User talk:DESiegel

Intro

Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

Welcome

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

Please help me understand what this means.

Hi DESiegel.  I hope I'm not being too much of a bother, but I need to ask for your help again. I just got an email notice from Wikipedia that my secondary sandbox (User:Richard27182/sandbox2) was "patrolled" by a certain user. (The contents don't seem to have been altered in any way.) Does this simply mean that for whatever reason someone looked at my sandbox; OR is it something serious that I should be concerned about. As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, {{|Richard27182}}, this is nothing to worry about. Because the page was realativly newly created (within the past 60 days) it shows up on a list of recently created pages. There are editors who do new page patrol. This means they chek out new pages to see if there are problems that need to be addressed. The notice means that one of these editors checked your second sandbox, and marked it as checked so other patrollers need not bother. This a poerfectly nornmal procdure. Follow the link above for more about new page patrol. DES ^(talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed comma and full stop

Hi Des I am sorry to upset the editors. They were kind enough to do an edit but it is grammatically incorrect. The section "Early Life" on the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge page has an incorrectly placed comma (should be immediately after Flight Dispatcher) and a full stop (should be immediately after 30 pounds). Please do fix up if you are able Much thanks and again, sorry. Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. It was already done before I saw this message, and i think before you left it. DES ^(talk) 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 21:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Signature error

User talk:RobbyTheElf only got a time stamp and no username so it appears five tildes were used. It says "ask me on my talk page" so I suggest you add the missing part. It could cause confusion if I did it. The in-universe style of the article was confusing but "Robby The Elf" is apparently the stage name of a real musician. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter, I fixed it. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Feeding India

Hi DES, your message at User talk:AishwaryaFI was excellent. I have shamelessly copied it as part of my message at User talk:Ahaan chopra. His user page is yet another version of Feeding India, with even more blatant copyvio. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I see that anoher admin has blocked Ahaan chopra and deleted that account's User page. DES ^(talk) 12:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 16:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

A beer for you!

Congrats on 10 years of Wikipedia! Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Brown (minister)

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much!

Changed the film summary as suggested. Thanks again for the guidance!

Sanfordstreet talk 01:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Forest Sami, any improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mahler on the Couch

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel. I noticed on your user page that you are now a member of the Wikipedia Ten Year Society. I just want to offer my congratulations.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello. Thanks for overseeing Education Program:Consumer Reports/Choosing Wisely Canada (summer 2015). I think the students in this are medical students, or at least in public health, and it is a small class. This is online and I have three live presentations that I will give, plus some recordings. It wraps up in a month. I have done this before. I am not sure if we have collaborated on anything previously - maybe. If you have any suggestions for managing this then signal me and I will do what I can. If you would - watch the students and comment on any first edits. Thanks. Let me know if there is any class which you would like for me to watch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Lawes has been accepted

Tom Lawes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Flat Out (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Bond distribution rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (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) 09:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

AccountabilityGroup

Orginal Message:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "AccountabilityGroup", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent a group rather than a single individual. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. DES (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a single user and not a group. This was orginally going to be my business name but never started the business.

I just edit pages or add a page once in a while.

Next steps please?

AccountabilityGroup (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, AccountabilityGroup. I urge you to take the following steps:

1. Read Wikipedia:Changing username
2. Pick a new username you would like that doesn't sound like a buisness name or one havin special privilages (read Wikipedia:Username policy for details.
3. Check at Special:CentralAuth to make sure your chosen new user name is not already taken. If it is, keep trying until you find one you like that isn't.
4. Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest to apply for your new name by email (fastest, but requires use of email) or to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple (email not required). Follow all insturctions.
5. Your existing account will be moved to the new name you requested. This may take a few days, but not usually more.

I hope those are clear and easy to follow steps. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Bilfinger Construction - once Germany's second largest building company

Is Wikipedia really better with Bilfinger Construction deleted? Eldizzino (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eldizzino, Wikipedia is better when an uncited, promotional version of such an article does not exist. Speedy deletion is no bar to creating a proper version at the same title, and indeed often spurs such improved recreation. DES ^(talk) 12:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel. I have a quick question for you. I sometimes see article references end with the words "Retrieved on [such and such a date]." Does that mean what I think it means: that that's the date when the editor verified and included that reference, and that it was accurate (and if applicable, the link worked) as of that date? And if that's the case, when would it be appropriate for me to use it, and when should it not be used. As always I really appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Richard27182, that is just what it means. If you are using the citation templates, such as {{tl}cite web}, {{cite news}}, [[tl|cite journal}}, {{cite book}} and the like, this can be generated with |access-date= or |accessdate=. There is some difference of opinion on what sort of references should use it. At the very least, when the source is a web page that might change it should always be used. Some say it shouldn't be used when the source is a static web page, such as the image of a newspaper or a book. I say that it should be used anytime a URL is supplied as part of a source citation. It should, in any case, indicate that on the specified date the link worked, and the contents supported the specified statement(s) in the article. That way, if the page is later taken down or changes, the date is a starting point for a search for a useful archived copy. This format is not used with a purely print source, such as a newspaper or book not found online. DES ^(talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Request re RfC

Regarding your closure of my RfC yesterday: not to argue anything, but would you help me understand what the problem was? You cited:

• "improper, non-actionable RfC",
• "non-neutral", and
• "result could not be used to edit the relevant guideline page."

Perhaps the last item connects with the "non-actionable"? My comment would be not directly, but that deeper delving into the situation is needed before any change can be contemplated. Are RfCs not appropriate for querying the community as to whether a problem exists? Similarly, I don't understand how non-neutral is a problem here. Yes, I was trying find instances supporting a certain view, but that is actually the view I doubt, and where I have no objection to "building the other side's argument" (especially where the proponent seems not up to it) I don't see why it should be an issue. In respect of WP:WRFC#Neutrality, I would argue that asking for instances of something (as a means of establishing existence directly) is not biased in the way that asking for comments that something exists would be. But perhaps not?

I would be grateful if you could aid my understanding on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

J. Johnson, first of all, take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment it says, among other things:

• "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties "
• "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages."

To me, this means that an RFC ought to ask a question whose answer will be actionable

• "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued.

It seemed to me that your RFC was aimed at arguing that a statement had been made without supporting evidence, and was intended to bolder the argument that no such evidence could be found That may have been a mistake on my part.

• "Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article."
• "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template"

IMO, failure to make the RFC statement itself neutral is highly improper, and IME it leads to failed RFCs that produc lots of drama and no useful result.

• "Keep the RfC statement short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?""
• "The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available"

Your RFC assumed not just the section title but much of the prior discussion on the page, it seemed to me.

An RfC on how the policy ought to be changed, or whether the current formulation is liable to abuse or causes bad results might be useful. But in my view an RfC that appears to seek support or opposition to a mere debating point in earlier discussion, and one that was at least arguably rhetorical exaggeration at that is to focus on the prior discussion itself and/or the editors adn their conduct, not on what policy changes would help the project. That is what I meant by "improper, non-actionable" and "result could not be used to edit the relevant guideline page." Do you see my points now? Or do you still disagree? DES ^(talk) 03:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree, more that I have yet to find the light of understanding. And I thank you for your time and patience in explaining this.

My understanding of your views is that there are two main objections: non-actionable, and non-neutral. As to the first, I agree that the question raised is (as I said above) not directly actionable. But regarding the question orginally raised ("How important is WP:CITEVAR?") a point was raised that CITEVAR is possibly counter-productive. My RfC was an attempt to resolve that point, which might then be "actionable" in resolving (one way or the other) the question of CITEVAR's importance. Which in turn might (or not) bear on any question of changing CITEVAR, and therefore (or so I think) an important point to consider. But perhaps you are saying too indirect, that an RfC can be used only for specific proposals? Not for establishing any consensus that might lead to specific proposals?

My RfC was indeed explicitly aimed at resolving a point "made without supporting evidence". While a lack of results would indeed bolster the argument against, any credible showing of such instances would pretty much settle the matter the other way. Is this not reasonably neutral? (What I was seeking was not "support or opposition" in the usual sense of a great clamor for and against, but of specific evidence that might settle the point.)

If I am mistaken anywhere, then so be it, but I would appreciate a better understanding of how that is.

BTW: You suggest that an RfC on "whether the current formulation is liable to abuse or causes bad results might be useful." You might note the distinction between bad results from reasonable application of an inherently flawed formulation, and from abuse of a reasonable formulation, perhaps by "admins". The latter is, of course, not the fault of the tool, and I think discussion of "admin abuse" tends to be non-useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

coding error?

I dont think the coding that you entered at the end of this post [1] is working the way you intended it to. I think is displaying the user name of the most recent person to edit the page and not your name (or at least for me now, it is displaying my user name).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRPoD. I have fixed that page. It may be that {{Request ping}} still needs work. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Stewart Holley nominated for deletion

I need help with this one. What can I do?

Nomination of Stewart Holley for deletion[edit source]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stewart Holley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Holley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee530 (talk • contribs)

In one sense, there is nothing you need to do, Renee530. A discussion has been opened about whether the article Stewart Holley should be deleted or not. The policy-based consensus of those editors who comment will determine the outcome. If you think that the article should be retained, then your best option is to establish the Notability of Stewart Holley. You should do this by finding and adding to the article citations to reliable sources that discuss Stewart Holley in some detail and that are independent of Stewart Holley. This means no blogs, no press releases, nothing from Stewart Holley himself or any team he has played on or anyone closely associated with him. Newspaper or magazine sources are good. And in detail means more then a mere mention that he plays for a team or in a particular game. Also, the sources should not be mere local publications, but be regional, national, or international in scope, if possible. If such publications can't be found, then the article will probably be deleted, and not recreated until and unless such sources can be cited. Also read the Basketball notability guideline.

If you do manage to find and cite such sources, post to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Holley and describe your findings. Note that in general amateur and semi-pro players are not considered notable just for playing. Good luck.

And by the way, when you post a message to someone on his or her talk page on a new subject, you should normally put it in a new section, as it says at the top of my talk page. And when a particular article is involved, a wiki-link to that article saves time for everyone. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For your further information, Renee530 WP:NHOOPS is a shorthand for our guideline on notability of basketball players. It basically says that a player must have played at least one game in a fully professional major (national level) league to be considered notable for playing basketball. WP:GNG is a shorthand for the General Notability Guideline which defines the major ways that any subject can be notable, primarily by reliable independent coverage in some depth. I urge you to follow both links and read both pages. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Winner Twins Again

Dear DES ^(talk), Please review the new Winner Twins Page I edited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SciFiChronicle/sandbox Thanks in advance, hope I got it right this time SciFiChronicle (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

my submission was denied for my article

I made some changes and trimmed what I felt were Peacock Terms but wondered if you could take a brief look and offer me some suggestions. I do feel I have many independent reliable sources I have cited for the article. I have also added links to her personal life that I would have added but felt it made the tone more business than personal. I just want to know if there is anything I can do or change to get the biography accepted since she is clearly worthy of being on wikipedia. If its anything I have done incorrectly I would like to correct it, delete it....whatever needs done to comply to get her biography accepted. thanks for all, mary Paulhus15 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Paulhus15, I made a couple of edits to the draft, and I will make a longer further comment when I have the chance. DES ^(talk) 13:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

don't even know how to say thank you for your help, suggestions, corrections and input on the biography I am working on. I just signed on and was about to work on the ref citations and see many of them are already completed. my sincere gratitude for all. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to help, Mary. When you can, help others in turn here or elsewhere. Please note that not all of the chages were my work, see the page history.

Another user filled in several citations with the reFill tool. I someti4ems use a very similaer tool, called reflinks, which is available on the gadgets tab of the Wikipedia preferences page. These tools grab as much metadata as they can from the linked source document and fill out a citation template. However, they often can't do as complete a job as a human can working manually, because outside web pages have no standard format for where things such as date and author and name of site are placed. You might want to enhance the citations made with this tool.

I noted that in this edit you took a citation I had added using a template and turned it into one that did NOT use a template. Do you dislike the cite templates? Some editors don't like them, and they are not at all required. Others think they make things easier. But it is a good idea for any particular article to be reasonably consistent in their use or non-use, although at the draft stage this is not very important. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I love it. It looks fantastic. I was just about to try doing the citations (I had gotten behind a few walls here today at work to compare what to do) and when I returned home and realized you and Timtrent had helped I think with most of the list. I profusely thanked him as well. Definitely I will help here or elsewhere if someone asked. Its all good karma. Not sure if its ready for re-submission but I think its looking pretty close to what might be accepted here. Paulhus15 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you so much for all. she will be so happy and proud to be here Paulhus15 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A great quibble deserves a kitten

After your quibble I decided to alter, slightly, the standard replies I use when reviewing to encompass your thoughts. A day when we learn something is always a good day.

Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	you're fantastic. thanks for all Paulhus15 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And still yet another question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I have a question that I've not been able to find an answer to in all the help material.  I've been involved in an RFC which has very recently been formally closed by an uninvolved editor. I believe the uninvolved editor interpreted the postings by the involved editors correctly and reached a completely appropriate conclusion, and I am very satisfied with the outcome. My question is this:

• When an RFC is formally closed by an uninvolved editor, assuming the uninvolved editor has acted appropriately, is there anything that those who might not be so satisfied with the result can do to try to get the decision reversed? Or is the closer's decision pretty much locked in?

I hope the decision stands, but if there is any way it could be "appealed" so to speak, I'd at least want to be prepared for it. Here is a link to the closed RFC: *CLOSED RFC*.
      (I'm sure this could not be considered "canvassing" since the help I'm asking for is simply the answer to a question; and besides, the RFC is closed now anyway.)
      As always, I very much appreciate your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 An RFC is simply a way of forming and documenting consensus. And it is very clear that consensus can change. There is no formal appeal process as such, but if at a later time an editor thinks the decision should be changed, discussion or a new RFC could revise it. However, it is usually frowned on to try to reconsider such a decision until some time has elapsed, but ther3e is no formal standard for how much time. I would advise you, if yoiu are concerned with the matter, to put the page on your watch-list but not to otherwise worry about any future "appeals". DES ^(talk) 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel. If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like the current status is not permanently locked in, but probably no one will attempt to change it right away; although the issue may get revisited sometime in the future. (Please correct me if I'm not understanding correctly.) As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, yes you are correct. Pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is "permanently locked in". Given a proper source, or consensus, any article content may be changed at any time. The very basic foundational policies are more or less locked in, but all else is subject to change, if the community thinks proper. DES ^(talk) 11:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I change the name of the 'Small plate movement' article?

Hi, thanks for your feedback on my article: 'Small Plate Movement.' I've realised that there isn't really a lot out there on the 'Movement' itself, but I do have a lot of secondary sources for the 'smaller plate study' itself. Therefore, I think the article would work if it was named the 'Smaller Plate Study' instead. Can I have the article name changed or do I have to create a whole new article? Roxydog13 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

sure you can, Roxydog13. move the page using the Page Move item on the page menu. DES ^(talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Trishneet007

Looks like someone trying to pretend to be Trishneet in order to make Trishneet look bad. There's a name for it (reverse sock?). Anyway it's a duck that quacks like the same sock nominator who was blocked. -- GreenC 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, Green Cardamom, sockpuppet checks are not at all my specialty, and I was in no way involved with the one on Trishneet. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I confused you with another admin with a similar name and anyway, I'm just confused. All taken care of. -- GreenC 17:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Green Cardamom, thanks. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Takeshi Murata

I think I've put just about everything into the Takeshi Murata page that belongs there (and probably then some!). He now has a more detailed page than some other artists at a comparable stage in their careers, but on the other hand, the fact that his work comprises animations means that it made sense to point to key works, so that at least portions of each artwork can be experienced by Wikipedia readers as they learn more about him. I think what I've pulled together gives a bit of a narrative through some career highlights - but perhaps you can take a look and edit or add anything that might be missing, please? Thank you for your previous edits, too. RadBanana (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I will, RadBanana. One minor point, please start new topics in new sections on a talk page like this, it avoids confusion. DES ^(talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, still learning the formatting. RadBanana (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@RadBanana: It is a minor point. You can read WP:Talk and Help:Using talk pages if you like, but they are not vital. DES ^(talk) 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Id say its looking pretty good, @RadBanana:. I made some small format changes. There are some news stories linked at: http://www.ratio3.org/artists/takeshi-murata/press and it may be that some of them could serve as additional sources. I am tempted to write to Murata and ask for freely licenses images, but who know how long that might take. DES ^(talk) 02:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the news stories at that link and have looked through a few of them, but I'm not sure that there's much that's quotable. I figure that getting a basic description of some key works (I may add some text about Pink Dot) that may encourage readers to follow the links and watch may be the right amount of info, and then leave it up to them to find and read all of the prose by the critics at the links. It's your call on asking Murata for pics, but the can be added whenever.RadBanana (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't reviewed the stories, RadBanana, I just noticed them in case they are useful. Pics would be good, but I may wait until I'm slightly less busy on other matters. No rush on that. Again this looks pretty good to me. Woukld you object to a WP:DYK nom? DES ^(talk) 11:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IP edits to Tell MAMA

Hi, thanks for protecting my talk comment [2]. I am convinced these anonymous ips are editing as agents of Tell MAMA. Hopefully things will settle down, but if not do you think it would help to block anonymous ips from editing this article? --Flexdream (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, Template:Flexdream, and you may well be right about their acting as agents of Tell MAMA. Usually semi-protection is only done when the disruptive edits are frequent and persist enough, from enough different IPs that it can't be handled by normal reverts, nor by a range block. But the place to ask is WP:RFP. They aren't pure vandals, they did have a point with the "ballad" that should never have been there, and the inline link to Burton's blog. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unmatched quotation mark

Hi, there is an unmatched quotation mark at the end of ALT1 in Template:Did you know nominations/Takeshi Murata. If you intended to quote something, a beginning quotation mark needs to be added. I suspect that you copied the original hook and edited it for ALT1, and the quotation mark is an extraneous remnant, in which case it should be removed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandarax. You are absolutely correct, that quote mark was an editing artifact left from modifying a copy of the first hook so as not to use a direct quote. I have removed it. Are you reviewing the DYK nom, by the way? DES ^(talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not reviewing it. I was just going through all of the nominations, doing some gnomework. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A very simple question

Hi DESiegel. I have a very simple and straightforward question for you. I know that both "{{ping|Whoever}}" and "{{U|Whoever}}" will cause the person's name to appear as a link in the posting, and will notify them that their name has been mentioned in a posting. I also know that functionally they differ in that one will cause just the name to appear, while the other will surround the name with an "@" symbol and a colon. What I would like to know is: When is it considered more appropriate to use the one over the other and vice versa? Whenever possible, I like to do things in the most appropriate way. Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard. Either is perfectly appropriate. I personally tend to prefer {{U}}, but many almost always use {{ping}}. There is also {{reply to}}. And even a simple, untemplated link to a user page. like [[User:Richard27182]] has the same effect, all the templates do is create such a link and for,mat it a bit. {{ping}} is used more to directly address someone, most often at the start of a comment. the "@" convention is borrowed from Facebook, I think. I use ping when I want to attract several people to the same thread, but otherwise I prefer to put such a link into running text, as i did here. For that {{U}} works better i think. But it is just a matter of personal style, no more. In any case remember that the link must be added as part of a signed comment in the same edit where a signature is added, or the notification doesn't happen. See Wikipedia:Notifications for more info. DES ^(talk) 10:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Biography help requested

Thank you for the contact . I am learning that wikipedia is a language all it's own. I am wanting to create a biography (not mine personally) page. I've read, I've perused, and watched some video-but I am missing something. Is there a link in which I could be taken through this process ? Once I understand and complete this first project, then I can move forward with writing or editing articles. My interests lie in metaphysics, the Universe, energy healing, auras, crop circles, life after death, communicating with the other side, and a myriad of other subjects that link science with spirituality. I appreciate any information. Denisemedium Denisemedium (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Denisemedium, The pages most often recommended for someone wanting to create a new article are Your first article, and this summary of the essential requirements for an article to exist. For biographies, Wikipedia:Notability (people) is also vital. To briefly summarize all of these, an article must be about someone (or something) that is "notable. Wikipedia uses this term in a rather special way: Wikipedia considers that a subject is notable if published independent reliable sources have written about the subject in some detail. This means that a persons web page, social media posts, or published books don't count, but newspaper reviews of a person's books do. This also means that blogs, online fora, social media in general, and wikis and other sites relying on user-provided content don't count, but publications with editorial standards and fact checking, such as reputable newspapers and magazines, books by reputable publishers, scholarly publications, especially if peer-reviewed, generally will count. Also, coverage must normally be more than local, at least some of it should be in a publication with a regional, national, or international scope.

Then there are matters of layout, formatting and tone, but those are irrelevant until the sources have been found that establish notability. (Without that, no article can exist. ) The tone of a Wikipedia article should be somewhat formal. People are normally mentioned by their surnames, for example, not their first or personal names, and particularly not by nicknames. Wikipedia articles should be neutral. this means that they don't take sides, don't argue for or against anything or anyone. They factually report what reliable sources have already published. They don't report new facts never before published: that is considered original research and is not accepted. Wikipedia articles should not state opinions or make value judgements. They can quote (or summarize) other people who have done so, but must cite the exact source of each such quotation, and explicitly attribute it to the person who said or wrote it, in the article text.

Also, given your stated interests our guideline on "Fringe" topics should be read, as articles that fall within this area should comply.

I see you created User:Denisemedium/sandbox, which seems to be the start of a biography about a "Psychic Medium, American Author, Intuitive Consultant, Teacher". If this nins't intended as autobiography, it certainly looks like it at a quick glance.

Such an article, if it were to exist, should be titled simply "Denise Lescano", (and should have a parenthetic sub title ONLY if there is already an article about another Denise Lescano). It should start something like, "Denise Lescano (born 19xx) is a Psychic Medium, American Author, Intuitive Consultant, and Teacher." and immediately go one to summarize in a few sentences (at most 2-3 paragraphs) what makes Denise Lescano notable and important to others. Then the rest of the article can give more details of Lescano's life and achievvements. Note that we are particularly strict that any significant fact in a biography article about a living person must be cited to a reliable source. See WP:BLP. for more details.

There is much more, but I am out of time for the moment, and that is probably enough to start with. Does that seem helpful? DES ^(talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for agreeing to be my mentor. When time permits, please visit my user talk page for details of the task ahead. Paul J Heritage (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Paul J Heritage (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I have two important questions for you.

• First, if I'm in a DRN discussion and the moderator is very clearly demonstrating significantly biased behavior toward one side (I mean like he's actually making arguments in favor of one side and against the other), do I have the right to request that a different moderator be assigned; or am I just stuck with him?  and second....
• Once the DRN has been closed, can just anyone (including me) open an RFC; or does that have to go through certain channels (ie, would I have to request that a qualified editor do it)?
        Thank you.  As always I really appreciate your advice.
  Richard27182 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Richard27182, I have to tell you that in the underlying dispute, I basically agree with Nyttend. To say, In a Wikipedia article that "X is a psychic" need not imply a statement that X's claimed powers are real, any more than to say "X is a priest" implies that there is an actual deity. In both cases there is what might be called a believer's and a skeptic's definition of the term. And i say this as a former paid member of CSICOP.

Secondly, I don't think the moderator handled this very well. But neither did the other editor who first responded to the moderator, in my view. However, the moderator has withdrawn and another one will join the discussion, so there is no reason to discuss the first moderator's conduct further, and i did not ping that editor.

Thirdly, you always have the right to request a new moderator at DRN, but if you do this too often, it may be that no new moderator will be willing to enter the case.

Fourthly, DRN is not binding. It operates by trying to reach a consensus among the parties. If that can't be done, it has failed. If no satisfactory outcome has been reached, the issue can be perused by other means, including an RFC.

Fifthly, there is no telling for sure how an RFC would come out on this issue, but I rather suspect that if one were held, it would not favor your position, but something close to that of Nyttend. Of course, i could be wrong about that prediction. I have been wrong before in predicting how consensus will develop on Wikipedia.

I urge you to try to understand the position of Nyttend and others who think the unqualified use of the term "psychic" is appropriate in such articles. I do commend you for having discussed at the outset, and not having tried to edit war. DES ^(talk) 09:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      I see that, not only has The Editor of All Things Wikipedia withdrawn, but another editor, Jaaron95, has expressed a possible interest in moderating the case, "awaiting dispute summary from Nyttend."  This leads to a couple questions I hope you'll be able to answer for me.

• What would be considered a reasonable amount of time for Nyttend to take to enter into the process (assuming that's going to happen)?
• If Nyttend refuses to become involved, can someone still agree to moderate and have the DRN process proceed; or do the rules require that both of the original editors involved in the dispute participate?

As always, I respect and appreciate your advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard27182, in fact The Editor of All Things Wikipedia has not only withdrawn, that editor has just been restricted from acting as a mediator or DRN or Helpdesk volunteer for 6 months among other restrictions, based in part on the DRN case you are involved with, adn on many other incidents as well. As to your questions:

• there is no fixed time, but it would not be unusual for a DRN discussion to wait for a participant for several days to a week.
• As DRN is intended to help the parties come to an agreement, it is pointless if there is only one party participating. If there are several editors involved, and in particular if there are active editors representing each of the expressed views on the matter DRN can proceed.
• In any case, DRN outcomes, while respected, are not binding. If an editor disagrees with the conclusion or if no conclusion can be reached, other DR steps can be tried, in particular an RFC on a content matter, such as this is. (Conduct issues take other routes, but I am gflad this is not one.)

I hope that helps DES ^(talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      I see that since our last exchange, things have gone from bad to worse to the worst possible case concerning The Editor of All Things Wikipedia.  I'm glad that it was primarily over something other than the DRN issue in which I was involved.  Anyway that's not the reason I'm writing.
      If I'm understanding you correctly, the DRN discussion can proceed even without Nyttend, as long as other editors are involved and at least some of them support Nyttend's position.  This raises a big concern for me.  Right now other editors cannot participate in the moderated discussion because the DRN discussion has not yet been opened.  JAaron95 has more or less indicated  that he would (presumably) open the case when Nyttend posts his dispute summary.  This seems to be a variation of a "catch-22."  It appears to put Nyttend in a position of being able to singlehandedly prevent the DRN case from ever being opened simply by sitting back and doing nothing.  Am I interpreting this correctly?  Or will JAaron95 (or someone else) eventually open the case even if Nyttend never posts his dispute summary?  If the answer is "no," it certainly seems unfair.
      As always, thank you for your time and your assistance.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hi DESiegel.  What I was afraid would happen is apparently going to happen.  JAaron95 (the potential new moderator for the Miss Cleo DRN case) has indicated that if Nyttend does not make his opening statement within 48 hours, then he (JAaron95) will close the case.  Can he close the case without ever having officially opened it?  And if he does so, can I list the case for RFC myself, or would that need to be done by a different editor?  Thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 remember, DRN is not in any case binding on anyone. Its sole purpose is to help people reach agreement. if you think that it would be helpful for you to work on reaching agreement with those still commenting on the talk page, you can do so directly on the talk page, or you can ask JAaron95 if he would keep the DRN thread open for that purpose, assuming that the other editors are willing. Remember that no one can be required to participate in a DRN discussion. You can always file an RFC, although it looks better not to do so while there is a related DRN case open. But DRN is not a prerequisite to an RFC. Be warned, on the merits, I think such an RFC will not get the consensus you are looking for, but it is always possible. You might want to try to consider if the editors who have taken a different view from yours might have a point. DES ^(talk) 23:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Thank you for the reply and suggestions.
      The Miss Cleo talk page has turned into more of a discussion on the merits of DRN itself; there don't seem to be any editors on there who want to talk about the original issue.
      I have posted something under the Miss Cleo DRN asking JAaron95 if he would consider waiting longer than 48 hours, and he agreed to keep it open for another 48 hours.
      I would never file an RFC before the DRN (if there is one, as is the case here) has been closed.  Anyway I want to ask you if it's OK for me to file the RFC myself.  (I am one of the two original disputing editors.)   And also, is following the directions on Wikipedia:Requests for comment sufficient, or is there more involved in filing an RFC?
      As always I very much appreciate your advice and assistance.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help? Article declined for 2nd time, with new reasons

Hello DESiegel,

My article Sacred Attention Therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sacred_Attention_Therapy&redirect=no) has been declined for the 2nd time with the following reason(s):

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notabilityand the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

You had very kindly offered me some good feedback previously...and I was hoping you could help me again. Please note that the article had been submitted before I was able to address your previous comments.

Questions for you:

1. How do I know which references are in need of correction/improvement? 2. Is the latest feedback because of the issue(s) you brought up in your recent, helpful comments? That is, if I addressed the comments you previously made, would the latest reviewer's comments NOT been made?

Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

RobMeagherSAT (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RobMeagherSAT, taking your second question first, i dfon't know how the reveiwer woudl have reacted had my suggestions been followed. No one but the reviewer will know, so I suggest that you might ask Flat Out. However i am confident that none of my suggestions would have hurt the draft's chances of success. Soem reviewers stop when they find a good reason to reject, and don't list other reasons that might be present. others try to give a fairly full critique. There are many drafts waiting, so reviewers (who are, after all, unpaid volunteers) may not want to spend lots of time on a draft that is clearly not ready for acceptance. However, the reasons seem rather separate, so fixing both sets of issues would probably be best.

As to the quality of the currently cited sources: I of course can't review the offline sources. taking nthe ones I can access:

• Spalding, Matthew L (2008). Trusting the Process doesn't seem to mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all, and no page numbers are specified. What was this source cited for?
• McDonald, Cynthia, et.al. The perceived effects of psycho-spiritual integrative therapy seems to be about "Psycho-Spiritual Integrative Therapy" It also does not mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all. Again no page number is given. What was this cited for?
• Cherry, Kendra. Trait Theory of Personality also does not mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all, Moreover about.com is generally considered a marginal source at best.
• Character and the Social Process also fails to mention Sacred Attention or Richard Harvey at all. Are you seeing a pattern here? Since this was written in 1942 it hardly could have, I suppose. (Also the cite omitted to state the author, but that would be easily corrected if the cite was relevant.)

None of the online sources mention the article subject at all. This is a major problem. Now let's look at the offline sources.

• Rowan, John. (1993). appears to be a book, world cat says it has 317 pages. But no page numbers are cited. it is not reasonable to excpect a reader to read an entrie book to look for the specific supporting information you are citing for.
• Barrick, Marilyn C., Ph.D. (2000). Sacred Psychology of Change has 224 pages according to worldcat, and similarly has no page references.
• Watts, Alan. (1961). Psychotherapy East and West has just under 200 pages, with no page cite.

That leaves only a few cited sources

• Your Essential Self and The Flight of Consciousness are both by Richard Harvey They are therefore not independent, and so don't count towards notability at all. But if they did, both cite a range of over 150 pages, again unreasonable and therefore useless.
• Finally The Red Thread of Passion lists two pages in its citation. But after so many failed cites, it is hard to trust this offline source fully. And at best it is a single source, while notability generally requires multiple independent sources. Moreover, in the article the description of this work suggests that it is being cited for descriptions of different therapy techniques that are more or less related to Sacred Attention, but are not the same thing. if that is so, it would not contribute to notability anyway.

What is needed is several clearly reliable independent sources that directly discuss Sacred Attention Therapy itself in some detail, and not just related or predecessor methods. If these could be online it would be better. Then, the content must be strictly limited to what can be directly supported by the cited sources. Drawing conclusions by combining info from two or more sources or by extrapolating form what a source actually says is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and is not acceptable.

I hope that is helpful. Please feel dfree to ask again with any questions. I will copy some of this to the draft's talk page for your use and the attention of future reviewers. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel for this wonderful feedback. I will work with your suggestions to see if I can get the article to a more acceptable level. Thanks again for all your efforts...much appreciated. RobMeagherSAT (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me in DES , RobMeagherSAT I reviewed a significant number of drafts to help clear a backlog and didn't leave any additional comments, but I saw the sections Lineage and Core elements make up a significant percentage of the article content and were not well referenced. There are other issues about the subject and references to support the notability of the subject (not Richard Harvey). I am happy to discuss on my talk page. Flat Out (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DES and Flat Out, thank you for all your help. After your last rounds of feedback, I took a step back from article authoring. The discovery of a Wikipedia article with no 'verifiable' references made me come back to authoring my article.

I have updated my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sacred_Attention_Therapy&redirect=no) to reflect:

1. Initial feedback to provide context. DES, I also used your suggestion to model the opening piece around the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy article. This was helpful. Respecting the fact that SAT differs fundamentally from CBT and all other known therapeutic approaches (e.g., traditional counseling and psychotherapy), I did what I could. 2. All discussion involving any form of analysis about the uniqueness of SAT I removed. 3. I removed all references previously used as they seemed to be at the heart of some concern by reviewers to date. Again, I found a published article in Wikipedia that had no verifiable references and felt this was the best approach to take at this time, given we are not aware of an independent source that has written about Richard Harvey or SAT.

Before I submit the latest version of the article for review, I would be interested to hear what either/both of you have to think/say about the latest version.

In appreciation for your time and efforts.

RobMeagherSAT (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RobMeagherSAT some of the sources in the draft were perhaps inappropriate, and several of them were used without making it clear how their content relates, if it does, to Sacred Attention Therapy. What is needed is more and better sources, not fewer. While it is no doubt true that Wikipedia has a number of articles with no cited sources, most of these will date from an earlier era when Wikipedia standards were lower. Others will have more or less snuck through the cracks. But that does not mean that this is acceptable. See the essay Other Stuff Exists for why this is a very pooor argument to make on Wkipedia. If "we are not aware of an independent source that has written about Richard Harvey or SAT." and if in fact no such source exists, then these topics are not notable and there will not be a Wikipedia article about them. I can promise you that no AfC reviewer would pass a draft with no cited sources to the main article space. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DES for your review of the latest draft and for your comments. It does appear unfortunate that consistent standards have not been applied to all articles in Wikipedia. Again, thank you for all your efforts...much appreciated. Sincerely, RobMeagherSAT (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is unfortunate, RobMeagherSAT. It is also pretty much inevitable. With over 5 million articles currently on the English-language edition of Wikipedia, checking every article agaisnt every change in policy and practice is not a feasible project. You will find, however, that the overwhelming majority of articles currently live do use independent sources, and that most of those that do not are tagged to indicate that such sources are needed. If you care to mention the article you noticed, i might be able to add sources to it or mark it as needing sources. By the way, I got the link to the essay above wrong, it is fixed now. DES ^(talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Helpdesk Answer

I noticed you commented on an email notifications question on the help desk, Im pretty sure that my answer is he better way for the user to do it but I am pretty new here and do not want to cause conflict by deleting your comment. Would you mind taking a look? Fyi im not trying to be confrontational or anything because I have come off that way in the past. :) Thanks, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 22:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are confrontational, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, but in this case i think you are mistaken. For odd historical reasons, most of the email-related preferences are on the notification tab, but not the one for email about watch list changes, which is not technically a "notification" because it uses a different mechanism. Check for yourself, I just did. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think another user's comment at the helpdesk or Teahouse is incorrect, offer your correction but please don't delete the other comment. That can be confusing as well as impolite. The other user may strike his or her comment after reading yours if s/he agrees that it was mistaken. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasnt going to delete your comment nor was I urging you too so dont worry about that :). I just thought that the user wasnt asking for watchlist notificatons and just if someone reverts any edits. It doesnt matter in the great scheme of things, he can decide what serves him best. I thing the main issue in this case is interpreting what exactly the user is asking for. Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 23:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. Users at the helpdesk often don't say very clearly just what they do want. Now the user can learn about both options. i only mentioned deleting comments because you mentioned that above. "I ... do not want to cause conflict by deleting your comment." DES ^(talk) 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that meaning something else. Thanks for putting another comment that shows a little more about both :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DES

I was just going to ask you about being a mentor for me because I realize how out of my depth I am here. If you can help by recommended readings and assignments, that would be great, or anything else you could see I might find helpful. What is going on over at the administrator board? It looks like Editor at all things wikipedia is actually another user... was he banned and has joined again as a sock puppet? Anyway it's actually quite a fun community but I worry once I'm off vacation and back to work I won't have as much time to invest in this (but I hope I will).Cityside189 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help or mentor you, Cityside189.

Wikipedia can be addictive. Beware of editcountitis.

TEoATW is either a very over-enthusiastic new editor trying to reach beyond his grasp, or a very subtle socking disruptor. I think the former. It can be hard to tell in such cases. But in either case that editor seems about to fall under some significant restrictions. I just notified you since your name was mentioned in the thread. I wouldn't worry to much, but you are entitled to notice when your user name is mentioned on ANI.

Have a look at my advice to User:Paul J Heritage on his talk page User talk:Paul J Heritage.

As to suggested readings, it dependfs what you want to do here. If you are interested in creating new articles, I'd suggest Your first article and the golden rule. For that or for adding to existing articles, I would suggest reading WP:V, referencing for beginners, and citing sources and notability. It might also be a good idea to look at articles for deletion and follow a few deletion debates. To have a look at new content and how it gets reviewed, try WP:DYK. What questions do you have and what areas are you interested in? DES ^(talk) 05:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of freaked out at this Editor user. He just accused me of sock puppetry on my home page. Can he do that? Can you look at this for me? I've read his posts on the administrator discussion board, his work on the previous dispute page, and this seems really problematic. Can I start a complaint about his opening an investigation about me? I'll have to leave this for a while to cool off... !! Thanks for your help and I'll hope to write more tomorrow. Cityside189 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cityside189 I wrote a comment on your talk page after you said that you were frightened of me and that I was harrassing you on Beyond My Kens talk page. On the notice it says the page of the investigation. On this page, you can make objections. I did not accuse you of sock puppetry, Beyond My Ken did. He accused me and you of being sockpuppets (under control of one person). In order to prove thag we are not sockpuppets which we arent, I opened an investigation so that way they can look at both our IP addresses (Basically unique codes that say what wifi youre using) and see that they do not match, (two sockpuppet accounts would) proving that we are both innocent of these uncalled accusations made by Beyond My Ken. There is no need to be scared or worried about it, it is simply a formality to clear us both of these accusations. I did not intend on scaring or frightening you and posted a comment in regards to that on your talk page. Please also let me know of conversations like these that would otherwise be behind my back not allowing me to explain the misunderstanding. And keep in mind, I know you arent a sockpuppet but the others dont necessarily so the investigation needs to be completed to prove that we arent. The investigation might not even be approved so dont worry too much.:) Thanks and welcome to wikipedia! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 07:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, don't worry. The matter of the "sockpuppet investigation" started by TEoATW has been mentioned in the WP:ANI thread, and will be dealt with properly in due course. Already one editor has moved to close the discussion and act on the proposed restrictions. I have commented on the SPI page and several times in the ANI thread. Anyone can file an SPI, but it has no effect unless persuasive evidence is brought forward. Your standing as an editor will not be harmed. DES ^(talk) 12:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's easy to get caught up in this online galaxy. My main reason for joining was for the enjoyment of dialog and contributing to the truth. When I did research years ago, I liked the academic world. I'm in the "real world" now where "what's best" is completely relative. And in my regular life I've come to grips with the discomfort of ethical dilemmas. In research and statistics, it's easier to know what's true and good and I like to be on the side of good. If Wikipedia existed back when the prevailing "truth" was that the world was flat, it may not have taken us as long to come to grips with the fact of it being round.

So I have looked at some topics I thought were boring so that I wouldn't get caught up in emotional topics. So I went to "Doorknobs", and actually had some fun editing that article. I also helped an author's article on her books. I plan to do some research and talk page suggestions for edits on Mental Health counseling as well. I'm learning that talk pages are a better place to propose edits and then later on to edit or even let others do the editing.

I don't think I have the energy for starting new articles yet. There's so much more to do with the existing articles.

I would like to make sure my use of the Wiki language is good. Is it Basic? Paschal? Unix? I notice that when you write to others, certain links appear in your text that allow the reader to bounce over and read more what you are saying. Basically you're putting hyperlinks into the text. Is the Wiki language basically like Microsoft word where you can insert hyperlinks? I'd like to be able to include links in what I write so people can follow my thoughts without having to take cumbersome steps. For example, how would I link you in this sentence to the doorknobs article so you can see what I wrote there?Cityside189 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Cityside189. There is indeed much to do with existing articles, but creating new articles validly can be enjoyable too, and has the advantage that others are usually not changing what you do as often. But there is much room for each, and for other choices also.

There are lists and categories to help one find articles in need of particular kinds of effort. Many of these are listed at Wikipedia:Maintenance, its not a bad place to start looking for things to do, but just browsing at random can be a good way also, as can following whatever interests you.

Wikicode is a markup language, described at Help:Wiki markup and pages linked from there, and more generally at Wiki markup. The media-wiki software renders wiki-markup into HTML for display. Since it was intended for this purpose, there are some similarities between wiki-code and HTML. The main forms of markup I think you are seeing in my prose are wiki-links and piped links. Both are forms of inline hyperlinks. To illustrate this, [[Example]] renders as Example, and links to an article named Example. [[Example|instance]] renders as instance, but still links to the article "Example". Similarly [[Doorknobs]] renders as Doorknobs. One can also link to pages in other namespaces. [[Wikipedia:Example]] renders as Wikipedia:Example and [[User:DESiegel]] renders as User:DESiegel. Such links can also be piped: [[Wikipedia:Example|a page to use in demos]] renders as a page to use in demos. Wiki-links are normally preferred to URLs when linking or referring to pages on Wikipedia.

You will also encounter the use of templartes. These are basically macros or subroutine calls. They render as predefiend text, possibly including one or more parameters. They can include conditional logic, which makes them potentially quite powerful, but since this was a later addition the syntax is rather clumsy and potentially confusing. However that really matters only when writing or modifying a template, using a well-designed and documented template should be easy. Infoboxes such as {{infobox person}} are implemented as templates, for example as are {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and the other citation templates. Templates are invoked with paired braces {{template name here}} or with parameters separated by pipe symbols as {{template name here |parm1 |parm2 |parm3}} or named parameters such as {{template name here|type=alpha |class=beta |month=July}}.

Feel free to ask specific questions about wiki-markup, or anything else. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will have to study this so I can get a sense of how best to communicate. It's a bit more complicated than I thought. This is great and thank you for your continued invitations to ask more questions.

As I move forward I'm trying to un-do some damage that I think I did. One specific example is a creepy and weird note I wrote on Roscele's username talk page. I've tried to contact her in a post on LGBT Parenting talk page. Here's what I wrote to her there, just minutes ago. "Also... I'm embarrassed about what I wrote on your username -specific talk page, after reading it, it seems creepy and weird to me, and I'm the one that wrote it. I'd like to delete it, but at this point I don't want to do even that without achieving consensus. I've asked my mentor DES about what I should do now and in the future when I find myself blundering into stupid mistakes." So DES, do you have any advice on how to proceed? (Maybe you could look at her talk page and get back to me about what, if anything, to do.) Cityside189 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, When you feel that a comment you made on a talk page (not an article page) was inappropriate or incorrect, the preferred method is to strike the comment by putting it inside paired <s> and </s> tags, which you will recognize as straight HTML. Append a signed comment indicating why you are making this change. It is usually considered impolite to strike another person's comments, except possibly in the case of a severe personal attack. If the page or thread has already been archived, don't edit it for this purpose.

Above I gave you a wide variety of possible markup, but much of it is not often used in ordinary communication. links, indents, bulleted and numbered lists are the most frequent forms of markup on talk pages. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputed blocks

Hi. I just saw your post on ANI. Although I read the evidence for the Cityside189 as being a bit stronger than you do, and have great respect for User:Floquenbeam's approach to these sorts of matters (which probably include more unblocks than blocks), I agree with you that the evidence is not conclusive. Many times I've played the same role you did today of questioning such a block, and sometimes I've been right and sometimes I've been wrong; and sometimes I've been able to create or move a consensus and sometimes I haven't.

I urge that you not allow one instance in which other admins disagreed with you about a block, to sour you on the whole project. There are always going to be good-faith disagreements about administrator actions, and if everyone who didn't prevail in the collegial discussion was lost to the project as a result, we'd be virtually adminless by now. I can say from personal experience of seven years on the ArbCom that I was outvoted on decision-proposals and motions literally dozens of times, including more instances than I care to remember in which I was the sole dissenter. In retrospect, sometimes the majority was right, and sometimes I was right, and sometimes what we were arguing about didn't matter much anyway. But the fact that I was outvoted probably more often than anyone else didn't (if I say so myself) make me a bad arbitrator, and it didn't mean I wasn't effective at expressing my views, either; it just means that there are always decisions to be made on which not everyone will agree. And similarly as to administrators: If everyone always agreed, we wouldn't need a noticeboard whose purposes include discussing administrators' disagreements.

I understand that you're disaffected at the moment, but I hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I suppose you don't think taking this to arbcom would have any productive result.Earlier today i fully intended to do that, but this is the kind of judgemetn call they don't oftgen take up, am i correct?

I could understand if people had initially wanted to block TEoATW for disruption or nothere. But a decision was made and then totally overturned by one admin on basically no evidence but a "gut feeling". I understand that sometimes patterns of word usage, article selection and other behavior point to a sock when technical evidence can't be conclusive. But generally they point to a particular sockmaster. Ive been seeing more of "he got good too fast, must be a sock" and i think that fundamentally poor judgement, and likely to wind up shooting ourselves in the foot. last month I went to an edit-a-thon, and helped show several new users how to create accounts and edit articles -- at least one is now up for DYK. I told them that their fears of being abused by bullying long-term editors were groundless. i couldn't honestly do that again. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I encountered TEOATW before the drama, on Huggle, and tried to give them what guidance I could. I'm convinced their only problem was an excess of enthusiasm and a need for patient guidance to assimilate to WP culture.

I'm actually afraid this fiasco could have a really nasty result: although they've demonstrated all along that, although ambitious, they were happy to accept and apply even rudely-worded criticism, I'm worried this hurricane of ABF and insults could turn their energy and dedication towards becoming a long-term abuser. I don't think this is very likely, since all along their actions and words were demonstrating respect and admiration for the project, but if anything were to send them to the dark side this would be it. The whole thing was, in my opinion, not just a discredit but a threat to Wikipedia.

Then again, it's not my place to raise these issues, and as NYB says it's probably not worth it to pursue the issue further. If you can think of something to leave on their talk page to apologize on behalf of the community, that might be a good idea. Feel free to revdel this per beans, I guess. FourViolas (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is every editor's place to raise such issues. Whether anyone would listen in this case is another question, FourViolas. And i don't delete, much less revdel, content on my talk page without a much better reason than WP:BEANS, which along with WP:DENY I think is much over used. Thanks for your comments. DES ^(talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi from another user; i have watched the TEOATW thing develop for several days, since he first posted on WP:BN, i think, and have been very disappointed by the way a second editor got caught up. While i have great respect for the blocking editor, i believe he was mistaken this time, and would have said so had i seen the ANI thread you opened prior to its closure. At any rate, i believe your post and your AGF with Cityside189 reflect very well upon you ~ while i've seen you around the project previously, of course, i don't think i have interacted with you at all before, and i rather regret that now.... Unfortunately, it probably isn't worth pursuing it further, as too many people have opined too strongly that Cityside189 was not an innocent bystander; if you decide to, at some point, i'd appreciate a ping, just so i may offer my two cents worth. Again, thank you for your post ~ and for all you do around here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, sorry I didn't respond earlier; I've been returning from my trip today.

Regarding the possibility of taking this to ArbCom, I don't think it would be either appropriate or successful to bring this to the Committee as an "administrator conduct" case. The consensus on ANI seems to be that Floquenbeam acted reasonably, and in any event, admin-conduct cases are usually based on a pattern of bad acts by the administrator; here, I don't think anyone could make such a case against Floquenbeam, and indeed based on what I've seen, I would describe his judgment as being, not perfect, but well above average, even if you disagree with him the instance.

Separately, though, the blocked user could file an appeal to ArbCom if his or her other avenues of appeal were exhausted—more specifically, to the ban appeals subcommittee. Other avenues of appeal, if available, should be exhausted first, however.

In terms of what I would tell a hypothetical new user, I would say that new editors are generally treated fairly, and that fears of "being abused by bullying long-term editors" are misplaced. I don't think you need to change your advice in that regard at all. The caveat might be that new editors probably should not, near the outset of their editing careers, take on the responsibility of rehabilitating other new editors whose behavior is somewhere between problematic and unacceptable.

If either or both of these editors was a good-faith newcomer and trolling were ruled out as the cause of the behavior, the next-most-likely cause would be that they are, or were, younger editors who got a bit carried away with trying to get into all of the administrative and user-control aspects of the project much too soon. One of the reasons I wrote the first draft of what became Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors a few years back was to counsel such editors against exactly this mistake... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you saw this

User talk:Cityside189#Unblocking. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. I had already seen it, and commented briefly in the thread 2 sections above it, where I had an ongoing dialog with Cityside189. I will not comment on the unblock reasoning beyond that, but I am pleased with the outcome, and hope the ultimate results are positive for all. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ciyside189

Hi again Des. I wanted to write because of how relieved I am to be getting a fresh start. I think your encouragement really helped me hang in there. If I hadn't stumbled into the Tea House we may have never met, and I'm really glad we did. I'm also glad that you had the time and energy to talk with me, something that must not come easily to tenured editors with years of experience seeing the worst of new users. I also saw that Newyorkbrad had posted some information on your page and I was encouraged by that information also. I was going to write to him and thank him, and see if he had any time, energy or patience for some communication with me. However I thought it best to ask if you thought that was appropriate and maybe for an introduction.

I want to help you out as a return for all the encouragement and mentoring you've given me. Can I get started doing something for you, typing, editing, clerical functions that would help you out, or would you rather I get more experience in some areas? I'll leave that up to you. I did start to make some suggestions on a star trek article and will move into a mental health-related thing next. But if there's some task you need done that is tedious, please send it my way and I will do my best.

Thanks again, Cityside189 (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Des, I think there is a problem. I've been editing and using the Tea House. I saw a new user "glacial frost", post a question and wanted to reach out a hand of hello. Now get this... hold on to your hat, I think it's TOaTW as another sock puppet. This is squarely falls in the "none my my business" category except that my comment is still on his talk page. He is already doing the same thing as before, same editing tone and other stuff. Deleting things off his project page that was set up in the Co-op program, deleting my original message to him off the Tea House, and just recently starting to boss some people around in a specific, telltale way. Because I reached out a hand, I foresee other admins thinking this is too much of a coincidence, that here I am intersecting with him again (if it is him). I looked up his contributions (I learned how to do that) and here is his most recent edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=prev&oldid=675862397. I wanted to get ahead of this, in case it is, or might become something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cityside189. You have now brought this to the attention of an admin. That was good. Now I strongly urge you not to interact with this user, whether s/he is a sock of TEoATW or of anyone else or not, unless and until there is a sock investigation, and the new editor is fully cleared of scocking. Even then, it might be best to steer clear of any such editor. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again DES, thought I'd say hello and ask you to look over my recent talk page with user flyer22, I don't know what I did to cause attention, perhaps suggestions for research citations for sex offender. do you think my reply is appropriate? Thanks.... --Cityside189 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I just dropped in to say hello and let you know I'd commented on your SPI relating to TEoATW, and found this discussion so I thought I'd weigh in. I agree completely with Cityside189. Glacialfrost is so clearly TEoATW; I've added a fair bit of behavioral and geographical evidence to get the ducks quacking pretty loudly. I'd actually gone to SPI to file myself, having been one of the targets of his CSI post linked above, and found your filing, so I just added to it. Do you think it might be well to formally request a Checkuser? Otherwise, this may sit for weeks, and the little twerp will continue running around, playing pseudo-problem solver. He's really offensive. --Drmargi (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if we can cut through some of the "paperwork": [checkuser requested removed as completed--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)] Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Great! I just left a message for Floquenbeam, who was the previous blocking editor. Between this guy and the one yesterday, I've had enough harassment for one week, thankyouverymuch. --Drmargi (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the checkuser flag above as the SPI is complete and available at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A point and a question from Richard27182

Hi DESiegel.
      I respect your opinion in the Miss Cleo RFC even though I disagree with it.  But the main point I want to make is that I do not in any way take it personally; I continue to think of you as a friendly source of helpful information, advice, and encouragement.
      One thing about your statement puzzles me though.  You wrote  "B would be NPOV as attacking her self-description........".  I thought that "NPOV" stood for "neutral point of view."  Did you mean to write  "B would not be NPOV as attacking her self-description........"?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, You are correct, that was an editing error on my part thanks for pointing it out. My opinion is entirely on the content issue, and a bit on the procedural one, not on you as an editor. I understand that you want in good faith to improve the article and other similar articles. DES ^(talk) 12:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Purely by coincidence, your editing error and correction seemed to anticipate a question I was planning to ask you: how does one correct errors made in an RFC posting (or any talk page posting for that matter).  I see from your example that the solution is to make the correction, add a brief note of explanation, and add a new signature.  But there is still one special case I need to ask you about:

• Suppose the error is miniscule?  (I mean like a forgotten period at the end of the last sentence.)  Would it be permissible to just make the correction without any other added material or the new signature.  And even if it is permitted, would the system itself automatically add a signature (or IP address) anyway (possibly in an inappropriate place) if the editor does not sign it manually?

As always, thank you for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, If people have replied, then one should always leave a change note, or post a new comment with the correction ("I meant to say above that..." or the like). A trivial correction, such as a typo or a missing period, if it does not in any way change the meaning, may be corrected silently, particularly if it hasn't been there long. But talk pages don't need to be brought up to publication quality, unlike articles, so trivial changes can be simply ignored. Also, many people consider it rude to correct typos in other people's comments. In general don't correct these unless broken markup is affecting the rest of the page, such as an unclosed tag or template call.

As to adding signatures, the system never does this. There is a running script: User:SineBot which tries to find unsigned talk page comments and sign them. But it is designed to be conservative. If it can't be reasonably sure that a change is a new unsigned comment, it does nothing. It won't sign changes to existing posts. Of course, the change is noted in the page history with timestamp and the user name of the editing user. All changes are. Changes to the posted description of an RfC, should be made particularly carefully. If anyone has posted to the RfC, then any change that might be taken as changing the meaning should be made in a later comment, not by changing the RFC itself. This applies only to the advertised header, not to later posted comments, even from the original poster of the RfC. DES ^(talk) 10:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  A belated thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Richard27182. DES ^(talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I know this is frowned on, but........

Hi DESiegel.
      I hope I'm not becoming too much of a pest with all my questions; but I have another one and I think this is the kind of question I really have to ask an editor.  In a recent message you wrote "There is a running script: User:SineBot which tries to find unsigned talk [emphasis added] page comments and sign them."  If I wanted to do a little experimenting with that, would it be OK to use my User talk:...../sandbox page for that?  Some time ago I was told that talkspace is for discussion only, and that editing practice or experimenting in user talkspace (even my own sandbox talk page) is heavily frowned on.  But if I want to check out something that works differently in talkspace than it does in other spaces, how else can I do it?
      As always, your help and advice are tremendously appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, no problem. What you were advised against before was using your sendbox talk page as a 2nd sendbox, in short using a talk page as a non-talk page. If you want to experiment with stuff for a talk page on a talk page, you may surely use your sandbox's talk page for that. However, before yoiu nspend much time on this, I suggest that you read User:SineBot and the FAQ on User talk:SineBot where the ways in which SineBot acts and does not act are spelled out in some detail. If after that you still want to experiment, feel free. I'm not sure what you wan to learn from such experiments, but I can't see any harm in them. DES ^(talk) 12:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) @Richard27182: DES ^(talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.
      Thanks for the clarification.  I'll read the information you recommended, and if I still have some uncertainties, I'll feel free to check them out by editing my sandbox talk page.  (If I do that, I think I'll include a brief message with the test data indicating what I'm doing.)
      As always, thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBCS (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) 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Takeshi Murata

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. You have been so helpful to this newbie. I really do appreciate it. The other fellow who is working on the Mayapple Press article seems to just want to flag everything as not notable and request deletion. He has already done that for the Backwaters Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwaters_Press article and the Matt Mason (Poet) one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Mason_%28poet%29 Am I crazy but if an article has been up for five or more years, shouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the notability issue was resolved? None of these three articles were flagged as a notability issue before I started to work on them and now they are. It makes me worry that we are just "going around in circles." Comments?

Edward Dixon (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Edward

Edward Dixon, notability issues do often come to light after an article has been around for years. Sometimes it was created when standards were lower. Sometimes it was a low-traffic article and no one chose to raise the issue. Sometimes both. No article has an automatic pass from deletion proposals (although high-schools and radio stations come close). DES ^(talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, DESiegel. Okay, I see, but I do think the concern is misplaced here. Could you go over to the deletion proposal page for Backwaters Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwaters_Press and give me your opinion on whether my argument made any sense to keep it and what is your opinion on whether it should be kept. I revised the entry rather significantly tonight. I know making the case for notability is mostly a different matter than writing a well-sourced article but I was hoping that some of my revisions might also help for the notability here to be more clear. By the way, is this a matter of a vote? If so, how do I get my vote tallied. Is it done so just by my comment or do I need to do something more.

As always, thanks. By the way, I think I would be lost and doomed here without you. I'm beginning to ask myself why am I even trying this, since I really have no personal interest in any of these articles (as of course I shouldn't). My desire just to improve the quality of articles that I think are worthwhile is beginning to seem not worth the hassle. It is beginning to look like I am doing more harm than good for what seems to me worthwhile topics. If I stick around, I think I'll need a mentor. I see you are agreeing to do that for some folks. Hint, hint.  :-(

Edward Dixon (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Edward Dixon

Hello again, Edward Dixon. It is not strictly a matter of votes, although those have their impact. (It used to be more explicitly a matter of vote count.) The closer will asses the strenght of the arguments and the consensus readh, if any. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General advice. In this case, the main issue raise is notability so that is what must be established. W8ikipedia uses that term is a special sense (I wish we used a different term, but that is long past changing.) On Wikipedia a topic is notable if reliable secondary sources have written about it in enough detail to base an article on, and not otherwise even if it is highly significant. In this case the best response is to find additional secondary sources and add them to the article or at least list them in the deletion d8iscussion. If they are added to the article, this should be mentioned in the discussion.

I will be happy to mentor you as best as I can, within the constraints of time. Feel free to ask any questions or raise any issues either here on my talk page, or elsewhere by pinging me. I will be in touch. DES ^(talk) 11:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse trolling?

Hi. Do you reckon we're being trolled? I was already confused why there were so many questions about revision deletion, and now we have a user with a very similar username asking a similar question. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have an answer (yes). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That s/he used two accounts does not prove trolling, Cordless Larry, and unless there were abusive uses (which i don't see on the teahouse, but I haven't checked the contribs of either account beyond that) it isn't strictly sockpuppetry either. Still it should stop, and I told the user so. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it's a bit odd to use a second account to ask essentially the same question isn't it? The only edits either user have made have been to the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, Cordless Larry, but I've seem much odder behavior than that from newbies, some of whom become good editors (although many did not). I see no reason to WP:BITE, beyond making the rules clear, which i think i have done. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I admire your ability to assume good faith, and hope that the editor does indeed go on to make some useful contributions. Thanks for explaining the rules to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here I don't really assume good faith, I merely note the absence of demonstrated bad faith, Cordless Larry. I actually suspect that this editor is merely playing around with no serious intentions at all. But other readers of the TH might gain something from the answers, and a display of heavy-handed repose might drive off some reader who we would want to retain. Patience is a virtue, and I see no gain from a leap to a (technically invalid anyway) block or warning. DES ^(talk) 23:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't calling for a block in any case, but rather checking that you were aware of the possibility that the user was playing around, in case you wasted time on a very extensive reply. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

DRV

Opened as suggested, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 21#Template:AZBilliards.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

License for article Bartolomej Stankovic

Can you explain in detail how to give consent for the content of the website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Garib (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try, Faris Garib. Full details are given at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

• Text imported from other sites into Wikipedia articles must be licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or a compatible license. This means that:
  1. The text may be freely redistributed and used, by anyone in the world, for any purpose at all.
  2. It may be freely modified, and modified versions may also be freely redistributed and used.
  3. In all cases, CC-BY-SA requires proper attribution of the author(s). This means credit must be given.
  4. CC-BY-SA allows commercial re-uses provided such re-use is also under CC-BY-SA.
• A suggested letter of consent can be found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Have the copyright owner fill this out and email it back to you. Forward a copy to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Include the source Internet URL (or other source location) and the Wikipedia link for the article in which the text will be used.
• add {{OTRS pending}} to the article talk page, after the email granting permission has been sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org"
• When you add the text, include an edit summary noting the OTRS pending on the talk page, and that this is by permission.
• Even so, in most cases, content from an outside web page will prove unsuitable. If it has a promotional tone, or is otherwise not neutral, or makes claims that cannot be cited to a reliable source, it will not be suitable. Oftne it is much better and simpler to rewrite the content in one's own words, basing as much as possible on published independent, secondary reliable sources, and citing those sources. Even if the content is added to the article, it may be, and probably will be, freely edited by anyone here. Do not assume that it will stay in the form it has on the outside website, or anything close to that. Parts of it might stay, or they might not.

I hope all this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to delete old revisions of file

Hi DESiegel. To help answer a question at the Teahouse, I uploaded the file File:File Upload Wizard screenshot.png as a screenshot to supplement my answer. Before uploading, I foolishly forgot to crop out the browser window, which may be non-free software in violation of copyright. I've cropped the image and uploaded the new file as a revision, but the original file is still viewable in the file history. Could you delete the old revision? Not the whole file, just the old revision. If not WP:CSD#G6 ("created in error") or WP:CSD#G7 ("author requested deletion"), then the deletion would fall under WP:CSD#F9 ("unambiguous copyright infringement"). Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I don't really think the image of the browser was a problem, Mz7, but I see no reason NOT to revdel. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I suppose it is an over-abundance of caution, but I thought it was necessary. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a new article in my sandbox?

DES.

Could you take a look at a new article in my sandbox on the playwright Constance Congdon? I can't imagine that there will be any notability issues on this topic, but I would appreciate any comments you might want to make. Thanks

Edward Dixon (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon, I agree that notability should not be an issue here, but I do have a few concerns.

• The exact date of birth for any living person should not be included, per WP:DOB unless it is not only cited to a source, but has been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or else was published by or with the approval of the subject. Please reduce it to the year alone.
• Terms like "outlandish and adventurous" and "ambitious" are value judgements, which is to say opinions. They should not appear in Wikipedia's voice. They should only appear in quotes or paraphrases clearly cited to a specific source. Otherwise they should not be included.
• I have reformatted the External links items. If she has an official site that should be included at the top of this list.
• A list of her works or of her better known works, might be a good idea.

I hope these comments are helpful. DES ^(talk) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful, of course. I resolved those issues and some others and have submitted it. It is being reviewed. Now my my question is that I am working on another article that I want to put in the sandbox for your review, but right now the Congdon article has redirection tags to it from my sandbox. Can I put another article in my sandbox now without disturbing that activity? Thanks again. Edward Dixon (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Edward Dixon. Yes, you can remove the redirect and replace it with a completely different article draft. You could also create a specific page for the new article in your userspace at, say User:Edward Dixon/drafts/ArticleName or in draft space at Draft:ArticleName, in either case replacing "ArticleName" with the proposed name of your next article. In many ways that is better as it allows you to work on more than one draft at once. But you may do any of these.

On Draft:Constance Congdon, I would advise finding sources for the places where there are now "Citation needed" tags if you possibly can. A reviewer might well have an issue with those.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dumb me! I didn't know that editors were making comments and changes to the article as it was being reviewed! I had invited theroadislong to look at it too but thought he had not. Thanks. I resolved the "citation needed" flags. The citations were already there embedded in the previous source. I seem to be having a problem clearly showing what a citation is a citation for :-). Edward Dixon (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon editors may choose to make comments and edits at any point. They mostly won't edit your user page unless something is badly wrong. Other pages in your userspace (pages with names starting User:Edward Dixon/) many (but not all) editors will hesitate to edit without some sort of invitation, but a request to review a draft or request for help will often be taken as an invitation. And once a page is in draft space, it is fair game for anyone who might be interested.

When a source supports more than one statement in an article or draft, this can be indicated with named references. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. This avoids confusion when a single source is used for multiple facts, or any need to rearrange the text to make citations clear.

It is a good idea to have pages you have created or are interested in on your watchlist. Then check the watchlsit fairly often. This will help avoid surprises. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Matt Nolan

Yes, named footnotes was what I needed. Thanks. I put the new article in my sandbox. Would appreciate comments on it, as always. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Dixon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it, Edward Dixon. A few points:

• First and most important, your draft says: " Nolan works with an unusually wide range of materials, including stainless steel and titanium.". This is cited to Dawson, Michael (March 2012). "Matt Nolan: Custom Cymbals (Update)". moderndrummer.com. However that statement isn't verified in that source: it only talks about his work in bronze. Please cite the exact source which discusses his work in other metals. If a cited fact is not found in the cited source, it reduces the credibility of the entire article, so this is a high priority.
• Secondly, always include the author of the article cited when the article has a byline, and include as precise a publication date as is listed. I have corrected the first four citations, leaving the others for you.
• Thirdly, when a source has numbered pages, such as a PDF file often will, include a pages= (or page= if only one page) parameter to specify what pages the source is found on, or if you are referencing only a part of the source, what pages are relevant.
• Fourthly, and less important, if the source is in PDF format, include "|format=PDF" when a source is in PDF format.
• Fifthly, use straight double quotes, not angled quotes or curly quotes.

It seems to me that some additional content might be based on the drummers journal source. I hope this was helpful. DES ^(talk) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good points all. I am learning a lot from you, but I'm not sure why you say what you did about the Dawson source. It does specifically state Nolan works in stainless steel and titanium??? Am I not understanding something? Edward Dixon (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Edward Dixon, you are correct. The mention was at the end of the first paragraph of the online article, and there was no further mention beyond that one sentence, so i must have missed it.

However, there is now a larger problem. It seems that the sandbox article started as a copy of Matt Nolan (English cymbal and gong maker), and that when you had edited it significantly, you then copied and pasted it back over the source article. This is a very bad idea please don't do this again. You didn't when you first made the copy put any sort of note on the article talk page. This means that other editors had no warning that their edits during the time that the article was in the sand box were likely to be overwritten by your revised version. You didn't in any way indicate that the sand box was a copy of another article, which means it was technically a copyright infringement, because it failed to give proper attribution to previous editors. Whe you moved it back by copy&paste, you lost the history of edits while in the sandbox, not all of which were yours. This means that the result is also technically an infringement. That is why it is better to make such edits in place, particularly if the article is being actively edited by another editor, or more than one. If you are going to work on a copy, place {{under construction}} on the original article, along with a note on the article's talk page , and include a note on the sandbox's talk page indicating what you are doing and the source of the text, plus a mention in the edit summary when you paste the content into the sandbox.

I am now going to move the sandbox over the article and do a history merge to preserve all the editing history. Had I known that this was a copy intended to replace the original, I would have handled my edits differently. DES ^(talk) 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DES, Sorry that I executed this edit so poorly and made so many procedural errors. I assure you I was acting in good faith, even if naive. I do appreciate your instructions now on how to do it properly and will follow them in the future. However, I am somewhat baffled about what is the current state of this article and the outcome of your efforts. The article currently seems to me almost exactly as I posted it. I had tried to be careful that no intermediate revisions were lost. I was under the full understanding there was none. But if that happened, then I failed in that attempt and I apologize and am glad that those edits can be restored. Also, I am somewhat puzzled by your points about copyright infringement. It didn't occur to me that Wiki editors had any copyright protection, although I assure you I had NO intention to disrespect or dismiss previous edits other than what had become issues by theroadislong's very reasonable introduction of the autobiographical tag. I really do appreciate all of your help, sir. Edward Dixon (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon, I fully understand that all your actions were in good faith. This kind of situation is complex and many more experienced editors may get it wrong. Moreover, i had assuemd because of an error in converting timezones, that the issue was larger than it turned out to be: an edit I thought had been made after you copied the wiki-text was actually before it. The article is as you posted it, except for some small changes made since then. The difference is in the history only, The full sequence of edits is now preserved.

AS to copyright, All contributions are licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Each editor retains full copyright on each contribution s/he makes. Anyone may reuse or copy them, provided that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work." (and a few other conditions). On Wikipedia this means leaving the history intact, or else providing a link to the proper history or a comparable note of attribution. For reuse elsewhere, it means a link back to the source article and its history, which constitutes the required attribution, or some equivalent method of attribution. See {{copied}} for use when text is copied from one article to another long-term, as during an article merge.

You did nothing intended to cause a problem. Another time you will understand the issues better. Had another editor edited the article while you were working in the sandbox, (as I first thought) there would have been the problem of how (and whether) to merge that edit in. Use of {{under construction}} warns editors that this sort of thing might be in progress. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Krov Menuhin

Hi DES, given your invaluable help in the past, could I kindly ask you if you would offer a little support in the review of the article? It is currently submitted for review but a comment was made that more evidence is required. However, no mention of what evidence and a limited list of their own search left out most of the journals and books and internet sources cited. Any advice?KarenMenuhin (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

KarenMenuhin, What s/he is saying is that the amount of coverage is not enough to establish notability. That is a judgement call, and there is no precise amount that is sufficient. Since the editor making the comment does not know what sources might be available, s/he can't say which ones need to be included. S/he did do a google books search and found a number of publications that mention Krov Menuhin but are apparently not available online. You could see if you can find one or more in a library, and if so, add it as a reference if it has significant coverage. You could search for additional online sources. Or you could wait for the next reviewer, who might have a different opinion of the matter. You could even bypass review and move directly to mainspace, taking a chance that someone would take the same view that the editor who commented dis, and put the article up for deletion. From the snippets displayed on the Google search, at lest the first few seem to be passing mentions, which would not help with notability anyway, unless there is additional relevant content not displayed by the snippets, which there might well be. I hope this is helpful DES ^(talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

KarenMenuhin, you might also want to read User talk:FoCuSandLeArN/AFC declines and perhaps leave a message for FoCuSandLeArN on User talk:FoCuSandLeArN if you have further questions about the reasons behind the comment and what would be needed for the article. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment, DES. Along those lines, mine would also include that although he might scrape past notability due to the sheer amount of work he's done and the coverage available, the references provided are mostly to his own work. If indeed the article were to be accepted, it would require extensive trimming of irrelevant, unreferenced or CV-like information (I could help you with that later). I'd love to see what other reviewers have to say about it. We have a slight backlog at the moment, but I'm sure you'll receive a proper assessment quite soon. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response vis a vis "Now that I have a beginning.."

Thanks so much for your reply. Wikipedia, as I'm certain you know, can be daunting for beginners. I must say that the rewards FAR outweigh the confusion and the self-doubt that apply to it. Your encouragement is appreciated and your guidance is Much Appreciated. I will say, however, that the status of the article Alberto Gómez Gómez rests nowhere near my own efforts. It rests with his own accomplishments. I have every confidence that if I do him justice, the article about him and his accomplishments will rise above what I could ever say. I seek only to illuminate them. I'm just positive that you know what I mean by this. Thought, whether any of that makes sense or doesn't, I'm grateful for you response and advice. Best wishes to you always, Thanks again, Rmark1030 (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Sheppard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Pritchard (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) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Village Pump, and also about "canvassing"

Hi DESiegel.
      I have a couple questions:  When I first opened the Miss Cleo RFC, I posted a notice about it on the Village Pump (I believe it was under "miscellaneous"). I no longer see it there, but I assume that it has simply been archived (although I can't locate it). Anyway here are my questions:

• Would it be OK for me to post another notification there about the RFC when there are just a few days left before it closes for comments, basically just pointing out the fact that it exists and is soon going to close?
• You've already participated in that RFC; but if you had not, could this message itself possibly have been considered "canvassing"? (I realize that in this case there was no need to specifically identify the RFC, but suppose it had been necessary.)
        Thank you for your help.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgotten about me.
Richard27182 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Richard27182, and sorry about the delay. In general asking a single editor advoice about how to proceed is not canvassing, and should not be taken as such (of course one never knows how someone may take things). Posting a followup notice that an RFC will be closing soon, or that additional participation would be welcome, is generally appropriate as long as it isn't done too often, and any notices are worded neutrally. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Avagnale from Ruffo article

John Ruffo

First off, thank you so much for taking a look at the article. Second, I am not understanding your rationale for removal of the See Also. They are both notorious bank fraud and confidence criminals, both are from NYC, both successfully defrauded banks for millions, and both have proven quite elusive to capture by law enforcement. Granted that Avagnale has much higher stock in terms of celebrity status because of a book, a film, a musical etc, but from a law enforcement perspective (and in terms of an article about their criminal past), it makes no difference. Both white collar perps with a similar MO. Thoughts? --Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Supaflyrobby, this really belongs on Talk:John Ruffo. I am going to copy it there, and reply there. Also please use wiki-links, not URLs to refer to Wikipedia articles. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jess Greenberg

Hi DESiegel. Since you've already posted there and are an administrator, I wonder if you could take another look at Talk:Jess Greenberg#Reasons for popularity. The entire thread has been removed twice by Tuesdaymight as a BLP violation, but I can't see any violation at all. I think the comments made by you and the others are quite appropriate responses to the IP's original question and are most certainly not "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." as stated in this edit sum. I've tried explaining things at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg, but the thread was removed again even after Dontreader edited their post to remove any mention of a specific body part. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please consider that according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: When adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page the material must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)

And also, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced — even if it’s just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. And further, according to Wikipedia guidelines, you must never edit in such a way to change the meaning of someone’s comment — as has happened to my comment and all the comments that follow the changes that were made. The burden of proof is on the editor who reinstated the section. So it needs to be proven why material that violates so many Wikipedia guidelines should stay and violate even more. It is rude and offensive to be discussing a particular woman's breasts in this context. Best wishes Tuesdaymight (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I will reply to Tuesdaymight's post at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg since the exact same post was made there and it will be a little easier to follow if things are kept in one place. I will, however, answer any comments directed to me by DESiegel here if necessary. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again DES. Just thought I'd let you know about WP:BLPN#Talk:Jess Greenberg since it involves the removal an article talk page post you made at Talk:Jess Greenberg. Please feel free to comment (either way). Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Liberovici page in english

Dear David, I'm a new user of wikipedia,and I started one months ago 'cause I start to edit the Italian page of Andrea liberovici, composer and director I know very well. I'm doing the same for the english page, 'cause I don't know how started this, but I notce the re where many issue from wikiedia, and I'd like to contribute to improve the voice. Now, I did some work, and I had some advice from others in the teahouse. I try to follow all the instruction...can you please tell me if everything I did is correct? I don't know if I can go forward or correct something. Thank you in advance Irene--Irenenovello (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Irenenovello. I do see some issues with the Andrea Liberovici article, but nothing that can't be fixed.

• The third paragraph of the Biography section is a quote. That is fine, but direct quotes should be attributed to a specific person (or entity if it was an organizational statement) in the article text, not jsut in the citation. This is often done with a phrase such as "According to John Doe, ..." or "As Jane Roe wrote in the Weekly Mastodon, ..." or "Noted critic Fred Bogs wrote: ..." or some similar phrase that tells who said this and puts it in context for the reader.
  • Also is "he his a tragic musicians" the way the published quote had it, or is this an error in transcription?
• It is not usual to list the birth and death dates of relatives of the subject, such as his father, unless these are particularly relevant. I don't see them as being so here.
• Please give fuller details about sources in citations, not just a link and a title.
• For sources that are not in English, please provide a translation of the title of the source. If you can provide a link to a translated copy of the entire source, that is very helpful (not a machine translation). Failing that, if you can provide a translated version of the key passage from the source, that would be useful. I can show you how such a passage could be formatted, using the quote= parameter of {{cite web}}.
• If English-language sources are available, citing some would be a good idea.
• Significant text seems to be directly copied from the primolevicenter source This must be changed at once. Copyright violation is taken very seriously.

I hope those commetns are helpful. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward Dixon request

DES, I have a new article nearly ready in my sandbox. Could you take a look at it and give me your thoughts as always. Thanks. Edward Dixon (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi DESiegel.  I guess I must have made a bit of a pest of myself with all the questions I kept asking you.  Sorry.  I hope we'll still keep in touch and exchange messages from time to time.
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, there is no need to apologize I have been busy off-wiki. You may have noticed I have not edited much the past few days. I hope to respond to you and others soon. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Sorry I misunderstood. I look forward to hearing from you.
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel. I received your reply answering my questions. As always, thank you very much. And again, I'm sorry about misunderstanding.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia career

Thanks for the advice and suggestions. I think it's a fun project and will keep going. There's an incredible investment that you and the other 10+ year editors have with the project. You folks have come through that huge spike in growth and turmoil, out of which WP became what it is today. When new people barge in and don't demonstrate the respect for what WP has become, it's no wonder there are strong reactions and some suspicion. Luckily the site has developed a balance of Admins that work to achieve healthy growth. So... I owe you one like I said before, and if there is something you find yourself working on that you need an extra typist for, shoot word to me and I'd be glad to help out. Hopefully not a lot of complicated coding, I only have programming experience from 1987 (10. Print "hello"; 15. Go to 10 >run). --Cityside189 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback wanted

Hello. I am a bit frustrated getting specific feedback on a page I'm creating. Page is for The law offices of Meyer and Blumenshine". I have used another law firm who has a wiki page, but I have been critisized for being too promotional. The last decline provided no information. I woul appreciate any specific help you could provide. Thank you, heide oconnell Heideoconnell (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Heideoconnell. I am sorry you are finding this frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (a very experienced editor) did supply a pair of useful comments in the comment section. The first of these read:

This doesn't have any sources to show that this law firm is notable enough for an entry. Most law firms aren't, which is why you need to show news coverage that specifically highlights this firm. Sometimes notable cases can extend coverage, but coverage is not always automatically inherited by them covering notable cases, especially if the firm is only briefly mentioned.

She also advised that the "practice area" section be deleted. I concur with both pieces of advice. A Wikipedia article is not, or should not be, similar to a marketing brochure or press release.

The first thing is to find independent reliable sources that discuss this firm in some detail. This means not publications of the firm, not PR, not blogs or one-person websites, not social media, not passing mentions or directory listings, and not purely local coverage. Unless several such sources can be found, there is no basis for a Wikipedia article. The article should be mostly based directly on content from such sources. Some facts can be filled in from the firm's own website, or other self-published spourves, but still needs to be supported by a source. This is mandated by our notability and verifibility policies, and by our policy that articles all be written from a neutral point of view.

If you can find multiple items of news coverage, online or offline, that is primarily about the firm, or at least devotes several paragraphs to the firm, or if the firm was discussed at length in a book from a major publisher, that would be sufficient for notability.

As to basing format on other existing articles, there are a good many especially ones created some time ago, that do not fully comply with our standards. That is not a reason to create more such articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you recall which articles you used as a basis? DES ^(talk) 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A

Andrew Phillip Almanza

Hello, I've re added the CSD tag to this article. Consider your refusal to CSD again. Regards Hitro talk 21:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, I still maintain that this was not a proper A7 speedy deletion, and had that been the only issue would have continued to decline the speedy, and taken things to deletion review had another admin deleted on that basis. I was not aware of the previous AfD -- that changes things completely. DES ^(talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your reason for declination was "Urban dictionary", which was totally absurd, I have never seen people supporting urban dictionary on Wikipedia, if you have then give me the link of the discussin. This page was the reason for your declination...I still don't understand what propelled you to decline speedy A7 on this article, I was always aware of previous AfD, still it was A7 at that moment when you declined. However, it's deleted now.Case is Closed. Best regards Hitro talk 19:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, Urban Dictionary is an article on Wikipedia, it therefore follows that the site is notable (and in any case this would be easy to establish if it were challenged) even if it is not a reliable source. Being featured on a notable website does not establish notability, but it is a claim of significance, nor was it the only claim in the article as it then stood. (Remember that a claim need not be supported by any source at all to avoid an A7.) Given a precisely similar article about a different person tomorrow, I would act in precisely the same way. A claim need not establish notability, it is enough that it indicates that there is a chance of it being established given further research. It is not a question of "supporting" the Urban Dictionary, still less of using it as a reliable source, but of recognizing its existence and popularity, so that being featured on it indicates some notice has been taken of the subject so featured. DES ^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imjandarwal (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Imjandarwal (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks alot for directing me to a good way of using wiki. Imjandarwal (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--

Db-G14

I opened this discussion related to this template in the hopes that it will quickly be discussed out of existence.

I also modified the template so it is clearly no longer a speedy-deletion template as such, so I removed the {{db-policy}}.

My hope is that the discussion will be WP:SNOW-closed within a day or to in favor of rejecting this proposal, at which time Template:Db-g14 can be deep, er, g-sixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

davidwr I saw, and indeed commented in, that discussion. I admit that I intended the {{db-policy}} tag as in part a form of trouting, but also the template as written was not suitable even if such a proposal should be (god forbid) approved. However I won't insist on it, as long as editors won't be mislead into using the "criterion" nor over-hasty admins into deletign based on it, pending actual consensus. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

davidwr, I note that as i was writing the above response the template was deleted for the second time, so at least 4 editors including myself thought speedy deletion of this was proper. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see the previous deletion until you mentioned it. I linked to it on the discussion page so, hopefully, others will notice if this ever pops up again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And i misread it, davidwr, somehow thinking that both deletions were recent. Anyway, I think this one is dealt with, as I see no support for such an idea. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, from the moment that template was created until the moment I edited it so that it no longer represented policy speedy deletion was right-and-proper. However, changing the template as I did was also an acceptable way of resolving the problem of a page mis-representing policy. In this case, there was a big enough AVALANCHE that it really didn't matter if the discussion ended after a week, a day (which I consider a reasonable minimum in cases like this) or the actual less than 90 minutes from SemiDot modifying WP:CSD to the template itself being deleted (which effectively made any further pile-on discussion against the proposal a moot point). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick question about the Miss Cleo RfC

Hi DESiegel.  I have a quick question about the Miss Cleo RfC. The RfC template was automatically removed (on schedule at 30 days), and I posted a request for formal closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.  My question is this: I did not add any templates or anything to the Miss Cleo talk page RfC section to indicate it was closed or archived or anything; should I have done so before requesting the formal closure? And if the answer is "yes" then what should I do to correct for that? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

hello again Richard27182. No having asked for a formal closure, there is nothing more for you to do. If you thought that the consensus was clear, you could simply act on it, stating your reading of it, a non-closure or informal closure. But when a formal closure is desired, there is nothing to do but wait for a closer to come forward -- like everything else it is a volunteer position. Since I expressed a view during the RfC, I should not close it, had I not done so, i might offer to close. DES ^(talk) 11:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Thanks for your reply.  I later realized I could have just checked the previous RfC I'd started (the Technicolor one) and use the "view history" tab to examine the various stages it went through in the process of being automatically delisted through to the final formal closure.  So I did so.  And I was very surprised to see that both were closed by the same editor!  I had nothing to do with that fact; I don't know that editor, and I've never contacted that editor or specifically sought him out, or anything like that.  (I wouldn't even have noticed that it was the same editor if I hadn't been doing that research I previously mentioned.)  Anyway I'm worried that someone else may notice the coincidence and think it might not have been a coincidence and possibly suspect me of something I haven't done (and would never do).  Is this anything to worry about, or is it the kind of thing that is expected to happen from time to time?
Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182, only a few editors, mostly admins and very experienced editors, do formal clsoes of RfCs at all frequently. If you look at the closings of a bunch of RFCs, tyou will see the same few names over and over as closers. Seeing the same clsoer on two random RFCs is quite normal. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel.  Thank you for putting my mind at ease.  I won't worry about that anymore.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, DESiegel. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

WP:Teahouse/Questions#Length of review process

Very good answer there, DES. --ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft Krov Menuhin

Dear DES, this article has now been turned down twice for 2 different reasons. My response below is to the editor who made the latest comment. I do not know if this editor has checked the citations and numerous references made. I have tried very hard to read and abide by all rules in regard of this draft. The comment left by the editor Joseph2302 appears to be brief; an opinion unsupported by justified evidence. Any thoughts upon how I can proceed please? And again - much thanks for your time and effort! KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Comment: Not notable and probably never will be. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Response: Could you tell me how many citations you have checked and why you have made the comments you have, please? There are many references to Krov Menuhin's films and work, including the honour of being chosen twice to sit on the Rolex jury awards, plus a documentary film made about his life and work by TF1, the French state owned TV station and being personally chosen by Hans Hass to take over the Hans Hass award. There are numerous and varied articles in magazines, books and journals about his life time work plus 40 odd years working and making wildlife films, many of which are on youtube, but also are in the BBC, Channel 4 and TF1 archives. I will send you the latest magazine article from Scuba Diver Ocean Planet (Asian Geographic) to give you an update of how notable he is in his field of work. If you take the time just to read a few of the Rolex award jury members you will find they are made up of global illuminaries, who are each one, internationally recognised leaders in their own fields.204.236.116.217 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC) KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)KarenMenuhin (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how it happened...

Hello,  DESiegel,

I do not know how it happened, but I wrote UTC, instead of your initials DES! It’s been a day without even smallest break from the hustle and bustle, and I'm sure it was not the only one my blunder during that day, and I'm sure you know how it is, when you found yourself in the middle of ten urgent matters and they all are "first on the list". So, I think, you will understand me. Of course, my gratitude was addressed to you, as your warm welcome and clear explanation was a really good thing; and when (right now) I “went” to the Teahouse and noticed my silly mistake, I just said: “Oh, God.”

I'll be always glad to hear from you and to read your words of approval or criticism on my future article (s), as I know, that it always will be unbiased, friendly and intelligent conclusion.

Best Regards, Chris.

P.S. Should I sent this message to Teahouse to correct my blunder? Here I'm displaying my previous message again, but now written by the right way:

I thank all, who responded to my letter Reliable Sources. To DES I would like to say special Thanks for detailed, clear explanation of how to proceed on the article Ancient Corinth. Yes, I can add some details to existing article, using citations from Elisavet Spathari's book, and also upload several photos, which I made on the archaeological site. Regarding the advice, kindly given me by DES, to write the article about Elisavet Spathari, I have to admit, that I thought about it myself, but I (as well) could not find even a short article, written about her. Of course, her books are the complete proof, that she is an expert in this field, but there is no information about the author even in her book 'Corinth-Mycenae', which I bought in Corinth. Anyway, for the start, I'd like to look at the new articles, proposed by other editors for discussion, to see how these articles looks like in its “unpolished” form, but the new problem suddenly occurred: I simply can’t to find the tool to display them. Can someone tell me how to find a list of the most recent articles for editing?

Regards, Chris. Chris Oxford (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Frost

Hello DESiegel! In reference to the upcoming film Jessica Frost. Does imdb not count as a primary source if it includes a WGA credit? Otherwise I know there are a couple of local articles but I don't think they're available online. At least not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrauser1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 September 2015‎

Bkrauser1, yes, an IMDB entry with a WGA credit should count as an acceptable primary source. However, there is so much prejudice against the IMDB because it is overused in cases where it is not reliable, that many editors will simply discount it, overlooking the specifics of the situation. In any case, a mere cast list, even if reliably sourced to a secondary source, is not sufficient to establish or even really help establish notability, as it does not constitute "significant discussion" of the topic. Moreover, a single source is rarely enough to establish notability, unless it is a book-length source that discusses the topic extensively. If the IMDB is the only source available, then you could write up a stub and put it in a userspace page, such as User:Bkrauser1/drafts/Jessica Frost, and wait until additional sources are available. When they are available they can be added and the draft submitted for review or simply moved to mainspace.

Offline sources can be cited, but can you confidently assert that they discuss the subject in enough detail to establish notability? Purely local sources are apt to be considered of lesser value in establishing notability, also. There is also WP:CRYSTAL which says that future events should not be included in articles unless there is enough coverage of the plans and prospect to be notable in and of itself. For films, it is not usual to create an article until principle photography has at least started, with a source to verify this. Is this information helpful? If you wan to go the userspace route, i will be glad to help with citation formatting. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel thank you for your help thus far. the userspace route would probably be the best way to go; at least until I can find some sources beyond local blotter. I'm not sure if principle photography has started yet for this film but I'll scan the trades for anything relevant. userspace can be edited by multiple people right? Like a pre-wikipedia article?Bkrauser1 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I'm playing with sandbox to practice formatting. Is there a way to see it as if it were an article so I know I'm doing it right?Bkrauser1 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)