each such source should discuss the company in some detail, more than a passing mention. Several paragraphs about the company or more, if possible. DES ^(talk) 13:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cogora Page

Hello Sir,

I am trying to do my best with the page. Currently it has 6 different external sources which I thought will be enough.

I will try and add a few more asap.

Many thanks

Neel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel Vyas (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

I just used the page, so it's not historical as a matter of fact. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since a consensus discussion markd it as historical, you shouldn't have used it, and you surely shouldn't have removed the tag. If you think the discussion was closed improperly, deletion review is available. DES ^(talk) 15:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have now undone your edit to the page, with a proper summery. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What about truth, WP:BOLD, and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? When would I know when to be bold or be anti-Wikipedia (bureaucratic), anyways? Is there a time limit? Do you favor bureaucracy over truth? I hope not, to be honest. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biosthmors, I do favor WP:Consensus and you are, as far as I can tell, editing against it. I also support Process is Important and you are acting out of process, for no good reason that I can see. In fact it looks like Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. If you have a reason for thinking that the Bounty Board should NOT be marked as historical, or should be edited in spite of the MfD so marking it, you haven't told me what it is. This isn't Yes, Minister where your actions can be self-validating ("Say that the findings have been questioned." / "What if they haven't been questioned?" / "Question them! Then they have"). A consensus discussion is not a form of bureaucracy . DES ^(talk) 16:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is DRV? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion, Biosthmors. It is a useful part of the process, to help determine when the closing of a deletion discussion, or other deletion-related action, was not proper under the Deletion policy. Disclosure, i was one of the group that drafted the initial version of the DRV page out of the previous VfU (Votes for Undeletion) page, and argued for adoption of it as policy.) Note that a page is marked as historical when it would otherwise be deleted, but people want its former content to remain available, but cease to be used. By the way you are also ignoring the Bold, revert, discuss procedure. You made an edit that you described as bold, you were reverted (twice in fact) and you are continuing to revert back. That is approiching an edit war which is not a good thing. Please cease editing the Bounty Board and reverting its mark as historical unless you obtain consensus to reverse the MfD discussion DES ^(talk) 16:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#historical, Biosthmors, for a relevant policy page. DES ^(talk) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know DES. Will you be at Wikimania 2014 in London? I think I'll be there. Thank you for all the information, links, and for disclosing the backstory. I appreciate it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to have been helpful, Biosthmors. No hard feelings, I trust. As to Wikimania, it is unlikely. I am located in the US, and a trip to London, pleasant as it would be, is probably not in my cash or time budgets next year. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look into scholarships, if you have the time. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your offer

Hi there, you mentioned to me in a very helpful post last week on the Help page that you would be interested in editing the page Studley, Inc. I really appreciate that offer and I've included several primary and secondary sources on Talk:Studley,_Inc. as you requested. I'd like to know if you are still willing to help. Thank you in advance. RyLaughlin (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will look at it as soon as I can (probably within 24 hrs), and see whether the sources seem to permit an article to be created. DES ^(talk) 19:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very appreciative. RyLaughlin (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're busy but I was curious if you've had time to review Studley, Inc. and make a decision whether you'd like to create an article. Thanks. RyLaughlin (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your AFD comment has been quoted in a discussion. please respond

An editor has quoted your comment in AFD is proof that some only wanted to keep the article provided it had "multiple" sources, instead of just one. [1] Since throughout Wikipedia, one reliable source is seen as enough for anything at all, is there any reason to have multiple ones for this? Would you still have said the article should be kept if the inclusion criteria did not have the word "multiple" in it? Dream Focus 17:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:NationalRegisterBot

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NationalRegisterBot; this is a new bot being prepared for trial. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shah Jalal Mosque, Chester (November 11)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shah Jalal Mosque, Chester.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Green Cardamom (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Talk:Allan Sharpe.
Message added 22:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thank you

for your (practically divine) intervention at Eli Harvey. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ps there will be other images of the same statue in different places that will show it better - I have at least 2 or 3 myself and they will be added later. One means finding a b/w negative shot 25 (who is counting any more?) years ago. I rather like that first one because there is a sort of unworldliness about it that is (opinion) appropriate for cemeteries. Also, it was already on wikipedia or perhaps Commons. And so it goes. Thanks again for your insights, input and more. Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a striking image, Carptrash, but it is rather hard to see the elk as an elk at a small image size, with the sun behind it. But there is no rush on that. DES ^(talk) 17:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Thank you

DES, thank you very much for your input on the kerfuffle that has erupted regarding my username. I appreciate your reasonable comments and your willingness to assume good faith. I will be sure take your suggestions into consideration. Regards, Corpse-ManoftheObamaclypse (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before giving more AGF, DES you may want to see [2] and User:Barack Obama DA PREZ which this editor previously created claiming to be the President on the user page and then on the talk page made the comments-

I DON't HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! Barack Obama DA PREZ (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I will return. And then I shall plague you eternally. >=D

I find that quite disturbing, don't you?Camelbinky (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems disturbing, Camelbinky. I haven't had time to review this editor's contributions, but I promise not to support or advocate an unblock until i have done so thoroughly. If that is at all typical, Then the matter is rather different than i had suspected. 22:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a kid having some fun. There are much more fun places on the Internet than Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the efficient help!

Ajsmirnov (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

modified you comment

I modified[3] your comment. I hope this was obvious enough to presume your agreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for voting to unblock me. Yes, I should not have made an inappropriate edit summary. I should simply have cited policy and not added any "spicy" extra commentary that could worsen the problem. MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Electric Mobility Norway (November 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electric Mobility Norway.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Talk:Allan Sharpe.
Message added 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfC/Drafts

Sorry for the delay. There's a long reply on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your offer

A few weeks ago you generously offered to edit the page Studley, Inc. I'd like to know if you are still interested. I've highlights about the subject accompanied by secondary sources on the talk page. Please let me know if you are still interested. Thank you. RyLaughlin (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent minor edits to "APL" page

Hi David - I just updated some dead links in the references and "further reading" sections. Perhaps more controversially, I added "J" as an APL dialect as the languages are really very similar. I've become more active with the SIGAPL site, so this led me here. DevonMcC (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devon, I would quite agree that J is a dialect of APL. Thanks for such updates, they are always useful. DES ^(talk) 04:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could...

Request unprotection of Societal attitudes toward homosexuality if you feel that the issue has been resolved enough that consensus is clearly established. You can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi

FWIW, what you just undeleted is a copyvio. A7 may not apply, but G12 does. Jimfbleak pointed this out in the ANI thread, but it clearly got lost in all the commentary. Cheers! Reso lute 16:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, Reso, it is one reason why people should use proper deletion tags and summaries. But since it was little more than a list of facts in logical order, to which copyright does not apply, (and I have already removed much of the puffery) a simple rewrite will deal with the matter, and the person is probably notable. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article for review: Curved Space Diamond Structure

Thank you very much for your review and comments David. I will add to the mix some more relevant articles and resubmit, however, I did want to respond to one of your comments with some more information. You said "The Gilmartin source mentions the overall exhibition that is covered by Tylevich, but does not mention this subject at all, and so is no help." The Gilmartin source does say... " It'll include works by Robert Smithson and Judy Chicago along with Pearce's bubble structure." I realize this may not be the straw that tips toe article to acceptance, but it does show that that the structure was included in a exhibition backed by the Getty Museum. In either case, I will work to locate more reference material and improve the article. Thank you again! Scottsadventure (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Scottsadventure, I missed that, but that is what is known as a "passing mention" and really adds nothing, since the other source already establishes that the structure was included in the exhibition. I have posted on the reliable source notice board asking other editors to help evaluate the source I was unsure about. What is needed is substantial, in-depth coverage by reliabel sources that are independent of the subject. By the way {{cite patent}} can be used for the citation of the patent, but here that is a primary source anyway, so the matter is not vital. It is additional sources that will make a difference. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood David and again thank you for your insight. In the meantime I have added reference to an exhibition at Yale School of Architecture and also have properly linked the creator's own BLP Wiki page. I will resubmit once additional reference material is located. I believe this work is notable, and simply need to find the reference material to assert my belief. Since the articles on it are from the late 70's through 90's they will take a bit more time to locate than a simple Internet search. Scottsadventure (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think you missed...

Yo, DESiegel, I think you must've been logged out in your latest post to WT:CSD, as it was credited to an IP address. Just wanted to let you know, in case you wanted to correct the sig. (At least, I'm pretty sure it was you...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, don't know how I missed the "you are not logged in, do you still want to save this edit" msg. Thanks, Writ Keeper, I've corrected the sigs. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think you missed one, though, so I took the liberty of fixing it for you. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my fix of that one edit-conflicted with yours. Thanks again. DES ^(talk) 22:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much

Hi DESiegel, Thanks for helping out with the british schools smallbore rifle association page and the guide on block quotes, I spent ages fiddling with it but couldn't make it work! Thanks again GBA (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)GBA136[reply]

You are very welcome. Feel free to ask for help on the help desk or elsewhere when you have a problem in how to do things, particularly how to use HTML (which blockquote is) or wiki-markup (which much of our formatting is). DES ^(talk) 00:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Against Corruption

Hi Can you please review the sequence of edits / reverts made to this article in the past 24 hours. Thanks 2A00:2381:72D:0:4A3:1DE0:D01E:5C76 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAC

I'm sorry but that is not a useful reinstatement at India Against Corruption. The claims of a non-notable organisation carry no weight when compared to the thousands of media reports that say otherwise. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this on the article talk page, then, Sitush, but if they are any part of the group or groups discussed in the article, then their views must be included, even if all other sources disagree. DES ^(talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DES → DESiegel

Hi DESiegel. Did you know that the username "DES" is available on enwiki? Perhaps it would be a good idea to change your username so that it matches your preferred signature. - Pointillist (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using this name and signature since 2005. People don't seem to find it overly confusing. If i had to change one I would change the signature to match the name, but a shortened form of the name, clearly indicatign teh actual name, seems appropriate for a sig. Why do you feel that I ought to change? DES ^(talk) 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just replying to you at Wikipedia talk:Signatures and that made me aware that your name wasn't DES, as I'd previously assumed. That lead me to the question "is there a user called DES?", and when I found that there wasn't, I thought I'd drop a quick line to let you know. As you know, when Flow is implemented it might be more difficult to use a substitute name and anyway if a new user registers as DES then of course you couldn't continue to sign that way. Feel free to ignore the suggestion, it was just a fleeting thought, not an impassioned call to action! - Pointillist (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks, Pointillist. I think I might register User:DES as a dobbleganger account. Frankly I'm not looking forward to Flow, and expect to opposes its actual implementyation.. 22:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI User:DES is available now if you want it - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, Pointillist, I believe that I will take it. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rane Group of Companies Wiki

DESiegel, thanks for your comments, and I could see you have added more content to the page. Thanks for your help.

I wanted to know if I could add more content just taking highlights from the website and not copy/paste and submit it domain article? Thanks.

Thinkinside (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Thinkinside[reply]

Thinkinside In general, additional content can be added to the article if there is a citable source. However, it should not be a copy or a close paraphrase of anything on the company website (or any other site either) unless it is an attributed quote.

However, as i recall, you are a paid editor on behalf of Rane Group, is that correct? if it is, you should not edit the article directly except perhaps to correct clear factual inaccuracies with a cited sourcve 9see WP:COI. Instead, you should propose changes on the article's talk page, and use {{edit request}} to request that an uninvolved user review and apply them. Remember to include citations to reliable sources in any such proposal. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

continuing help/discussion with cebarnes406

DES: I am sending this short message to you to establish this line of communication about the difficulties that I have been experiencing trying to set up a wiki assignment for my class. As I stated earlier, I have gone through the instructor tutorial very quickly - most makes good sense. I have tried to set up my course but the first step is to enter my institution into the list of schools on the special educational institutional wiki page. Univ of Tenn., Knoxville is not currently listed with wiki. I cannot find the option to "add an institution" to this list. I believe that I need to do this first before adding a course to the wiki special "course" page.

I have accessed the institution and course pages many times but hit the proverbial wall each time with the problem described above.

Any help is much appreciated.

Cebarnes406 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied to be an "online ambassador" (course volunteer) and have been accepted. I have added your institution to the list, see Education Program:University of Tennessee, Knoxville. From that page courses can be added. DES ^(talk) 15:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High David: I may have muddied the waters here by starting two independent conversations in trying to get answers and make progress with above issues. I have submitted a "request for instructor right" on the education notice board. Someone (Kevin Rutherford-support) seems to have read this and asked if I need right away. My last message to him on ed noticeboard said yes, right away. Meanwhile I have found UT Knoxville on the institution list but when I go to UTK page, no courses are listed and there is no option to add a course. Hope I'm not missing something obvious but that is my next wall.

Cebarnes406 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cebarnes406, I have granted the instructor right to you, you should be able to add the course now. Let me know if you have further problems. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I removed the page protection and posted on the article talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of possibly partisan sources about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Hi,

I am waiting for your response on following issue... thanks

Reliability of possibly partisan sources about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_possibly_partisan_sources_about_Muhammad_Ilyas_Qadri --Summations (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summations, I gave my opinion. I don't think the sources are acceptable, because they are not independent of the subject, and there is no evidence of fact checking, nor of the kind of reputation which would make them reliable sources. I took the matter to WP:RSN in hopes getting a second opinion, either to confirm mine or to indicate facts I might have overlooked. No other editor chose to respond on the point. So my opinion remains, the sources should not be used in the article, ans so the statement for which they were quoted should not be there either. Of course, I am only one editor, if a somewhat experienced one. I am going to copy this exchange to the article talk page for other possibly interested editors to see. DES ^(talk) 16:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DESiege : I respect your Opinion as because you'r think is right way and these are all for proving public to correct and authentic information... but I am here again to request that please review your opinion again , It is not only about that books which I mentioned on article but also video proof available , same video proof which are written on that books... same Scholar same video same written, so review again plz.. --Summations (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkpoint edition feedback?

In the medical disclaimer RFC you said you have serious reservations about my Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 12#Wikipedia_checkpoint_edition proposal. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate your providing some feedback there. So far, I've gotten none. And thanks for your support for my other points at the RFC. --agr (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArnoldReinhold, I have just posted a fairly long, multi-point comment on that page. DES ^(talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I've responded there.--agr (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Perfect Hideaways

Hi, looking again at this, I realise that it was created by User:Perfecthideaways, whom I have now indeffed for a blatant breach of our username policy. Looking at the deleted text, it's unmitigated spam on behalf of the company. Personally, whether it's notable or not, I would have reservations about recreating an article that effectively achieves the aims of the company by establishing a presence on Wikipedia, even in a less promotional form (assuming it wasn't then respammed).

I don't wheel either, so if you think Wikipedia needs this topic, go ahead. The same applies to the block. I can't personally see any reason for unblocking or permitting a user name change, but the user hasn't had a chance to appeal yet, so you or another reviewing admin may be convinced by what they say if and when they do.

I'm going on holiday in a couple of days, and won't be editing for a fortnight, so I leave it up to you to decide as you see fit, although you may have picked up that I'm not enthusiastic (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that. If the user appeals and promises to contribute properly under a proper username, we should probably WP:AGF. If not, good block. I understand your lack of enthusiasm. Given the username, I will do some web searches. If the firm seems notable I may well recreate, in a neutral form. If not, I'll leave things where they are. Thanks for your response, Jimfbleak. Happy holiday. DES ^(talk) 14:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DES

Hi DES - If you'd like, I'd love to have an extra pair of (digital) hands onboard for one of my courses. We won't have a course page up until next week-ish, but it'll be related to place based studies of environmental justice in the bay area. I'll be supervising students closely both in person and online (as I'm currently WiR for Berkeley,) but more eyes is always better :) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to give that a try. Please add me to the course as a volunteer when the course page is created, or I will add myself if you prefer. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Last time I tried to add someone else as a volunteer to a course page, I actually kind of blew up the course page. But thanks greatly for your offer, and I'll stop by and let you know when the course page is created. Please don't hesitate to intervene if you see a student's edits going off the rails; they'll definitely be familiar with policies like WP:NOR and WP:RS before they hit the wiki, and will know that they'll be expected to engage with any community members who engage with them. Please do give me a heads up if you see anything going whacky though. (Usually nothing goes terribly wrong :)) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, and will monitor edits by the students. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning India Against Corruption, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:AGK (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediator assigned

Hi, I will be mediating this case. Would you be able to sign in on the project talk page? Sunray (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Sunray. DES ^(talk) 10:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton Beach

I've reluctantly reverted your edit at Stockton Beach. While it would be nice to give the source some credibility, it's an opinion piece that was apparently the result of Wikitout, who was indef blocked only 2 days prior to the piece's publication, for disruptive editing at this article. He has since resorted to socking and the socks have also been blocked. The article gives credibility to Peter Barton, who runs madmaxmovies.com, which Wikitout has tried to use as a source in the article. As a fansite, madmaxmovies.com is not a reliable source, and therefore can't be used as a reference. When we have an opinion piece based on the claims of a disgruntled and indef blocked sockpuppeteer and an unreliable source, we really can't give it any credit. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, I strongly disagree, and have posted to Talk:Stockton Beach the proper place to discuss such matters. I will be reviewing the block. Please self revert or be prepared to defend your sources on the talk page. I think they are also rather questionable. DES ^(talk) 11:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Ninivaggi (January 17)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to read the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit when you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Rinkle gorge (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extant organizations

Sorry if I am being a pain in the rear. However you proceed, I'm glad you thought it was a good idea and I hope it reaches fruition.

I think such a guideline could do a lot in helping cleanup non-neutral content from anyone who posts it and by focusing on the content, rather than the editor, it should be much easier to obtain consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 22:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel any pain, Template:CorporateM nor did anyone force me, or indeed even ask me, to work on any such guideline. I am not sure that I will create a draft --- it depends on how my non-Wikipedia life goes. If I do, and if I have used any of your text, I will properly attribute it for copyright purposes and in line with Process is Important, but I won't make a big thing of that. I think such a guideline could be of value, even if it mostly collects things stated or implied by other guidelines or policies. Whether it will gain consensus, no one can say in advance, of course. I do thank you for being a model of what a paid editor ought to be, and for making significant contributions to Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's been a long hard road, but I think over the last 6-12 months or so I have gotten to a point where I feel really good about my COI role. There is no need for attribution, it being Creative Commons. I could also send you some material that is actually copyrighted, but any attribution would lead to concerns about plugs for advertising or whatnot anyway. I will take whatever precious inches in avoiding as much drama as possible I can get ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES. I came across a convenient example on this topic. Here is an article on the VentureBeat Marketing Automation Index. Venturebeat is normally a proper secondary sources, but in this case they publish the index themselves and I think it is a primary sources + the ranking is not really of encyclopedic value, unless it is truly significant like the Fortune 500. OTOH, the article includes market-share numbers for all the top marketing automation vendors, which is something it should be just fine for. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting an article/Works cited listing

Hello,

Please forgive me if I am doing something incorrectly. I'm not very techy and I'm finding this process to be very tedious so if I haven't posted on the bottom of your page is not for lack of trying.

In November, I submitted my first article. It needed work to prove the subject was more notable and the content more verifiable.

I have attempted to do this and have used the template models in the edit section of the page to have more citations.

Now my question is this. Is there a template to create a works cited section at the end of the article or do I have to do each of these citations individually?

Thank you for your help. Jeberlin (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, Jeberlin. I presume this is about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Antonacci, is that correct? I will look it over and give a fuller response shortly. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jeberlin, I have edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Antonacci to provide a Notes section which automatically displays the citations using {{reflist}}. I have also merged duplicate citations. Here are the changes I made. (See Referencing for Beginners for more details.) Usually this form of citation does not provide a separate list of works cited. You can add one manually if you choose. When an article uses a "short footnotes" system, a separate list of "References" or "Works cited" is typically provided. You can see how Wikipedia typically implements such a system of citation at WP:SFN, with additional details at Help:Shortened footnotes. Such a system is particularly useful when multiple pages or locations are cited in one or more particular sources, although there can be other reasons to use such a system. Such a system is neither required nor prohibited on Wikipedia, it is a matter of choice by an article drafter. I hope this is helpful to you.

By the way, I suspect your draft may have problems with the reliability or independence of some of the sources cited, but I have not reviewed it in detail. DES ^(talk) 16:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed CSD - Grace period

Cheers for going though and endorsing my views on the views of the proposed CSD criterion. However in the "Grace period" section I think you've put your conditional support under the wrong option ("no grace period", rather than the "7 days" I conditionally support). Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thryduulf. I'll check, perhaps I did. Those headign really should have been sub-sections, not just bolded with a leading semi-colon. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long does an uncontested move take?

I requested the move yesterday when I saw I could merge my draft with Wachovia Cultural Campus, which is no longer called that. Then I saw I had made a mistake with the tag on the article that needed to be deleted, Levine Center for the Arts, but that was several hours ago. I thought if its entire history was a redirect, I could move an article there. I did this in a way that somehow didn't work, just so I could preserve the history of my draft.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with most things on Wikipedia, Vchimpanzee, it takes until a volunteer gets around to it. I will take a look at the situation. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking the process moved faster.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vchimpanzee, the move has been made. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Notice

Just a heads up, I've brought the Jni issue to ANI as he/she seems unwilling to retract their personal attacks or listen to other editors. I have mentioned you there as you found several concerning deletions which I mentioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

online ambassador

Hey DES -

If you'd like to be an online ambassador for the course I'm helping themed around environmental justice, please add yourself as an online volunteer here. The class's assignment is going to be group-based, with groups having between two and four students in them depending on the size of the article targeted, with a likely total of around 30 articles created or modified. (With each student of course having their own account.) Later today or tomorrow I'll get a more full description of the course up (I'm waiting for permission of the instructor to just reuse part of his syllabus, but he's usually pretty fast at responding to emails.) Students will be creating accounts in waves starting around February 3rd and extending possibly as late as the 14th. Before students make any edits at all, they'll have received two hours of training on the mechanics of editing Wikipedia, as well as our policies, guidelines, and culture. Their article topics will also be pre-vetted (some will be working on existing articles in mainspace, some will be working on new, sandboxed articles.) Edits should start to trickle in soon after students start registering, and we've set a couple of waypoint deadlines to ensure that students don't wait till the last minute, as has happened in some other classes. I'll be watching the actions of students pretty carefully, but due to the size of the class, I'd greatly appreciate it if you felt like signing up as an OA. (And just a note I'm adding everywhere I mention the course, issues involving anything like plagiarism, if detected, will be dealt with strongly by myself, the TA's, and the professor.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Stockton Beach was correct.

http://www.madmaxmovies.com/mad-max-beyond-thunderdome/filming-locations/index.html

I really do not want to have anything to do with wikipedia but if we are to evolve errors have to acknowledged and corrected to be able to learn and advance.

I would find it very odd if you do not attempt to correct the Stockton beach information, in relation to Mad Max, after being provided the evidence that demonstrates an error.

I am of the theory that "AussieLegend" is looking after his own concerns as he might have a few friends at Tin City on Stockton Beach. It is a simple enough matter to check the information for himself and as wikipedia already provides proof that his Mad Max information is wrong it seems to be a brave wikipedian that does or does not question its own "verified" information.

Here is a something to consider if you do nothing. It is illegal to falsely promote a product or service. This would be somewhat universal.

Every tourist business that uses wikipedia as a reference for its tours is now in the running for legal action as if the information is not correct they may be fined.

It is true that is the individuals responsibility to "verify" the information that the use, but if people like "AussieLegend" promote the facts as he determined you would hold him morally responsible.

I assume you have read the Newcastle Herald articles and it is obvious that "Aussielegend" is wrong. He lives within 30 kilometres of myself so he could have seen the newspaper articles for himself.

The situation is a clear case of fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaussielegend (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the site you link to above is apparently a personally run fan site, with no significant editorial process. It therefore does not constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, and the Herald article, being an opinion piece is of less value that a straight reporting piece would be. Do you know of any published authoritative source which can be cited for accurate data in this matter? DES ^(talk) 14:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that "fraud" refers to a criminal action in which someone attempts to obtain a monetary benefit by intentionally deceiving another. I assume that AussieLegend honestly believes that the content he has posted is accurate, and I have no slightest reason to think that AL has any financial interest in the matter. Please do not describe a difference of opinion on the content of a Wikipedia article as "fraud". Wikipedia is not responsible for the use that anyone may make of its articles, and while every effort is made to promote accuracy, it does not guarantee the accuracy of any content, as is more fully described in our general disclaimer. DES ^(talk) 14:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitout/Theaussielegend is well aware that madmaxmovies.com, which is run by somebody who lives 1,000km from Stockton Beach, is a fan site and therefore not a reliable source but he doesn't seem to care. He also knows that what is in the article refers to the first Mad Max movie, not Beyond Thunderdome (the third movie) but he keeps posting the Thunderdome link as proof. I have searched for reliable sources that contradict those used in the article to no avail. Local sources that I've questioned in the past month, including Worimi aboriginals, seem consistent on the subject, as well as the existence of Tin City. Wikitout claims that it didn't exist before the 70s. Local sources disagree. His claims are as dubious as any indef blocked sock. If you want a good example, check this edit to Kooragang Island. On 30 November he claimed that a 600kW wind turbine had been removed from the island with the edit summary "Look out the window dopey". This wind turbine is a highly visible, 73m tall structure between the Hunter River and the main road that crosses the island. It can be seen from at least 5km away by anyone driving along the Pacific Highway and I can confirm it was still there 10 hours ago when I drove past. His edit was as silly as the "dragged by submarine" statement that he added.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page of a notable entrepreneur

Hello DESeigel, I love creating biographies of notable entrepreneur and being a Wikipedian its my duty to bring in light entrepreneurs of my country. Can you help me creating a page of a notable entrepreneuer Kunal Sood.Sibtain 007 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will help if I can, Sibtain 007. What information do you have about this person? have you already started a draft or article? What makes this person notable? DES ^(talk) 15:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply, the person is Kunal Sood, he is a health activist, he is also Executive producer and Curator of TEDxUNPlaza.

Check This Link: http://tedxunplaza.com/about/team/kunal-sood/

He is also mentioned on some other Wikipedia articles : Tanvi Shah and List of TED speakers Sibtain 007 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Dear Mr User:DESiegelI hope you are doing well. Please help me out in fixing my write-up titled 'Malik Muhammad Jahangir'. How could it be rejected when many profiles are online who are less notable.Kindly check these profiles Siraj_Kassam_Teli and Shahzad_Malik. Kindly pay a look that dont have enough references but still online. I have provided as many as I could find on the internet as strong references. Also check profile of Malik Muhammad asif who is brother of Malik Muhammad Jahangir he hardly provided 4 references then how his profile is online Malik_Muhammad_Asif. Kindly dont make me feel that work is discriminated. Waiting for reply.Regards--Whitepearl1 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Whitepearl1, it doesn't matter what other articles are better or worse, and I am not intersting in doing a compare and contrast. There are articles on Wikipedia that don't comply with the relevant policies. Sooner or later someone will fix or delete them. That is not an argument for allowing another con-compliant article. See the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

What I will do, when I can, is look at the article you have been working on, and give you any helpful advice that I can. Of course I am only one editor, and have no veto power here. DES ^(talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NIAMA-REISSER Technology Help

Hello Mr. Siegel. I would kindly like to ask you to read the article in its entirety and give three examples of advertisement in the article. I have edited the article more than four times now. One admin undeleted the article once before, but Trivialista and Tokyogirl, etc. other users believe it still to be advertisement. The Columbus Dispatch wrote an article about it. The C. Dispatch is the biggest Newspaper in Ohio and the article was on the cover. The company was in TV broadcasts, where reporters reported about the tech, etc. The company showcased their products at a booth at the geneva auto convention in Switzerland.

The Article was written in a way to show how the technology works. To my knowledge there is no sentence or phrase contained within the body of the article that coould allure advertisement.

Regardless, maybe you can help me and point out the sentences that would deem it so, if there are any. I am new to wiki and haven't contributed anything other than the article. There are many articles like HuettlinKugelmotor, EcoMotors, FelixWankel that are written in the same fashion and style. I believe to get singled out here.

Maybe you can help. Thanks, for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreim (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alreim, as I wrote to another user in the section above, it doesn't matter what other articles are better or worse, and I am not interesting in doing a compare and contrast. There are articles on Wikipedia that don't comply with the relevant policies. Sooner or later someone will fix or delete them. That is not an argument for allowing another non-compliant article. See the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

If I get a chance, i will look over your draft again. Note that promotion is often a matter of overall tone as much as it is of specific words and phrases. I will not, therefore commit to noting any specific number of promotional phrases. DES ^(talk) 19:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that you were not "singled out" except in so far as new articles are general subject to extra attention. The article you drafted came to my attention through a perfectly routine notification process. i had never heard of you before, or of this firm. I am, in fact, noted for declining more speedy deletion requests than i carry out, unlike some admins. Still, I have deleted over 1500 pages, many in vary similar circumstances. See my log. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive commetns made on User talk:Alreim. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect request

Hello, can you please create a redirect of my alternative user talk page to my primary user account talk page? Thanks! Indian Wikipedian ^✈ 08:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done IndianWikipedian (aka Anupmehra). DES ^(talk) 08:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! Anup Mehra ^✈ 08:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great American Lesbian Art Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Debbie Jones (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) 08:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your service on HappyBird Kiran567 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up in February!

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intermural

Hi, thanks for your comment about this word at the ref desk. I have just asked a follow-up question which you may also be able to help with, but since the thread has now scrolled off into the archives here, you may not see it. Therefore I hope you don't mind me alerting you to it here. 86.128.6.107 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.128.6.107 I am responding here because with the thread being archived, there seems no other good place. (I don't think this is worth opening a whole new thread at the ref desk. If you do, feel free to copy or quote my response.) I have rarely encountered "Extramural" in actual use. It could be equated to "intermural". However the source equating it to "Varsity" suggests a more nuanced position, such as:

"Intramural" = contests within an institution.
"Intermural" = contests between two more or less similar institutions, but possibly not at the highest level of competition.
"Varsity" or "Extramural" = contests between teams considered to formally represent the institutions for which they play, at the highest level of competition which the institution participates in.

I do recall "varsity" being often used as suggesting a higher level of competition than "intermural", and the etymology suggests it: as I understand it "varsity" is a contraction and alteration of "University" and originally referred to athletes who formally represented Oxford or Cambridge in sport. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The definition of Intramural sports at that article is "recreational sports organized within a set geographic area" (my emphasis). I'm not sure that is even correct, is it? Everything I read seems to be saying, as you do, that intramural sports are within an institution. 86.169.185.57 (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to say what is "correct" in a case such as this, that is driven so much by usage. If there is a significant group of speakers using Intramural to mean "within a set geographic area" then that is one meaning of that word, I guess. It is a not implausible extension or modification of the "within an institution" sense. For a Wikipedia article, it is, as so often, a matter of 'what do reliable sources say?' I fear my own memory of usage I have eis not an RS. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have made some further changes, and also added a "citation needed" tag for the "geographic area" meaning. I cannot find any clear evidence that it is used that way. Every single reference to "intramural sports" that I have come across in a very cursory search is related to school/college/university sports programmes. 86.169.185.57 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jab843 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 02:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jab843 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Needed

Can you rescue this page David Record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonissac (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsonissac, another editor declined the speedy (correctly, in my view) before I could take any action. Thanks for notifying me. DES ^(talk) 17:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mark francis fry

I accidently put a no category on her when she had one and undid it-if you look at the history I didn't put the speedy. Sorry for the confusion. Wgolf (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my error, msg struck. DES ^(talk) 18:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

abortion general...

The rationale for the article was to have a page on abortion in general given the main focus on the abortion article is on induced abortions,with all but one subsection on spontaneous abortion and no subsections that deal with the term in the general sense... there is a discussion on in the abortion section where it was proposed to have an article on abortion in general.. and after noting the terms sourced for abortion only use the term to describe both induced and spontaneous abortion is used primarily in medical dictionaries and encyclopedias and the other dictionaries defined it as induced.. i created this article in response to that suggestion... was gonna go afc route but the first article I ever made got held up in that space so long that another article got created and had to delete... sigh... Lol... ah just keep it deleted... don't really have the gumption to fight for it but just thought I should explain the rationale behind it... mazel tov! Nickmxp (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bakery (digital ad agency)

Hi, You have just deleted a page regarding this Ad Agency, which was written to document it's involvement in it's field. Can you please detail how the page was self promotional since I explicitly attempted to utilize the same structure and guidelines I found for similar agencies like: LatinWorks, Droga5, and Huge?

Thank, -- 19:14, 07 Febuary 2014 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobafelt (talk • contribs)

First of all, Bobafelt, it helps to follow directions and post at the bottom of a talk page, and sign Your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Second, the examples you mention are rather promotional themselves, and in my view not good models. However, unlike the Bakery (digital agency) article, they do mention specific accomplishments of their agencies, and cite them to reliable, independent, published 3rd-party sources.

TheBakery (digital agency), however, consisted of merely a menu of services, and marketing-speak such as "communicate efficiently with consumers and users", "hail from" " and the like. It did not have a neutral, encyclopedic tone. And it had no reference citations at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category suppression

On February 4, you made some edits to the page Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion. Since then, that page has been showing up in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. Is it possible to suppress that page from showing up in that category? Thanks. Safiel (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation regarding my edits to your talk page

Just a quick note to clarify. In the last post you made on your talk page, you failed to close a nowiki tag. That led to some errors when I posted, which I solved by properly closing the taq. Your signature never recorded properly due to the nowiki code and actually recorded as my signature when I fixed the error, which I subsequently removed. I think everything is straight now, except that I will add an unsigned template to your last message, since your signature didn't take. Safiel (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/YinzCam

The nominator has addressed issues you raised in your review. Can you please stop by to see whether this has satisfied your concerns, or if there is more work that needs to be done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, I wonder what do you think about this case. Is this an example of bullying or it is not? Also may I please ask you to provide some reasons for you response whatever it's going to be? Thank you.69.181.40.211 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about the case on-wiki, which I take to be more accurate than a blog post. I do NOT take it to be a case of bullying in any way. It may be a mus-application of our blocking policy but if so, it is one made in good faith and in an attempt to be consistent in applying policies. As I understand it, the user in question engaged in some fairly serious disruption here in the past, and was duly banned, with a block to enforce that ban. This ins an absolutely standard response to persistent or serious violations of policies and editing norms. Now the user wants to be unblocked, not (as the user claims) to be able to edit Wikipedia, but so that his block log will not show the user as being blocked, which the user claims harms reputation on other language Wikipedia sites or other Wikimedia sites. That may be true, but the user is asking for an exemption from normal procedures, essentially on an "I promise not to actually use what you give me access to" basis. Several admins do not fully trust the user, and I think many don't take the reputation claims very seriously. The block happened, it is a fact. unblocking will not change that fact. Now I think that the argument that any further edits could easily lead to a re-block has some weight, but a number of others did not. Attempting to change this by making blog posts about will, I fear, only exacerbate the situation and further publicize the block, to the possible further harm of the user's reputation. But the user, or anyone else, is free to make such posts as far as I or anyone on Wikipedia is concerned. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Blocks are used to prevent damage to Wikipedia, are they not? If for whatever reason an editor wants to be unblocked and says he is not going to edit Wikipedia, he should be unblocked, no questions should be asked because if he's back, re-block takes only a minute. I hope you agree with me that, if somebody thinks otherwise such thinking is absurd. Now, if this editor asked to be unblocked two years after he was blocked, and not to edit Wikipedia, but simply to be unblocked, it means that being blocked hurts him somehow. I see bullying as the only reason initially he was refused in his request. Maybe you're right about the blog post, but somehow I believe the editor in question does not mind the blog.69.181.40.211 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't say that such a view is absurd. I am not sure that i agree with it, but then the matter is not in my hands. As to whether the editor in question (which i suppose to be you) objects to the blog post, I presume not, as the info seems to have come from that editor. My suggestion was that such a post is not likely to obtain what the editor claims to want. But aside from offering some well-meant advice, that isn't really my issue. Indeed the whole thing isn't really my issue, and I'm not sure why you are posting to me about it. I am not on ArbCom, and the current rule is that an editor or admin may not file a block appeal on behalf of someone else. The editor in question wrote to the arbcom, and they declined to listen. He posted on Jimbo's talk page, and did not obtain what he desired. The only way in which I could affect the situation would be to lead an attempt to get the policy in question modified. I don't think that would succeed, and while I sympathize with the banned editor here, I'm not willing to tilt against windmills on his behalf. I suspect if he merely continues to edit on vt.Wikipedia or other projects, any issue with his block log on en.Wikipedia will soon fade. That may not be the ideal outcome, but I think attempting to get this decision reversed will require more effort and drama than it is worth, and may actually repeat the facts of the original blocking enough that the blocked editors reputation will actually be harmed, not helped, even if the effort succeeds. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I am not that editor. I am in a similar situation only much worse. I posted to you after your post to Jimbo's talk.69.181.40.211 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I did post on the subject there. While I think you have a point in logic grounded in Wikipedia's basic principles, politics is often a matter of perception. The principle that "blocks are not punitive" is not, probably cannot be, fully adhered to. I think that anyone in such a position would be well advised to try the so-called "Standard offer" -- do not post to Wikipedia, whether through a sock puppet or an IP address for at least 6 months (a year might be better), and then appeal on the user's talk page or by email to the ban appeals committee of ArbCom, with a promise not to disrupt further, and an acknowledgement of the past disruption. Good luck. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are punitive alright, but blocks should not be punitive in the real life. In my situation it is. "Standard offer" does not work. It did not work for the editor we talked about in the beginning, it does not work for me, and I know at least few other editors in a similar situation. Indefinite blocks are meant to bully an editor into apologizing and admission of wrong doing, and even after an editor apologized he is still blocked, and in my situation I don't even know what I should apologize for. Anyway...69.181.40.211 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New England Roleplaying Organization

Hey, I saw your note that you sent to me. I tagged the "New England Roleplaying Organization" for deletion for a couple reasons. A few members of that organization tagged another roleplaying organization, referenced in their own article (Alliance LARP) for deletion, and had it deleted for not being a notable organization, and not having enough "credible sources". NERO has the same number of sources, two of them being self-referential. The third is a reference to an article that was an interview with the founder of Alliance LARP, which split off from NERO. This leaves the organization with zero outside sources to show they're a notable organization. I'm going to retag them for deletion, and keep doing so until they're removed, as the standard they pushed for with Alliance LARP should be held to themselves as well. Brujah7783 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

replied at User talk:Brujah7783 DES ^(talk) 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get the Alliance LARP page restored? NERO has had it deleted five times now, as a harassment technique, any time their player base has a decline. They recently decided to try to harass the Chicago chapter of Alliance LARP, threatening to sue the owner via a public comment on facebook (a screenshot is available as evidence). I feel that if Alliance LARP is worthy of deletion due to having only 3 references in its article, similar to NERO, than NERO should be held to the same standard. Take a look at the Alliance LARP deletion conversation history. I had even posted MORE links showing that organization's notability, from newspapers, TV programs, and more, but it still was deleted. NERO has none of that. It should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brujah7783 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brujah7783 as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it is not a matter of "being held to the same standard" and as long as you approach it with that attitude, your complaints are likely to be poorly received. Each page or article stands on its own. Now if you think the deletion of Alliance LARP was improper, i could look into that. What was the exact article name? DES ^(talk) 02:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was called "Alliance LARP". Brujah7783 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance LARP. Several very experienced Wikipedians known to me commented; this was not in any way an action of the propriaters or fans of NERO. If you wish, Brujah7783 I will undelete it to a user sandbox or to the drafts namespace for it to be worked on and the sourcing improved, but it will need to go through deletion review and/or back through AfD before it returns to mainspace. Do you want it under those conditions? DES ^(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your recent work on saving a technical article and dealing kindly with a newbie at the same time. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - from N4

Thank you for your help with the deletion policies and your advice. Have a brownie! N4 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne-Cooper

You seem to have edited the Arthur Melbourne-Cooper page even closer to how Tjitte de Vries wants it to be! And closer to how AMC's propagandist daughter, Audrey Wadowska, would want it to be. De Vries thinks Melbourne-Cooper was an important pioneer who made 'Grandma's Reading Glass', when we know it was made by GA Smith; and who made 'Matches Appeal' in 1900 when it is clear that it was made during WW1. Oh well, leave it wrong then! But have you considered looking at articles in 'Film History' journal, which deny the false claims for AMC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.205.149.174 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I did, as I stated on Talk:Arthur Melbourne-Cooper, in this edit was to remove OR and SYNTH content cited only to a blog post. This was in the nature of clearing underbrush so that a better article could be built. It was not in the least intended to be a final version. Now if you (or someone) can cite to the book mentioned in that blog post, and if you clearly attribute opinions instead of editorializing in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps the article can be gotten into better shape. Also, if you want Film History used as a source, please give full cites, and a link if the content is available online. I am going to copy this to the article talk page, which is the proper venue for discussion the article. DES ^(talk) 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commetary on Non-Free Use of image

Des - thanks for adding the image to the Sueo Serisawa page- I have been trying to do that for years (LOL) I am not sure what you mean by commentary for the Non-Free Image - I am sure that i can provide it but need some direction as to what Wikipedia needs. ~~vono~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vono (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vono, by "commentary" I mean commentary on that specific image: where does it fall in the artist's career, is it typical or atypical of the artist's work, is there anything noteworthy about that particular painting, is there any published reaction to or criticism of the painting, etc. This is in part because it will add to the article, and in part because of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and especially criterion #8. Is that a bit clearer? DES ^(talk) 04:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as you can see the wiki code was simply

[[File:Judy Garland Portrait by Sueo Serisawa 1940.jpg|thumb|Portrait of [[Judy Garland]] by Sueo Serisawa circa 1940 from the VonOhsen Ireland collection 2014]]

. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for more on how to do this. DES ^(talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Great American Lesbian Art Show

On 13 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Great American Lesbian Art Show, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Great American Lesbian Art Show was the first time that lesbians of color participated in a major exhibition of lesbian art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great American Lesbian Art Show. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your help desk response

I'm a few days behind so this was in the archives.

You answered this question and there was a red link with a typo. I corrected the typo but the link is still red so I'm wondering if there's something you intended to do that would be helpful for people reading the responses.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vchimpanzee. There was a second typo, a missing colon, which i fixed. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Krantz

I don't think it's a credible claim, the sole ref does not mention this person and the external links link to Ryan Pulock. In fact Rhett Krantz is not even listed on the Wheat Kings roster. --JamesMoose (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMoose, that is a separate matter. The claim is still, in my view "credible" in that it is plausible, but it appears to be false (assuming that you haven't missed something). That might very well make it deletable as a hoax. I admit that i didn't follow the refs, I worked on the face of the article. But going deeper into things is often the better way. I will look further. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMoose, I have now re-tagged it for deletion as a hoax, and removed the insertion of this fake player into the Wheat Kings roster her eon Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing out the facts to me. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi DES, I'm sorry that I did not get to some of your questions before I withdrew my nomination. Thanks. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, MrScorch6200. I'm sorry it went the way it did. I hope you stick around and try again in a year of two, and that I wll be there and able to support with no hesitations. Good luck and happy editing. DES ^(talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Delta Force Paintball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 09:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done DES ^(talk) 14:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK nomination of Theodore Katsanevas

Thank you! I've edited the article a bit and replied. The image is just a detail, the other aspects are IMHO easily solvable. --Nemo 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are solvable, Nemo_bis, but must be solved. I made one error, I failed to scroll down enough on the SFGate source, i thought they had changed the page on you. I will strike that comment. DES ^(talk) 19:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

DES, could you please check this nomination and make sure you would have in fact approved it? Oddly, an admin promoted it without your final approval (or anyone's actual approval). If there are any issues that you think are not resolved, or should be, please post to WT:DYK and we'll pull the nomination back. However, there's under two and a half hours before it hits the main page, so I hope you're around now... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, @Wnt, @HectorMoffet I am fine with this. My only issue, as I said in my final review, was the date, I am fairly new to DYK reviewing, and I wasn't aware of the move-to-mainspace rule, or didn't think of it. So I confirm that i have no issue with this going on the main page. DES ^(talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Formatting Question

Reference Formatting Question: Do you have any suggestions on how to set up my reference list. I can't seem to get the formatting correct. I keep receiving this message "There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template (see the help page)." The page I am trying to edit is User:Syeager.93/draftproposal

Thanks! Syeager.93 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syeager.93, the references that are using the <ref> tags -- that is those in the "In Progress References" section, now look to me as if they are displaying properly in the "References" section, and you seem to have {{reflist}} properly placed. If you are still seeing the error message, try purging your browser's cache. In Firefox and I think in IE, this is done with Ctrl-F5.
As you work on the article, you will want to move the <ref> tags into the actual article text, and remove the duplicated reference information in "In Progress References".
I see you are using constructs such as <ref name=Nimmrich> this is good. As you may have read, If you need to reuse a reference, you can do so by placing <ref name=Nimmrich/> (note the closing slash), this will indicate in the reference list that the Nimmrich reference is cited in multiple places. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once for more details.
When using {{cite journal}}, instead of the coauthors= parameter, you can use first1=, last1=, first2=, last2=, etc, to specify the first and last names for each author. This will generate machine readable metadata for each author available to programs that scan Wikipedia articles.
Please use pages= rather than page= when citing to multiple pages.
If the date is known only to a year, you can use year= instead of date=.
If the full names (as opposed to initial+last name) of the authors are known, you can cite them that way, but if the initial+last name method is standard for the journal involved, it may be used.
If there is a Wikipedia article about the journal cited (as there is for British Journal of Pharmacology) it is a good idea to enclose the name in double brackets in the cite, as journal=[[British Journal of Pharmacology]]
When a copy of the article is available online, please add a url= parameter with the exact url (web address) of the online copy. If the URL points to a PDF document, please also add format=PDF.
When a url parameter is provided, please also include an accessdate= parameter, followed by the date on which you read the source online. This is helpful in finding archives if the link changes or goes dead in the future.
Wikipedia articles should have an "lead section" (sometimes miscalled the "lede") which summarizes the article. The first sentence should define or describe the subject. The first mention of the subject should be in boldface. The lead section should also indicate the field of study or area of knowledge of which the article is a part, so that readers understand the context of the article. The lead section should NOT have a section header. See Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Lead section for more details.
Section headers should use sentence case, not title case, thus Basic features not Basic Features.

I hope all this is helpful and not overwhelming, please ask again if there are any further questions. DES ^(talk) 01:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Did you not read the content I added to the Antrim Forum article? It's NEW content that proves notability! Are you saying once a consensus is made, therefore the subject can never be notable? Evangp (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added NEW content Evangp (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Evangp, I am saying that the "new" content is a mere trivial addition, and would not have changed the AfD consensus, in my view. But I merely tagged it, if you can convince a reviewing admin to decline the speedy nomination, go ahead. The more usual procedure when there is new information that an editor thinks makes a prior AfD obsolete, is to create a draft in userspace (or now in the Draft: namesapce), that fully includes the new info, properly cited, and then post at WP:DRV, asking that the prior AfD be overturned in light of said new information. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would've been a better procedure, but I didn't know about that option. If it's deleted again, I'll use that method to get it reinstated. The Antrim Forum is a marvelous place, a sight to behold. Evangp (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is, but it still doesn't pass the WP:GNG, and so should not have an article here. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pou case

I appreciate your suggestions. What about G10? "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." There was never an "Anna Pou case." This matter was taken to federal court, William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana, Doc. 33, p. 12. An out of court settlement was reached when appealed to the United States 5th Circuit. The page/article was written to attack one person: Dr. Anna Pou. Most of the information cited is not accurate. Affidavits were submitted by individuals quoted in the articles explaining the information written was fabricated. Individuals also submitted affidavits saying they were exploited. "This page is supported by multiple reliable published sources. It may be that other sources support contradictory information, and if so that should be added and those soruces should be cited. Note that court depositions, as primary sources, are strongly disfavored and generally cannot be used in Wikipedia articles -- they are much more disfavored than most primary sources are. Given the multiple reports in reliable media sources on this topic, i don't see this as an attack page, nor a hoax." I referenced the court case to show the evidence supporting the statements were show to be fabricated. Nevertheless, there was never an "Anna Pou case." In one instance, the author of a book written falsified her credentials -- she claimed to be a physician. There were scores of situations that happen after Hurricane Katrina, such as a the one titled "Anna Pou case." All of which are very poorly sourced and/or fabricated. Any suggestions you have are appreciated. Schwartzenberg (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartzenberg, "Fabricated" is a very strong charge. Is there any reliable secondary source -- not court documents or affidavits -- that supports this? I do not see this as a valid G10 speedy deletion, this page serves more purposes than to attack or disparage one individual. Indeed, given the wide reporting on the incident at the time, even if there are sufficient sources to establish that the statements and accusations were fabricated, I suspect the matter would still be notable. It might be that the page name should be altered so that it does not include Pou's name. I must say that the laundry list of speedy deletion reasons you placed on the article, including A1 (no context) does not increase my confidence in your opinion. You are not a new editor -- how could you possibly think this article had not enough context to make it clear what it was about or to enable a reader to find further information on the subject?

Perhaps this matter is best further discussed on the article talk page, so that other interested editors, if any, can join the discussion more easily. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I have just added some comments to the talk string on the Anna Pou case Wikipedia page. Thank you for your work.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antrim Forum

It is three times now he has created that article. ANI is close, just unbeleivable, I knew he was going to try something when he removed this from my talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outline tagging

Hello. Thanks for the message. I apologise for forgetting to notify the author of the article. I realised that I should have notified the author after I noticed that you had userfied the page. Getting articles deleted was part of my learning curve as a Wikipedian, and know how useful it is to have a helpful, more experienced author to guide a new editor. I will try to remember in the future. Also, I nominated the article for speedy deletion under A3 because there was no content or context on the page. If you know of the category in which that speedy deletion would fall under, please notify me. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, NHCLS. I am happy to help when I can. If that page fit under ANY speedy criterion it would have been A3, and I can't say that an A3 would have been improper. But, A3 does say "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles" and it speaks of articles "... consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. It isn't clear, at least to me, if multiple section headers with no text fit this. But even granting that this qualified under A3 (and I suspect that most admins would so conclude) that doesn't mean that it must be deleted. Since it looked like an attempt to draft an article by starting with an outline, I felt that userfication was more likely to help the project -- we just might get a valid article that way, and if not, no great harm done since it is out of public view. DES ^(talk) 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I completely understand that userfying the page is the best way to get the article to become a proper article fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. The problem is, I don't know how to do that (is it an administrator privilege?)...NHCLS (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, NHCLS, userfying is simply a fancy name for moving a page into userspace, that is to a page whose name begins with "User:". The normal form is "User:Example/Page Title". Any WP:AUTOCONFIRMED user can do this. It is a good idea to add {{userspace draft}} to the top of the draft after moving it, so Google and other robots-compliant search engines will not index it. DES ^(talk) 00:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double References

How does one go about using the same citation twice? When I try to add the exact same footnote, it comes up as a new reference. I'm currently working on a draft proposal for my Neurobiology class, and I'm having trouble finding the answer. --Thatsomaven (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thatsomaven, You do this by giving the citation a name, and then referring to it by the name. For example, I could include <ref name=Jones-2012>{{cite book|title=Fundamentals of Citing Sources|last=Jones|first=John|year=2012|page=42|publisher=Mammoth Books}}</ref> as a citation, and then elsewhere when I want to cite the same reference, include <ref name=Jones-2012 />. This will produce a single line in the reference list with two (or more) small letters, one for each time the citation is used. See WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once for more details. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if this is not yet clear to you, Thatsomaven. DES ^(talk) 00:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, that cleared it up for me! Thank you for your help.--Thatsomaven (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also edited your proposal, Thatsomaven to show the correct use of {{cite journal}}. You can revert if you prefer to manually construct all citations. DES ^(talk) 01:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CHouse1889

I didn't consider that one borderline: a shorter form of the organization name plus the year it was founded. While I have said that some other reports aren't close enough to the concern being promoted to warrant a username block, this is unambiguous enough to block IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guns

Responding to the ping at ANI, I'll just say that mainly what I meant is that no Wikipedia editors that I know of are lumping people in that way, and I doubt that there's a substantial number of non-Wikipedia editors who seriously suggest that gun control supporters have Nazi-like designs to murder millions of people. The tyranny argument against gun control seems to be saying that pro-control people would inadvertently make the country vulnerable to Nazis or the like, not that the pro-control people are like Nazis. Anyway, you're more than welcome to come visit the article, and its talk page, to discuss it further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anythingyouwant. I probably won't, I have long since grown impatient with the nonsense in many US political debates, and that one in particular (I recall how it used to swallow threads back at rec.arts.sf.written on USENET.) Thank you for undertaking to help keep such a topic sane on Wikipedia. I probably shouldn't have added my comment to the ANI thread (it seems I edit-conflicted with the thread close). I have never been able to resist statements of the "of course no one asserts X" kind. I fondly recall Hal Clement's late novel Still River in which every chapter began with one or another character asserting "of course" something or other, only to find the statement falsified during the chapter. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had not heard of Clement, though I'm embarassed to say so given that he lived a stone's throw away here in Massachusetts. If you want to move your ANI comment to here, that would be fine with me, and feel free to delete my reply to you there if you would like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the comment, it stands. I don't generally delete my own talk page comments here. As to Clement, his works are a very particular sort of thing, those who have the taste for them love them, and those who don't tend to be bored. I love them. I actually heard Clement read several chapters from the then-in-progress Still River aloud at an SF convention, and it was a very memorable moment for me. He tended to write about very alien environments, where in many cases the laws of nature provided much of the drama, often peopled which physically very alien beings. But i've read critical statements that his aliens' mentalities were closer to his own than his was to a typical inhabitant of Beijing. Thanks again, Anythingyouwant. DES ^(talk) 22:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My doctor said yesterday that I ought to read a book at night to prepare for falling asleep. Which one of Clement's would you recommend?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, Clement's most famous single work, and perhaps his best and most approachable, is Mission of Gravity. It should be easy to find in a bookstore or library. His other two early works, Needle and Iceworld are both quite approachable, as they are set on Earth and the aliens come here. The later Still River is very good (and the title is a pun), but the setting is ab odd world that none of the characters know well (indeed they are on a sort of graduate-student excessive to learn about it) and only one of the characters (each of whom is the viewpoint character at times) is human. Some will find it harder going, but I think it repays the effort.

If you would like other book suggestions I have been accused of being a book-legger, and I am surely an avid reader of several kinds of fiction and non-fiction. Tell me a few things you have enjoyed and I ay know other things of a similar taste. DES ^(talk) 05:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try Mission of Gravity. I used to read a whole lot more as a teenager than since. I liked adventures, thrillers, mystery, sci-fi, stuff like that. But why don't I try Mission of Gravity and see how it goes. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, sorry the meetup was hard to find ...

Hi DES, I didn't show up at 3 on the dot, but finally located the meetup off in the corner, next to the cafe. If you didn't see the group, it's understandable-- I almost decided they weren't there too. Maybe we need red carnations, or a big sign. Hope to see you at another event! Djembayz (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Djembayz, I walked through the area, including the cafe corner, for most of an hour. I must have passed you a dozen times. Three other groups meeting ther displayed signs so their members could find them. One said 'Meetup" (in the corner exactly opposite the cafe) but turned out to be the "DC Philosophy club" apparently there for a discussion of Aristotle. One was a photographer's group, and one was "LessWrong" apparently an alternative periodical of some sort. I didn't see any group that looked like to me a Wikipedia group, I would hope that a sign is used another time. I regret missing you. DES ^(talk) 13:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 23 February Meetup

Sorry you couldn't find anyone! I ended up missing it because I had to take a friend to the airport. Check the Wikimedia DC page for updates. Undead q (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Causal Layered Analysis

To User:DESiegel Thank you for your message. I can see why you have the plaudits on your talk page.

Yes, we'll commit (as a self-organised group of interested futures studies experts) to seriously working on it to make it appropriate for Wikipedia, e.g. by improving the cited references. No, we won't return the page to Wikipedia without asking an admin or editor to review.

Probably best to put it on a Draft:Causal Layered Analysis page so that other members of the futures studies community don't think I am trying to hijack CLA. Would we find an admin or editor through you? Thereflector (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

responded to near duplicate msg at User talk:Thereflector. @Thereflector: Thanks for the kind words. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company Article for WikiPedia

I just created an article for Falcon Aviation Academy that I would like to know how to prevent from being deleted in the future. I was trying to create an article similar to ATP Flight School Wiki which is also another company page. Apparently I made my contribution public prior to getting everything correct and within a few hours it was deleted. Is there anyway I can get this back so I can re-edit without starting over

I am trying to learn and would appreciate the ability to contribute once I have a better handle on how to write a more acceptable page.

Spin1197 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpreted advice

At WP:Help desk#What to do? (permalink) you gave a generic reply to a user who wanted advice about hosting a personal attack on their talk page. I commented later to say that the backstory was more complex and involved an IP hopper who has been aggressively attacking a user for months. The IP has been blocked and various pages have been semiprotected, but the IP gets encouragement from a couple of people who have a disagreement with the attacked editor, and that means they always return. Now the IP has stated "comments from admin Des show the censorship of your talk page is not legitimate" (Des = you, see diff). Would you please review the most recent ANI report (permalink) and update your advice at the help desk so that it cannot be misinterpreted as condoning the use of a user talk page to accuse another editor of "lying" or "making inaccurate statements". Such commentary is only suitable for a noticeboard, where the fact that the accusations are totally unsubstantiated could be discussed. Also, you might consider informing the editors who are hosting attacks (albeit mild after the worst has been redacted) that their talk pages do not "belong" to them, and the pages are not to be used for hosting commentary on other editors. No talkback needed thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DES - First, thank you for acting on my request that i made 2/15 to change Chairman to Chairperson or Chair (I believe you settled on the latter). When will this go into effect? I've tried to correct the Chairman to Chair but it reverts to Chairman :( Thank you Madiesmith (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your help with user RHaworth. I hate to seem like a tattle, but as soon as he un-deleted the "User:Ahmad Ozair" user page, he nominated it for deletion! And this user [5] was told he needs 80 edits to make a user page. Is there some sort of official investigation that could be started? This seems very unfair to new/young users, and not at all in keeping with policy. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetups in March

Happy March!

Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather.

Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:

Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our...
March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people!
Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served!

We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DES. Lisa here.

I apologize for interrupting your talk page, but I don't know what else to do.

I wanted to let you know that I posted the following on the noticeboard. I'm sure they deleted it, and they also want to erase the entire discussion instead of archiving it.They solicited comments about that. I don't mean to imply that you think they are wrong, but I think you deserve better than being unilaterally denied the chance to see my reply.

If it matters, I really am 16—at least, for four more months. Someone in the dorm pointed out, "If they don't believe a 16 year-old is in college, why not just upload your student ID?" The way I found out I was banned was trying to post a message asking if I could do that without everyone detonating. 'm still willing to, though it would be nice if someone told me why I'm the only one who has to.

Strangely, who I really am doesn't seem to matter. I guess it shouldn't; everyone should just edit WP without your last name name and school or whatever being anybody else's business. I feel shunned and rejected by angry people for no reason, exactly like in high school.

This is what I just posted at the noticeboard. If you don't feel like reading it, this is the main idea:

I respectfully request that my ban be reversed until someone can come up with a good reason for it, and—at VERY least—this thread be opened again so the people who want to discuss my ban (and have even done so AFTER my ban) can have their opinions considered.

I hope the opinion is "Why don't you just leave her alone and let her edit?"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is Lisa

I made my user page for my friends, not a lynch mob of crazy old people.

I even had a message in it for two friends. Several editors here told the crazy ones to leave me alone, that they can't see what is supposed to be wrong with my page or my edits. But even if it was too "suggestive" or whatever, then tell me to tone the page down. I would have, obviously, then continued correcting grammar mistakes.

Instead, I was banned because it was 'expedient. —an easy way to make a discussion go away and shut up the many here who supported my editing—even after I was banned.

The very unusual occurrence of responses posted AFTER the thread was closed make it obvious that it should not have been closed. It should be reopened and this ban discussed.

The admin who banned me suggested deleting the entire conversation to hide it, presumably because it would shame wikipedia if people found out I was banned without having done anything wrong and with no reason given. But he didn't delete the conversation because he said he didn't think they could get away with it.

Now another admin says:

" Post-mortems of this case will necessarily be missing key pieces of information"

Yes, because you deleted those key pieces of information. Restore them so we can discuss this contested ban. Because without that, this happens:

" Almost every single one of their edits was unconstructive,"

Essentially all of my edits were punctuation and grammar. Unfortunately, that fact has been hidden from everyone and those edits falsely called "unconstructive" after the fact. No one called them that while they were visible.

"I don't think we need to let this thread stay visible and open, yeah?"

No, and I hope others agree—like the ones who posted after I was banned, objecting to it.

Even if it is stays closed, why treat this discussion any different than every other discussion here?

I would hope someone who sees the wrongness of this asks that question.

With curious timing 'after' I was banned, a checkuser says it was proper, but omits a reason. Someone pointed that out, but instead of describing the "secret" smoking gun, he got another checkuser admin to back him up, also not describing the vilifying secret. This is because there is none, of course, as everybody knows. If I was a sock puppet or something, they'd say so.

Another said, "Read what she wrote here; it's obviously trolling."

No, Lukeno, as DES, flyer22, and many others have said, it is obviously NOT trolling.

Banning is like capital punishment, and even if I am executed, the people here watching the spectacle want to talk about it beforehand. Like the secret checkuser information, "she's just trolling" is disingenuous, dishonest, and disgraceful.

I respectfully request that my ban be reversed until someone can come up with a good reason for it, and—at VERY least—this thread be opened again so the people who want to discuss my ban (and have even done so AFTER my ban) can have their opinions considered.

I hope the opinion is "Why don't you just leave her alone and let her edit?"

-Lisa M

Again, DES, I'm sorry if this is bad to put on your user page. Please feel free to delete it ((of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.42.150 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quirk in change

Dear DES - First, thank you for acting on my request that i made 2/15 to change Chairman to Chairperson or Chair (I believe you settled on the latter). However, I've tried to correct the Chairman to Chair but it reverts to Chairman even after I've saved it as "Chair" :( Thank you for your help -Madiesmith Madiesmith (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the Falcon Aviation page. I greatly appreciate your advice and will do my best to edit correctly as well as include external sources before I attempt to place back in the article space. Spin1197 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton: A Community Arts School

Hi,

Like I said before couple of months ago, I am new to creating a Wikipedia page. And the article Clifton: A Community Arts School, I would like to change the name of the article/title to "Clifton Community School". If you could show/tell me how to do it, or even do it for me it would be brilliant.

Thanks, Joe Parkinson (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested Upromise

In late 2000, The Wall Street Journal^[2] and Adweek^[3] reported that Savor filed a lawsuit alleging that the concept behind Upromise was stolen from them. Both articles are short blurbs. While I wasn't able to find any quality secondary sources regarding how it ended, in this court document the judge said "Even when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Savor, it is clear that no reasonably jury could conclude that either FMR or Upromise misappropriated the Savor program. Indeed, no reasonable juror could conclude that Upromise was ever even made aware of the Savor program." A summary judgement was ruled in Upromise's favor on the basis that the whole thing was baseless.

So I am unsure if this lawsuit is worthy of inclusion as it seems like it may be one of those types that seemed significant when the allegations were launched, but may have been less significant in retrospect as indicated by the lack of coverage of the actual outcome. I would like to make sure I get it right one way or another. Would very much like your input. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Committee on Assessment of Fire Suppression Substitutes and Alternatives to Halon (Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, National Research Council) (1997). "Executive summary". Fire suppression substitutes and alternatives to Halon for U.S. Navy applications. National Academies Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-309-07492-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ "Fidelity Upromise Face Suit on Plan for College Savings". The Wall Street Journal. October 30, 2000. pp. C.9.
^ Rebecca, Flass (November 6, 2000). "Upromise, Fidelity Face Suit". Adweek. Vol. 37, no. 45.

[Fire_suppresion_substitutes-1] Committee on Assessment of Fire Suppression Substitutes and Alternatives to Halon (Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, National Research Council) (1997). "Executive summary". Fire suppression substitutes and alternatives to Halon for U.S. Navy applications. National Academies Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-309-07492-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[2] "Fidelity Upromise Face Suit on Plan for College Savings". The Wall Street Journal. October 30, 2000. pp. C.9.

[3] Rebecca, Flass (November 6, 2000). "Upromise, Fidelity Face Suit". Adweek. Vol. 37, no. 45.

[1]

[2]

[3]

sockpuppets, Johnuniq, admin Drmies helping COI/OR/OWN editor DrChrissy

Intro

Procedure

Archives

Welcome

More opinions for Bob Corker requested edit

McKinsey

Just to let you know

MfD nomination of Fire sprinkler (disambiguation)

GA Thanks

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

A barnstar for you!

Thank you

Glad to see you back

Review or no review?

Suggested merge

sounds good, let's execute

article

References

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Resolution?

Notability vb

Page restore request: User:Finalius/Guitar Legends Greatest Hits

???

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

PDIU and many others

Talkback (from Schneile)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Article Name

A digression from our CSD talk, transplanted here.

Talkback

A7

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Brightside

Please help me Sir

Cogora Page

Hey there!

Responding to your offer

your AFD comment has been quoted in a discussion. please respond

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shah Jalal Mosque, Chester (November 11)

Talkback

thank you

Talkback

Thank you

Thank you very much for the efficient help!

modified you comment

A pie for you!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Electric Mobility Norway (November 20)

Talkback

AfC/Drafts

Responding to your offer

Recent minor edits to "APL" page

You could...

Article for review: Curved Space Diamond Structure

Kafziel arbitration case opened

Think you missed...

Thanks very much

IAC

DES → DESiegel

Rane Group of Companies Wiki

continuing help/discussion with cebarnes406

Thanks

Reliability of possibly partisan sources about Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Checkpoint edition feedback?

Wikipedia:Perfect Hideaways

DES

Request for mediation accepted

Mediator assigned

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Stockton Beach

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Ninivaggi (January 17)

Extant organizations

Resubmitting an article/Works cited listing

Proposed CSD - Grace period

How long does an uncontested move take?

Ani Notice

online ambassador

Your edit of Stockton Beach was correct.

Page of a notable entrepreneur

Need help