User talk:Dlohcierekim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crazy as it might seem to you and me, new conversations are added below the older ones.


Talk archives for 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009 User talk archive December 2009 - March 31, 2010 User talk archive April 1, 2010 - August 18, 2010 User talk archive August 18, 2010 - August 31, 2010 User talk:Dlohcierekim/2010-08-31-2012-08-21 User talk:Dlohcierekim/20120823-20130831 permalink to talk page version archive that I lost ending December 2015 User talk:Dlohcierekim/April 20, 2017 - May 31, 2017, User talk:Dlohcierekim/2017-June 2017 July - September   2017, Octoner Nov. 2017

Deleted Page for Eric R. George[edit]

I'd like to understand why a page for Eric R. George was deleted. It has been mentioned that the page was overly promotional. Would it be possible for you to reactivate the page so that there is a chance to edit with some more information? And could you possibly point me in the right direction as what specific information is needed to make sure the page is acceptable? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The url was Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltedmud (talkcontribs) 19:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Meltedmud: Looks like you alreday have the content. Just remove the promotional content. Don't know what happened to the request for undeletion. That entry was removed. I don't know why. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Meltedmud The article is unlikely to be accepted. The relatively few articles he has published do not meet the requirements for notability under WP:PROF, and the sources are not references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements -- they are rather local press releases or announcements. The article is promotional to the extent I do not think it can be fixed. The combination of material on his activities as a physician with coverage only in local media with his activities as a real estate developer also with coverage only in local media is characteristic of promotional articles.
Even more important, considering the nature of the article, and considering that it was originally written by a now banned undeclared paid editor , it is apparently relevant to ask , what is your connection with the subject? Please see WP:COI for our policies about editing with a direct or financial connection. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: @Dlohcierekim: Hi this is Eric George, I have recently been told that a wiki page about me has been deleted mainly because it was done by a now banned paid editor. This is all news to me as I did not pay anyone to create an article about me. I found out through a few patients and business associates that were asking what happen to my wiki page, and has been an ongoing question since the deletion. I'm reaching out to hopefully get some direction on what steps can be followed to fix the issue and restore the page, since it seems to be popular with my patients and business associates. Any direction or assistance is greatly ERGMD (talk)

@ERGMD: Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your note. Please see the rest of this discussion. Looks like it was unambiguously promotional. Looks like you do not meet wp:GNG. Sorry to disappoint your patients and business associates. Will see how DGG opines.16:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
ERGMD, it is no shame not having a WP page. Our rules for who does and does not have one do not correspond to real world notability, but are based upon our complicated way of trying to figure out what belongs in an encyclopedia. Looking again at the article, its promotional nature is so clear that someone must have written it to promote your activities, for whatever reason. Usually the reason is money or direct connection with the subject, but sometimes it is a situation like friend or relative or grateful patient. When any of your professional or other activities are significant enough for coverage in an encyclopedia , someone without such conflict of interest will know about it and write a proper article. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

dear Authorized,[edit]

My dear friend. The article was deleted. Help me in this regard. Make the article active. It's too tiring to start again. Please ( Ayselonline (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC) )

Sorry. I cannot. Try at WP:DRV.06:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Die Grippe[edit]

This user has the Flu and may not respond to posts on Wikipedia (or anything else) for some time. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news



  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dlohcierekim. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page International Conference on Services Computing[edit]

Hello, Dlohcierekim. I'm creating a new article --- International Conference on Services Computing and I'm not sure whether it is similar to the one you deleted.
Here's the basic information. The International Conference on Services Computing or SCC is an annual international conference sponsored by Services Society<ref></ref> and the [[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers|IEEE]] Computer Society. It is an academic platform for researchers and industry practitioners to share views on [[Services computing]]<ref></ref><ref></ref>.
Waiting for your answer Sissicxi (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sissicxi: Hard to tell. It will need reliable sources independent of the subject, that treat the subject in depth. Not seeing that in the links provided. Your best bet is to run it through the WP:AfC process. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:Ok, thanks a lot :)Sissicxi (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim:Hi, I saw the maintenance template on International Conference on Services Computing, I can't quite understand the third one. Which reference is improper? And how could I improve the article, especially the notability?

Sissicxi (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sissicxi: Thanks for the note. Sources need to be unconnected with the subject, objective, reliable, with a reputation for fact checking. Sources connected with the subject can be used for some information, but in no way go to supporting meeting notability requirements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I see. I deleted the improper references and added some citations.

Sissicxi (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page protection[edit]

Doing that seven and a half hours after it's all stopped seems a little bizarre. It won't really matter what page you protect, that IP editor will just move to another location, so please unprotect my page as other, legitimate IPs may wish to contact me there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: sure thing. did not catch the time stamps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs) 21:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:--Whilst you surely have your own calls as to protection/unprotection, I filed the request since your t/p seems to have been the epicenter of the LTA's activities for quite a span of time.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 10:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but simply pressing undo or rollback is quite simple and doesn't disallow other IPs from editing there. Simply stopping a LTA from editing one talk page will not stop that LTA from editing anything else. It's poorly addressing symptoms, not actually curing the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, @The Rambling Man: I always felt that vandalism in my user space was a sign of success in countering vandalism. Never had the honor of a LTA-er who felt I needed the attention. TRM must be doing something right. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"2017-12-05T12:16:07‎ 2a00:23c0:8302:3a01:1d01:bfe6:dcc2:9d5e (talk | block)‎ . . (66,426 bytes) (+1,188)‎ . . (Winged Blades of Godric is harassing The Rambling Man. Because of him, Dlohcierekim protected Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for a month.) (undo)" OMG I have a stalker too! Actually, the aforementioned contratemps was due to the flu.13:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)~

Peppa Pig Episodes[edit]

Santa's Grotto is a Season 3 Peppa Episode. You have re-listed it under Season 5 Mr. Potatoes Christmas Show is a Season 4 Peppa Episode. You have re-listed it under Season 5. Please include citations or sources if you are going to add episodes to Season 5 All sources that I've seen clearly shows that "Father Christmas" is the newest Peppa episode. Season 5, Episode 32. I don't see clear evidence of these other 3 episodes from trusted sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brockraabe (talkcontribs) 01:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC) 

@Brockraabe: Sorry, I do not know what you are talking about. A link to the article might be helpful. If you mean, List of Peppa Pig episodes, then I only protected the page against vandalism. I made no change in content. If you feel a change in content is needed, please make an edit request as per the instructions at WPP:RFPP on the article talk page. Or discuss the proposed change on the article talk page. Cheers, and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wars involving Bulgaria[edit]

Hi Dlohcierekim. You protected Category:Wars involving Bulgaria back at the end of October because of some disruptive IP editing. Well, the IP(s) appear to be back so I am wondering if the page can be protected once again. Is it still too soon for another WP:RPP? I have a feeling that this is the same person, most likely BulgariaSources (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive), and blocking each new IP each time it appears will not slow them down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Done -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


The vandalism there was probably because it was featured on the main page; it's just been replaced there by another article. Peter James (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC) @Peter James: Comes the dawn. thanks. maybe can unprotect. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu[edit]

Dear Editor, I understand that you have deleted my edits and contributions to this write up. After a long and gruelling survey of literature in Telugu and conducting interviews with the relatives of these poet duo, I have made edits and contributed to enrich it. I have given enough references both offline and on line references. But, unfortunately you felt that it was promotional material and gooey. But, you could have put me on notice of any such promotional sentences and words that I could have deleted or re-written. For each such contribution to wikipedia sources, I spend a lot of time, effort and money besides doing a lot of travel solely out of academic interest. The poet duo were dead long ago and belonged to an era of past when no publishers have published about them in English. But there is a lot of material in Telugu about their poetic competencies and prowess. They used to render prosody based Telugu poetry very fast and this fact was documented by several contemporary authors in local Telugu press. But the very fact that they are not verifiable online in Telugu or English will not automatically render it as promotional or gooey. Kindly understand that the local and regional references cited in Telugu are not manufactured today. Their antiquity is well established by virtue of the fact that they were preserved in different libraries of Universities in Andhra Pradesh. Over and above if there is any promotional sentences or words I am willing to be neutral and edit them out. Kindly restore my edits and contributions to the article and if you want to be cautious about my assurance kindly keep it in draft form. After my edits, you please scrutinize and do let me know if further edits and cuts are required to delete promotional content from it. But, kindly note the references given are reliable in Telugu. In fact I had given some latest references with ODI and date also for online verification in Telugu news papers. Please do needful at the earliest.CSHN Murthy (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@CSHN Murthy: Thanks for your note. I've no doubt they are notable. As you say, finding sources is difficult for pre computer age subjects. You'll need to re-add content that is neutral in tone. Phrases like "in recognition of their astounding scholarship," just are not suitable for an encyclopedia. I will email you a deleted version and return the article to Draft space for further work.16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Dloh, draftifyimg is good.But don't move it back to mains-space.For some context, see my reply over here.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 05:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks. It's gone now. Did not catch the self referencing. IF it was OR, perhaps CSHN Murthy can find a webhost to post it on. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for review of undeletion as it was not discussed. Winged Blades Godric is NPA and not following WP policies. He has no business to assume things without verifying with me. While one can post one's own story on Wikipedia as an academic I can cite my own publications as supportive references to another scholars work. Whether it is fake or not he has no academic competence to judge. He should first discuss if he has not understood. He is violating the WP and instigating other editors. I do not let this matter go. He should face prosecution and be necked out of WP for biting the new comers. Pl send the draft for review of deletion as no prior discussion was done. This is last warning and next matter lies with the arbitration committee and I ask the committee to review all deletes done by the rascal in a single day and how he ganged up with others to drafting the drafts sought for review of deletion in violation of WP policies. I contested this NPA application of rules of WP in a unilateral manner without understanding import of them. He used dirty language against me forgetting that i an a fellow editor . Theatrics, suicide pact, avatar, gaming, what nonsense it is as though WP is his personal property. CSHN Murthy (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@CSHN Murthy:Thanks for your note. 1) You need to stop making personal attacks right now. See- WP:NPA. I have redacted them. 2) No one needs to verify anything with you. He does not need academic competence. 3) There is no undeletion to make. The Draft, which you have a link to, still has a revision with your prior content and sources. The content was removed because it was non neutral and/or not supported by reliable sources. The content was mostly overly effusive. 4) The problems between you and Winged is not a matter for ArbCom. Try WP:dispute resolution. As to the sourcing Winged objects to, seek clarification at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 5) What is it you need me to do right now? Hopefully, some of this will help. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Can you help us see our way clearly? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've told CSHN Murthy that he can use non-English sources and that they don't have to be on-line, and I've linked to two examples. He can't use himself as a reference. I've also said that he doesn't own these articles, and it's nothing to do with academic or cultural knowledge, it's a matter of following our policies with regard to how he writes. Anyone can judge that, even if they know nothing about the subject, and his cultural or religious views are irrelevant here. The way forward is for him to leave the battleground and abide by our policies, which he appears reluctant to do. I note that he has been warned about personal attacks, and I'll block him if they continue. Unless he is willing to take some personal responsibility rather than assume he knows best and we are all ganging up on him, this will not end well. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why you have retreated from sending me the draft by e-mail or moving the article back to draft space?[edit]

Hi, surprise to me that you retreated from moving the article into draft space or sending me e-mail. Suddenly Winged Blades Godric interfered and you immediately retreated. I did not get actually what transpired in between. I did not find Winged Blades Godric open minded. He appeared to be quite vindictive and the language he was using in his posts was also quite rude and unbecoming of an editor of wikipedia. I have strongly protested his conduct and behaviour and ever since he has been on a spree of deleting my content on some stupid application of wiki rules and calls himself as a great editor, etc. He thinks by commanding a fellow editor he has really become a great editor. But, he is like a <<redact>> biting every new comer into the street of wikipedia. Please clarify why this article that you have deleted with regard to my changes should not be allowed for my scrutiny under review deletion? Are you all acting in concert to victimize my posts and edits? This is a serious matter and I can also use flippant language against Winged Blades Godric but am avoiding doing so as I cannot engage myself with a stupid or an out and out <<redact>> CSHN Murthy (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@CSHN Murthy: I moved it to the exisiting draft article, which you blanked, and it was deleted.16:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It's right here-- Draft:Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope wrong one -- Dlohcierekim (talk)
This one? Draft:Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
redact>...How the heck, is he not blocked?The last time I saw, WP:NPA was a policy.17:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Winged Blade<< s Godric
@Winged Blades of Godric: Did not see the <<redact>>. You might want to ask Jimfbleak ‎to have a word. Jim seems to have a rapport. Seems to have a victimization streak. (You've seen the comments on Jim's page.) Spewed all over my talk page after I had already draftified the thing. Definitely did not appreciate your input. You might want to disengage from them. Not sure that any response other than compliance with their wishes would be acceptable to them. Maybe they will settle down. If not, there is always AN/I. I'm just giving 'em space so they can work on the article. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping Winged could help with sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No. As I said before:--draftifying is good but re-mainspacing is not.This mess has been well-recorded at Jim's t/p.There seems to be some or the other aspects of everything that should not be done:--OR, Advocacy, Promotion, Self-ref-spam, Faking refs and shades of CIR.Winged Blades Godric 17:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Which ref's are fake? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
See my string of edits at Draft:Subrahmanya_Saastri.Faking refs and self-ref-spam.Winged Blades Godric 17:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
YGM.Winged Blades Godric 17:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I meant Draft:Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
AFAIR, (but not with abs. certainty) that too contained elements of fake ref(s) but anyway, you mass-blanked.Winged Blades Godric 18:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also had (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so that's maybe why you thought of it as a sock. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

GippoHippo block[edit]

Hi. I saw the block appeal in the user's talk page. Although I saw that the user did indeed violated policy by insulting other people among maybe other things, I was left with a couple of questions. You wrote, "you continued to edit disruptively after you were blocked", which left me wondering, how can the user edit disruptively -or edit at all- while blocked? He was blocked at 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC), and at the time of writing this, it is not yet 24 hours, which was the block period. You mentioned about him going to the media. I sincerely hope that you did not include that in your unblock considerations negatively. Freedom of the press and whistleblowing are important things in society. Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thinker78: The disruption is the abuse he continued to hand out on his talk page. Freedom of the Press has nothing to do with. Members of the community are expected to act within the processes within the community. There is no whistle to blow when an editor who disagrees with policies and guidelines adopted by the community does not act within the community polices and guidelines to seek change or clarification.22:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
An unblock requires an understanding of the reason for the block and an affirmation of not repeating the behavior that lead to the block. Neither of those were evident in his block appeal. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please unprotect Yugoslav coup d'état[edit]

G'day Dlohcierekim, I have asked for a community view at ANI regarding this article, and it appears my view is the minority one. PLease unprotect the page so I can reinstate the edits made. There will be no further edit warring on this issue by me. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim wasn't sure if you saw this, pinging. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

RIMS RMM Submission Page[edit]

Hello Dlohcierekim! I hope your holiday season is off to a great start! We spoke last month concerning a page I submitted for review, Draft:RIMS Risk Maturity Model. I tried to amend the page based on your recommendations, and responded to a few of your comments. Just curious about next steps, will you still be the one reviewing and/or accepting the page? I understand there's a huge volume of pages to be reviewed, so I was just wondering what the process looked like from here. Thank you so much for all of your help! Outlier11 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Outlier11: Sorry, I just do not see sufficient coverage. All leave it for the reviewers to look at it.22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rev-del request[edit]

I noticed that you rev-delled a revision on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection, but forgot to rev-del the following revision by SineBot Could you rev-del that revision please? Thank you! ;) Hastiness (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom Longboat Award Wikipedia Page Submission[edit]

Hello Dlohcierekim,

First off thank you for the review of the page and the feedback. I believe that the changes made are much better at this point as we hope to continue to grow this page. I was wondering if it was you that reviews pages that were resubmitted or if it was another editor. I ask because we have editathons planned for the material related to this page and are very eager to get it going live.

Thank you again for your time and advice.

Brandsant22 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)B

@Brandsant22: I will ask @I dream of horses: to opine. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Brandsant22: I note that Drewmutt, along with Dlohcierekim, has also reviewed your draft--though, admittedly, I am probably the most experienced editor out of the bunch. So there are multiple people reviewing drafts, not just one or two people.
I declined your draft because, as I said when I reviewed it, there were no references at the time. References are pretty important for an encyclopedia, after all.
There were links to help with identifying reliable sources, citing sources, along with a beginners guide to references. Dlohcierekim also linked you to a guide about knowing the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, another one about notability along with a brief summary about notability. You should go ahead and read them (I know it's a lot, forgive me) if you haven't already. --- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: Thanks for your note. He's added sources, but are they sufficient? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to a trend of lack of independence in the sources (four of them seem to be written by an award winner [Janice Forsyth], two are affiliated with the company that gives out the award). This one is a little better, but barely mentions the award; same with this source. There's a couple of offline sources that I can't evaluate at the moment, which is more of a reflection of the fact that I don't go to the library much than anything about the quality of said sources.
However, one would hope that the information can at least be added to the Tom Longboat article, even if it turns out a stand alone article isn't warranted.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Another rev-del request[edit]

Please may you rev-del these two revisions to Chetan (name)? Thank you! Hastiness (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hastiness: I think I got en. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Might I inquire as to what requires revdel in those two edits? Primefac (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: They're the same as the previous two edits by 2405:204:2096:ee58::e8c:f8b1, which were rev-delled by Coffee. Hastiness (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. I see nothing in any of those edits that would require a revdel, which is why I'm asking. I didn't see Coffee's involvement when I first made the post, but I guess I'll extend the question to them as well. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I was thinking vandalism. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: WP:DENY off the top of my head. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, yes I did start the page Nicholas Einhorn . How was it a copyright violation? I quoted a source. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1: Thanks for your note, but I do not see where I edited or deleted that. Premeditated Chaos deleted it. I see you messaged Chrissymad as well. Sorry, I do not know. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I only see that it was so deleted. If you copy pasted word-for-word or made a close paraphrase, that would do it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It was pretty much copied from [1]. ♠PMC(talk) 02:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kingdamian1: So even if you cited the source, it would need to be rewritten from scratch. Wikipedia content must be freely licensable under the CC BY-SA 3.0 , the GFDL or in the public domain.03:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a thought... If the page requires editing NOT to be a violation, why can't other wikipedia users correct it? Why should the work have been completely deleted? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Copyright violations (copyvios) are taken extremely seriously on Wikipedia. They are a huge deal, to the point that we actually delete previous revisions of pages that contained copyrighted text, even if that text has since been altered or edited, and even if that means removing significant portions of an article's history. Allowing copyvios to remain on the site exposes us to significant liability from copyright holders, and damages our ability to be a fully free and shareable encyclopedia. Copyvios cannot be fixed by simply editing the text a little, because that would constitute a close paraphrase and would also be a copyvio. An article that has been uploaded as a copyvio must be deleted. If re-uploaded, it must be entirely written from scratch. It is not some "other Wikipedia users" responsibility to do that work. It is your job as a contributor to abide by our policies and not upload copyrighted text. ♠PMC(talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Umoja Learning Community DRAFT Page[edit]

I was notified that you deleted, restored, and then deleted again my class' DRAFT page for the Umoja Learning Community. This page was in the very first draft stage, had not been fully formed, and still needed significant revision, which is why it was still in draft form. Students have just completed the trainings and were to create an encyclopedic entry. The students found some similar programs with pages (Upward Bound and Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program) and I know of several credible outside sources (which they are to find and use), so I did not think it would fall under the promotion category. The students just did not have the chance to complete it yet -- I do know that one student cited the actual Umoja Page, which was going to be a topic of discussion for our class. Can we get the DRAFT page back and then it can be reassessed in a month or so or when we actually go to publish? Kdavis25 (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)