User talk:78.26/archive2018-2

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

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Lindström (musician)[edit]

Hi 78.26,
The outcome of the AFD discussion was delete, but the article is still live in mainspace, with no deletion recorded in its history.
Anna Lindström (musician) has been tagged for WP:G4, but as it hasn't actually been deleted, technically that criterion doesn't apply.
Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: see [1]. I deleted it on June 25 per the AfD discussion. When I saw that it was re-created apparently with no change from the deleted version, I accidentally deleted it again yesterday, whereupon I restored it because my intent was to nominate it for G4 to give another admin (or other uninvolved editor) a chance to review. Is the public log for the page not displaying for you? Looks like a bug to report. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carmen y Laura[edit]

On 5 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carmen y Laura, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carmen y Laura, sisters who formed a duo for mostly Tejano music, learned to harmonize by singing together while doing chores in separate rooms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carmen y Laura. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carmen y Laura), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help with a music DYK[edit]

I'm reviewing a music DYK, and I am struggling with an editor on close paraphrasing due to a literal translation from German. Would you be willing to help at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Hofstetter? Thank you in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I'm not quite sure how I can help. I have had the privilege of working with Gerda many times, so I'm positively certain the issues will be resolved. I have a couple of questions. The German article dates to 2006. Is there any way to tell how old the operamusica site is? If the operamusica site translated the German Wikipedia language the way Gerda did, there may not be a copyvio issue. I'm not nearly as concerned about the Bach-cantatas matching, it is either common phrasing (which could be easily changed if deemed necessary) or proper names. Let's figure out the operamusica mystery first. That said, do you have some specific ideas on how I may be of assistance? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Opera Musica is using Wikipedia verbatim. Is there some policy to quote on the DYK to say it's okay to proceed? Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another question for my own reference, since the www.operamusica.com credits Wikipedia as a source, do I need to add them at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks under How to list new mirrors? Flibirigit (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Flibirigit: There's no "official" wording, just note in the DYK review that operamusica is a Wikipedia mirror, so the match should be discarded as irrelevant. I don't know that you need to add it to the list, but it would be helpful to editors going forward (particularly those like Gerda who work heavily in opera-related articles.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana Data.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dana Data.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bird impressionists[edit]

My interest in Joe Belmont was somewhat peripheral to my interests in birds and ornithology and I found that bird impressionism as a performing art was an extinct form with several popular names including Charles_Kellogg_(naturalist), Edward Avis, Percy Edwards, and Charles Crawford Gorst. Oddly, we do not have a specific category for these artists. I look forward to see your improvements to the article on a little-known talents from another age (one reason why it sold in the past was apparently that whistles recorded and replayed with better fidelity than voice with the early technology). Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamal: That is correct. Lots of whistling records from the era because it recorded well using the acoustic process (pre-microphone). Have you heard any of these old recordings? Some are available on youtube and archive.org, but I can send an email with a couple of cylinder record recordings featuring this type of whistling from my own collection, if you want. Creating a category of bird imitators is easy, but I'm not sure how to categorize the category! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have indeed heard the recordings - some of the stage artists impressions do not match well with those of the real birds (esp. when you examine the sonograms) but does not take away from their amazing skills. I think the issue is that Category:bird impressionists would be too small and it would need to nest inside an even smaller Category:Animal impressionists which was why I just placed them in a broader category. Shyamal (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protect the page Okyeame Kwame[edit]

How can I semi protect the page Okyeame Kwame because of vandalism issues. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneth Graham (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keneth Graham:, normally you'd go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I've had a look at that page, but I don't see the recent vandalism you are referring to. In my opinion the page doesn't need protection. What edits are causing your concern? All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again, Gerda! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here (video game) sandbox?[edit]

Hey 78.26, I saw that the page for We Were Here series was deleted. I had actually been intending to rework it since it was not the highest quality - you said in the talk page that you could restore it to a sandbox state on request? I'm not an expert wikipedian so I hope this is the right place to ask! I was thinking of only making a page for We Were Here Too, since it has more sources as a commercial game rather than a free product like the original. Tgoodfellow (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgoodfellow:  Done Please check User:Tgoodfellow/We Were Here (game). I hope that helps! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Castle Lake (Washington)[edit]

On 13 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castle Lake (Washington), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Castle Lake (pictured) was created by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castle Lake (Washington). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Castle Lake (Washington)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of record labels[edit]

I've had a discussion with Chubbles about determining notability of record labels. He referred to a link of a discussion, which I read. I disagree that having notable musicians on a label makes the label notable. I disagree that notability is inherited. I disagree that WP:Music should be used for a label's notability rather than WP:Corp. It benefits no one to bring in standards outside Wikipedia to judge articles when Wikipedia's rules themselves are sufficient and sufficiently complex to get the job done. It benefits no one to abstract from the situation, to open a philosophical discussion about the nature of importance, prominence, and cultural significance, which in turn will lead to greater web-like entanglements, debate, and confusion. All we need to know is in the particulars. There's no need to be make notability more complicated.

Chubbles has an agenda. Wikipedia isn't supposed to have them. The more we stretch definitions to suit our preferences and interests, the less accurate those definitions become, and the less useful Wikipedia becomes.

I've seen many people decorate their pages with work "they" have done. I use quotation marks because there's no such thing as private property on Wikipedia. No one owns an article. No one person is responsible for an article. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Anyone can change any article, and anyone will. Having a list of articles "I created" or "I worked on" is a stone's throw from "My articles", which they are not, as the documentation states. It isn't "your work", and even if it were, it's a good life lesson and a hard one to accept that one's work can be erased at any time for any reason. But I find it an unavoidable truth. To try to avoid it is to stick one's head in the sand. We're not building a cathedral here that will last for generations. Everything on the internet is ephemeral and could disappear tomorrow. The more ephemeral the content, the easier it will be to wipe away. The more ephemeral the content, the less credible Wikipedia is. The job of an editor is to be more discriminating, not less.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) Did you see the vacation notice on top? - I see a big difference between "I created" which is a fact that stays in an article's history even if that article changes by many, and "my article", and think this user doesn't need to be told. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmavanti: @Gerda Arendt: @Chubbles: I have been semi-watching that conversation on Chubbles's page, so I'm somewhat familiar with how the discussion is going, and it isn't much different than larger conversations that have been going on for a decade or more. I think that the most important thing to remember is that reasonable editors who are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia can and do disagree about the best approach to improvement. Civil discussion is a healthy thing, and particularly when editors have an open mind and listen as well as share their opinion. To address a few points, I don't think it's fair, and it is a borderline personal attack, to state that Chubbles has an "agenda". What agenda? Inclusionism? Could then someone say you (Vmavanti) have an "agenda" of deletionism? That would also be unfair. There have always been "deletionists" and "inclusionists" here at Wikipedia, and this place is best when people of differing inclinations discuss their reasoning and a consensus emerges about a particular topic. Therefore, try not to be frustrated merely because an editor does not see things your way. There are many editors here, fellow administrators even, who often see things differently than I do. That doesn't make me right and them wrong, nor the other way around. For what it's worth, right now the deletionists are more vocal at AfD discussions, and I know you've been told to view things a certain way many times by those editors, but that doesn't make that viewpoint "right."
In my opinion, editors have lately been spending too much effort trying to fit everything into "da rulz", when in fact "da rulz" are actually guidelines meant to help editors think about what is notable, rather than being a hard set of barriers. In my opinion, Chubbles has it mostly correct regarding record labels. Yes, record labels are "corporations" (or some side business run out of mom's garage), but their function is different than most business. They're not like a canned beans producer, or someone who makes light fixtures. They produce "art", very loosely defined. Since there's not a definitive set of "rulz" for record labels, what makes WP:COMMONSENSE notability? Record labels are known for their product, and the influence they have on artists and musical trends. By precedent (and common sense in my opinion) this is best measured by the number of notable artists issued by a record label (and not counting re-issues in general), or sometimes by length of history if a label is dedicated to a more obscure genre. These guidelines are more important for older, pre-internet labels. In all cases information must be verifiable.
Of course, record label articles have their problems. Particularly for "current" labels, they are rife with promotionalism of the worst kind. When dealing with a label that lists several notable artists, you need to watch for walled gardens, something I've failed to catch in the past. Many articles that meet "GNG" are less notable than other labels that don't meet that guideline, because they have a marketing person who's very good at inserting material into current media.
In short, it's complicated.
Ultimately, I'm not trying to change your mind, Vmavanti. Your volunteer work here is extremely valuable, and I'm very glad you have volunteered your time here to make the encyclopedia better. I have the same words for Chubbles (but he's been around quite a bit longer than I have).
I am on the other side of the country from my residence at the moment, so this is by necessity briefer and less complete than I'd like. Undoubtedly I'll think of something more clever to say at 2AM next morning. You, Chubbles, and myself are far more interested in record labels than the average editor. Therefore I take both your and Chubbles' opinion into deeper consideration when discussing labels, because you both know what you're talking about there. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the vacation note, but I wanted to write something while it was fresh in my mind. I didn't expect a response for another week. I agree that discussion is a good thing. I have nothing against Chubbles, our discussion was civil, and I'm glad to be able to talk to someone about these matters on an above average level. I certainly don't question his intelligence. I don't see agenda as an evil word and I don't intend it as a personal attack. I don't question his good intent. I think his ideas in this case are the opposite of notability. But everyone has biases. A better editor is conscious of them and tries to reign them in, but that tends to come with age and experience. I have read what seems like many autobiographical articles at WP and articles by people with a conflict of interest. I've read many articles by fans of the subject. The temptation to fight for your guy, your cause, to engage in cheerleading is great, and I see it every day. The temptation probably increases the more time one spends on Wikipedia, so perhaps it is something everyone has to struggle with.
So far no one has called me a deletionist. I don't consider myself either a deletionist or an inclusionist, and the creation and use of those words strikes me as silly but unsurprising. I was never very good at joining clubs. I judge each case one at a time. Nevertheless, it would be odd to be an editor and never do any changing or deleting. I've known copy editors who felt that if they didn't change something then they weren't doing their job. One other note: The trend in our time has been toward independence rather than emphasis on labels. Many musicians have their own labels. There are are also crowd sourced labels such as Artistshare. Billboard magazine is a shell of what it used to be.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Regarding your last sentence, never a truer word was spoken. And you are correct, the scope and intent of record labels has changed drastically in the last 15 years. When I see that a label is "online release only" I immediately think it is non-notable, but as you said we all have our biases, so I have to watch against that. There are some notable "web-only" labels, no matter that it rankles me.
I didn't address your question about decorating their pages about "their" work. You've undoubtedly noticed that I have such material on my user page. For me, it is for a couple reasons. Part of it is like a photo album, it reminds me where I started, some things I've done, some people I've worked with. Good times, and a few lessons learned along the way. It also helps people know who I am, what I like to work on, and probably warns them of my biases. I don't claim to "own" any of these articles. Ha, if I did, then The Baskerville Hounds wouldn't be such a mess <self-righteous snort>. Other editors have their own reasons for posting such material, but I do my best to be careful about judging the motivations of others. I concern myself about behavior in article editing, not what people put on their user pages. Except promotion, I will immediately delete blatant advertising on user pages.
The only other point is that I think the word "agenda" has connotations here on Wikipedia that I think you did not intend. I don't see you at the drama boards, so that is understandable, but please know that "agenda" is usually associated with self-promotion or WP:POV-pushing, and therefore might draw an unexpected strong response.
All the best, happy editing, and I really do hope I've been (and will continue to be) helpful (to all) on some level. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again![edit]

I was pleasantly surprised to see your ID pop up in a "thank" message for the David Street article. I hope that you are doing well. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie! Glad to hear from you as always. I've been putting "projects" on my user page, and David Street was one of those articles I'd been planning to write for years, but never got around to. I saw 'twas a blue link, so I investigated to make sure it was the same person. So glad you beat me to it two years ago, I always learn a lot when I read your work. All the best! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words about my work. Had it not been for your encouragement and the tips that you gave me four years ago, I might not have stayed with working on Wikipedia. I enjoy doing research, creating articles, and adding to existing articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice about title[edit]

I need your advice about what title to use for a new article. I have just begun work on User:Teblick/Stan Jones (actor, born 1914) tonight. Wikipedia already has an article, Stan Jones (actor), about an actor by that name who was born in Canada, whereas the one I'm writing about was born in Arizona. I considered using "Stan Jones (American-born actor)", but I've read some discussions recently about "American" having a broader concept than the United States. I decided to use the birth year just so that I could start work. He also wrote some songs, so another possibility would be "Stan Jones (actor-songwriter)". What are your thoughts? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You can ignore the paragraph above. I just found Stan Jones (songwriter), which is about the man I have in mind. I failed to spot that item in the disambiguation list. Now I will see if I can use the sources that I had lined up and add material to the existing article. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Lydia May Ames[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Lydia May Ames at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlackCoin_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

Hello 78.26.

I am new to Wikipedia. I was trying to find the Blackcoin wikipedia page, but it was deleted by you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlackCoin_(2nd_nomination)

I tried to understand why it was deleted, but I cannot.

Are you able to explain more about this deletion?

Many thanks Michel

It was deleted by community consensus, per the discussion page you link to. In a nutshell, it was the communities decision that no independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources was found on the topic to indicate the topic is worthy of encyclopedic attention. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

184.153.147.204[edit]

Hello. I am sorry to bother you but I think my aiv report of user:184.153.147.204 requires immediate attention because it involves a threat of violence. CLCStudent (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict) times 2) Done - you just caught me before I'm going to be offline for a few hours. I don't think this reaches oversight level, but I'm pinging Drmies for a second opinion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand that the threat was most likely empty, but I do not take chances with that kind of stuff. CLCStudent (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 78.26, I fully agree with RD3; thank you. That was creepy. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Cross (role-playing game)[edit]

Just commenting on your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game), while the English article did indeed have no sources presented, the Japanese version did have 28 sources[2]. That said, I have no idea of the value of those sources since I know no Japanese. :) BOZ (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Fair enough. If you find a good resource that lets you evaluate the sources, and you find them reliable, I'd be happy to restore the page to your user space so you can work on it. Thanks for your contributions! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel May Williams[edit]

I am still cleaning up the Samuel May Williams article. Do you have any interest in evaluating the article when I have finished? Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: Well yes, but as the article "creator" (nevermind you've done far-and-away most the work) some would feel it is inappropriate for me to do so. I will certainly give it a closer examination. Are you looking to take this to Good Article status? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the equivocal use of "evaluate." Any participation would be welcome, whether you would want to copy edit, re-organize, or critique. By my own reckoning, a clean-up of the citations should bring it up to B-status, and making it more comprehensive with tighter composition toward the end should bring it up to GA-status. Of course, my reckoning could be wrong, so I am soliciting feedback. Yes, I believe there are enough good sources and Williams is interesting enough that it should develop into a GA.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it! Unfortunately I no longer reside in Texas, so my access to sources is not what it was. My local library does have surprising historical sources, so I'll see what it has. I find it interesting he had an un-named "female companion" registered as his wife, and that later he and Sarah were taking care of children that don't appear to be theirs. The organization is good as is, I think. Can we find a replacement for the findagrave citation? Many highly-regarded editors detest that site. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would never discourage anyone from doing more research on the subject, but it's not necessary. I did not use Samuel May Williams: Early Texas Entrepreneur (1976) [3] to its potential. The articles by Franz and Nichols are old (1952), but have plenty of good material. These could be available in print at a university library, and definitely available through JSTOR. Maybe your local library has a subscription. Some local libraries even grant remote access for people with a library card. I now understand find-a grave is not an RS because it is all user-defined content. Today I replaced the citation to find-a-grave for Williams's business partner, Thomas F. McKinney. If we cannot find a replacement, we can delete the sentence about his place of interment. It's not interesting enough to retain sloppy sourcing. I am re-reading Henson (1976). She also wrote the book about the Samuel May Williams House. IIRC, that book has more info about his family life after moving to Galveston. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to JSTOR through my library card. Also, I would imagine there is a print version of the 1998 Cartwright book which I'll try to locate. Let me know if I'm on a wild goose chase there, please. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link for a WorldCat search of library holdings for Cartwright's book. Enter your zip code in the box Enter your location [4]. (I have created a default to Mark Twain's address in Hartford, just because.) Used copies are available from $3 online. You could also look at a preview. Cartwright is a journalist. I know of his other work from Texas Monthly articles. Henson is the best source. Nichols and Franz were both professional historians specializing in Texas. Franz wrote a biography of another famous Galveston resident, Gail Borden. Henson had a PhD in history from the University of Houston and taught at University of Houston-Clear Lake. She was the one who did the deep dive into the Samuel May Williams archives. Does the link at archive.org allow access? Registration *could* be free. Her book on the Samuel May Williams House, however, would be hard to find.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 78.26: I am making future comments at Talk:Samuel May Williams. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. If we're lucky, another good editor will also jump in. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished writing. I would welcome any assistance with proofing, culling, clarification, copy editing, and image layout. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lydia May Ames[edit]

On 23 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lydia May Ames, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lydia May Ames, one of Cleveland's earliest women artists, is sometimes considered its first impressionist painter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lydia May Ames. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lydia May Ames), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move to Mainspace of Draft:Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra[edit]

Ciao 78.26 - Whenever time allows, kind review Draft:Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra for a move to Mainspace. The article documents the historic creation of the U.S. Army's only symphonic orchestra in support of American's cultural diplomacy initiatives in the aftermath of World War II, under the musical direction of the noted american composer/conductor Samuel Adler. Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful assistance and I hope that you enjoy the article.2620:65:8000:A203:9DA1:393C:E5B0:2571 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)GCU P.S. You might wish to include a link to a photograph of Samuel Adler conducting the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra within the External links section as shown here on the Milken Archive Samuel Adler conducting the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in 1952 on Milken Archive.org 'here. Thanks again for you interest and Enjoy! 2620:65:8000:A203:9DA1:393C:E5B0:2571 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)GCU[reply]

Restoring the article for Richard J. Marks[edit]

Hello! I hope this will reach you, regarding the deletion of the page for the article  Richard J. Marks, in which it was suggested by two editors that userfy would be recommended. Therefore, I read the notes again carefully, and through my reading of it, may have a solution. (The debate re: articles written *about* him was as a journalist. However, Wikipedia has a lot of pages for film producers and directors, in which just credits are listed. The film product is the reference for notability.) Marks is IS notable as a film Producer. He is listed clearly in the credits as Producer, in at least three publicly released short films/TV about key renewable energy and/or China convenings with interesting contexts: 1. Producer: LinkTV https://archive.org/details/linktv_earth20081114 (Time Code 25:30) 2. Producer: The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382 (Time Code 7:41) 3. Producer: "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00). I would like to propose moving the article back into Mainspace, with Marks listed, more simply, as a Producer of environmentally-oriented films, using those links above. That would solve the problem of the lack of print articles about him -- as a journalist -- at this point in time. It would give others a chance to benefit from his contributions. The opening may be rewritten: "Marks is the Producer of film narratives that provide environmental solutions and leadership voices, in the United States and China. Thanks so much. Lettucecup (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_J._Marks[reply]

@Lettucecup: Thank you for your note. There is no question that Marks exists, and is a producer. The discussion came to a consensus that he did not meet notability requirements. I stated that I'd be happy to move this to userspace if "unambiguous significant, independent, reliable coverage is shown." That he WP:EXISTS is not at all the same concept. Do you have any reliable, independent sources where he, biographically, or his work is discussed WP:INDEPTH? I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC):[reply]

@78.26: Thank you for your fast reply. Super nice, and helpful. Let me try to state this another way. When someone is a notable film Producer, that person is listed in the film's credits. The film (the final product) may or may not be written about in the news. (For just one example, Walter Wagner was a producer [[5]] ... in which the WP page lists a few print sources and IMDB).

Here are three existing credits for Marks here as a list; please see if you believe this to be adequate crediting for the article to stand for a Producer. They are listed where credits are always listed: in the actual films (noted with Time Codes).

1. Producer: LinkTV https://archive.org/details/linktv_earth20081114 (Time Code 25:30)

2. Producer: The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382 (Time Code 7:41)

3. Producer: "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00).

Separately/Additionally, there are are legitimate additional references that caused the Wikipedia "consensus" to have some problems, specifically in terms of citing Marks as a "convener")

... which is why I am proposing we use just the three CREDITS above (1, 2 and 3).

Those print articles are for his convening activities, not films:

4. Marks is listed in the Atlantic Monthly by Dr. William Haseltine, link: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/05/the-green-salon-water-and-life/57265/ ... as follows:

"Richard Marks, the next speaker, specializes in energy, education, and environmental issue. Currently, he consults for the US Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy."

"The New York Salon was organized by Nora Maccoby-Hathaway, Mara Haseltine and Richard Marks, the same three who organized the Washington meetings. The salon was co-hosted by the New York Academy of Sciences. The Waterkeeper Alliance, the Agnes B Tara Oceans Project, the Stella Group, STAR ISLAND, the Stella Group, and Urban Assembly, New York Harbor School were also represented."

5. Print and online editions of China Daily by Fu Jing, 8-11-2008: http://www.productions1000.com/voicesofchange_chinadaily.pdf

6. Newsweek by Jonathan Ansfield, 7-28-2008: http://www.productions1000.com/qa_greenforumnotsogreengames.pdf

Lastly, while it is known and verified that Marks was an accredited broadcast journalist (CNN, National Geographic, and Productions 1000), unfortunately, Broadcast Journalists are not written about in print.

Thus, the solution I am proposing is to use just the film credits (1, 2 and 3 above) as valid notablity as a film Producer (only) of environmental content, so that the Wikipedia article can stand and exist. Thank you again. I hope this effort is worth it. Lettucecup (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

@Lettucecup: I'm sorry I'm not communicating clearly. Marks is undoubtedly notable to those films. However, he does not appear to be notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines on encyclopedic notability Again, please read WP:N, WP:NBIO, WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG carefully. If those films are encyclopediacally (that's not a word, is it?) notable, then by all means he should be listed as the producer. But as the producer of what appear to be non-notable films (by Wikipedia's standards) he doesn't appear to be notable. Being a producer given credit in films does not automatically make him notable here. I know you've put a lot of work into researching this, and I appreciate your volunteer efforts, but I really do think you're time would be better used on another subject. Again, I hope that helps. If there's any question you have regarding the Wikipedia policies I've cited and asked you to read, please let me know. I can understand if Alphabet Soup confusion sets in. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26:Thank you. I totally get it. I contacted the subject of this article about a month ago, when all this came up regarding the references (China in particular) to try to obtain more written references. I have to will come back to you at the time in which he has obtained what you are seeking. Notability isn't the problem, as you and the original editor who approved this, have stated. It is about the quality/depth of the independent references, and Marks is well aware that we need articles with enough substance to move this back in. Have a nice evening. Lettucecup (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

  • South Carolina Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
  • Hel, Poland Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
  • Scotland Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
  • Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis, Republic of Texas Iazyges, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack and United States Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War[edit]

Hello, I was the nominator of List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War for deletion. Respectfully, I don't feel it was closed as no consensus fairly and the article should have been deleted. All eight delete voters gave well reasoned policy based reasons for deletion in their arguments and that is certainly not what the keep voters did. Here is a break down of the issues with the keep voters' arguments:

Nate (Mrschimpf): Nate's whole argument consisted of trashing and making demands of the nominator, and making provably false claims such as that their is adequate sourcing in the article when most sources are older then the maximum on longevity pages age of one year (which is longstanding consensus) and new sources can't be found for five of eight individuals. He also made the false claim that we have similar articles to this, for all surviving veterans of a war, which we don't. There was nothing of substance in his argument.

Wikimandia: For starters, he endorsed Nate's worthless argument. The rest of his argument was doubting there is a fanbase for this articles content, when there always has been as explained by DerbycountyinNZ. You can also see this fan base in action by looking at threads about these veterans on the 110 club website, where people like to ruminate about things like when will the last of these vets die and who is still living. There was nothing policy based about why this article should stay on Wikipedia or how it meets any policies or guidelines.

Czolgolz: His argument was the article has been maintained for over a decade and there used to be a similar article for the vastly more prominent First World War. He also admitted these vets are all obscure people and falsely claimed that it is not the consensus on longevity pages that people must be removed if they don't have a reliable source demonstrating they were alive up to one year ago, when it is the longstanding consensus. No one bothered to enforce it on this particular page, but it is still the policy that was supposed to be followed. Nothing he said was accurately policy based or even addressed to how this article meets Wikipedia polices, like WP:BLP, WP:TOOSOON,WP:LISTN, WP:SIGCOV etc.

NukeThePukes: His entire argument consisted of trashing the nominator and making provable false claims, such as that their are not at least hundreds and possibly thousands of vets left, when there are, and that we currently have other individual articles (that means solely dedicated to one war) dedicated to all surviving war vets of other conflicts, which we don't. There was no substance whatsoever in his argument, only noise.

Drunk in Paris: They endorsed Nate's worthless comment and said this was another longevity article that should never have been nominated for deletion. I had recently AfD another article [1] which he also wanted to keep and he likely read the keep comments here trashing me and just took it at face value that this article must be fine and the nominator is wrong. No one as yet had voted for deletion. There was nothing policy based in his argument or the argument he referenced.

208.54.87.254: He endorsed NukeThePukes' argument, which as I explained above had unequivocally zero substance whatsoever in it. After I pointed this out, he said Mrschimpf and Czolgolz had good points too, only as I explained here they didn't. Also, the fact that this person thought NukeThePukes' garbage comment was a great argument demonstrates this person's opinion is objectively not worth listening too. They literally endorsed the worst comments on the AfD thread.

Into the Rift: Endorsed Nate's worthless argument and said WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion, when no one said it was. They completely ignored the policy based arguments all nine who wanted to delete the article put forth and used the excuse the nominator sucks so this article must stay. There is nothing of substance about the article in this argument, so it is worthless.

I do not understand how you saw this as 50/50 no consensus; all of the policy based arguments for deletion and all of the provably substance free arguments to keep that overwhelming consisted of trashing the nominator and making provably false claims were not equal. As explained in the delete votes, this article needs to be deleted for many different policy based reasons. Is there a way we can rectify this without going to appeal? For some background, I have been aware of this article for many years and didn't just stumble upon it and try to get rid of it out of spite. I was an active reader years before I ever started editing myself (mainly on longevity articles), which is why I knew that there used to be an accompanying suite of articles on deaths of Spanish Civil War veterans by year that all got deleted years ago. The keep voters started a WP:IDONTLIKEIT lynch mob against me, which par for the discussion was substance free on their part. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious what my view is, so I won't elaborate further on it, but I will note there's an enormous problem in this topic area with SPAs engaging in both blatant canvassing and attacking nominators for being involved in some anti-old people (or something) conspiracy; look at the DRVs for Chiyo Miyako and Kane Tanaka for what I mean. As I haven't seen you around this topic area there's no obvious reason you'd already know that, but it's a huge issue. I definitely don't want to take you to task or similar, none of this is personal and I realize now I should have explained this at the AfD itself, but I hope this helps should you ever run into this topic again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12:I'm not going to address every single issue in your wall of text, aside from the fact that I disagree with much of it. Some main points I bring from the discussion:
  • Your nomination statement has the following weaknesses: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an AfD argument to avoid.
  • It is against WP:BLP to claim dead people are still alive” appears to be a false statement. It certainly isn’t covered under WP:BDP.
  • Statements such as “a longetivity fanfluff article” is unadulterated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please avoid such arguments going forward.
  • Much of the balance of your nomination statement can be summarized by WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
These were essentially brought up by Mrschimpf, and this is a strong argument. It is not at all worthless.
Who said anything about "no consensus" equaling 50/50? In my judgement consensus was closer to "delete" but was not strong enough to close as such, and thus the "no consensus" close.
On the other hand, you make a strong argument that this type of list is very difficult to be definitive or to maintain properly (as I noted in my close).
Most importantly, you should read WP:BLUDGEON, and in particular WP:SATISFY
I think K.e.coffman makes the strongest point, in that no editor was able to counter with evidence that discussion about the dwindling surviving members is taking place in reliable sources. This is indeed a standalone list.
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I am highly familiar with your work and am predisposed to be favorably inclined to your positions and opinions. However, please don't use "off-wiki fanboys" in these types of discussion. I'm a "fanboy" of old phonograph recordings, and I do a lot of off-wiki research into them. It doesn't help understand the discussion or the issues at hand, namely the appropriateness of the list in this encyclopedia. Regarding longevity articles in general, I've been seeing more activity around the topic and my observation is that in general there is an awful lot of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT going around. On a completely unrelated note I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple of Artemis is hilarious.
This list should probably be relisted after a period of time. The case for deletion would be much stronger if it were kept simpler, was made less personal, and specific examples of how the list is already out-of-date and ill-maintained (i.e. "George" has been dead for 7 years as stated in source X, and no one has updated the list.) I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, honestly I'd forgotten about that; probably my best April Fool's joke ever. Yeah, the terminology reflects my frustration with people hanging out on the 110 Club website and a Yahoo group, who both canvas and have written some charming tirades about me over the years. Easy to forget not everyone has that background and how it appears. And like I said, I'm really not angry or anything at you; I too appreciate your editing, and hope all goes well for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought you were angry with me, and you certainly didn't come across that way. Thanks for the mention of the 110 Club, and that they are personally stalking your editing, now your comments make much more sense with this context. Frankly, the IP arguments in that discussion had very little sway anyway in my reasoning. And, of course, it is always possible that two entirely reasonable editors see things differently. I might even be wrong, it's happened a time or two (cough cough) before. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, reasonable people can disagree and so can a reasonable person and me. Obviously I'll keep an eye on the article and keep it as good as possible as long as it's there. The 110 Club stuff is hard to find because they make those threads private, but every so often they forget to tick the box so I'll see the first few posts. It's strangely amusing, but tiring after 7 years on and off. I'll keep on keeping on, and I'm sure we'll run into each other again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some counter points to your statement of nomination weaknesses:
  • Only 16 words in a long nomination were about the article being unencyclopedic, so that hardly invalidates the whole nomination.
  • It is common sense that claiming reliably sourced dead people are still alive long after they have died is against policy, regardless of the semantic game your playing.
  • Was this article created as a longevity fanfluff article by longevity fans who crave creating lists of old people and different categories of firsts and lasts or oldest and youngest whether they actually exist or not? Yes, it was, so it wasn't factually wrong for me to say that, but in hindsight I agree that it was unhelpful for me to bring that up.
  • Only 13 words in my long nomination could be construed as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and I was just pointing out that this article is not common. WP:LISTN was what I was trying to get at. The reason that it came up so much in the actual debate that followed was because keep voters kept demanding that we did have other articles just like this one, when we don't. If this invalidates my nomination, then why did it not invalidate almost all keep votes because they were demanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?
You complain about my 50/50 statement, yet you are basically saying it was 45/55 towards deletion. How was I wrong then? You shouldn't chastise someone for an obviously relative statement you evidently agree with.
Also, it's rude for you to say in your edit description I wasted hours of volunteers' time. My nomination wasn't perfect partly because I was new to AfD at the time and partly because I am a bit wordy, but it's nothing for you to get unprofessional about as an administrator. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a nice day also. The day might also get better if you realized that in general people aren't attacking you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the multiple keep votes that heavily implied at times that I'm an idiot for thinking there are not similar articles to this and your obvious attempt to slight me out of sight in your edit summary are not personal attacks, then what is a personal attack? This is just another semantic game your playing. I'm done here. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

john Murray (abolitionist)[edit]

Hello 78.26 I was pleasantly surprised to read your article on John Murray. He was the great great grandfather of my mother Rita Murray. I've been researching this man for many years and collected material on his anti-slavery activities and his employment as an engineer and later collector with the Forth and Clyde Canal Company.

My main reason for contacting you relates to the section of your article Other Activism, reference points 15 & 16 the Memoir of Annie Struthers, which appears to be an unpublished document c.1885? I've searched on Google and can't find anything on it. I gather you've seen it so I was wondering if you could give me information about the location/owner of it.

From my Murray family records I know that John Murray's wife Anne Thomson had a sister Margaret Stewart and one of her daughters (Annie) married a Thomas Struthers. That could be the connection to John Murray in the memoir.

I have additional information on John Murray and a photo of a portrait of him that could be added to your article, if you thought it OK.

Kind regards Denis Green2001:8003:20CA:F500:381E:5336:FEE:DF5C (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 13.9.2018[reply]

denis.green@bigpond.com

Hello Denis. I'm afraid I can't help much here. I did not write that article. In fact, I haven't even made any edits to it. As a long time editor, I welcomed LondonScottish when he made some of his first edits. It is this user who created the article you are interested in. As an aside, the Struthers memoirs shouldn't be used as a source on Wikipedia, as they are privately held, have never been published in a reliable source, and therefore fail Wikipedia's verifiability policy. However, I don't think that is your concern. To access those materials you should write to LondonScottish on his talk page, but he hasn't edited since May so I can't guarantee he'll reply. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi 78:26!

I am obviously very new to this world and could definitely use some pointers on what qualifies as "admissable content" on Wikipedia.

Why am I not allowed to create a page for myself? I thought I was creating a user page, similar to what you have created for yourself. Did I do something wrong?

Cheyenne rosa (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheyenne rosa:. There are two problems. First, your user page is not an encyclopedia article. Your user page is to inform other editors what your editing interests and skills are. You submitted this at the Articles for Creation process, which informs that it is intended to be an article. The other problem is that it only talks about your professional accomplishments. I would trim it down so it doesn't look like an article - it certainly looks like you are promoting yourself. I would read Wikipedia:Autobiography regarding why this doesn't work here. Editing here is indeed confusing, and I'll do everything I can to help. It is very rewarding though. If your intent is to improve the encyclopedia in general, I'll do everything I can to help. If your intent is to give yourself some publicity, I'm afraid you'll find Wikipedia a very frustrating place. Let's start with that user page. Fine to say you're a digital marketer (but warning, that throws up red flags around here!) and a picture of yourself is fine. Your babel userbox is great! I would remove the "career" section, and the "references" and "external links" section screams "ARTICLE!" I hope that is useful for you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

78:26, hearing you loud and clear! I will make those changes and resubmit. That all makes a lot of sense. I will tone down the self-promotion. As a digital marketer, it can be hard to turn that off sometimes :) I really appreciate that you took the time to explain the rules to me!

Cheyenne rosa (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Karl Ludwig Drobisch[edit]

On 18 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karl Ludwig Drobisch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the German composer Karl Ludwig Drobisch and his brother calculated planetary movements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Ludwig Drobisch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Karl Ludwig Drobisch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un taco para ti[edit]

In the interest of promoting the stereotype of Texans as enthusiastic consumers of smoked meats...

Taco de Barbacoa
To 78.26 for collaboration on Samuel May Williams.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aceptado con mucha gratitud, that made my day and gave me a good chuckle! And it's time for lunch.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Buen provecho! Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to provide consultancy[edit]

Hi 78.26,

I'm inviting admins to join our team at parli.co providing advice on how to build and manage a collaborative website. Parli.co is an emerging project aiming at building a sort of Wikipedia of arguments around controversial topics (more info here). Part of our budget will be destined to such consultancy work, and we think we could benefit from the experience of Wikipedia janitors and admins. Feel free to message me back with interest and questions. --isacdaavid 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

isacdaavid Thank you for the invication, but I'll need to decline. Sorry for late reply. I either need to take this up as a career and resign being an administrator, or need to be certain there isn't the slightest hint of a blurred line regarding pay for volunteer work here. I realize that isn't your intent in the slightest and that the consulting work would likely not affect Wikipedia at all, but appearances matter. I wish you and your project the best! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration request for Syed Adam Banuri page[edit]

Dear admin, The page Syed Adam Banuri was on the life of a great sufi saint, Mystic and acholar as well as the progenitor of Sayyid tribe living in India and Pakistan. Please help to restore and make the page format as per policies. It is a humble request sir. Thanks...04:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)--Syed Saqib Imad 04:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe I will decline. It was deleted because it wasn't an encyclopedia article, it was a religious evangelism piece. It does not appear you are capable of writing about this topic in an neutral, dispassionate manner. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask? What is wrong with that article?? If something wrong you should make it correct, deleting and declining requests are not the solution and what u know about him? What is your research level about his lifestyle??? Absolutely zero!!! Deleting articles by those who are unaware of the topic should be counted wrong and i will write that you dont have right to decide about the article which subject is not fimilar for you. No need of deletion, if something is wrong can be solved out on talk page! Even no deletion contest time??? Really sad! I will never write it again i will wait for restoration or may someone create it again. Thanks--Syed Saqib Imad 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

You've been told what is wrong with the article. It is one of the most promotional pieces of prose I've ever read here. I don't have to know anything about Banuri. The issue is not whether or not he meets notability requirements, the issue is that what you wrote was not an encyclopedia article. It was proselytization. That's not allowed here, no matter how important the topic. Vanamonde93 gives you very good advice on his talk page, you would do well to follow it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sir, Let me follow again, i will try to write as better as i can do, thanks for advise admin--Syed Saqib Imad 22:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

@El principita: thanks for the heads up. Fortunately, it now appears to be an encyclopedia article for the most part. He definitely appears to be notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softblock[edit]

Softblock [6]? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Yeah, probably I'm wrong. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows for sure? But I'm watching here for User:Urdadgay lmao. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a thing to watch for.... please feel free to change the block settings. I actually have to run, and be offline for a bit. Nice going, 78.26... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, my friend. I'll leave it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsm ur mom gay

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we pre-emptively block, via the all-knowing admin bot, all user names with character string "urmom" and "ur mom"? Sheesh. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because these usernames (and many more) could never be registered: User:Neverasourmoment, User:I love our mombasa
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes, I know. It was a joke. But... if you have to explain yourself, then it isn't funny. <sigh>. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be a joke. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should set up a user page offering to give new users incredibly clever user names. Not only your own user name as an example, but I thought neverasourmoment was pure brilliance. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't put either of those in such categories, but thanks. Now, User:Department of Redundancy Department is a great username, and a great user, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's no shortage of great users with great user names here (and you can't edit seriously around here long without being exposed to DoRD's brilliance), I was thinking more in the lines of an antidote to such anti-intellectual user names as wot started this here thread. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my...[edit]

I knew what 78.26 meant - related it to a 78 rpm vs 33-45-78 rpm vinyl - they belonged to my parents, of course. 😁 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now.... just for clarification.... I'm old, but I'm not that old. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
😂👌🏻 Atsme✍🏻📧 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Marcy Tigner[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Marcy Tigner at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surface noise[edit]

78.26, I hope this didn't come across as rude to you: the idea was that while ordinary editors write, a 78.26 has surface noise  :) it comes from a thing John Peel said years ago, introducing some oooold record—part of the search for the lost Little Richard cover number, I think it was—and as it starts he says, "Aah, oodles of God's good surface noise!"  :) Keep on spinnin'! ——SerialNumber54129 10:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found it brilliant and hilarious. With extra context it is just that much better. Of course in general, a 78, usually pressed of shellac, has significantly more surface noise than a vinyl 45. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 10:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Borri: 28 October 2018[edit]

I gave insight, unique insight about him from the era and would you want the links where to get The Pattern Of Diagnosis, this is Shawn in the 2006-2007 era in fact this would be the anniversary when he watched this play up. He's active in Anointed Writers Spolight, and I will provide his photo from 2002 I shown Bobby Lewis discussing this work. Horrorhistorian (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Horrorhistorian: You need WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources to support your claims. And what does Shawn (who is known to me, by the way) have to do with Edison Records. I know he claims to have bought the assets of the North American Phonograph Company, but that was an entirely separate entity than the topic of the Edison Records article, as Edison was prevented from entering the phonograph market for a time after the dissolution of NAPC. If Borri is notable (and I believe he probably is), then a WP:NPOV article should be written about him, but inserting this information is completely unhelpful to the understanding of the company which ended in 1929. I'm glad you are interested in one of my favorite topics, and I want to help you improve Wikipedia regarding these topics, but adding advertisement links and promoting an individual will not make your experience pleasant here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can get you right in touch with him, he is notable believe me. I learned how to mold the blanks from him. His work was immortalized in Tales of the Talisman. He has the photographs and everything, he worked on the film Bolden as I saw the script myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:If_you_read_the_story_(Shawn_Borri_2002).jpg this is a photo of him.

@Horrorhistorian: I know how to get in touch with him already. That does not at all meet our verifiability requirements, nor does it help relate him to Edison Records. Please read some of the basic policies I've referred you to. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: well Shawn did the beta reading on Ghosts in the Tornado before I was published in the U.K. with this as he helped salvage An Eye In Shadows. I was wondering how would you do an article on Shawn where my suggestions play up. The policy of no original research is tricky and I don't want to sound bias of him. I lived with him and the other room mate for a good part of the year, he saw the rejection letters for the Pattern Of Diagnosis as I connected with Jayson Blair. He does get on facebook.com too. The photo I sent you, you can even use that on that page. Horrorhistorian (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not implicate that I am Stephen Glass because what I do is fact checked against Chicago Tribune and other sources too, I even take from their own sources with attribution. Horrorhistorian (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Horrorhistorian: I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Did you send this message to the right person? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fabricate sources like he does. So don't say I do shoddy research as the research is all there, Shawn can verify it. Horrorhistorian (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Horrorhistorian You misunderstand. The problem isn't the quality of your research, the problem is that it is original research. It fails WP:V, one of core policies of Wikipedia. Let's try again. Hi, I'm 78.26, an administrator here at Wikipedia. I also know a few things about the early recorded sound industry. I reverted your edits at Edison Records because they are largely irrelevant to the topic, because they are overly promotional towards a particular individual, and because the claims are not supported by reliable sources. I think what you wrote is true, but it is misplaced and needs to be re-phrased so as not to be promotional towards Borri. If you'll read WP:V. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV then I'll be happy to help your write an article on Shawn Borri. I'll bet he's been written up in the ARSC Journal as well as some other sources, perhaps the New Amberola Graphic and In the Groove. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool if you can do that, you may need The Ethereal Gazette: Issue Five and Issue 10 because they chronicle his time in Justice, Illinois. I don't have those sources but you can take it from me. He taught me how to mold the blanks, his collection appeared in the pages of The Typewriter. How can you rephrase them to make them fit into the present, as in 1990s and beyond? Horrorhistorian (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take your word, even if I believe it. As I said, read WP:V. And the others I listed. If we create a separate article on Borri, you won't need to rephrase to fit into the present. That's where the information belongs, not on Edison Records. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is South Carolina Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1. South Carolina Courcelles (submissions)
  2. Wales Kosack (submissions)
  3. Hel, Poland Kees08 (submissions)
  4. SounderBruce (submissions)
  5. Scotland Cas Liber (submissions)
  6. Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7. Republic of Texas Iazyges (submissions)
  8. United States Ceranthor (submissions)


All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Copyrighted[edit]

  • 1)Bad Faith Norminating (Politic)

Thita Manitkul (via WP:PROD on 30 October 2018) , Thita Manitkul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_thitarangsitpol_OR_148083379

  • 2)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/323508509 There is actually another copy, freely licensed by the Thailand Ministry of Defense's Drug Rehabilitation Center and Career Training Schools photostream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/157145480@N04/43090777230 and that photostream shows several photos that include this person. The photostream contains several duplicates of which most are low resolution images that seem to be photographs or scans of hardcopy photos, but other digital photos are of a higher resolution. The photostream this image came from, which may be her personal user account, shows several of the identical images as those by the Thailand Ministry of Defense's Drug Rehabilitation Center and Career Training Schools. Personally I'll COM:AGF on this unless you know otherwise. Ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC) 2403:6200:88A6:F115:91B4:AD95:C6ED:9E75 00:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3 Hiding the truth

She wrote

http://www.lnwcars.com/%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%87-%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%92%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B0/

about

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sudarat_at_Batman_V_Superman_Dawn_of_Justice_Midnight_Run_Bangkok.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

This politician and the person who upload photo of the politician and Sry88 who's the problem is very similar Sry86

and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/864340558 the person who contributes to that page Sudarat Keyuraphan Nafy632

the Sockpuppet farm Nafy633 that also had similar name

I am sure both Sockpuppet Nafy633 and Sry88 did it for Political Result .

The Politician with the skill to put on an act https://www.google.com/search?q=%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%8C%20%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%AB%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%B2%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%87%20%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%87%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%AB%E0%B9%89คนนครศรีธรรมราชรักผู้พันปราง (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


From

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C_%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3_%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%9A 2403:6200:88A6:F115:9CDF:FED3:E7A3:3720 (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an exceedingly difficult time trying to figure out what you are trying to say, and what point you are trying to make. Therefore it has taken me a long time to reply. However, it is a moot point because these actions took place on Wikipedia Commons, where I have no standing other than as an occasional contributor. These actions are not relevant to English Wikipedia, so I am entirely unable to help from an Administrative standpoint. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM[edit]

Hi 78.26, would you consider running for ArbCom? You are a neutral, sensible, well-liked administrator. Please consider running if you are able. The deadline for self-nominations is in a few days. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Thank you for the very kind words. I'm not saying "no" right away, but there are a few things which disincline me from running. First is that I have a full-time job, a full-time family, a full-time church, and a full-time hobby. Plus Wikipedia on top of that. In other words I already devote the amount of time here that I am able, and can't really add more hours. That means that it would have to take away from other things, such as the article about the pre-eminent classical organist from North America in the 1920s and 30s which I've already been neglecting lately. The other is that while I don't think I'm obscure, neither am I a high-profile admin. My name doesn't show up in Wikipediocracy, and that's rather to my liking. That site serves some useful functions, but.... Third, You don't find me very active at AN/ANI/Jimbotalk because I find the proceedings often depressing, as good editors tearing each other apart is not my idea of a good time. I have no problem blocking vandals, spammers, and the like, but I don't enjoy preventing or limiting those who really want to improve the encyclopedia. And while I have no complaints about mine specifically, who wants to go through another RfA again?
That said, I'm not immediately dismissing the idea, because we really do need more qualified candidates, and I have this, I don't know what you call it, "volunteer ethic" I guess. I'm mulling. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would love to see you run, 78.26, and at least part of why that is is that you're very reluctant to prevent people from improving the encyclopedia; if someone enjoyed that sort of thing, I wouldn't want them to be an admin, let alone on ARBCOM. Your personal well-being comes first, of course, but do consider it. Vanamonde (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You exactly describe how a few Admins and AN works. It's ugly and we need a good ArbComm to act as a check against such Admins who like to throw their weight around. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender:@Vanamonde93: I thought it fair to inform you I won't be running this year, although I did consider it. The most important reason is that there are at least six current candidates I can wholeheartedly support. The other is that I took a look at the questions people were asking the candidates, and I don't have enough time to thoroughly research them before submitting a candidacy. It took me nearly a year to take the RfA plunge, and I don't feel prepared yet for this. I am not ruling out running next year, or in the future, but I don't think this is the right year for me. Warmest regards, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fair. Thanks for considering it. It's a lot to ask. You would have my vote, whether you ran this year or some other year. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marcy Tigner[edit]

On 9 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcy Tigner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as an adult, Marcy Tigner sold more than two million albums featuring her natural child-like voice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcy Tigner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marcy Tigner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help on submitting for review[edit]

Hi I am not really good with wikipedia but I created a page called Deloris Frempong Manso and tried submitting for peer review and hopefully getting it into mainspace but looks like I did not do it right. Can you kindly help me by looking at the said page and helping me get it into mainspace? I am still learning to understand wikipedia.Grateful for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneth Graham (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keneth Graham: I presume you mean Deloris Frimpong Manso? It is already in the mainspace, but it has been WP:PRODed by Legacypac, who is a very experienced editor here. I'm not entirely certain what it is you wish me to do.

Okay but when I google I don't see the wikipedia page. How do I ensure that when I google the name it will lead me to the wikipedia page while I work on the issue of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneth Graham (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I Google that name, the Wikipedia article is the first result. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac:, I'd like your further input into this as you are obviously far more experienced with this particular entry. I've cleaned up the promotionalism for the most part, I think. We need more African articles. In my experience these articles are difficult to build because African culture is significantly different than American/European, and what is considered a mainstream news source there differs from the norm in the United States. This individual appears notable as a prominent personality on the 5th-most popular television station in a sovereign country. But that's just current my line of thinking, and I need more perspective. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the analysis. I don't have strong feelings on it and will not object to a deprod. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found the draft history. Also pinging @SamHolt6: for his input. One of the problems with this article is that it was created (original version at least) by a persistent sockpuppeter, so it automatically becomes suspect. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I have no real comments, as, given that the subject is a media figure in Ghana, it is logical to assume the article would be recreated. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of page Lalit Narayan Jha[edit]

Can i create a new page for same person as it was deleted. PawanJha 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PawanJha91 (talk • contribs)

It was deleted as a result of this discussion. It shouldn't be re-created unless the issues discussed are resolved. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked...[edit]

...I thought of you. And while you're at it, maybe you can rewrite the article. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not ignoring you, busy in RL. Although I've had a brief look at this and my first two thoughts are 1: There's a lot worse on Wikipedia. 2: Finding sources to support the uncited claims is going to be challenging because my French is considerably worse than my German, and my German is atrocious. Was there one issue or section that was particularly grating to you? Happy Thanksgiving! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the whole thing, really. I've tried to do a thing or two but I don't have much in the way of sources, and there's an SPA (maybe two?) at work. But I thought the mention of size and speed would amuse you. Happy thanksgiving, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think SPAs are to be expected, because she really was a super-duper-star in France. Have you looked at the French version of the article? Anyway, regarding record sizes and speeds: as a specialist encyclopedia it is entirely appropriate... but at the Dalida discography pages, not on the main topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus AFD[edit]

Awwww, and I was just about to call you "courageous" for saying there was no consensus to delete, and then deleting it anyway.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the distinction between "courageous" and "stupid" is a bit blurry. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been intended as lighthearted self-deprecation, but it's actually very deep when you think about it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and on the other hand if courageous people stopped to ponder whether their actions were "stupid" we'd have many fewer heroes. Unfortunately, It didn't take much pondering to determine on which end of the spectrum my Pegasus action stands. sigh. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic waist bands are needed for tomorrow![edit]

Whad'ya call a turkey on the run?
Fast food.
Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
Thanksgiving chuckles...

What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner?
Your nose.
What did the turkey say to the computer?
Google, google, google.

😊🦃 Atsme✍🏻📧 23:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

@Atsme: Thanks for the smiles! Wishing you a WONDERFUL Thanksgiving. Me, I'm probably signing off for a few days. Gonna devote some serious time to family, an overabundance of my wife's incredible culinary feats, and spinning (mostly) black round things. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks[edit]

for this; I wonder if you would consider recasting the emphasis of your comment to clarify that, per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 10:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That will have to do then :p an excellent analysis. Thanks for the hot chocolate. Perhaps a dash of something in it...? :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marshmallows? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

I will say this here since you relisted this the first time. DannyS712 relisted this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burntisland and District Pipe Band (2nd nomination) for the third time improperly considering there was no participation the first 2 times and should have closed by now (usually as a soft delete). I have no clue if I should revert his relist or not. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: It could have been soft-deleted, and according to the WP:RELIST guideline (not policy) should have, but no real harm done here, merely postponing the inevitable. There's no incredible claims in the article, it just doesn't appear to be notable in its current state. Of course, I don't know my "grades" of pipe bands. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Sentientists[edit]

Thanks for the feedback and the point re: WP:SYNTH. I'm still a newbie here so v.helpful. I'll re-build the section but only include people with an explicit reference / cross-ref to them being a "sentientist". JamieWoodhouse (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that you blocked that I didn't block[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for the block. I thought I'd blocked but somehow didn't. I did the same thing a couple of months ago. Odd. I'll be more careful next time. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: no, you blocked it. The IP immediately started vandalizing again once your 31-hour block expired. Wouldn't surprise me if they started again after my weeklong block expires. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, you're right. Silly me. I need more coffee. :) Cheers. (I'll put it on my calendar and check in a week to see.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baby, it's cold outside (it certainly is)[edit]

Since you chastised me for criticizing someone on a Talk page as an example of abuse, I've had an eye out for it. I'm astonished at how often I have been insulted without my having initiated an insult. Now it's true that some people hate change and hate bold editors. It's easier just to go with the flow and keep the wheels spinning. But I doubt you can look at the Talk Page for Baby, It's Cold Outside and think this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Every year this song gets dragged into the gutter by impulsive people who think Wikipedia is a newspaper or a TV program or Facebook and who want to make it controversial. So two problems: the content on the page, and user's persistent insults toward me on that article's talk page. I'm reaching the limits of my patience with some of these people. If you indulge them, you make things worse for everyone, and I'm not going to do that. I try to take a wider view. I'm not concerned with the hurt feelings of a small group of people who either can't or won't follow the rules. I don't know what the penalty is for insulting people, so I don't know what recourse you have, but in some cases these people ought not to be editors. Why do we assume everyone can be an editor? They can't.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti: I'm looking into it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned them. It would have been better if you hadn't returned the personal attack (it was milder, but still...). You are absoltely correct in one regard, that is exactly how Wikipedia is NOT supposed to work, particularly among three highly productive editors such as yourself, Malik, and Smallbones. I hope it helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it really wasn't so absurd to ask the dumbass why he thought an editor who had made two edits to the talk page was a nuisance. If that's a personal attack, you and he can go fuck yourselves. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let that stand as a self-indictment. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pork roll move protection[edit]

Hey, I saw you just set pork roll so only autoconfirmed editors can move it. I was just thinking about move-protecting it, too. However, I think you'd have to make it "extended confirmed" or "sysop" for it to be meaningful because anyone who can move the page is already guaranteed to be autoconfirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, I meant it to be extended confirmed. I gotta run off for a few, so if you want to do this I'd be delighted, otherwise I'll get to it in 30 minutes or so. Of all topics to get heated.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

at here [[7]] it was PRODed and deleted by someone else, but then you deleted it through multiple CSD 5 hours later. What happened? Did someone try to recreate it in between all that? - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks: Yes, someone created a blank page. Accidentally, I think, as it consisted of a speedy deletion tag and nothing else. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating page for Canadian actor Parveen Kaur.[edit]

Hi there 78.26,

I'm a newbie so forgive any forthcoming ignorance (of which I'm sure there will be a lot). In short, I attempted to start a page for an actor named Parveen Kaur but it was deleted a few months back. I still don't fully understand why (as she is very clearly a real person) but am now revisiting it as I've seen new interviews with her online so there are more / new references available for the article. Right now there is a glaring mistake on Google when searching for "Parveen Kaur" as there is no Wikipedia page for her. There is one for another Parveen Kaur (an actor in India) and the search results are mixing the two together. I think that her having a dedicated Wikipedia page will remedy this inaccuracy.

Please let me know what you think and how I should proceed. Thanks a lot for your time.

BrixtonTown (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrixtonTown: thanks for the note, and I'll do what I can. Is this the person you're talking about, and is this draft in similar format to the article which was deleted? I can tell you the main reason most articles get deleted is because they don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and in your case the notability requirements for actors. As such, the best advice I can give you is to read WP:N, WP:RS and WP:EXISTS. I hope that helps, and feel free to come ask me questions about these policies. If after reading these you feel this particular actress meets the notability requirements, I'll be happy to help you reference the article, but the draft I linked to doesn't seem to indicate notability in its current condition. I truly hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Ah, I see why you contacted me, as I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parveen Kaur (Canadian actress) and deleted the article accordingly. In that discussion, Bearcat offers some particularly useful advice. For what its worth, interviews are usually not considered independent sources, although the context of the interview can make a difference. If you point me to some of your new sources, I'll try to evaluate them. Perhaps the top three you think shows notability? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply 78.26. Yes that is her and yes that draft is similar although not the one I made which was deleted. I will try to read / understand those links you sent me thank you very much. But in the meantime, here are 3 new links: https://meaww.com/manifest-star-parveen-kaur-diversity-stereotype-women-entertainment-industry, https://www.byrdie.com/amp/parveen-kaur-skincare-tips, https://bellanyc.com/get-to-know-parveen-kaur-star-of-nbc-new-hit-show-manifest/. None of these are PR or sent from NBC or from IMDB (which I think was part of the problem last time). What do you think? Thx again!

Hi there 78.26. Just a quick follow up here. Did you get a chance to look at those new links? Thanks so much. BrixtonTown (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrixtonTown: Apologies for tardy reply, was otherwise distracted. I'm sold on the meaww link. I'm not so keen on the byrdie (breathless promotion). BellaNYC doesn't really help establish notability, unless it is a highly-read fashion magazine. It is an interview, which is not normally independent, but if VOGUE or somesuch featured her in an interview, it would certainly help establish notability, because of its stature. I am the very last person you would want to consult regarding anything fashion related. Anything more like the meaww? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 78.26 totally understand. Hmm, well I've come across two more links that you can see here. They are both interviews: http://www.runwaybeauty.com/download/Runway2018Fall.pdf, https://www.thetealmango.com/entertainment/parveen-kaur-star-nbcs-latest-mystery-manifest/amp/. I think I'm understanding what is meant by notability requirements but don't we get to a place where fixing an inaccuracy is more important than nailing the notability thing? I also don't know how highly-read these magazines are either but does someone really need to be in Vogue to pass? Especially considering that there are other actors on the same show who have Wikipedia pages with the same level as or even less references to pass these notability requirements. It's just strange to me that we'd prefer to have a dead link on the Manifest (TV Series) page and incorrect information on Google results just because of this notability thing. She's clearly a real person and a "notable" person. Or am I mistaken? Please let me know. Thanks a lot. BrixtonTown (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 78.26. Happy new year! Just following up with you about this. FYI, another Meaww article has popped up. Please take a look when you can and let me know what you think and how I should proceed in regards to getting a page up on this Actor. https://meaww.com/manifest-saanvi-can-offer-a-lot-more-than-just-being-a-sidekick-for-the-stones. Thx a lot. BrixtonTown (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rule on one-sentence articles?[edit]

The Cleanup Listing for Wikiproject Jazz comes out every Tuesday. EddieHugh had an excellent week of work. But there are some articles on today's listing that puzzled me.

Unless I'm mistaken, which is possible, an experienced editor created these articles. All of them contain one line and an infobox with one entry. Is this standard procedure? These contrast starkly with the work EddieHugh has done. I helped, but he has more experience. I'm not going to speak for him, but he probably would like an explanation for these articles, too. Obviously I do. I hear a lot complaining across Wikipedia about retaining editors. Instead of looking for more people, why not shrink Wikipedia? Why not clean up the junk? Why not examine current editors to make sure they are not creating needless work? During the past year, I can't help coming to the conclusion that there are people who believe creating an article, any article, is morally superior to deleting one. To achieve... what? points of some kind according to how many articles one has created or Saved from deletion (Amen). I tried to address someone on this point, but he got annoyed by my questions. Would you comment on both points? These articles, one, and an obsessive-compulsive desire to create articles (and "save" them from being deleted) as part of some kind of moral or religious crusade. Thanks. My interest is in seeing Wikipedia make progress.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all "make progress" is in the eye of the beholder, and I would say that both the editor who created these articles, and yourself who wants to build out articles of high-quality, consider themselves to be "making progress" towards a better encyclopedia. This is an editing dispute, and as such anything I say here is merely as a fellow editor, and is by no means some "ADMIN PRONOUNCEMENT" which must be followed. So yeah, those articles.... They all seem to be notable, having received multiple, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Would I create such stubs? Not really, because by themselves they add little-to-no information beyond WP:SKYISBLUE. However, the "American Dreamers" article leads me to believe the stubs were created with the idea of coming back to them and filling out some basics such as a track listing. Personally I don't like doing this, I always build my articles in draftspace even though I bypass the AfC process, and then move to mainspace once I feel they are reasonably complete. There is some value in these articles, as they are sourced to independent, reliable sources from which a reader could go and glean more information. My main problem is with those which include a link to iTunes. With such sparse information, to me the articles read like "Here's this album, and here's how to buy it!" which of course violates our rules against promotionalism. However, if they were nominated, they'd probably survive an AfD discussion. Therefore I'm inclined to leave them alone, and possibly build them out when I run out of things to do around here. In short, sure I wish they were built out, but they're not really hurting anything by their existence, either. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the intrusion.
Before invoking WP:AFD see WP:Before. It sets up a series of hurdles, and proposes an agenda and protocol. Rome was not built in a day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, we're not building Rome. The goal is much more modest: to write an encyclopedia. Today. Not in ten years. It's a practical goal with practical problems: fixing grammar and punctuation, cleaning up vandalism, ensuring that all information is properly sourced. So progress isn't really all that subjective. I had no intention of nominating those one-sentence articles for deletion. I was curious if there was a rule that I had overlooked that allowed one-sentence articles to be created. I guess not and I assumed not. So you are right to put your answers in a context outside the rules, into those matters we bring to the table: ethics and morals, manners, work ethic, habits, common sense, reason, ability to communicate, sociability, expertise, experience, skills, talent. In many of these situations we say, "It's preferable to..." rather than quoting a string of acronyms, which I dislike anyway. The response "But it's not a rule" is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. I find it moronic to include foreign language citations or pay-site citations. To me, it's common sense. One need only ask, "What's a citation for?" I know the rule. Objections appear to be rooted in some kind of idealism. I'm not criticizing the need for good editors. I'm saying that even good editors can be or will be overwhelmed, if they haven't been already, by the quantity of information on Wikipedia—the quantity itself and the quantity that needs to be improved. Every Wikiproject has a Cleanup Listing. I try to help Wikipedia where I can, but I doubt creating one-sentence articles helps. It makes sense to question them and the person who has created them, regardless if it hurts their feelings, because there is more at stake here than hurt feelings. It's reasonable to say, "Could you help in other ways?" It's reasonable to avoid making things worse. We can always talk about it, right? Nor does the simple act of creating articles help. Nor does a prejudice against deletion help. Although most people here are younger than I am, they are still old enough and educated enough to know some basic truths. They know how to be responsible. It's irresponsible to volunteer others for work. It's irresponsible to shirk one's duties, to be lazy, to be disagreeable, to avoid discussion, to refuse to play by the rules. But these are matters over which I have almost no control. If you're saying there's nothing you can do, I believe that. But I'm going to continue to ask people to defend their edits. They ask me about mine. I defend them, and sometimes I'm wrong. That's an opportunity not for punishment or shame but to learn and improve. Some might even call it progress.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly those are fair points, but sometimes foreign-language sources are the only sources which exist (see some of my medieval German composer articles), or are clearly the most reliable. I'm not as familiar with pay-only citations, but I do use newspapers.com as a source. This is of course a pay repository of newspapers previously published, and is merely a way for some people to access a newspaper which is in another state/country from their current residence, and which otherwise may only be available by travel to distant libraries. By the way, given your interest in classic jazz, I think there are still accounts available for newspaperarchives.com at WP:LIBRARY which you would likely find useful for your own research and article writing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you the quick, sensible response and the ref. But I suspect the people who read jazz articles can't afford pay sites, so I will continue to use more widely available sources when I can.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmavanti: I think you mis-understood what I was trying to say, which is undoubtedly because I did not express myself clearly or correctly. I agree that, all other things being equal, a free, widely available English source is far preferable to a foreign language or pay site. I invited you to apply for a WP:LIBRARY account because, although a "pay" site, it is merely another avenue to access printed material that is available at libraries, and if cited correctly allows the reader to look up the source without accessing the pay site. Also, newspapers.com (which has exceeded the available accounts to my understanding) has a "clip" feature which allows anyone, not just a paid member, to view an item that is clipped by a member. Newspaperarchives.com may have a similar feature, I don't know, but I thought it might be useful. (As an aside, if the old stereotypes hold true, it's not the jazz fans, being more affluent than the population in general, who can't afford to pay, it's the jazz musicians themselves.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Yes, the old joke, why do they call it free jazz if we have to pay for it? And how to determine if something is jazz: if a record has made a lot of money, you know it isn't jazz. I'm always on the lookout for good sources if only for my own use. Someone else at WP, who deprodded an article, suggested I use an open library source. I don't have these sites memorized, and the names are similar. I had to create an account. Then I was led to some other site where I had to create an account, and even after all that it didn't work. I asked her if she could explain how to use it, but she ignored my request. Maybe she is affiliated with a university where she gets free access and assumes others do, too. I happen to live in a first class public library system that has online databases. From home I can access a free version of Consumer Reports and a small list of magazines and newspapers, the only downside being you can't use the URLs. This library has used Worldcat to locate (and then order) books for me through interlibrary loan which I have used for WP. I'm acquiring a small collection of used books for the Project, but even used books add up with that four or five dollar shipping charge. I'll try to figure out how to get a WP:Library account. I wonder if there is some way to get my public library to interact better with Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...[edit]

I came across a redlink, to Ron Brown (writer). Bearcat nominated the article for deletion. Only one contributor endorsed the nomination. Your closure was for a soft deletion.

Bearcat's nomination asserted all the references were to Brown's own site. Bearcat and I have disagreed on how much effort a nominator should make, to comply with WP:BEFORE, in order to make claims that there are no good references. This is an instance where, in my opinion, he was too ready to claim there were no references, when 30 seconds with google came up with several.

  1. Ontario’s History from a train seat: my last nostalgic trip on the fabled northlander
  2. At the library: “Backroads of Ontario”
    That last link, to a review of a recent book by Brown, asserts: "Ron Brown is the author of over a dozen books on Ontario and Canada featuring historical facts from the well-known to the obscure and forgotten, including 'Top 150 Unusual Things to See in Ontario', 'Rails Across Ontario' and 'Castles & Kings: Ontario's forgotten palaces.'
  3. Author talks 'unusual' sights to see in Ontario
    The profile in the Kingston Whig-Standard, one of the most admired small-town papers in Canada, characterizes him as the author of over 20 books. It notes that the upcoming release of the 'Top 150 Unusual Things to See in Ontario' fifth edition was originally the 'Top 50 Unusual Things to See in Ontario'
    Nowadays, when anyone can publish an e-book, authors are a dime a dozen, and most aren't notable. Authors who first published decades ago, when an author needed to make a case to a publisher to get his or her books published, and whose has books that have had popular books that have remained available for forty years, are a completely different kettle of fish.

Are these references sufficient to establish notability? I dunno. So I request userification. Talk page too, if it is not too much trouble.

While the references I found may not be sufficient to establish notability, in my opinion they definitely should have precluded the nomination stating all existing references were to his own website. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:  Done you'll find it at User:Geo Swan/Ron Brown (writer). Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your very prompt response! Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan:: Ron Brown is the bylined author of reference #1, not the subject, so it does nothing whatsoever toward establishing his notability — he has to be the subject of a source, not the author of it, before it assists in demonstrating notability at all. Reference #2 is a short blurb, so it doesn't do very much either — if he had already cleared GNG on more substantive sources, then that reference would be fine if it were needed as verification that he wrote a book called Backroads of Ontario, but it's not substantive enough to make that book a notability claim in and of itself. Reference #3 is substantive enough to be worth something, but one substantive piece of coverage isn't an instant GNG pass either.
I've had to explain to you more than once that our notability test is not just the ability to find any web page that offers verification that he and his work exist. What we require, to demonstrate that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is sources which represent other people doing journalism about his writing. And if you're aiming for "he's notable because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just one or two sources — if the notability claim was that he'd won a notability-making literary award, such as the Governor General's Award or the Hilary Weston Prize, then one source which verified that would be enough to get an article started (though it would still need more than just one source before it could be assessed as good), but if the notability claim you're making is "media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more media coverage than just one substantive source and a blurb.
So no, none of these three sources actually change anything. The Kingston Whig-Standard is the only one that counts for anything toward getting him over GNG, and it doesn't count for enough all by itself. If you want to work on improving it, that's your prerogative by all means — but not a single thing here constitutes proof that I did anything wrong. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to tag User:Web SourceContent as locked.[edit]

Just place {{locked global account}} in their blocked/locked account Web SourceContent. 109.102.105.146 (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See CentralAuth why is globally locked since 28 September. And global account log. 109.102.105.146 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Drmies:, this is out of my knowledge base. Help? Also see User talk:Web SourceContent/Editnotice, which seems a little strange as it serves no purpose, if this is "how it's done" shouldn't it be on the main user page, and not on some un-visited subpage? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26 and Drmies: Should dont'forget to apply {{Locked global account}} on their user page. It has been confirmed as sock of Daciproteasa09 (talk · contribs · count) and locked for Cross-wiki abuse. 109.102.105.146 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all I'm way too local and know nothing about it. But if the user is globally locked, then a tag isn't out of place. For anything that goes outside of my own little world I usually ask people like RadiX or Ajraddatz. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Drmies, I consider you highly cosmopolitan, so you'uns know where I stand! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yet, but Bbb23 did it to block Web SourceContent triggering {{checkuserblock-account}}; then, in second day Yamla managed to revoke their TPA until user got locked (I saw it was Tegel). That's no mercy regarding it, but WP:SOCK is policy rule about sockpuppetry. 31.47.10.12 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually pinging @Bbb23: about this is a great idea. Sorry I'm a bit befuddled by this request, it truly is not my usual area of administrative activity. I can do it, but I want to follow proper protocol, and I don't think it is any dire emergency that must be done right away or The Wikipedia will explode. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
78.26, you're being trolled. Please leave the userpage alone. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Something seemed a bit off since the user insisted on the tagging of a restored subpage which served no purpose. On the other hand, I'm not bright enough to figure out what the motive is behind these requests. Is there a LTA blurb or somesuch anywhere regarding this, for my remedial education purposes? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No LTA page that I'm aware of. Maybe I should create one called "pain in the ass". You probably wouldn't want to read about it anyway - it's not all that interesting. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Thanks. I'll close this book on the chapter "Ignorance Is Bliss". 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KelseyBelmonteBass[edit]

Are you able to redact some of the contributions by KelseyBelmonteBass? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For further context, which ones do you consider to be blatant BLP violations, as opposed to strong personal opinions that are irrelevant to an encyclopedia? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi 78.26, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Thank you so much! Likewise, Merry Christmas, and may uncountable blessings be yours this coming year! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary[edit]

Wishing 78.26 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, 78.26! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
@CAPTAIN RAJU: SoHvaD QISmaS ghaj! Merry Christmas to you and yours, may the upcoming year be one to remember most fondly in all respects. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!![edit]

Merry Christmas 78.26. Another year here! My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart and the heart of those around you be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Thank you, and a very Merry Christmas to you and yours. I'm not a day late, I'm 364 days early. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello 78.26, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
TheSandDoctor Talk 07:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@TheSandDoctor: Thank you! Had a lovely Christmas, and I hope you did too. I hope your New Year brings you uncountable blessings! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! -Fwth[edit]

File:Restaurant Bob l'éponge (1).jpg
Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, 78.26!


Hey 78.26, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇
Flooded with them hundreds 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flooded with them hundreds: Thank you Flooded! Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year to you and yours. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

I just saw your edit to the Eugenie Baird article, and that prompted me to send you Christmas wishes. I hope that you are doing well. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teblick: thank you Eddie! Warmest Christmas and New Years wishes to you and yours. I was going through the Whitburn Pop Memories book, and adding categories for several artists regarding notable labels they had hits on. One of Baird's hits was on the "Vinrob" label, an utterly obscure company. I have three releases by her on this label, all 78rpm. She had a minor 1953 hit "Say Si Si" on Vinrob in 1953, so I assume you can find her on 45rpm on this label. Nonetheless these records don't turn up very often, and I'd like to know more about them. I've never seen a Vinrob release that wasn't by Baird. Just one of those quirky things which interest me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had not heard of Vinrob records until I read your message. According to "Vinrob Records Formed" on this page in Cash Box magazine, Eugenie Baird recorded the first four sides issued by the company. That was also her first solo recording session, according to the short article "Stars Become Composers". Eddie Blick (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[8] 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

for help cleaning up my userspace! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, anytime! Easiest admin job ever. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspare Cohn Biography[edit]

Hi, I am new to wikipedia from the submission/publishing side. Last November 29th, 2017 I submitted for the subject header biography. Kaspare is the patriarch of the family business for which I work. I received an email response indicating that I would not get a response for four weeks and I got buried at work with higher-priority topics. I didn't realize that I'd received an email response in my account because I thought that I would get an email when the article was published. I'd like to add new information but my submission has been understandably deleted because of six months passing. References to Kaspare are peppered across wikipedia and wikipedia istself has several "empty references" to Kaspare at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUFG_Union_Bank" and "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Kaspare+Cohn" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbutanyway (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been restored for you already. Thanks Huon! Chrisbutanyway, you'll need to disclose your relationship to the individual per our WP:Conflict of Interest policy. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspare Cohn Biography[edit]

How do I submit a conflict of interest? I have no familial relationship to Kaspare but work at a family office, HFH Ltd., of Kaspare. www.hfhltd.com. Is there some manner in which I can respond directly to someone? I don't have any experience using wikipedia for submissions and I am having a tough time following where/what/how I am supposed to procede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbutanyway (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to submit additional links for Kaspare Cohn but then I was redirected to the same page indicating that my submissions was rejected and expired. I tried to submit the following additional links;

http://scalar.usc.edu/hc/tuberculosis-exhibit/kasparecohnhospital

http://scalar.usc.edu/hc/tuberculosis-exhibit/key-people-kaspare-cohn-hospital

http://www.jmaw.org/kaspare-cohn-los-angeles/

https://www.geni.com/people/Kaspare-Cohn/6000000036717918318

https://cedarssinai.omeka.net/exhibits/show/founders-day-exhibit/foundersday/kaspare-cohn-hospital

Chris Locke 12/29/18 Chrisbutanyway (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisbutanyway: It's not expired, it's still there. You're good for at least another six months. That notice is old, from when I originally declined the submission as needing more work. It still isn't ready for submission. May I gently yet strongly suggest you read WP:REFB? I think it would truly help you. When you are ready to have it reviewed again, hit the "Resubmit" at the bottom of the pink box currently on top of the article. That will let reviewers know you want the article reviewed for promotion to the main page. The article needs to be developed further. As I stated when I initially declined it, please add more biographical details, because it is not obvious that the individual meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.
Regarding conflict of interest, just name the company that you work for either on the talk page of your draft, or on your user page. It needn't be complicated. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:13:09, 31 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Deanna Coakley[edit]



Deanna Coakley 04:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC) I am requesting a peer review prior to resubmittingDeanna Coakley 04:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 06:04:21, 31 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Deanna Coakley[edit]


Request a peer review prior to resubmissionDeanna Coakley 06:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


Deanna Coakley 06:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deanna Coakley: I am looking at it. I can tell at first glance that it is markedly improved, but still isn't ready for submission. I'll give you more details later today, and I'll make a few tweaks myself that will help. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice. Would you consider perhaps co-writing this with me and allow me to learn from you as a mentor.Deanna Coakley 21:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

@Deanna Coakley: Yes, I'd be willing. Place ALL of the sources available to you in the talk page of your draft. If these are not available online, let me know how you accessed them. I don't promise that this article will be moved to the mainspace, but the topic certainly appears notable at first glance, so I'm willing to give it a shot. Are you fluent in Spanish? I can read it some, (can't speak it), so if you're fluent you'll need to check my work for translating errors. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.26/archive2018-2&oldid=998330288"