User talk:Sjb72/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Highland Glee Club

Hello - you recently deleted an article I created on the Highland Glee Club, which is the oldest men's chorus in New England. It was formed in 1908 (over 100 years ago) and is still in existence today. It is also the last remaining glee club in the New England Federation of Men's Glee Clubs, which was formed before WWI. As you can see, it has great historical significance and worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I plan to re-create the article and will ensure that these points are included so that everyone can see the rich history of the HGC and it's value being included on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btwillmott82 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the oldest in New England? There was nothing in the article that stated that. The people who review articles don't have an encyclopoedic knowledge of everything, and have to go by what is presented within the article. However, that may not be enough of a claim of notability - see the Notability Guidelines to see what we use to assess an article. Note that the best indication of notability comes from being covered in multiple third party publications.
One thing I did note from the revision history was that a big chunk of the article was removed because of copyright issues - please do not copy material from other sources; it needs to be written in your own words.
Another thing to be aware of is the Conflict of interest rules. If you are closely connected with the club, it is strongly recommended that you do not write about it.
If, after reading the above you decide that there still should be an article, I would recommend writing the article in your user area and then moving it to mainspace when it is ready. Stephen! Coming... 07:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was and still is the oldest men's glee club in New England and the the last remaining glee club in the New England Federation of Men's Glee Clubs. I did not realize this was not stated in the article, but I will make sure it is clear in the new article I am working on in my userspace prior to pushing it to review for publishing. Regarding the copyright issues with the article, again I had thought that a good chunk of it was actually original text, but I did source the portions that were taken from the glee club's website. Is that not allowed? I will research this more and make sure that there are no copyright issues in the future. Thank you for the additional information. This certainly has been an interesting experience. Btwillmott82 (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

About half the text was deleted by another editor as it was copied and pasted. As a general rule it is always best to use your own words, unless you are quoting someone directly, and only then if you attribute accordingly. Stephen! Coming... 13:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

German Malaysian Round Table - GMRT

Dear Sir, The above written article on GMRT is to register in the encyclopedic chronics an up and coming organisation. This is history in the making in Germany and Malaysia, as there has never been a platform fot German and Malaysian business community, to share their views and ideas. Using this platform, the trade and financial exchanges between Germany and Malaysia will be pushed forward.

Moreover SME's (Small and Medium Size Entities) will have a common basis to discuss their trade problems between both countries in an informal manner.

This is not a club but a voluntary community. A community on the growth and is expanding to Austria and Switzerland. The article has not broken any copyrights infringements.

The article is not promoting GMRT, but to inform potential interested SME about the whole concept. Generally this idea is expanding in Germany and it is a matter of time that more ASEAN round tables will be established.

Regards,

Param Intercultural Stepping Stones (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically, as well as reading as promotional material, there was nothing on the article to show any form of notability. If you can show it is notable, including 3rd party references (not press releases) then I will consider restoring it. Alternatively, you can appeal against the deletion by taking it to deletion review, but make sure you can show why it is a notable organisation or they will turn it down too. Stephen! Coming... 11:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

C:ATT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C:ATT. Since you had some involvement with the C:ATT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Proposed deletion of Clare Rayner

The article Clare Rayner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e deckertalk 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick note re: Clare Rayner

I left a note agreeing with your "prefer redirect to delete" at this article, and if it does get deleted, feel free to add the redirect (or I'll do it if I notice, etc.) Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Hello! You deleted Birth of Music!

Hello:

I am the lead singer of Birth of Music, and you've deleted my page. It was making my day, and besides, the band is pretty famous. So, if you are a human with a heart, please get it back...

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.16.62 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have re-reviewed the article Birth of Music (band) and I stand by my earlier deletion. There was nothing in the article that stood out as notable; just a series of appearances at or for the school. WP:BAND gives an idea about what we are looking for with regards to band notability.
Aside from that, we strongly discourage the writing of articles about which you are heavily involved - see the Conflict of Interest policy. Besides, having an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of.
If you really want the article restored, I suggest you take it to Deletion Review, but make sure you can show 3rd party references as to why the band is famous - 50 hits on your You Tube page is really not going to cut it. Stephen! Coming... 07:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Moving page 1337 Gallery

Thanks for notifying me about moving the page. I'll work on it. But it isn't a problem if I create another page called 1337 Gallery ONCE I've updated it, right? --19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If the article is in a good condition (i.e. about a notable topic written in a non-promotional style), you won't need to recreate the page - we can just move the article back into mainspace. Stephen! Coming... 10:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for answering. Should I notify you once the page is done? --19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can, and I'll gladly have a look over it for you, and move it if it is ready. I'm not the most active of admin staff, so you might be better popping over to the Help Desk for a quicker response. You will also find experienced editors there who will be able to have a look at it and give you feedback, or point you to subject matter experts who can help you write this and the other articles you were talking about. Stephen! Coming... 10:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

All right! Thanks. --19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi StephenBuxton,

I think I'm done improving the article, what do you think? 1337 Gallery--19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. See User talk:19-FOUAD-97/1337 Gallery Stephen! Coming... 12:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Help me!

Hi! you deleted Abubakar Siddiki(Name) my created page and i want to khow how to give Importance and Significance in writing,i dont know,please show me and help me soon in my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samima khatun (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To show importance and significance in the article, you need to write about what makes that person notable. Have a read of the general guidelines of notability to see what demonstrates notability, and make sure your article includes that information. For example, if you were writing about a student from Japan that won the Nobel Prize for Literature, but only wrote about which school he went to with no mention of the prize, the article would be deleted as non-notable.
I would suggest you create your article in your own userspace first and then we can move it when it is ready. That should avoid premature deletions. Stephen! Coming... 12:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Thomson Geer

Can you please create this page for me. See all verifiable references and language

(Removed text as it has already been created on Thomson Geer)
I have had a look at the text of the article, and even if the article hadn't already been put on mainspace, I would not be doing so. The reason is that the references you have included all appear to be press releases, and do not count as media coverage. To show notability, you need to cite actual news coverage not initiated by the company. Stephen! Coming... 06:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Stephen, thanks for reviewing and posting. I will see if I can get onto more news coverage for you. Thanks. I will also remove the considered for deletion box whilst I dig up more media coverage. Nearly all of the sources are actual media coverage, and have not been sought out or sponsored from what I know. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianeditor (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

By all means add more content to the article, but please do not under any circumstances remove the Considered for Deletion box. That has to remain for the entirety of the discussion, and will be removed at the end (if the page is to be kept). Persistant removal of such boxes may result in temporary blocks. Stephen! Coming... 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks Stephen. I have just added to the discussion page. I stand by the argument that most other law firms use a similar tone, however - can see both sides. I will eagerly await the reply. Thanks again for the insight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianeditor (talk • contribs) 07:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Manik Prabhu

Hi,

A page that you deleted as a copyvio, Manik Prabhu, just got recreated. This time, the text seems original, but at least one of the images comes (I believe) from the source that was previously plagiarized. Would you mind looking up the URL of the original in the logs, so the image can be tagged as copyvio on Commons if my hunch is right? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about copyright law with regards to use/fair use of images to be able to comment as to whether or not there has been an infringement. The source of the original text was this page. Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've actually found the image in a lot of places in several variants, and it might be that it's actually some old PD pic, but it's probably not the uploader's "own work" as they claim. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries; I'll let you decide how best to proceed. Stephen! Coming... 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Appeal of Deletion

Space Fighter should not have been deleted. It is rather notable around Southern Ontario. It has over 10, 000 users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crater721 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was non-notable (even the latest version, now deleted, stated that it has not had any notable reviews), and did read like an advert for the game. It was also being used as a way of complaining about not getting the marks you thought it deserved. The number of users of a game does not automatically make it notable.
If you still think that it should be restored, either provide me with proof of notability, or take it to Deletion Review, if you'd rather someone else re-assess it. Stephen! Coming... 06:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Tagging sandboxes for review

I added a couple of additional comments after you marked this Resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for letting me know. Could you please do me a favour and check that my edits to the template have been done properly, and if there are any errors point them out to me? Thanks Stephen! Coming... 15:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Something wasn't quite right so I redid it - think it's OK now.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you. Stephen! Coming... 16:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Mistake

Sorry. Not gonna happen again. At least I'm learning a lot from my mistakes. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

36.250.89.94

Special:Contributions/36.250.89.94 is probably Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I've got to get back to work now, but will keep an eye on them over lunch. I have posted a warning on their page. Stephen! Coming... 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Nomination of David Penn (magician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Penn (magician) 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/David Penn (magician) 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. Launchballer 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Talk:808s & Heartbreak

I would like to make a request for banning the following IPs permenantly. He/she did added or duplicated request section for musical genre seven or eight times with multiple IPs 93.186.23.99, 93.186.31.114, 93.186.31.115, 93.186.31.81, 86.138.231.134, 86.138.229.82 and 86.138.229.206 (three are 86.138 IPs has been blocked by Kww and Tiptoety, respectively). 183.171.163.206 (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not something that I can do without community backing. Permanant blocks or bans on unregistered IP addresses is something that has to be investigated fully, as other users may use the computers and would ultimately be adversely affected. I would suggest taking this to WP:SPI. Stephen! Coming... 06:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Page delete

Hey Mr. Buxton,

Sorry to bother you, I just had a short question about a deletion tag that you removed a few days ago.

I applied the tag, but actually I'm really new to Wikipedia and don't really understand much about the process of getting an article removed, so I was wondering if you might be able to help?

I am a theology student recently tasked with studying Modern East Asian religion. I came across the Wikipedia article on the Providence Religious Group (official name is actually Christian Gospel Mission). This is a very controversial group in Korea and the rest of East Asia as it has had many serious allegations levied against it yet continues to sustain a high volume of members.

Though the allegations against this group are quite serious, I know it is the standard of an encyclopedia to accurately represent the subject. I had to do a lot of painstaking research for my class, but based on my research of primary sources, the Wikipedia article does not offer a neutral, complete presentation of the subject from an academic perspective. It is misinformed in places, engages in the debate in others, and is not professional in its tone. Even the title of the group is incorrect.

So, I created an account to try to delete this article. Sorry this is probably a big inconvenience for you, but I saw on the reviews that people said you were friendly and helpful--would you be able to help?

--Gios — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If an article isn't neutral in tone, and you have carried out research such that you can see what is missing, then Be Bold and add it! Wikipedia is there for absolutely anyone to edit. Sure, you might make a few mistakes, but these are always very easy to correct.
One thing I would say though is that if you are editing a topic that is highly contraversial, or is on something that people are very opiniated about, it is all to easy to unwittingly enter into an Edit War. So what I suggest is make the edits, and post your reasoning on the talk page of the topic.
If something is inaccurately represented on the article, then edit it and explain why on the talk page. HOWEVER - if what is written in the article is an accurate representation of what is in the referenced source, then don't remove it but instead find a source that offers a counterpoint, and add that to balance the article.
Good luck with your editing, and if you have any problems, then please don't hesitate to ask me. You can always get a quicker responce on the Help Desk if you need a rapid reply. Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 06:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Providence(Religious Movement)

Hey Stephen, thanks for responding! Actually I wanted to ask about that--I reviewed the editing history for the Providence(religious movement) page and it seems as if it has already undergone a series of edit wars (between the authors of the page and possibly members of the religious group)and is now semi-protected... for any edits that are made, the original authors have just re-edited it with the original format. I would of course be happy to provide information I have found for the page, but I'm certainly not interested in getting involved in an edit war!

So my question is, should I try editing it anyway?? Because many of the sources for the article are in Chinese and Japanese, and because the language and structure are one-sided for the majority of the article, it might take a lot of editing to balance it out... I'm not sure if a rewrite wouldn't be better? Idk please let me know what you think on how to proceed! Thanks so much for your help GIOSCali (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely you should try editing it... that's one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia - so be bold and edit away! As I mentioned above, just be careful not to remove referenced text. The other thing is not to put undue weight on any particular viewpoint; see WP:WEIGHT. Always explain your activities in the talk area.
What you might want to consider is copying all the source text and create a User page to edit it to try and balance it out. The text can then be merged with the main article when it's in a better condition. I would suggest that you let people know on the talk page that this is what you are planning on doing, should you choose this avenue. Stephen! Coming... 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Yes I will definitely inform the authors on their talk pages. For material that is sourced, but has a tone that is non-academic/ is not neutral, are we allowed to just change the tone of the information provided? Also, what about references in foreign languages? Are translations supposed to be provided? GIOSCali (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not too sure about translations; I suspect you're on your own that way, or find someone who can translate it for you if you need it. By all means change the tone, so long as it is to a more neutral manner. The Manual of Style should be able to help you with there, if you need it. Stephen! Coming... 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Jeremiah Ferguson

The page I was working on had nothing to do with promotion it was simply facts and should be replaced not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah Ferguson (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention to make it promotional, but that was the tone that came across – partly advert, partly CV. As has been posted on your talk page already, it is ‘’’strongly discouraged’’’ to write an article about yourself as it is almost impossible to stop yourself from writing in a non-neutral tone. Have a read of this essay as to why an article about yourself is nothing to strive for. If you still believe that the article should be restored, I suggest you take it to Deletion Review for an independent check of the article. Stephen! Coming... 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fix this! It was not suppost to be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah Ferguson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It needs serious rewriting for it to be permitted; repeated posting of it in the same form will continue to have it deleted. Have a read of this article to see the sorts of phrases and words to avoid. But, and I cannot emphasise this enough, editors are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself. Stephen! Coming... 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay can you activate this page ive been working on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah Ferguson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to change my user name however the page should not be deleted due to me working on it I just have a similar user name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah Ferguson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My article needs to be restored thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah Ferguson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page. Stephen! Coming... 06:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick response to my recent Speedy Deletion requests. Though you declined several of my requests, your comments explaining why have helped me gain a better understanding and will enable me to be more effective as an editor here. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. If you have a read of the criteria on speedy deletion WP:CSD it describes what is and isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. Ultimately it is a judgement call on both you, the nominator and us, the administrators.
Just because I decline an article for speedy deletion, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be allowed on Wikipedia; all I'm doing is declining speedy deletion. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are both routes that can be used to have the article deleted. Also, never forget that we are here to build an encyclopedia, so improving the article is also an option!
Thanks for your work on the project. Stephen! Coming... 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BIO3

Hi Stephen Buxton, I am writing to you because you deleted the BIO3 page. Yes I know it looks like it`s just an ad, but I want to ensure you it is not and it was not supposed to be one. The company made implants for my grandfather, who had a few dental problems and he is really happy with them. And this is my way to say thank you. The only problem is, they are restructioning and their website is not complete yet. You can llok for yourself: http://bio3-implants.com/ As I was the one who spoke to them (my grandfather dont know any german) I was wondering about this technology. I mean what risks are there, what can go wrong and so on. So they showed me everything on paper and said in a few weeks, the website will be up as well. And like I wrote to Vanjagenije (the one who marked my page) I was gonna keep updating the page. So can you please put it back up and if you see, that I am not updating it, then you can delete it. Sorry to bother you and thanks in advance.

P.S. I am sorry for any mistakes, as you can imagine eng. is not my natie language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonXardas (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What I would recommend you do is create a work-in-progress page for it, and when you think it is ready, submit it for review. Being a draft copy means that it is less likely to be deleted whilst you work on it. Read this page to get an idea of the sorts of phrases to avoid. Please note though that even if the company exists and the article is written in a neutral tone, if the company is not notable, it will not be allowed to move onto the main site, so make sure you include third party references from legitimate news sources.
You might also consider writing this up on the German Wiki, if that is easier for you language wise? However you decide to proceed, good luck with your editing! Stephen! Coming... 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Ok thanks for the advice. Yeah I was gonna do a german version, but i want to improve my eng. skill and to be honest the german version of wikipedia is a little bit strange, I understand and like the english version much better. And yeah again thx for the advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonXardas (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Providence(religious movement)

Hey Mr. Buxton! Sorry to bother you, not sure if you remember but I actually messaged you several weeks ago regarding the Providence(religious movement) page! If it's okay, I just wanted to ask a follow up question regarding some of the advice you gave me at the time ;)

If you recall, this particular article deals with a very controversial religious group that originated in South Korea(it is referred to by many as a cult). As a theology student studying modern religion in Asia, I had come across some information about this group in particular that I felt could prove valuable for the article, so I created an account to try to collaborate and improve the article(which came across as a bit unprofessional and unscholarly, also missing key bits of information in places).

After consulting with you, I greeted the authors and editors on the talk page and tried to add a very basic edit to the page--that in the South Korean legal system, criminal trials do not feature a jury. I was hoping to add more information about the nature of the trial(which is actually a very important subject as it pertains to this article from an academic standpoint!

Oneof the authors of the page rejected the edit for a few reasons. I sent him an apology message and told him I was new, asked for his help, etc. After a few days and no response, I reposted the edit after addressing his concerns, but he rejected and told me I may be blocked from editing. I sent him another message asking if we could work together, so far nothing back though!

Just wanted to ask your advice on how to proceed? I'm not looking for any edit wars, just want to have a friendly collaboration with fellow scholars! Here are the links to the conversations, trying to be friendly but maybe I'm not doing it the right way? Sorry to bother you any advice would be great man!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Providence_(religious_movement) (see: Korean judicial system)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GIOSCali — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Carry on as you are, trying to find a decent reliable source to back your edits. You aren't carrying out disruptive editing, so you are unlikely to be blocked. I have cautioned the editor, and asked him to be a bit more helpful rather than relying on templated warnings. Stephen! Coming... 12:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Deletion: Urban Culture Lab

Hi Stephen, I am writing to you regarding the deletion of the article Urban Culture Lab. As far as I can see, the page was deleted in relation to criteria A7. However, the criteria states that it does not apply to educational institutions. Urban Culture Lab is an educational institution as stated in the article. The article also cited a number of external sources, so I am a bit puzzled about the speedy deletion.

Perhaps you can help clarify why it was deleted??

Thanks in advance. All the best JannickSchou (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. The definition of what counts as an “educational establishments” varies a bit from administrator to administrator. I am aware of the exemption for educational establishments from speedy under A7, but I was having a hard time of applying the exemption to this article. I’ll explain what I mean: A school is exempt, that is clear cut. A school within a school, such as a sixth form college? Seems fairly obvious that it is exempt. A department within that sixth form college? Not so clear cut, and will probably need to show extra notability. A laboratory within that department within the sixth form college? Probably not.
And that is the issue that I was facing here. Now, I’m not saying that the Urban Culture Lab is exactly the same as the laboratory in the above scenario; I was assessing the article as a department within a school within a university. I was therefore looking for the notability to be demonstrated within the references, and I couldn’t see it. I did look long and hard for notability, but it wasn’t there. Deleting the article wasn’t a decision I made lightly.
As the decision was so hard and you did ask nicely, I’ll restore the page (you should see some of the nasty requests I get; your polite post makes a pleasant change LOL!). I’m a bit busy at the moment, but I will do that at some point in the next few hours, and let you know when. I will point out to you one thing though: at the moment it stands a good chance of being deleted by other administrators, if not by speedy then certainly by WP:AFD. The article desperately needs decent references – please note that primary sources don’t count as references, they have to be third party notable sources (and press releases don’t count). I would suggest that if you are struggling to find proper references you might consider merging the article with the parent faculty article. To do that, copy the text from this page, paste it into the faculty page giving the sections appropriate headings and sub headings, and convert the original article into a redirect page.
If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to ask. Stephen! Coming... 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot for the clarification and for restoring the page. I will consider either a merger or adding more references to avoid future deletion. Once again, thanks for the help! :-) All the best JannickSchou (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Article has been restored, so happy editing! Stephen! Coming... 09:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

FoodiesCompass SpeedyDelete

HI, I tagged this article FoodiesCompass yesterday for CSD as blatant promo. The page creator (Marv Scholes (talk)) apparently wanted to contest the speedy, but left the messages on my talk page and their own talk page. Since you were the administator deleting the article, I wanted to let you know. thanks —Gaff ταλκ 00:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers; I've added my comment on his page. Stephen! Coming... 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Snowden Page

The content of this page is different than the other, see subject headings. The other was deleted because it didn't clarify the "noteworthiness" of the book, i.e., media citations. This one documents that it was the topic of an ABC Network discussion, amongst other media in New Orleans, Phoenix, Boston, etc. Journalstudent (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is better placed on the AFD page, as that is where the discussion is taking place, not here on my talk page. Although I am an admin, I will not be the one who decides at the end whether or not the page should be deleted, so it is best to place your thoughts where they will read it, not me. Stephen! Coming... 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Speedy of copyvio

Hallo, I've just noticed that I replied to you on an archived page from AN. I can't remember what took me to that page but I noticed that Greenacre School for Girls was under discussion and it caught my eye as I seem to remember friends going there - many, many years ago.

I replied at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Speedy_deletion_of_Greenacre_School_for_Girls,the essence being that as the school is likely to be deemed notable (provably exists, educates to age 18) it would have been more helpful to leave a minimal stub and all the infrastructure of categories, external links, incoming links, links from dab pages, in this case a link on {{Schools in Surrey}}. If you delete the page, some of those links will be deleted, while others just turn red. Please think about tagging the copyvio'd bulk of a page but leaving the article in existence. I can't remember the example, but I once had to re-create a whole lot of carefully-crafted incoming redirects to an article which was over-hastily deleted like this and then re-created, and a lot of work had been wasted because redirects get deleted when their target disappears (it had some title with lots of possible variations - a "Saint/St/St." and another variation, I think). PamD 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I had intended to revisit the deleted article and convert it into a stub, but real life got in the way, giving me no more than a few minutes at a time on Wikipedia. Stephen! Coming... 07:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Recent deletion of an article

Recently you conducted a speedy deletion of the article Haaretz bias against Jews. In your deletion you explained that the article is an attack page and "Article title is extremely biased and negative. Content is POV pushing".

Thank you for your concern. I want to discuss a few points, figure out exactly what was wrong with article and and reach a consensus on restoring the content of the article with a neutral title.

There are a few points I would like to discuss.

  • This is not a BLP article. This is an article about a newspaper. I recently came by a one sided attack style BLP article against a minority group of people. Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. I saw that the article never went through a speedy deletion but was up for deletion twice and one experienced user convinced two administrators to keep the article. I was wondering why this non BLP article went through a speedy deletion, and the BLP article Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community didn't get deleted, and probably wont get deleted at all? (in that deletion discussion the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was used).

I have other things to work out but let us discuss one thing at a time. Caseeart (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was because it was written in a very biased manner, and was full of original research and was pushing a point of view rather than referencing that point of view from others. I'll give you an example. An article that states "I believe Ghandi was a good man" is going to be deleted. An article that references someone notable stating that Ghandi was a good man is going to remain.
Even if I hadn't deleted it as an attack page/POV pushing page, it would have been deleted as non-notable; you hadn't offered any references that stated a notable publication/person had the stance that Haaretz is biased against Jews.
I will not be restoring the page; the existence of the article Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community is not relevant here. If you wish the article to be reviewed for restoration by someone independent, you need to approach Deletion Review. Stephen! Coming... 08:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I don't have the article in front of me anymore and I did not save it anywhere. Is there a way to provide the links to the published articles so that I could re-assess and see if there is something to do with them? Caseeart (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Before you create any new article, I strongly recommend reading Neutral Point of View, Original Research, Notability and Third Party Sources. Here are the links you requested: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6].
Thanks. Caseeart (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

St Anthony's Boys School, Cleveland

No problem. If it's not going to be deleted, what do you intend to do about the copyright issues? All the images are labelled as "own work", when it's clear that none of them are, and some are obviously copyright such as the recent logos. The school prayer, reproduced in full, may or may not be copyright, but we have no evidence that it is out of copyright. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of copyright law with regards to images is extremely limited, and every time I have tried to make head or tail of it, my brain just waved a white flag. As a result I tend to leave images alone and concentrate on article content. Could you please tag them accordingly? Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Candidate for deletion: Habit Burger

The article looks to be little more than a paid advertisement for a minor hamburger franchise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Habit_Burger_Grill I can't imagine another encyclopedia seriously including it. I thought I would call it to your attention because you have great judgment in these matters. Thanks.

2.177.163.10 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please ignore this user, they are just targeting an article I created because I opposed edits that they made and I reported them for 3RR violations that led to them being blocked. This is part of their MO, they find a user that isn't familiar with them and their edits and they try and trick them into helping their cause in some way and in this it is deleting this article but I am absolutely positive you won't fall for their tricks. That article was reviewed by other editors and this editor has continuously accused anyone who opposes them of being a paid editor. - SantiLak (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've reviewed the article. Whilst it is teetering on promotional, the tone is more-or-less neutral: it is reporting in a matter-of-fact manner about the company, it just so happens that what has been reported in the media has been positive, so it is only natural that the article sounds promotional. As far as notability is concerned, it does include sufficient justification to remain on that front.
As for the other matter, I'll be keeping an eye on the edits of all those concerned, but I'll only wade in if I think my assistance is needed, or if someone asks me to take a more active role. Stephen! Coming... 07:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Providence(religious movement)

Hi Stephen! This is Gios, sorry to bug you again! Just had a short question in regards to the Providence(religious movement) page. Btw thank you for your help in recent months, several of the authors of the page have been helpful and engaging in meaningful discussions!

Short question: I know that we are supposed to use care when dealing with primary sources... in the case of this article, the subject has published several books himself that detail some of his spiritual teachings. I was wondering if we can use these and if you have any advice for doing so in a way that remains unbiased and neutral.

Again thank you!!

GIOSCali (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, keep bugging :-)
The quick answer is that you can quote from Primary Sources, but you cannot make any conclusions from what was said. If you want to do that, you need to find a notable secondary source that made the same conclusions, and reference them too.
For example. John Doe's autobiography might have said: "I was informed by the Illuminati's Head Lizard that I was the most important person on the planet".
What you can state in the article: "John Doe claimed that the Illuminati's Head Lizard stated that Doe was the most important person on the planet".
What you cannot state in the article: "John Doe has delusions of fantasy""
However, suppose a notable newspaper (let's say the Daily Rubbish) has reviewed it, and made this statement: "John Doe and lizards??? He has clearly lost his mind!"
Your article can now state this: "John Doe claimed that the Illuminati's Head Lizard stated that Doe was the most important person on the planet. This prompted the Daily Rubbish to write 'John Doe and lizards??? He has clearly lost his mind!'"
For a more thorough explanation, have a read of the Primary Sources section of Original Research. Also, please note that there are limits as to what can be used as a primary source for a living person - see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Hope that helps. Stephen! Coming... 09:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha very helpful example thank you!

Also wanted to trouble you for another piece of advice... on the Providence(religious movement) article I have been attempting to post an edit that says that Jung Myeong Seok--the subject of the article-- was included recently in the 2011 Encyclopedia of Korean Poems(which covers 100 years of history of poetry in Korea.) I know that this individual was accused and convicted of horrendous crimes, but I thought the information was notable and should be included on the page.

Shortly after, the edit was removed by a few authors expressing concern over: 1) whether or not the Encyclopedia itself was legitimate, and 2) whether or not the sources for the edit were reliable. I did some research and provided the following information on the talk page: 1) one of the sources I had provided for the edit, Yonhap news, is on Wikipedia's approved list of Korean Sources. 2) I provided publication and compilation information on the Encyclopedia of Korea Poems: that it was compiled by three significant figures in the Korean literary community(I provided names and achievements), and that the company that originally published the Dictionary has published anthologies and compilations on a variety of academic subjects including architecture, children's education, etc.

After a few days and no response I posted the edit. It was reverted and shortly after I was blocked from editing(the block was only three days and has already expired). So I was wondering... what is your advice going forward on this article? It seems to have a tumultuous history, but I truly did not want to cause any discord in the community. Editors and admins have a hard job, and I really just want to work with the other authors to make this and other articles on Christian groups in Asia the best they can be. I thought maybe personal apology notes to the other authors might be a good place to start.

What do you think? GIOSCali (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

From reading through the article talk page, it appears that the issue is that the article is about the religious movement, but you keep adding (and repeatedly adding) a section which has no real place within the article. If you have a read of the article on the Nazi Party, there isn't a section about reviews of the paintings of Adolf Hitler.
WP:PUFFERY has been mentioned at least once with regards to the section you keep adding. I can see their point: "Cultural Impact" appears to be a rather over-the-top and fancy way of describing that he is a poet. "Cultural impact" is implying that his work has had some significant influence (whether large or small) on what people do, where the reality is he has written some works that had some good reviews. So even if the section you keep adding was relevant to the article, the way it is presented definitely isn't.
This brings me on to the next point: this section you keep wanting to add, and that you keep adding it. By repeatedly adding it, you are breaking the Three Revert Rule. It is good that you are discussing it on the talk page, but from what I can see, what was said by others has had no real influence on what you keep trying to do. The general concensus is that the section you want to add is not relevant to the article, so as you keep adding it, it sadly became inevitable that you would get blocked. Now that the block is expired, let's see what you can do to prevent that happening again.
First off, the section you want to add would be more suited as part of a balanced article about Jung Myung Seok. I would Might I suggest you write a draft of the article, and invite the other editors of the Providence (religious movement) to have a look at it to check that the article is balanced, and adjust it accordingly. If it is acceptable, we can see about having it moved to mainspace.
In the meantime, I'll approach the blocking administrator to see if there is anything else that they can add about why you were blocked, and what you can do to avoid being blocked again; I've only had a brief read through of the talk page, so it is possible that I have missed something.
Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 08:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The amount of primary material one can or should cite is often a matter of editorial judgment. The best rule of thumb is that basically one shouldn't, lest an article turn into nothing more than a summary (or extensive listing) of things the subject has said about the subject--if we simply go by primary sources, you end up with articles like this one. So secondary sourcing is really the name of the game, since it also works as a kind of filter to help determine what is worth including. A helpful analogy is with novels. A plot summary is essentially original research/primary, but a short summary is acceptable. Keyword: short, and not on anything controversial or requiring interpretation. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen! and Drmies for your responses--again I sincerely apologize for any violations of policy or etiquette..still a bit new to Wikipedia and I truly want to pursue the interests of the community. I will do better moving forward. If I may trouble you both with some questions on how to proceed:

In looking at the article's history, there did exist an article on Jung Myeong Seok, however it was merged with the Providence(religious movement) article some time ago.. perhaps this is why the edit I was trying to post seemed out of place? (also I can see that "cultural impact" was not the most appropriate title).

This brings me to my primary concern with the Providence article. If you read other articles on New Religious Movements (generally considered to be cults), they follow a basic format in which the beliefs of members are cited, followed by a controversy section which lists the critics' perspective as well as allegations/convictions of crimes, if applicable. Here are some examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Yahweh

However, in the Providence(religious movement) article, there is a slight but crucial difference--the statements made by critics(albeit in reports through reliable secondary sources) are cited as an accurate representation of the theology of members of the movement. It would be like citing the beliefs of Scientology from the perspective of critics.. it would look very different from what members themselves claim to believe. For this reason, it would seem a balanced article relating to NRMs would need both?

A significant amount of material, both primary and secondary, references the beliefs of Providence and Jung Myeong Seok from the perspective of its members... to Stephens suggestion, maybe it would be good to write up a draft with all changes, explain the reasoning, and invite collaboration?

What do you both think? GIOSCali (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I say go for it. Write out a draft, and invite the others to come and modify it for neutrality and tone afterwards. You can state what you're going to do in the talk page of Providence before you get started. If people do start critiquing your work and removing things you've added, please don't keep adding it, but ask as to why it was being removed or edited out. Always remember the maxim Assume Good Faith. Good luck! Stephen! Coming... 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjb72/Archive_8&oldid=1085579307"