This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an Articles for Creation reviewer on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
Trout this user

User talk:StraussInTheHouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to StraussInTheHouse's talk page!

  • You can create a new thread by clicking here. Please give descriptive titles to new sections.
  • If you're leaving a message in an existing thread, please indent your posts with colons.
  • Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
  • Replies will be made here, please notify me of discussions elsewhere with {{ping|StraussInTheHouse}}.
  • Experienced users may stalk this page and answer any queries.

Kaleeswaram Raj[edit]

Please see to the draft under same name which you recently reviewed. The inline citations have been included. Uoouaz (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Uoouaz (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Uoouaz, I don't expedite reviews based on talk page messages, if I did I'd have at least 1,900 messages in a day. I see you have resubmitted it so let's see what the next reviewer says. SITH (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Epstein, violinist[edit]

Dear Strauss in the House, Welcome back! I have worked on the article Joshua Epstein (violinist) and was hoping you could look it over when you have a chance and maybe remove the tags if the first two sections conform to the citation guidelines now. Many thanks! Hettie.epstein (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hettie.epstein, certainly, I'm just reviewing a couple of articles and I'll then take a look. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hettie.epstein, I've now had a look, unfortunately, as the main contributor to the page (yourself) has a personal connection with Joshua Epstein, there's a tad of original research synthesisised from primary sources. I wouldn't feel comfortable removing the tags without a second opinion, perhaps you could crosspost this to the Help Desk or the Teahouse? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Thank you!Hettie.epstein (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Rejected[edit]


My draft was rejected and I did not know if it's because the tone of voice because all the written story is genuinely created and not copied.

Could you please help me mark the issue so I redraft it?

Thank you! NicoleKhaw (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi NicoleKhaw. I'm assuming this is about Draft:Ziad Alexandre Hayek. I think the copyright issues have been resolved, however I see that you have since re-submitted it and it was declined by RoySmith on the grounds of promotionalism. Do you happen to known Hayek, because a studio portrait marked as "own work" means you'll have to have been in close contact with both him and a photo studio at the same time, which would not happen due to happenstance? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification regarding draft submission of "Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary"[edit]

Hi there.

Back in September I began work on an article (about the coat of arms of the Austrian Empire) in my personal sandbox, specifically Alphathon/sandbox2, then got distracted by real life and left it in an incomplete state. I just went back to it today to do some more to it and noticed that someone (user Aleguez70, who has no other edits on any MediaWiki project as far as I can tell – they may have registered purely to submit my sandboxed page) had, for whatever reason, decided to submit it by adding the {{submit}} template. I have no idea who they are, why they did or how they found the page (I will be asking them). Then user Robert McClenon moved the page to the drafts namespace as it is the "Preferred location for AfC submissions" under the name Draft: Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary (which is, incidentally, incorrect, as the text talks about the arms of the pre-compromise Austrian Empire, not Austria-Hungary). Then, user Abelmoschus Esculentus declined it as an article with that name already existed in the main namespace, then reverted their declination one minute later without explanation. Finally, about a month later (a little over a day ago as I type this), you declined it again for the same reason.

Anyway, all the stuff about it being declined is really neither here nor there, as it was mislabelled, incomplete and perhaps a bit "essay-like" anyway. (Even given the mislabelling I have no real issue with it being merged into Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary once it is finished instead of having its own article if that is preferable.) What I want to do is move the page back to my sandbox (edit history and all, at least up to my last edit) until I have finished working on it. I am happy to do this myself; however, I have never used the draft feature/namespace before and don't really know the rules, how it works etc and didn't want to accidentally break any rules or step on anyone's toes. Since you clearly do know how it all works I thought you might be able to help. I suppose I'm sort of asking permission to move it back and checking if there's anything else I need to do (would I need to leave a redirect etc). If all else fails I can always just copy the contents back in, but I'd rather keep the edit history intact.

P.S. Jimmy is very distracting!

Thanks, Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn(talk) 09:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I just thought you should know that I have also contacted Abelmoschus Esculentus about this and have now asked Aleguez70 why they submitted it in the first place. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn(talk) 09:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Alphathon, I've put it back where it came from for you. Cheers :) ♠PMC(talk) 09:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Alphathon, Premeditated Chaos has sorted it. With regards to Jimmy, I'm looking into making him peek out more slowly so it's not as distracting but that'll be a side project! In the meantime, I've disabled him. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DXPloit[edit]

Hi Strauss, My article was proposed for deletion, can you please revert it back so that I move that to a draft and make changes appropriately, and can you guide me how do I present my company's article in Wikipedia. this is the first article which I am doing. Kindly help me in contributing towards wiki. DXploit please help me with examples for notability I'm kind of confused with the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani~enwiki (talkcontribs)

Pinging Enterprisey as the deleting admin as I can't see the content anymore. Thanks, SITH (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I have emailed you a copy. I think the content falls under G11, so it would be deleted again if I put it in your userspace. And thanks for the ping, Strauss! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined Draft:Executive Office for United States Attorneys[edit]

In reference to a declined draft you provided some great feedback to update. I made some updates so that the Department of Justice is more clearly referenced with respect to paraphrased or directly copies content. What should I do about bulleted information that is pulled directly from the Federal government website. Do I need to cite every bullet if it comes from the same page? Thanks for your time Scott8905 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Scott8905, there's a bunch of templates here that you can use as footnote attribution disclaimers, I think Template:DoJ would probably be the best-placed one considering the article content. SITH (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your recommendation(s). I have resubmitted for review. If you have the time I would really appreciate another review to make sure that I followed through. I also added some more inline references and cleaned up a couple that are hopefully up to the Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott8905 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

LCMS moves[edit]

Thank you for all those LCMS moves. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, no problem! Best, SITH (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft Declined[edit]

Can you please tell me what's the mistake in the article that I submitted ? And also can you please tell me what should I do to clear that mistake ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allah-is-my-life (talkcontribs) 06:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Allah-is-my-life, the draft you're referring to, Draft:Sayyid Ahamed Muhyuddeen Noorishah Sani Jeelani, is about a living person. As such, we require inline citations. Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to do this. SITH (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To edit draft Davit Gasparyan[edit]

Hello, I have a draft by the name of Davit Gasparyan. There is a wikipedia page in Armenian language for the person Davit Gasparyan։ URL: All I'm doing is to translate same text and using same references. I do not know how to do this to be approved. please help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armbandari (talkcontribs) 11:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sir, there are no other references available to make this page active, i have a few newspaper cuttings, which was rejected by Wikipedia Editor earlier.. could please lend your advice. Thanks a lot for your support, guidance and constant tips..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand Rao Pawar Kumar (talkcontribs) 11:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anand Rao Pawar Kumar, I assume you're referring to Draft:Sri Sankara Matrimony. All Wikipedias are meant to strive for reliable sourcing in BLPs; just because one page on one Wikipedia falls short of providing reliable sources doesn't mean it gets a free pass on others. All you've cited is YouTube - you mentioned newspaper cuttings - these are much better than citing YouTube videos, please see Template:Cite news for instructions on how to cite newspapers. SITH (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why Lazy_Lion_(mascot) contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?[edit]

Hello SITH,

May i know why my article ( contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia?

Adbrownies (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adbrownies, per the link in the decline template, specifically the second section, your draft is not neutral. It's structured like a PowerPoint and worded like an advert. You had resubmitted it three times without any improvement in the areas the previous reviewers had given you hints on, so if you do plan on resubmitting, please ensure you do so this time, otherwise it is highly likely that a reviewer will nominate it for deletion. SITH (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Wondering why you relisted 'Make America Great Again', as there seems a clear no consensus to change the title and sources are consistent in upper casing it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, thanks for your message. I agree it's a clear no consensus at the moment but consensus was by no means against the move; the debate of capitals v.s. RS common name is probably one that it'd be useful to get a clearer consensus on, especially in a controversial area, so I judged a relist to be the better option. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As to the declined article of 'Jean d'Aspremont'[edit]

Hi StraussInTheHouse, I have implemented your comment 'Early life and education entirely unsourced, the majority of claims in Academic career are unsourced (paragraph starting "He produced extensively")' by putting reference to every sentence! I hope, and I am wondering if this is what your comment meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebolt2030 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Firebolt2030, excellent improvements, that’s exactly what I was after. I or another reviewer will take a look at it in more depth in due course. SITH (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

where is review[edit]

In your recent close, you say "already a move review underway with regards to Pan (genus)", I am not aware of any review (as the proposer of both moves it would be nice to know). What am I missing? cygnis insignis

Cygnis insignis, at Wikipedia:Move review#Pan (genus). Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Or was, when I checked. Help me to understand what is going on, if you see what I am overlooking. There was no notification on this, I proposed the first and subsequent RM and followed all the discussions as they sprang up. There was an extensive discussion before I proposed the move. I notified every other discussion of related changes and proposals, in fairness to those who already had a say. The discussion you linked has (or had) limited participation. Would the decision to reverse the move just be presented to the surprise of those who had already participated in a discussion that was thought to be closed? The objections in the first discussion were very clear, they did not want the second discussion to happen, those who favour a multi-move discussion opposed my single-page RM for the same reason: they favour the arrangement prior to the first move and didn't want the title to be available (but think every link to that page was wrong). Everybody seems sure of their opinion, which is fine with me because I don't need to favour one or the other, and note I while opened the second RM I preferred another solution and no firm opinion on other options. Thanks for the reply. cygnis insignis 11:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis, a move review is a procedure by which an editor challenges the closure of a requested move discussion. The person who starts the requested move must first attempt to gain clarification on whatever it is in the closing statement they find to be incorrect and if it cannot be reconciled, a move review is started. Users then discuss whether the closure was acceptable per closing instructions. It is not common practice to notify all of the users who took part in the requested move discussion because the move review is not about whether the page should be moved or not, rather it is about whether the closer correctly determined the consensus of the discussion. At the time of my closure of the second RM, the move review concerning the first RM was still active. I hope this clears it up for you, please let me know if you have any further questions. SITH (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That does clear things up, and I should have realised that would be the sensible approach! I don't think anyone is at fault in this, but there is a lot discord in whole business and I prefer to accept some responsibility for putting this in motion. I might see you round again, have a good one. cygnis insignis 12:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Declined Catz 'n Dogz[edit]

Hi StraussInTheHouse, Thank you for reviewing the page I edited, Catz 'n Dogz. I'm having trouble deciphering your feedback that accompanies the denial of the page. How can I move forward if the denial is "procedural"? I don't understand the Miscellany for Deletion designation, as the page has been significantly edited since the last draft was submitted. I would appreciate some real feedback about the denial of this page, please! Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookiebabie (talkcontribs) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Brookiebabie, thanks for your question. A procedural decline means that the draft has been submitted when it shouldn’t have been due to an active discussion taking place about the draft’s existence. I was not the user who sent the draft to MfD, but you can comment on the page by clicking the link on the MfD template which will take you straight to the discussion. Thanks, SITH (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Manual page swaps[edit]

When doing manual page swaps, can you make sure that all 3 moves are done without leaving behind redirects (and then fix the redirect at the old title), so that useless redirects aren't left behind in the Draft:Move/ namespace please? IffyChat -- 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Iffy, sometimes, it depends if the round robin configuration is needed :) Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your closure[edit]

Hey, thanks for closing this discussion. However, I prefer to have an experienced admin close the discussion. Please open the discussion for me to have it addressed by an experienced admin. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 18:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, no problem, done. I usually don't undo closures based on non-administrator status but I am willing to make an exception in this case due to the multiple ANI threads about Iran-related disputes that I don't really want to get involved in! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. After making the request here, I saw there was a venue for having the moves reviewed. Yeah I understand what you said regarding the threads. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 03:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein, yep, but MRV should only take place if a query can't be settled on the closer's talk page. Hopefully that's not the case here! SITH (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment[edit]

Greetings. I just noticed your close of the requested move concerning of 1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment. While there was clear consensus to move the page from the previous, I think it should have been moved to "1994–1996 United States broadcast TV realignment," based on feedback at the RM itself and per MOS:DATERANGE. Thanks, Calidum 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Calidum, that took about a minute of head-scratching! Thanks for pointing that out, it should now be rectified. SITH (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That was quick. Thank you! Calidum 05:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Railway Educational Bureau[edit]

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Railway Educational Bureau, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to be part of Simmons-Boardman Publishing, so consider merging(/redirecting there per WP:ATD. Thank you. SoWhy 08:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted, I've BLAR'd. SITH (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kelly Hyman[edit]

Dear StraussInTheHouse, I made the following fixes as per your comment on Draft:Kelly Hyman Comment: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". Please confirm if it's ok?Josephintechnicolor (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Josephintechnicolor that's better with regards to the usage of inline citations. SITH (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Draft Ashi Singh[edit]

I add significant coverage and articles too but again rejected it please tell me which information is not sufficient. Please let me know what are the information needs this draft,please tell me why you declined the draft. Dotgirlfine (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Presbyterian Foundation[edit]

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Presbyterian Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: strong connection to Presbyterian Church (USA) indicates significance. Consider merging there per WP:ATD. Thank you. SoWhy 11:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy, no problem, I've redirected it citing notability and the obvious COI (c.f. username of page creator). SITH (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)