January[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IQE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

February[edit]

Thanks[edit]

	Thanks
	Thanks for your help, I deleated everything ,hope that has solved the "has something gone wrong" Russell Russell Ashi (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for response[edit]

i will make references properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstshow28 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please check again[edit]

i have updated my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstshow28 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstshow28, that's an improvement. But none of them cites a source that helps to establish that the subject is notable, so the page would not be accepted if you submitted it as an article. PLease click that blue link to find what "notable" means here. Maproom (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey can you please check now we have updated the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstshow28 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks much better. I think it might now be worth submitting it for review. Maproom (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

March[edit]

Sorry for bothering you, but...[edit]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source[edit]

Hi Maproom. I noticed that you recently used TheFamousPeople.com as a source for biographical information in Pilar Corrias. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. My only ever edit to Pilar Corrias was to add a tag questioning the subject's notability. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry about that. Two editors beginning with the letter "M". I'm very sorry. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

... and seven letters. No problem at all. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

April[edit]

I have done some refrencing in this article in order to make subject notable.[edit]

hello, maproom,

Thanks for verifying my first article, as per your recommendation to make my subject more notable I have done some more referencing, so can you please recheck it!

Thanks for your Effort... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit4Well (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've checked all seven references.

No obvious mention of the subject.
No mention of the subject.
Based on what she said, so not independent and does not help to establish that she's notable.
Has about two lines of text about the subject. This helps a little, but is not "in-depth discussion" of her.
No mention of the subject.
No mention of the subject.
Says nothing about the subject.

You will need to find more sources like 4, but with deeper discussion of the subject. I would also recommend removing most or all of the other sources. The need to check such sources just wastes the time of any potential reviewer, and may deter them from bothering to finish the review. Maproom (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank You :) Princesse Marissa (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Cayley diagrams (cf. your userpage)[edit]

I always did like this site. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Maproom (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Does that mean it's yours? Wow!! Thank you for your immense service in helping me understand group theory, then! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Thank you very much for your support..i have added the citations but still don't know the correct way to sort them in an acceptable way :)

Princesse Marissa (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you provide the source (as a scan or photograph, or whatever you have), I can convert it to the approved format, that's easy for me. But more references are needed. For instance, for every ship that has visited the club, there ought to be a reference that describes the visit. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Beirut Yacht Club Visiting Celebrities anf Ship References[edit]

Dear Maproom (talk Hope you are good, i have checked now your message above, that means the reference i already insert are not correct, because it is their handwriting on the Livre D'or with their signature, Thats what i have only...it is nit enough? if so, i should delete this section? and the article can be approved without the section or there is more amendment should be done, waiting for your recommendation in order to know how to proceed there. Thank you very much for your support. Yours. Princesse Marissa (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa

Some falafel for you![edit]

Thank you for your Continuous Support.. Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

New information with references added on Beirut Yacht Club[edit]

Dear Maproom (talk) i have added information about international racing Flying Dutchman also i have found reference for US Enterprise (visiting vcelebrities and ship) and added one crew with its reference Cumberland Yacht Club de Kuwait. Once you have time, Kindly send me your feedback. Have a great eve. Peace. Princesse Marissa (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa

April[edit]

Need your feedback on how to proceed now[edit]

Happy Easter dear Maproom (talk) regarding these 2 draft articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lebanese_Yacht_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beirut_Yacht_Club ( i have removed the information with no independent references) Need your advise if the above articles can be processed to submission Kind Regards, Princesse Marissa (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa

I'm sorry, I'm going to be quite busy for the next few days. I hope I'll have time to look at the drafts on Monday

Keep well, Maproom (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Review[edit]

I have provide some notable citations for the draft Draft: Aaron D. Lewis

You may again review the article please. Thank you TheEpistle (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

TheEpistle: Wikipedia does not have a concept of "notable citations". It uses the word notable for the subjects of articles – please click that blue link to learn how it is used in Wikipedia.

I have been unable to check link 4 above, as I am in Europe, and the page is not available here. The other five sources do very little to establish that Lewis is notable. 1 is written by his employer, and so is not independent. 2 and 4 are based on what he said, and so are not independent. 3 and 5 have only brief mentions of him, not the in-depth discussion that is required.

I do not have the power to review proposed new articles. All I can do is offer my opinion on whether a draft is likely to be accepted by a qualified reviewer such as Theroadislong. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

May[edit]

Wikimedia objectives contrary to Wikipedia's[edit]

I was wondering where you got this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's my opinion. I don't think it's unusual. Maproom (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee: see, for example, this debate and this essay. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

June[edit]

July[edit]

Roman Retzbach[edit]

Hi Maproom, sorry, but you are not right!

Zukunftswissenschaften : Megatrends, future-studies, new worlds ... = Futures sciences / Roman Retzbach; Ning Huang https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1610053966

Zukunft-Leben : Future-Life / Roman Retzbach https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1627975527

China-Knigge : Chinakompetenz in Kultur und Business / Ning Huang; Roman Retzbach; Knut Kühlmann https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr571624960

Konsum-Report : World-Life / Roman Retzbach https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1623742684 YvesMe (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You have given links to details of four books, all authored or co-authored by Retzbach.

What do you think I am not right about? Maproom (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Anglicised Names[edit]

Hi Maproom, Sorry to be a pain but I was wondering if I could ask you something. I noticed your comment on the Grace O'Malley page regarding anglicised names. As I'm new, I was hoping you could help me. I was wondering if the inconsistencies with names was common and is there a method behind them. For example, there are plenty of Gráinnes on the English Wikipedia but yet Gráinne O'Malley is referred to as Grace. How is this determined? In Ireland, the common usage would be Gráinne (we don't translate it as we don't view it as having a translation) but in the US they would translate it to Grace.

Sorry, I know I'm probably a nuisance but any advice would be greatly appreciated. DarkerDai (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You're not a nuisance at all. It's always good to see someone checking what WP policy really is. It's given at Wikipedia:Article titles. The relevant section is Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization. Google's ngrams can be useful, see here. Maproom (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice for newcomers[edit]

Hello,
You are receiving this message because you are invited to take part at Wikipedia:Advice for newcomers where you can provide advice that will help our newcomers in the future. It is not a discussion forum, just a place where you say what advice would be helpful to our future editors. I would like to get at least 100 editors to take part in this so please feel free to spread the word to other editors as well. I look forward to seeing what you say to newcomers. Interstellarity (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

I know I said that I would not do any more Wikipedia edits - and that's true. But ref number 39 on this page - which I DID NOT DO - is wrong and I cannot fix it. Please have a look. Thanks in the interest of correct references/citations! 175.33.188.3 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed that reference.

I don't think anyone minds you doing Wikipedia edits. I hope you will continue. What some people mind is your asking for help at the Help Desk; they even get angry when you ask there, even though your questions are sensible ones, and you are always polite. So I suggest that you carry on editing, and whenever you need help, you ask here on my user talk page instead of at the help desk. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution gone awry[edit]

Hi, Maproom. As I said at the Teahouse, I don't want to hash this all out on a public noticeboard, so I hope you don't mind me coming to your talk page. So you know, I'm not forum shopping here. Whatever we discuss, I am not going to try and use it to reorder the sections. I'm also not pinging anyone and not using actual usernames because I'm not looking to re-litigate this. What I really want to know is where in the DR process I went wrong. Here's what happened, at least as I see it.

) Another editor, A, changed a longstanding order of the sections.
) I reverted A.
) A reverted me.
) I reverted A again. (I recognize this was a mistake.)
) Discussion on the talk page ensued but didn't resolve the matter. A third editor, C, said he "shared the concerns" of A, which I considered a !vote for his position.
) After two weeks on talk where A didn't respond, I reverted again citing WP:NOCONSENSUS. Though admittedly it was 2-1 at this point, there were no policies cited for any positions. It was simply two opinions without anything to back them up. Both were reasonable, we just disagreed.
) A reverted back to his preferred version.
) I opened up a RfC.
) The RfC only brought in one outside editor, W, and he offered a third position. We have now have four editors with three positions.
) I say I could live with W's version. We now have two editors in favor of one version and two in favor of another.
) I relist the RfC in an attempt to develop a consensus.
) We still didn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I turn to DRN.
) The volunteer declares there to be a consensus against me.
) I ask both A and the volunteer multiple times where they see a consensus on this issue.
) I get a response about consensuses on other issues, but not this one.
) When I try in good faith to seek clarification on this particular issue, I am accused of being a bully.

Perhaps I did get a bit defensive after being accused of being the one acting in bad faith. After initiating three attempts at DR on a single issue and being the only one willing to engage at DRN, that did sting. Still, I am not sure what I could have said differently here so that I wouldn't get a response like this.

I also still don't see any consensus either with me or against me on this matter. Others insist there is one. Can you show me what I am missing here? Thank you very much! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

August[edit]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Coactive nonmetals and halogen nometals[edit]

G’day Maproom

I write to gauge your thoughts about a proposal to change the nonmetal categories appearing in our periodic table from {reactive nonmetals} and {noble gases} to {coactive nonmetals} {halogen nonmetals} and {noble gases}

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

* * *

Context. There has been some discussion about nonmetal categories at WP:ELEMENTS.

I suspect most active members of that project (including me) would agree to divide the reactive nonmetals i.e. the nonmetals other than the noble gases, into two relatively clear and self-descriptive categories. However, since the WP periodic table was created, we haven't found a good way of doing this.

I caveat the expression "relatively clear" by what we say in our periodic table article:

"Placing elements into categories and subcategories based just on shared properties is imperfect. There is a large disparity of properties within each category with notable overlaps at the boundaries, as is the case with most classification schemes."

That said, didactically speaking, the use of "natural" classes or clusters to organise information supports content processing.

In Wikipedia history, the categories of "other nonmetals" and halogens are the two most enduring nonmetal categories used in our periodic table. That was until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name "other nonmetals" was.

Now, the halogen category is consistent with the traditional aspect of teaching the periodic table by contrasting the alkali metals with the halogens.

Long story short, we don’t currently have a halogen category because we weren't able to satisfactorily characterise the other nonmetals as something other than {other nonmetals}. So we decided that they and the halogen nonmetals would collectively be the reactive nonmetals.

Developments. A couple of articles in the peer-reviewed literature have prompted me to revisit this question. The first is "Metals are not the only catalysts", in Nature. The second is "Organising the metals and nonmetals", in Foundations of Chemistry (disclaimer: 1, authored by me; 2, the scheme I propose is not the same as that in this article).

The upshot is that the other nonmetals can be characterised by their:

tendency to form covalent or polymeric compounds;
prominent biological roles;
proclivity to catenate i.e. form chains or rings;
multiple vertical, horizontal and diagonal relationships;
uses in, or as, combustion and explosives;
uses in organocatalysis; and
dualistic Jekyll (#2) and Hyde (#5) behaviours

The first six properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. #7 is an observation by me.

Coactive. In light of properties 1, 3, 4 and 6, I suggest the term "coactive nonmetals" would be a good way of referring to the other nonmetals. The remaining nonmetals (F, Cl, Br, I) then become the halogen nonmetals, thus restoring the pre-eminence of this category. Here, we show astatine as a post-transition metal since condensed astatine is expected to be a full-fledged FCC metal.

"Coactive" means, "acting in concert; acting or taking place together". That seems like a good adjective wrt the covalent compounds of H, C, N, O, P, S and Se. For their polymeric compounds, e.g. of H, N, O or S, the connection is to the linked nature of their repeating structural units. That is how the literature tends to deal with the nonmetals, except that it has no common term for the first category. There is also the catalytic conation of "coactive".

The literature. Bear in mind the expression coactive nonmetals is not found in the literature.

That said, the complementary term "coactive metal" is found in literature, in the following senses:

"…adding a coactive metal (such as Pt, Ir, or Rh metal)"
"The same set of experiments was performed in presence of other co-active metal ions Fe +2, Fe +3, Co +2, Ni +2, Mn +2, Cd +2, Ca +2, Mg +2…".
"It is of great interest and challenging to improve new catalysts that consist of any of those components and new active metal component (ie co-active metal, promoter)."

There are several other references in the literature to "co-active" elements, materials or substances, including manganese, iron, nickel, cobalt and plutonium.

In the endeavours by WP:ELEMENTS to nail the other nonmetals, we will have now gone full circle from the original {other nonmetals and halogens} → {polyatomic nonmetals and diatomic nonmetals} → {reactive nonmetals}. Now we have a putative categorisation scheme for going from {reactive nonmetals} → {coactive nonmetals} and {halogen nonmetals} that would fulfil the worthy intentions of our predecessors.

Question: Is "coactive nonmetal" a neologism or is it a descriptive phrase, c.f. "coactive metal"? If there are coactive metals does this suggest there are coactive nonmetals? The other nonmetals category is well enough seen in the literature. The covalent-polymeric, biological, catenative, interlinked, combustive/explosive, and organocatalytic properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. Historically, and as noted, the "other nonmetals" category is the most enduring nonmetal category used in the Wikipedia periodic table, until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name this was. Do we now have enough content, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia, to support a change back to a binary categorisation of the nonmetals as coactive (formerly other) nonmetals, and halogen nonmetals? ♦

Handschriftencensus Edits[edit]

Thanks for your edits. I did correct the first sentence, but streamlined it compared to the first draft. HSC is actually not a database of manuscripts but a database of information about them. Some manuscripts have been digitized and the images are not in HSC but rather HSC provides links to the institutions, libraries ect... which publish the images online. "Database of manuscripts" i feel could give the impression, that the manuscripts are actually to be found there, when its a place to inform yourself about them. Thanks, Robert ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroberth Dunbar (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I think it would be helpful if the draft made it clear to the reader that the database does not contain digitisations, but does contain links to digitisations of some of the manuscripts. As it stands, it uses language such as "description norms, i.e. work and signature, as well as the identity of the text", which will mean nothing to non-specialised readers. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Rifle And Hound In Ceylon[edit]

The creator of this article has removed the Proposed deletion. In my opinion, an obscure 170 year old book does not warrant its own article. Refs not establishing notability. If you are of same opinion, could you start an AfD? I m rusty about the process. David notMD (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But last time I attempted an AfD I got lost in the bureaucracy and gave up. I might have a shot at it later today if I'm feeling stronger. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, David notMD, but no. I've had a read of WP:AFD, and there are so many steps involved. I'm almost certain to get at least one of them wrong. Maproom (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I completed the task, but with tedious-to-fix errors along the way. I agree that the instructions are not clear. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

David notMD: I've !voted, and fixed one more error – you failed to close a < small > tag in your "note". Maproom (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Walk moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Sarah Walk, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I find this weird. I have no recollection of creating the article, though I see that its history shows that I did. Its creation was not "recent", it was in September 2015, and I have no idea what I may have been doing back then. But I would certainly not have intentionally created an article with the words "I work for a record label". I have never worked for a record label.

I'm not bothered by any of this, though I'm puzzled. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

September[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's commented in discussions related to this in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to your comment about providing verifiable link on discharge notification about the subject of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohit_Ul_Alam[edit]

Dear Editor,

You responded to my plea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2020_September_10) of removing the section about 'Corruption charges' from the article about me, Professor Dr. Mohit Ul Alam on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohit_Ul_Alam) by saying that verifiable links from reliable sources such as newspapers are needed.

Here, I am providing one such link of the national newspaper where the news of my being absolutely discharged of the allegations brought against me as they were proven to be completely false. However, as the news is in Bengali, I am also providing a translation of the news along with the link. Please check and verify the news in the link provided and kindly remove the corruption charges section in the article about me on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohit_Ul_Alam) and oblige me thereby.

The news was published in the Daily Amader Shomoy on 29 January 2020. The news can be read in the second brown box from the left, on top of page 5.

Here is the link: https://epaper.dainikamadershomoy.com/2020/01/29/page-05

Here is the translation of the news from Bengali to English:

"Ex Vice-Chancellor of Jatiyo Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Trishal, Professor Dr. Mohit Ul Alam has been absolutely discharged (in Bengali, Porisomapti) of the allegations brought against him at the Anti-Corruption Commission (in Bengali, DUDOK). In a letter of reference issued on 16th January, 2020 by the Anti-Corruption Commission (in Bengali, DUDOK), it has been stated that all the allegations against him were found to be false on investigation. It has been confirmed by the letter of information issued by Mr. Md. Rezanur Rahman, the Director General (Investigation – 01) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (in Bengali, DUDOK). The allegations were made to the Anti-Corruption Commission (in Bengali, DUDOK) against Professor Dr. Mohit Ul Alam in 2017.

Staff Correspondent, Trishal (Mymensing)"

Thank you for your time.

Mohit Ul Alam

Mehbad, I have removed the mention of charges of financial corruption. Does the article you cite above also discuss the accusation of nepotism? Maproom (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much for the necessary changes made to the article about me.

All the charges made against me were dropped officially, including that of nepotism that you enquired about.

However, I would like to point out that the accusation of nepotism had been a case of yellow journalism as I happened to be in the position of Vice-Chancellor of the university when my son, Nasih Ul Wadud Alam applied following all the rules and regulations as well as fulfilling all the qualifications required in the advertisement published against the post offered in the national daily newspapers. I may be his father, but I cannot stop him from applying for a post for which he is qualified to apply. Also, when he applied for the post, and I came to know about that through my office, then following all the stipulated rules of the university applicable in such cases which concerns every official and teacher that if any relative applies, the concerned person should abstain officially from the selection procedures at all stages. So, likewise, I withdrew myself completely from the selection procedures at all stages, let alone exerting any influence in the selection process. Therefore, his appointment did not breach any legalities anywhere. It did not constitute either a legal offense or any corruption. Thus, the news of nepotism published is nothing but a baseless rumor fed with wrong information, based upon which no Wikipedia article entry should be made. Also, you will find the sources cited for the accusation of nepotism to be faulty, as the two links (citation number 8 and 9) now lead to only an online version of the news without any offline publication.

The Daily Inqilab, one of the oldest and most famous newspapers of Bangladesh, removed the news of nepotism from their online archive as in the end, it proved to be nothing but baseless and wrongly construed.

Thus, I would like to kindly request you to remove the false accusation of nepotism and remove the section of "Corruption charges" altogether from the article about me.

Thank you so much for your time and effort.

Sincerely yours

Dr. Mohit Ul Alam Professor, Department of English Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Premier University, Chattogram, Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehbad (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Mehbad, I've now removed that section from the article. But I can't promise that it won't be reinstated; and as I can't read Bengali, I'll be in a weak position if there's any debate about it. Maproom (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

October[edit]

Thank you for sharing your views about the Joanne Pransky page.[edit]

Thank you for the supportive comment. I took some hard hits to the chin for trying to improve the page for validity and reliability. A brief note to say thank you for sharing you see the page the way I originally did. Ultimately, I surrendered and tried to make the best of the situation and offer some support for the page. Enjoy the week!

(RobotDaneellives (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC))

He means me[edit]

As it would be easy for you to find out who the editor was who "would like me to do some work for them in return", I am here to say that it was me. What Mr Gold does not say in his rant is that a) all such discussions were off-wiki (via the contact details provided on his website) and should have been kept confidential and b) I was actually offering to pay him, not the other way round, for specific pieces of work that are at this stage entirely hypothetical. Like many photographers, Mr Gold accepts commissions (e.g. from the BBC) and also donations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes – I was sceptical of his claim. I hope this came through in my response to him. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

November[edit]

Requesting some help[edit]

Hello and Greetings,

More than one and half year ago you had supported me with copy editing in my first Wikipedia article Kithaab relating to women's rights. One more time I am looking for some support in Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları both first in copy edit secondly in route map of ottoman time slave women trade specially juxtaposing geopolitical map of Black sea from ottoman times and present times to make it easier to understand for readers.

Actually I am not in too much hurry, you can take your time, since it would be okay for me to bring article in main space as late as 8 March 21.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bookku,

There's a lot of material there. I'll start with just two comments.

I'm not sure what the draft is about. The first sentence indicates it's about "Avret Pazarları", markets for women slaves in the Ottoman Empire. The title, however, is "Avret Esir Pazarları". Anyway, I was expecting a list of such markets, in Istanbul and the rest of the Empire; or at least, the names of the major markets. But most of the article is not about the markets, it's about the institution of slavery, and the laws governing it, in the Ottoman Empire. This is already covered in Slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
The lead ought to summarise what is said in the rest of the article. But the lead you have written is not a summary. For instance, it includes an incident dated 1817, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the draft.

Maproom (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Maproom Yes, Some of your observations do have a point, As I started encyclopedic research on the topic I expanded article scope almost into ' Female slave trade in Ottoman empire' (primarily focused on 'non elite female slaves') and as of now itself it covers much more than Slavery in the Ottoman Empire is covering, and I suppose it has still more scope of around 20 to 30 per expansion on Female slave trade of Ottomans, that is why I am looking for longer time frame to bring it in main name space. Compared to draft developed by me Slavery in the Ottoman Empire covers much lesser on 'Female slavery in Ottoman Empire'. I am really not sure how to go about it one way would be I merge my draft after copy edit stage in Slavery in the Ottoman Empire or merge section of Female slave trade in my draft or My draft may remain as independent main article on 'Female slavery in Ottoman Empire'.

As you rightly said lot of lead section needs to be put into context section and may be context section can be further divided into subsections. One thought in my mind is we add Female slavery related section from Slavery in the Ottoman Empire temporarily in my draft, and rebuild the lead.

Before starting the draft two three things came together at back of my mind. I was already working on historical linguistics of Draft:Aurats (word), at WP:Women in Red had a discussion on expanding on articles related to Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones and WP:Women in Red initiative of discrimination against black women was also going on.

I began draft article with purpose of covering specific market in Istanbul as you rightly noticed, It seems since at least some early modern cities like Khiva in Uzbekistan and Istanbul used have specific places for slave trading and Wikipedia does have an article for Slave markets. Still I need to dig in more sources to note specific markets in specific locations. And that is why I made even request about map too, and I want to know what kind of Information will be helpful in building a proper map for Women slave trade in Ottoman times. As you rightly said I had strayed quite a bit and I am still to go back in some coming weeks on original goal.

I hope draft improves further with your suggestions and copy edit support in coming weeks. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marshall Bailey (November 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SmokeyJoe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

A CEO biography. It reads like a CV. It reads like promotion. So, more importantly, looking at the sources, the first three. The first makes no comment on the subject. The second is an interview and so is a non-independent source. The third is a press release, and so is non independent. If you want to try again, please read WP:THREE and list the three best sources for meeting the WP:GNG on the talk page. Let me know when you do this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marshall Bailey and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marshall Bailey, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maproom! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lebanese Yacht Club[edit]

December[edit]

Hello, Maproom. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lebanese Yacht Club".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hoping you are well. Merry Christmas. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossrealms series[edit]

Sorry we clashed over this, I contemplated moving it to draft myself but I had already rejected it once there so felt that WP:AFD was the way forward. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's fine – there's nothing to apologise for. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, something odd has happened. I thought I moved Crossrealms series from article space to draft space; saw your nomination; and moved it back again. But my contributions list shows me as also doing something confusing with its talk page, and Talk:Crossrealms series is now shown has having been ProDded by Passengerpigeon. I don't feel competent to untangle the mess. Maproom (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything amiss there? Passengerpigeon did indeed prod it. Theroadislong (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that the article and its talk page have been deleted, the mess has gone away, including the six moves formerly listed on my contributions page. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

All sorted! Theroadislong (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)