User talk:DrStrauss

Correct edits?

Hi you have reverted a number of my edits which are factually correct and also this page is very outdated:

• Yorkshire Post Tower has been approved
• Bridge House (Wellington St) has been approved
• The former British Gas building has been approved
• Millgarth Tower and Manor Point have both been cancelled

Do you want me to provide citations to prove what I am updating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscraper777 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Skyscraper777: yes, generally citations are required. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 13:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

AFD notice removal on Kendra Timmins

The actress meets the criteria of notoriety. I've added reliable sources of newspapers and magazines, So i do not consider it fair to delete the page. I ask you to remove the AFD requests on the page. Thanks! Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Mitofire Mitofire (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mitofire, unfortunately I can't remove it because AfD is a community discussion forum and once it's been taken to that stage we must work on WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to voice your opinion at the article's AfD entry. Don't be offended or disheartened by your page getting deleted, if it does, ask the deleting admin for a copy so you can improve it. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection of your talk page

Hi there. I protected your talk page because of your request but Mifter pointed out correctly that good-faith anon and new users now cannot use this talk page as well. Per WP:PP#User talk pages, you are encouraged to create a subpage for those users to contact you. Unless you create such a way for users to contact you with legitimate concerns, I'll have to reconsider the decision to protect this talk page. Regards SoWhy 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I've responded to Mifter's concerns on your talk page and User:DrStrauss/temptalk is the subpage which IPs and new users can edit. They are directed there by my editnotice. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 21:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit of an overlap. Glad this has been resolved. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to also link to it from the top of your user talk page until protection expires. Note that IPs no longer see an "Edit" button when they're on your page, just "View source". Many will not know what that is and may not click it. The edit notice only appears if they happen to click on that button and read well past the prominent notice at the top saying they're unable to edit the page. Pinging SoWhy so they're aware as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: done. DrStrauss talk 23:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:3a-band-logo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:3a-band-logo.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Hm39422 created.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Hm39422 created.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

NB: for the record, I just incorrectly templated SVG conversions that I did to reduce the backlog. DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Culture

Why added this tag to the article, while other articles such as Lemonade (Beyoncé album), Unorthodox Jukebox and Joanne (album) that had the critical reception section as long or longer than this article, but not tagged. And the tag doesn't make sense either, these are reviews for the album, not anything else. It doesn't need to be split to other articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts!

In response to your first concern: of the just over 15kB prose in total on Culture just under 9kB is on critical reception - that's 60%. Lemonade's just under 70kB total prose includes just over 11kB on critical reception - that's 15%. There is no hard-and-fast guideline on how much of an article on an album should be dedicated however it stands to reason that having more content on the response to something than the thing itself changes the topic of the article.

There must be something to be critically received for it to receive critical reception, if that makes sense? I think you would find WP:LENGTH helpful for future reference when considering the proportional size of sections of an article.

As for your second concern, the template I placed on the page said consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. Note that it does not explicitly say that its content should be split into separate articles as that would be silly as you say. It offers the alternative of splitting it up with subheadings or condensing it, either of which would be fine endeavours for the article's creator or major contributors considering its pitfalls.

I hope this answers your questions, if not, let me know. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but that was a unsatisfied answer. Joanne (album) has a longer critical reception section of that of Culture and that wasn't tagged at all, don't make any sense to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: it's all to do with proportionality. For example, if we divide Culture up into 10 peanuts, 6 of them will be on critical reception which leaves many of the other sections with little content. However, if we divide Joanne up into 10 peanuts, only 1 of them will be on critical reception. Sorry, I had to do that considering the username :D Did you read WP:LENGTH by the way? DrStrauss talk 21:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay I look at the guidelines, but I still disagree that tag should be in that section of the article, because there are some other album related articles that have the critical reception as long then Culture and nobody have no problem with it before. I have talked to Ss112 about this problem before talking to you about it, and he too disagree with some of your edits also and have reverted them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: it's not about the length itself it's to do with the length in proportion to the rest of the article. Looking at my curation log, I can see that most of the issues I have raised on Ss112's articles have not been reverted, the most pressing issues are the NPOV ones and Ss112 is an experienced editor whose ability to rectify these issues I do not doubt. DrStrauss talk 21:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: in fact I can't see any edits of mine that have been reverted by Ss112. Even though the comment about nobody before this having taken exception to the length of critical acclaim sections is irrelevant as it's not to do with the length in itself, on a general point just because nobody has raised an issue before doesn't in anyway detract from its validity. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get what you're saying now, if I removed some of the reviews in the article, it will cut down to size? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I have made this edit in the article, what do you think of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: looks good. DrStrauss talk 08:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay now it look good, can the tag be removed? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done DrStrauss talk 08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to have this problem solved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-requested block

Per this confirmation I have blocked you until 3rd July 2017 (00:00) as requested. The fact this was a self-requested block has been noted in the log, and I hope it gives you the break you require. I've left your ability to send emails unaffected, so please feel free to contact me at any time. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

About your declination of my Thaitone article

I wonder about your comment to my references. Why it's not reliable since the PDF. file reference one is belong to the ministry of culture of Thailand about the study of Thaitone. And another one that is the tv program came from NOW26 which is the news agency in Thailand. According to these two references, are they still unreliable? Nattanich Eng (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nattanich Eng, Thaitone has now been moved to the article namespace as further improvements have been made since I was away. Congratulations on the successful article! Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Odysseas Papadimitriou Draft

Thanks a lot for taking a look at my draft. And just to be clear, I'm not questioning the abilities of SwisterTwister. It just seemed like they were providing the same rationale repeatedly and not really addressing what I think are valid reasons that rationale did not apply. Having said that, is your main issue with the draft use of the word "expert"? I used that because it was commonly used in news coverage of the subject, but I have no qualms with removing such phrasing. Thanks again for taking the time to consider this! Surfjk (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Surfjk, that’s absolutely fine, thank you for clarifying that. The issue with words like “expert” is that they often lead to an unencyclopedic tone in an article. Please see Wikipedia’s “words to watch” guide for more info and don’t hesitate to ask me for further help or info. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Khurmal District

Khurmal is a small city in north Iraq , you can see in the google map Kurdistantolive (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kurdistantolive, the template I left on Khurmal District didn't contest the location's existence, it merely flagged up the citation style used which is a bit strange. Please see WP:CITESTYLE for tips. Once the issues are fixed, feel free to remove the tag. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

11:42:16, 22 March 2017 review of submission by Kofiguy233

• Kofiguy233 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dawn ODG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello please I've made the necessary changes that needs to be made, would be glad if you check back on the article /draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofiguy233 (talk • contribs)

Hello Kofiguy233, it appears that another reviewer (TheSandDoctor) has declined it again, a decision with which I agree. The article has improved but it needs a copy-edit to comply with the manual of style and also to establish a more neutral tone. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted and they are a blocked user Strauss. (Thanks for the tag) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, DrStrauss. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

20:34:01, 27 June 2017 review of submission by NatalieMartin82

• NatalieMartin82 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Liquidity Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you please give me some pointers as to what I can do for this article to be approved? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieMartin82 (talk • contribs)

@NatalieMartin82: sure! A copyedit is probably in order to make the tone less promotional - try avoiding weasel words. The introduction contains too many external links which need cutting. Once you've done this, feel free to resubmit it. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes to my Immortality edits

Dear Dr Strauss,

I recently added a section to the 'Immortality' page, beginning to document some philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul. You indicate that you did not judge my changes to be constructive. Since the entry lacked (and now, thanks to you, still lacks) a discussion of the history of arguments for immortality, it seems to me that an addition of such a discussion would be highly constructive. What are your qualifications for judging the non-constructiveness of my work, and what was the basis of your judgment?

respectfully,

Dr JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.145.218 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi 100.37.145.218, while your edits may have been correct, content on Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification purposes. Feel free to add sources to your edits, the diff can be found here. Thank you for contributing! I used the wrong template on your talk page in error, for that I apologise. DrStrauss talk 21:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Very good to see you back. As an FYI since you started the conversation at the village pump about page creation restrictions in Feb if I have recalled, a lot has happened since then. You might want to check out WT:NPPAFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, thank you for your kind message. That page looks very encouraging at first glance but I'll read it properly in the morning. Thanks again :) DrStrauss talk 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

@DrStrauss: Hello sir, Yes now the article is appearing but with a small error on top of it saying copy editing error. Can you please help me in improving it. Thank you once again. Jayanagas (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jayanagas, I reviewed Karunakara Mardi Reddy once it went into the mainspace and added the copyedit tag because it needs a rewrite for style and tone (WP:COPYEDIT). I'll give it a go myself in a couple of hours. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Note: discussion carried forward from here and here pertaining to Karunakara Mardi Reddy.

2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup

Hi! Just wondering why you decided to close the requested move discussion for this page, the 2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup? I know that it has been going on for a while, however the discussion had just finally sparked some activity the last few days and I was having an ongoing conversation with another user in which I only replied to less than 12 hours ago. That active discussion has now been cut off because you closed the move as no consensus. This user, who was originally against moving, was clearly open to having their mind changed if I could provide evidence to a certain subject matter of our conversation which I had just provided but you've now closed the discussion before giving them a chance to reply. If they were to change their mind the discussion would be 3 for and 1 against the move (the sole vote against being the user who originally moved the page to the current controversial title). I appreciate your time on this, thanks. TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC) TurboGUY (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TurboGUY, apologies, I should have looked at the most recent comment. I've re-opened it. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 09:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

15:27:24, 28 June 2017 review of submission by Tobiastan

• Tobiastan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tormod Cappelen Endresen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DrStrauss, Mr. Endresen is the Norwegian ambassador to Singapore, a diplomat, and has held various international positions. He is also listed in the largest Norwegian encyclopedia. Please let me know what else you need for him to be seen as notable enough. I see a number of similar diplomats on Wikipedia, so I need to understand why you rejected him. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F._Grady which has no references and does not seem to have had any other senior positions). Thanks a lot

Draft:Model-based enterprise

Regarding notability: I had thought that my cites were sufficient -- particularly for an article defining a term of art that's not in any way a commercial product.

In any event, I've added more and diverse citations, one of which notes that MBE was developed under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense, Army Research Laboratory, Armament Research Development Engineering Center, Army ManTech, NIST, NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership, General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Elysium, Adobe, EOS, ITI TranscenData, Vistagy, PTC, Dassault Systemes Delmia, Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Let me know if I need more. Cinteotl (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

17:50:10, 28 June 2017 review of submission by IdahoPolitics

• IdahoPolitics (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tommy Ahlquist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey DrStauss thank you for reviewing a page that I have been working on Draft:Tommy_Ahlquist. I was wondering what references that you have issues with? They are from local news organizations/newspapers. Once again thank you for your review and future help! IdahoPolitics (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)