User talk:Tol/Archives/2022/05

Draft:Coinme

thanks for feedback. Revised tone and resubmitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.54.34 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think that the tone is improved enough, but I'll leave it for another reviewer to decide. For example, wording such as "more than $30 million", "more than 90 machines", "nearly 70 Bitcoin ATMs" should be avoided — the actual number should be given. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

the citations used that phrasing so I felt they were appropriate. Will you move this to the mainspace? 98.109.54.34 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to move this to mainspace for you upon request (as a solely technical request) instead of through AfC, as long as you understand that:

• this is not an AfC acceptance nor a judgment that it meets relevant policies and guidelines;
• I am only moving it for you because you are technically unable to, not because I think it should be moved;
• it may be nominated for deletion upon being moved to mainspace.

Please confirm if you understand this and still wish for the page to be moved. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I confirm my understanding of your points. I came upon this article and felt it should be in the mainspace. Others may disagree. I would ask your objective opinion: do you believe it should be in the mainspace? if not, what are your personal objections? 98.109.54.34 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it as requested. I think it still needs more work: I'm not entirely convinced that it's notable, and I also have concerns about its neutrality (for example, an "awards and rankings" section is unneeded; awards usually shouldn't be mentioned unless a reliable third party publishes information about said award). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

point taken. the awards were published by reliable third-parties so I felt they were relevant. others may disagree. i've seen these sections on many other article. In terms of notability, multiple significant third-party media outlets -- NPR, Forbes, Yaoo Finance -- provided citations, so the subject seemed to meet the key requirements for inclusion. I appreciate your help here. 98.109.54.34 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The Forbes reference (this) was not written by Forbes staff; it was written by an independent contributor. Per WP:FORBESCON, such articles are generally unreliable. I also can't find any references to NPR in the page. As for the awards, where exactly were they published by reliable and independent third parties? Each award is only referenced to the organisation giving the award, which is not independent. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review: Couple of explanations

Dear Tol,

Thanks for reviewing my article and pointing out the drawbacks. I have edited them and resubmitted them.

I would like you to review the article considering that there are several sections from the Manifesto and the Authored announcement of the Art movement, which could sound peacocky but they are not. The sections were taken from the announcement and the Manifesto might be descriptive and emotional but art is what is discussed in the article.

Also, guide me regarding the links to be used as sources.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter ArtLover (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@ArtWriter ArtLover: Your edits have not fixed the problem with the draft. The wording is nowhere near neutral, and I just found out that substantial portions of the draft were copyright violations of this. Copying material from other websites is prohibited unless that material is properly licensed. I have removed the copyright-violating content. Nearly all of the text in the draft is promotional. Just because the draft is related to art does not exempt it from our neutral point of view policy. I also noticed that you added "© Lilit Nshani (All rights reserved)" to the draft. If material is written by someone else, copyrighted, and not properly licensed, it should not be in Wikipedia; such material should be removed. If you wrote the material, by publishing it, you agreed to release it under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, so your rights are not all reserved. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

please clearify the part of copywrite violance. I have added the reference to the source and added the menton about All rights are preserved. I also have the writen permission of the people whos words are put as part of the article. ArtWriter ArtLover (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A copyright violation is when someone copies content which is neither in the public domain nor freely licensed (where the copyright holder has given permission to reuse it) from another source (such as another website). If the copyright holders wish to release their content so that it may be used on Wikipedia, please instruct them to follow the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you or they would like help with this process, please let me know. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Delina Fico

@Tol: Issues have been resolved if you wish to take another look, save for the copy-vio tag that requires an administrator. It appears that the organization list was the main culprit, but a few sentences were verbatim. I found a better source, albeit with slightly less information present. I've cleaned up a bit of puffery as well. Thanks for the review, it's greatly appreciated. Etriusus 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: I'll take a look. I find non-English sources a bit hard to assess, so I'll err on the side of assuming that they're good reliable sources. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus:  Accepted. I do recommend adding more high-quality sources to better establish notability, if you can. Thanks for your work on this article! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tol:, there was one source that was unreliable, and likely a resume. It was cut during the first review. I did a bit of digging to see where the copy-vio issues came from, and oh boy it was a rabbit hole. Realistically, the Albanian Page This page for Delina Fico needs to be flagged for WP:CV, citing another wikipedia page, and using a resume/unreliable citation. It was my mistake in trusting the version I was working with. Thanks for re-reviewing and accepting the page.

The Albanian Wiki specifically wanted the page translated, so I assume it meets notability. I'll continue to foster the page, translating to English takes time, unfortunately. Frankly, I dislike the Wikipedia Translation tool interface, I'll probably just translate pages by hand from now on (DeepL doesn't have an Albanian language translator either). Etriusus 19:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: I don't know Albanian (nor am I familiar at all with Albanian Wikipedia), so I wouldn't know how to do that. As for the re-review, no problem! I don't think notability is entirely clear here (especially because of the non-English sources, for me), but I do think that you've done a good job with the starting material (and thanks for taking care of the copyvio)! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin Roberts (streamer)

Thank you for the feedback, I will work on revising it to reflect the neutral perspective. This is my first ever article so I will take my time before submitting for another review. Shart290 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shart290: No problem; thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:NFusion

Hey, i have made a Wikipedia page for n-fusion. I had the original idea of doing that in Line Of Sight: Vietnam. I have absolutely no bloody idea on what i am doing, i have cited some recourses, but i have no way of citing more and expanding more, i’ll try my best from making this sound like an advertisement. But i have no more info available, Should i give up, or keep digging?. Fetviper8 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fetviper8: I don't think that tone is a major issue with this draft (though removing their mission statement would probably help in this area). If you can find any more quality references (from reliable and independent sources) which establish notability, then I'd suggest that you add those and resubmit. If you can't, then N-Fusion probably isn't notable. Given that they have released several notable games, I think there should be enough coverage to establish notability. I also couldn't figure out what the graph in the history section is for — did you intend to add the graph, or should I remove it? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tol: i have added a graph there because of the steam stats, it will take some time to look into steam and find all of their games. Also, i have changed the heading so there would be a bit more clarification, should i look into steam? Or should i rely on another source i have already looked into? Fetviper8 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fetviper8: I believe that some content on Steam is self-published, but data on game revenue is probably reliable. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tol: well, how should i improve it other than removing the goal? (Also, then the heading would need expansion, how do You think that’s going to happen?) Throw Me Ideas. Fetviper8 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fetviper8: I've done some general cleanup. I would work on adding more sources to establish notability. News coverage would probably be your best bet. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tol: ill get working on it, i will notify you when i have found more tomorrow in a new section. Fetviper8 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fetviper8: Sounds good; thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

@Tol i have done research, research, and more research. The progress really paid off, from 4 references, To 28! I have added a game review section, since i couldn’t find anything important in news stuff. What should i do it now to polish it up so it wouldn’t get requested for Speedy Deletion. Fetviper8 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fetviper8: I don't think it's in danger of speedy deletion. Right now, my primary concern is that there isn't much information (or many accompanying references) about the company itself — most of the draft is about their games. This could make it difficult to demonstrate notability, because notability is not inherited. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Duality Technologies

Thank you for your review. I removed all mentions of awards and the adjective "novel". Please let me know if now it looks good. If you find any further issues, please let me know what they are so I could fix them (I cannot see any at the moment, and just a general statement of issues with the formal tone would be hard to understand). This is my first new article. I modified existing articles in the past and might be missing something. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypolyakov (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ypolyakov:  Accepted; thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Vladislav Sviblov

Hello. Please see this draft. There were objections about the sources. As a result, dubious sources were removed as well as some fragments of the text. Thanks. Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Валерий Пасько: Sorry, but I don't think I'll review this draft. I'm not an administrator, so I can't see the content of the deleted page Vladislav Sviblov to see the extent of the draft's similarity to it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the article in its current state is suitable for transfer to the main space? Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Валерий Пасько: Currently (by itself), I think the draft still has some fairly minor issues that should be resolved. For example, there are some potential neutrality problems ("innovative technology", "more than 100 tons of gold"). I also find it difficult to assess non-English references, so — while I think the subject is notable — I can't easily verify that. If it wasn't for the previously deleted article, I'd probably accept it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed these text fragments and added some English-language sources. Thank you for your cooperation. Валерий Пасько (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC).

Валерий Пасько, could you please translate "род. 1980" in the lead to English? I think it's pretty much ready for acceptance. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Валерий Пасько (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Валерий Пасько:  Accepted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yury Maksimov

Hi! Please look at my draft. I am ready to listen to comments and correct the article. Thanks!31.40.143.16 (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Declined for NPOV issues (some examples of issues are "more than 40 buildings", "first ever team", "visionary"). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you so much for watching my article. I have deleted these text fragments and additionally deleted other information that may violate the neutral style. Could you watch it again? Thanks!31.40.143.16 (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Declined again. There's still more (for example, "a leading developer of cybersecurity solutions" and "already included some major Russian companies"). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have deleted this information. Please take a look.31.40.143.16 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have additionally removed another sentence that may violate the neutral style. Does the article comply with the rules now?31.40.143.16 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Accepted. Please do continue working on this, though. For example, "Co-founder and CEO (2007–2021) of Positive Technologies." has no verb (it's not a full sentence), and it is unclear if "50-летия СССР" in § Early years is a translation (I think it isn't necessary either). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have corrected these remarks. Perhaps there will be some more comments? I'm ready to fix it!31.40.143.16 (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can fix myself. I think you've taken care of most of it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Deo Prakash Choudhary

Dear Tol,

Have republished the above page again with various references. Request to have a check and Approve on priority. Sangnak Consultants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanganakconsultants (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sanganakconsultants: Because this is the English Wikipedia, the entire page should be in English. There should not be paragraphs in Hindi; those belong on the Hindi Wikipedia. In addition, the references still do not demonstrate notability. Quora and Facebook are user-generated (which means anyone can write something on them), so they are not reliable. Bing is a search engine, not a source. Blogspot blogs are self-published, so they are not reliable either. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Tol, Thanks for the Prompt feedback. I will remove the Hindi text accordingly. Kindly let me know about acceptable References. to approve this page. Sanganakconsultants (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This user has been username-blocked, so I'm not continuing to reply. If you are unblocked, you can leave another message. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Format fixes to others' comments

Section renamed from "May 2022"

 – Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:List of presidents of the United States, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please stop changing other user's comments, (including markup), and trying to micro-manage discussion threads. They are just fine without your interventions. If you really feel a change to someone else's edit is absolutely required, then post a notice of such under a new sub-thread, further down. Otherwise, the page seems fine just as it was, just as so many other talk pages are, without your contributions. Thank you - wolf 04:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild, I will point yet again to TPG § Editing others' comments; in particular, the bullet point "Fixing format errors...". I am more than familiar with TPG, so I don't see the necessity of using a template warning.

I've left the two outdents (instead of just one); if that's what you prefer, I don't mind. However, Kavyansh.Singh's comment at 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) cannot be indented because it has a collapsed block. Collapse blocks cannot be indented properly, so such a comment should be outdented. Per the same bullet point, "Examples [of acceptable formatting fixes] include fixing indentation levels...".

If you really want a notice for all such changes, then I'll try to do so in any discussions with you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop worrying about the need to manage talk pages in such a manner. My comment would've been at the 8th level of indent, so I outdented it which is not unreasonable or uncommon. The following comment by KS had a lenghty list of linked articles with bullet points, which was only at the 1st level of indent, but for some reason you felt the need to indent the whole post to the 9th level, squishing it over to the right. That was not an improvement. It would've been simpler to just outdent his next comment, the one with the col template, or... just leave it as it was. This version, just prior to your changes was fine as it was and really didn't need any modification. It's not clear which "layout errors" you really felt needed to be "fixed", but WP:TPO starts with:
"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.", so you should probably start with that as well. Have a nice day - wolf 18:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I have edited your most recent comment at 18:44, 18 May 2022 to convert an external link into an internal wikilink, which is compliant with TPG per § Editing others' comments, point "Fixing links".

Like I said, I thought it would be nicer with just one outdent (why outdent twice when the comment with the collapsed content had to be outdented anyway?), and you disagreed; I don't mind it either way. The version you linked to (revision #1088305957) had a few problems which I corrected:

• The outdent between SSSB's comment at 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC) and your comment at 02:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC) was not set to the correct indentation level.
• Kavyansh.Singh's comment at 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) had several problems:
  • There were headings in the collapsed content, which would make everything after those headings part of a subsection; this should not happen, because it's a single discussion thread.
  • The comment was indented to level 2, but the collapsed table was not indented.
  • The signature was before the collapsed portion of the content, not after, so the collapsed content would not be recognised as part of the comment (including by software such as the reply tool).

As for TPG, it says not to "edit or delete others' posts" "with exceptions". It goes on to clarify that edits to fix format are fine as long as they fix "formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible". I think it's clear that my edits are in compliance with TPG; do you disagree? I also think it's misleading to quote the general rule when I've already shown how an exception to that rule applies here.

Sincerely, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I see we are heading in pretty much the same direction as the last time you kicked off an incident like this; where you just continue to exacerbate the situation, instead of working towards a resolution. You all but ignored anything in my comment you couldn't rebut, and instead, you have again needlessly edited one of my comments. I'm not getting sucked into another of these, endless, circular-argument, must-have-the-last-word type debates with you. Seek this type of engagement with someone else. Going forward, unless you can provide a policy that clearly states that a comment of mine absolutely, mandatorily needed to be altered, I'll ask that you leave them be. There are more important things you can be spending your time and energy on, (as well as other people's time and energy), than spiffying up other people's tp comments, like... improving articles, for example. Now, I think we're done here. Have a nice day - wolf 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I have again edited your comments. I don't "think we're done here", because we're still rebutting each other. Because you said that I have "all but ignored anything in [your] comment [I] couldn't rebut", I'll go over your last two comments part by part. I'd really prefer not to do this, because it's needlessly tedious and long, but then this whole thing is too.

• Your previous comment, at 18:44, 18 May 2022:
  • Or, you could just stop worrying about the need to manage talk pages in such a manner. — Yes, I am choosing to do this, because it improves the formatting. It is clearly sanctioned by the talk pages guideline. It bothers me when formatting is incorrect, and so I will keep on making these changes.
  • My comment would've been at the 8th level of indent, so I outdented it which is not unreasonable or uncommon. The following comment by KS had a lenghty list of linked articles with bullet points, which was only at the 1st level of indent, but for some reason you felt the need to indent the whole post to the 9th level, squishing it over to the right. That was not an improvement. It would've been simpler to just outdent his next comment, the one with the col template, or... just leave it as it was. — I've already responded to this. In summary, I really don't care if there's one outdent or two. I'm leaving this be; I hope you will too.
  • This version, just prior to your changes was fine as it was and really didn't need any modification. — In my previous comment, I've already shown what was wrong with that version.
  • It's not clear which "layout errors" you really felt needed to be "fixed", but WP:TPO starts with: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.", so you should probably start with that as well. — I've already given a list of the formatting problems I fixed. I was not "correct[ing] others' spelling errors [or] grammar" or changing the content of anybody else's comments. I was clearly acting in compliance with one of the "exceptions outlined below".
  • Have a nice day — Thanks; you too.
• Your most recent comment, at 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC):
  • I see we are heading in pretty much the same direction as the last time you kicked off an incident like this; where you just continue to exacerbate the situation, instead of working towards a resolution. — I agree with the sentiment, though I wouldn't place the blame entirely on myself. (I am, of course, biased in this.)
  • You all but ignored anything in my comment you couldn't rebut, and instead, you have again needlessly edited one of my comments. — So I have now responded to each and every point you have made. And, yes, I will keep on making formatting fixes. You may not have seen a need, but I believe that fixing formatting is a perfectly fine reason for editing others' comments, and the guideline agrees with me.
  • I'm not getting sucked into another of these, endless, circular-argument, must-have-the-last-word type debates with you. Seek this type of engagement with someone else. — I feel the same way.
  • Going forward, unless you can provide a policy that clearly states that a comment of mine absolutely, mandatorily needed to be altered, I'll ask that you leave them be. — First, I don't think there is any policy that states that certain things must be edited. Even the BLP policy, with the strongest wording that I know of ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person..."), does not state that all editors must immediately take it upon themselves to remove any BLP violation that they see. If you're going to start requesting that I not touch any of your comments, then I think it's time to take this somewhere else for dispute resolution.
  • There are more important things you can be spending your time and energy on, (as well as other people's time and energy), than spiffying up other people's tp comments, like... improving articles, for example. — Wikipedia is a volunteer service. We're all volunteers who choose to spend our time on this, and we choose what to work on. I don't think the fallacy of relative privation ("there are more important problems") is helpful.
  • Now, I think we're done here. Have a nice day — Unfortunately, I don't think we're done. Continued below.

In closing, I think it's time to start looking at dispute resolution. Could we take this to AN/I or somewhere else so that other people can take a look? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sandiey

Hello, Tol. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sandiey, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Tol/Archives/2022,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 817 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedzai page

Hi Tol,

Thanks for all your work on the Feedzai page. I'm so happy to see it back up again and really appreciate your efforts to clean it up.

I do have one question: how do I add a company logo to the information box? I couldn't figure out how to add an image to that section.

Ssfdz (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Ssfdz

@Ssfdz: First, the file needs to be uploaded. From Feedzai's website, I found this logo. Is this logo correct? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct one. Ssfdz (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tol - where does it get uploaded? Ssfdz (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ssfdz: Because it's a simple logo (letters and a stylised arrow), I don't think that it meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection. This means that it's in the public domain, so it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I've uploaded it there as c:File:Feedzai logo, 2020.svg, and added it to the page's infobox. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again @Tol! Ssfdz (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem, @Ssfdz! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello @Tol - I hope you're doing well.

Unfortunately, appears the article has been nominated for deletion (again). Do you have any advice for avoiding another deletion? Since you played such a critical role in getting it published I'm hoping you can advocate for keeping it live?

Thanks for any help,

Ssfdz

Ssfdz (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Ssfdz! First, I'd just like to let you know about our canvassing guideline, as I don't think your message quite followed it. I don't think you intended to do anything wrong, and you don't need to do anything about it, but I just thought I should let you know for the future. Now, as for the deletion discussion, I'll take a look and comment there. I thought the company was notable — that's why I accepted the draft — but Rosguill also makes a good argument. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tol - Thanks for letting me know about the canvassing guidelines. I wasn't aware of this policy. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I also saw your comment on the other discussion board. Appreciate you weighing in. Ssfdz (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)