User talk:Lopifalko/Archive 4

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Lopifalko,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Change Title

Hi Lopifalko, you recently edited one article Wishworks, that is created by me. Unfortunately i published this article with wrong spelling (Wishworks) but the correct spelling of the company is 'Whishworks'. Can you please change the title of the article as i am unaware to do so. Thank You. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Niceguylucky: Done. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niceguylucky (talk • contribs) 09:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

‪Proposed deletion of Markar Esayan‬

Thanks for the warning. There are references for sure, I'm just struggling to make progress in Wikipedia. ;-) I'm a translator but I'm not allowed to use the translation tool, so I created the page - which is a little behind the current status of the original one. Perhaps you could help me link it to the original Turkish page, and I can more easily update the English version from now on. Thanks a lot! Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58: Wikidate has links to articles in tr, fr and hy Wikipedias but I cannot find Turkish. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess you meant the Armenian. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't link between the Turkish and the English pages. Instead, you go to wikidata:Q6034902 and there add a link to the English page. (It already has links to the Turkish, German and Armenian pages.) Doing this will interlink the pages. However, interlinking the pages will do nothing to proof the English page against deletion. Forget Wikidata for now. Instead, add your sources to the English page. These sources of course may be in Turkish (or Armenian). -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Wikidate! I added English and the others also appeared now! What a long learning curve! ;-) Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2020 (UTtheC)

"Wiki82esh/EREV" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiki82esh/EREV. Since you had some involvement with the Wiki82esh/EREV redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Searingjet (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Full-frame mirrorless fixed-lens cameras

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Full-frame mirrorless fixed-lens cameras".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this and Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge!† Encyclopædius 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

FlightReacts

Hi Lopifalko, for the part on the FlightReacts wikipedia page that you deleted about his views and subscribers. I am wondering if it was the amount of subscribers and views that weren't notable(3 million and 400 million) or that I need to find a better source for his subscribers and views because I thought socialblade and YouTube were good ones. Ericfood (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ericfood: Hi, it's the latter: I didn't remove it because it wasn't notable, but because it needs to have an independent reliable source describing the stats, and its by that example that we get to see that the stats are a notable number. YouTube and socialblade are just recording stats, where as if a broadsheet newspaper describes the stats then it is presumably giving an opinion that the number is notable. See WP:NYOUTUBE: "The subscriber count on the subject's YouTube channel is considered a primary source and is also subject to change (there's nothing to guarantee that the x million subscribers might all suddenly unsubscribe, even though that may seem far-fetched). So editors like to see the subscriber count mentioned by a secondary source, which comes with the advantage of being a point-in-time record of that count." -Lopifalko (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Ericfood (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Honor killing in Saudi Arabia

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Honor killing in Saudi Arabia".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! TheImaCow (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Katerina Akassoglou.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Needs independent reliable sources because WP:NACADEMIC says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lopifalko (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A little update

Hi, Pete. Hope you're doing okay since the last time we've talked. I haven't forgotten about that article, Matthew Kenslow, you and I worked on. It wasn't on mainspace, because it lacked enough 'credible' sources. I think it still does, but I have an EXCITING update. It appears "Matthew Kenslow" appeared in a huge webpage https://kost1035.iheart.com/featured/ellen-k/content/2020-04-02-order-matthews-book-juggling-the-issues-living-with-asperger-syndrome/. I don't think this meets the minimum you're looking for, but I'm working so hard seeking for interviews and such! Stay safe, Pete, and thanks! And congratulations on your 10-year anniversary of Wikipedia that was celebrated 4 months ago :) BCMj16 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@BCMj16: Thank you :) -Lopifalko (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Kryss Shane

Hi there! I saw you had a handful of edits on Kryss Shane and just wanted to let you know I've nominated the article for deletion. The original author User:Munchkin1616 is almost certainly Kryss herself. Would love to have you weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Paradoxsociety 06:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ty (rapper)

On 8 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ty (rapper), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Lopifalko, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Steven D. Hollon.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Needs independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lopifalko (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Steven D. Hollon.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Also, there are lots of awards without sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lopifalko (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Elliot Connor page

Thanks you Lopifalko for assisting me in editing the Elliot Connor page. Between us, I believe the page has been made substantially more watertight. As a new contributor, however, I feel in need of guidance as to stylistic elements. I see you have requested a large number of citations, but this element doesn't seem to be carried in other biography pages as to the depth of sourcing provided. Also, you seem to be moving references within lines, whereas I had assumed to cite after each paragraph. And as for the error messages up top, what would be your judgement of sufficient quality for their removal? I have recommended this for them on the talk page, but you have not responded. Jondogson (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Jondogson

@Jondogson: WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. ... We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Arguing that other articles do not live up to this policy does not make it is OK not to adhere to it. Sources need to be cited after the fact the support, at least so that other editors can clearly see what claims have been sources and what not, see WP:INTREF2 ("They are generally added either directly following the fact that they support, or at the end of the sentence that they support, following any punctuation."). I will respond to your other points on the talk page of the article itself. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Appreciate it. Jondogson (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)JonDogson

Wikipedia Pages

I have several pages that I have created, but have yet to be marked as accepted or given a class. I am unsure how or whether to submit them for review as they haven’t been removed. ChefBear01 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: Hi. The review queue is very long. Which are they? -Lopifalko (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it was just a quick inquiring to find out. They will be reviewed once the reviewers have worked their way down the list. Thanks for your help ChefBear01 (talk) ::10:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: Yes but I'm a reviewer, and the review queue isn't processed in order, some reviewers go for brand new articles, others in the middle, others at the end. If you're writing articles about visual artists (which you appear to be), then this is something I'm interested in reviewing, so you're welcome to let me know what they are and I'll take a look. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Union (comics) is the only one that is artist based. It is a new UK Marvel Team, which I took great interest in ChefBear01 (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: OK I've reviewed it. It needed more than 1 independent reliable source, take care to use multiple independent reliable sources, rather than fan site or wikis. I have added a number of such sources that were readily available. Also, it looks as though you have recreated an "infobox" manually, rather than use an appropriate infobox template. For a higher grading, you should bring in some of the reception described in the sources that I added. (I meant articles about artists, I thought you had written one about an visual artist that I was involved with earlier today, but perhaps I'm mistaken.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Below are the other articles I have created:

1. United Kingdom Global Navigation Satellite System(GNSS) – reviewed
2. Draft:Potential Future Global Trade Deals of the United Kingdom – renamed Free trade agreements of the United Kingdom
3. UK–Japan free trade agreement
4. United Kingdom - United States free trade agreement
5. Strategic Trade Advisory Group
6. United Kingdom - European Union free trade agreement
7. The Union (comics) – reviewed
8. National Timing Centre – reviewed

Thank you for reviewing my article ChefBear01 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. The first reference within United Kingdom - European Union free trade agreement reads like PR blurb for the author. April (currently the month before last) is described as if it were the present. "European Union" precedes "United Kingdom" alphabetically and so the recommended title for the article would I think be European Union–United Kingdom free trade agreement. In view of what I understand to be the mood of both parties, "This agreement will be signed" strikes me as optimistic. In a Britain-related context within Wikipedia, dates are not written "December 31st 2020" or "31st December 2020" but instead "31 December 2020". Instead of "(for the document please look at the Documents section)", use a link and Template:Anchor. Subheadings minimize capitalization, and ampersands are generally avoided; so for example, not "Draft Legal & Treaty Text" but "Draft legal and treaty text". In what's currently reference 5, what are the "(1)" and "(2)" and why does it matter where these two people come from? In what's currently reference 10, whose VP? Good luck with the draft! -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability Tag

As I can understand your intention to mark the article for the Grant Fire as a non-notable incident, I would like to refer you to other incidents that have been written on this site that have been far less notable than even this one-- yet have somehow been permitted to sit on this site for years without a dispute. The notability of the Grant Fire in particular, I believe, is the immense size the fire grew in a very short amount of time so very early in this fire season which I why I believe the article should remain. However if you intend to mark this article down as non-noteworth then might I recommend you also mark down these far more unmemorable wildfires in California of previous years: Boulder Fire, West Butte Fire, Young Fire, Lane Fire. Because otherwise, I believe this is a potential double standard on Wikepedia's behalf. Kind regards. Dripwoods (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dripwoods: Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists; Wikipedia is not a newspaper; and Wikipedia:Notability (events). I was performing page curation, assessing the new article and applying any warnings that seemed appropriate. No-one died as a result of this incident, so it may not (yet) be notable. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Then, as I previously said, consider deleting the other wildfire articles I listed that are on this site as well. Otherwise it's a blatant double standard that's only being applied to the page that I recently wrote. Dripwoods (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dripwoods: Arguing that over stuff exists is not a persuasive line of argument around here. It is the Grant Fire article that I am concerning myself with at present because of its need for review as part of Wikipedia:New pages patrol. No-one is saying it is definitely going to be deleted, it is merely a warning for yourself and for other editors that attention needs to be paid to this. The new pages patrol process requires that reviewers tag the article with appropriate warnings as they see fit. I see fit to be suspicious of its notability, given Wikipedia is not a newspaper; and Wikipedia:Notability (events). You could try to expand the article to demonstrate the lasting effect of the fire, and thus address its notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Assisting me with Edits and questions

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message ChefBear01 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lopifalko has assisted me with pages and any questions posed which has in turn help me to improve my pages.

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Lopifalko,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Alix Marie

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alix Marie".

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!} 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Modern Style

Modern Style should redirect to page I created in same way Jugendstil goes to dedicated page. Thank you for your help on the article.Brtbng (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brtbng: Hi. Help me to understand... what would you suggest the name of the article be? 'Modern Style'? If so, then we might first need to understand whether 'Art Nouveau' or the 'Modern Style (British Art Nouveau style)' is most commonly understood by that term. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Art Nouveau is global movement, Modern Style refers to British variant in same way Jugendstil refers to German. Two separate things Brtbng (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy Deletion Message

My Dear Friend Lopifalko, i just received a speedy deletion message by you for the article Takahiro Karasawa. This article also moved to draft by myself but i am not the creator of this article. Please remove this from my talk page. I think this is due to Twinkle tool. One more suggestion from you, Can we resolve this forever? I also faced this situation few days back.DMySon 10:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMySon: Hi. I CSDd moments after you (and then reverted it), using an automated menu option, as you say presumably something to do with Twinkle. Presumably there is a fault in that software that sees you as the author, presumably something to do with you moving it to draft. Responsibility for that is not anything to do with me I'm afraid. I'll remove it from your talk page. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No Problem (Indian TV Show)

You said Youtube is not an authentic source. How can it not be? The owner of the TV channel - Zee TV has published all the episodes of this TV serial. Back then in 1990s there was no online media. So how can I get any other sources other than the original episodes themselves uploaded by genuine TV channel as a Youtube channel themselves?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@AbbasHitawala: The article needs independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not primary sources. Sources do not need to be online, they can be in print, and there are resources online to help you search print publications, for example Google Books. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lopifalko, Google Books would not have reference to an Indian telly that was aired in 1990s in India. I don't think there are any references to old magazines that mention this. What I gave you was a reference to the YouTube Channel that is the original broadcaster, VERIFIED officially by YouTube themselves and they have all episodes of this telly uploaded there. Why wouldn't that be considered as not reliable since it is officially uploaded by original broadcaster - and it is the original work itself - the original work uploaded online for reference!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@AbbasHitawala: The article needs independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not primary sources. If the show was not mentioned in, for example, magazines of the time, then perhaps it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am finding it tough to fathom the fact that original primary sources aren't sufficient for the article and that one needs to dig through manual archives to see in which newspaper or magazine 30 years ago, if there was any reference made to this show? It is not easy and it is jeopardizing the publish of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the founding principles on which Wikipedia is based. Notability needs to be established. Perhaps you could find a topic instead that is more easily shown to be notable. When I write articles, I begin with the sources, rather than with the content. If sources can be found, then I proceed to write an article. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lopifalko, I was not aware that one should not pursue interests and write about them but first first if there are sufficient non-primary sources to provide its notability. I was confident that the original work published by owner (broadcaster) should be sufficient. Where does it state that original work posted by owner on internet is not enough and requires non-primary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 08:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have given you links above to read about this on two occasions: primary sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lopifalko, So can you please confirm to me: Primary source is not enough for my article. You need secondary source, is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@AbbasHitawala: Yes, secondary sources: independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not primary sources. It is by these secondary sources that we are able to tell whether the subject is notable. It is not enough that the subject itself claims it is notable. Wikipedia is a collection of what is notable. There are subject-specific criteria that might override this though. This is worth reading: WP:TVSHOW. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lopifalko, I am relatively new to this. Can you please help me as a senior member with tips or sources where I can find mention about Indian Television programs or any library that you might know of that may archive information 30 years in the past? I need some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@AbbasHitawala: Try this: Wikipedia:Find your source. incl. the "Get help on-wiki" at the bottom of that page. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lopifalko, I was going over the actors who worked in this serial and I found that they have their pages also in Wikipedia. I found one of the main actors of the show has a reference to this serial 'No Problem' in her wiki page - Can that be considered as a Secondary Source? Can you check 'Bhavana Balsavar' wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana_Balsavar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Bummer. I will keep backtracking to see if I find the teleseries based on the tools you suggested. It was a very nice and famous teleseries of my time and it was so famous that the Original broadcasting channel - Zee TV has even uploaded ALL EPISODES on their own OFFICIAL (And VERIFIED) YouTube Channel - It brings back so many old memories you know as a kid when I saw them in India. The only problem is finding sources of mention for that TV series since Computer was not so much used in India, especially for archiving when we are talking about 30 years ago :(. Lopifalko, is there some chat room where I can add you and we can chat and I can seek advises and guidance from you. I am just new to this and it would be easier to chat with you if possible somewhere. I sincerely hope I find atleast some sources to be able to publish MY FIRST EVER article on Wikipedia about something that I am nostalgic about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not available for that kind of chat. You can ask me specific questions here. Also, there is a formal place for asking for help: Wikipedia:Teahouse. I don't know much about TV-related editing, so you may likely make better progress if you ask on the talk page of WikiProject Television. There are other places too for specific questions on specific areas (ask at The Teahouse about that). -Lopifalko (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I will keep researching and try to use the above suggestions to see if there can be any tips to help me find sources. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the wikipedia page in Draft mode visible to others? Meaning, if the page is in Draft mode, can i send its link to someone to read it (who does not have wikipedia login account)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbasHitawala (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Google etc won't index it whilst it's draft (and also won't do so before it's reviewed when it's out of draft). -Lopifalko (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Self Publish, Be Happy logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Self Publish, Be Happy logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Article protection

I'm sorry, I wanted to ask you to protect an article, how should I do it, because an IP is sabotaging my articles?W Mozart (Talk) 10:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Requesting blocks. – Lopifalko (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, where should I apply to protect my articles?W Mozart (Talk) 10:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please ping me to see your message.W Mozart (Talk) 10:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Spornosexual

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spornosexual".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Accepted article

@Lopifalko: I just saw that the Keith Clarke article was approved. This is wonderful news, many thanks - I am adding the comment here because I wanted to be sure you see my reply and thanks and also because I have one more final question regarding the page: Can I ask a quick question regarding how to Acknowledge the people that helped with the article - I would like to add an 'Acknowledgments' section at the end of the page (maybe after the references?), would this be ok? If it is possible to add the acknowledgments section in this article, I will include people like you, and RichSmith, and DGG, etc that helped improving it: do I need to contact each of you to ask for authorization to mention your names? and if so some of you have real names (should I include the real names, the user page name, or both?), This question is also important because I was offered help in the future to help me with the research for the content of the articles I plan to build (that at times can be a bit time consuming and requires immediate replies), I would like to Acknowledge the names of that people too that helped me doing the research, would that be ok? Elisabete A Silva (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Elisabete A. Silva

@Elisabete A Silva: Hi. Please read MOS:SECTIONORDER to see the kind of sections you can include. An Acknowledgments section has absolutely no place in a Wikipedia article. The article must only be about the subject of the article, not this kind of behind-the-scenes process. The whole Wikipedia process doesn't account for recognising any of the people that worked on the article, they are each just doing what it is they enjoy doing, and all come together to form a whole. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Clarke article

Many thanks for the prompt reply

Given that the comments of users are available and can be read by everybody it is a very visible behind-the/scenes, so I assumed that was ok and should be done. But I see your point and follow the guidance.

Elisabete A Silva (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Elisabete A. Silva

@Elisabete A Silva: But that behind-the-scenes is in an area specifically labelled for such, the talk page. Where as you were talking about putting it in the article. Anyway, either way, no. The more that editors get out of the way and let articles speak for themselves, the better. And if editors do need to discuss anything then it's important it's kept as on point as possible. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on Ayursun Pharma

Hello, I think you might have removed an AFD tag, from this article when tagging for CSD, I have restored it so that when CSD is denied, AFD will apply . Just letting you know. Happy editing Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

About Michelle Dilhara article

Hello, Lopifalko. I noticed that there are some tags by citing copy editing and paraphrasing. I have deleted all those paraphrases and renewed the article. I have personally contacted the actress and took new details and web sites as to improve the article's standards. Previously there were some copy editing done by some editors. However, now I can assure, there is no such copy editing as I have checked through copyvios. So I requested from other editors as well to removed that deletion tag and copy editing tags. I hope that you will consider about this.

Cheers. Thank You! Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gihan Jayaweera: I scanned the article and could see a lot of poor quality English, so I restored the 'requires copy editing' warning. Please leave it in place, as it is a notice to try to get others to improve the article. I don't know anything about the WP:COPYVIO warning, I didn't place that on the article (though I did restore it when it was removed without comment). -Lopifalko (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: If there are some poor English, can't you change those??? Because it is really helpful to change the English tones by genuine people whose mother tongue is English. Just consider mabout that. cheers. Thank You! Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gihan Jayaweera: Sorry, I have done loads of work on this article already and have lost interest in doing more. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Orange Publishers

Hello Lopifalko. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Orange Publishers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previously declined. Be cautious that retagging can be considered WP:ADMINSHOPPING. Thank you. SoWhy 10:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Sorry, I overlooked the fact I had also tagged it for CSD 3 weeks ago. I will use AfD instead. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Anna Ray-Jones

Hello, Lopifalko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anna Ray-Jones".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sophie Calle

Could you please explain: (1) Why the "Publications with others" and "Publications by Calle" subsections should not be combined? In fact, many of the books under "Publications by Calle" were actually done in collaboration with others. Examples: Doubles Jeux (the French version of Double Game) is with Paul Auster. Appointment with Sigmund Freud has an afterword by James Putnam. Is it not sufficient to list the books chronologically, and to name others who significantly contributed? (2) If you believed that the "Publications with others" and "Publications by Calle" subsections should be separated, why you could not make those edits yourself instead of completely deleting my contribution? I spent an hour making corrections and adding material, and now that work is lost. Thanks. ArtPhotoLover (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:STATUSQUO, “If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.” Per WP:REVONLY, “The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions are caught up and lost in a revert.” Therefore, I reverted your reversion, but added the sentence “Significant contributions by other authors are noted.” Thanks. ArtPhotoLover (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@ArtPhotoLover: Greetings... (1) I have learned from others to list them separately and so have continued to do so wherever it seems to apply. It seems to me to be helpful to the reader to see how the subject's work falls into these categories. If, as you say, there are books in "Publications by Calle" that should instead be in "Publications with others", then I think better to move them there, than to argue for how that approach is failing, as they are only there by mistake. If someone else has only contributed an afterword, then that is far from being a collaborative work and should definitely be in "Publications by Calle". (2) I completely reverted your contribution, I did not copmpletely delete it. I did not make the change myself because my revert was intended to indicate that I did not like part of what you had done, and I indicated only that part in my edit summary. My intention was to communicate something like 'would you please come back again with these changes but omit the part I take issue with'. I am sorry if that did not carry across in translation, and I can see why it may not have. I tend to treat the revert rather lightly, like as an expression of my feeling, to which you are happy to revert back and discuss. I think it incredibly disingenmuous to say "I spent an hour making corrections and adding material, and now that work is lost.", as you well know, from having reverted back my change, that when changes are made to a wiki, nothing is "lost". I take your point about WP:STATUSQUO and WP:REVONLY and will bear that more in mind in future; but note that WP:STATUSQUO immediately goes on to say "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit". Here we are anyway discussing it, which is the way it is supposed to be. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Lustre prints

Hello Lopifalko,

Prior to my earlier edit at 02:08, 1 August 2020, the last sentence of this article read as follows: “Lustre photo prints have rich colour saturation that gives a vibrant colour finish but it is not vulnerable to fingerprints like matte.” I changed the last word “matte” to “glossy”. At 08:12, 1 August 2020, you changed it back to the original sentence. Now, you agree that (1) Glossy photo prints are vulnerable to fingerprints, (2) Matte photo prints are not vulnerable to fingerprints, and (3) Lustre photo prints are not vulnerable to fingerprints, either, right? I changed the last word “matte” to “glossy” because to my ear, the original wording seemed to indicate, “Lustre photo prints … is not vulnerable to fingerprints like matte[, which is vulnerable].” Where in fact, matte is not vulnerable to fingerprints. Perhaps to your ear, it sounded like, “Lustre photo prints … is not vulnerable to fingerprints [just] like matte [is not].” If so, we agree on the facts. But we seem to disagree on how to communicate the same facts to an audience who is not familiar with them. To avoid misunderstanding, I propose changing the last sentence to read like this: “Lustre photo prints have rich colour saturation that gives a vibrant colour finish and, like matte photo prints, they are not vulnerable to fingerprints, whereas glossy photo prints are prone to fingerprints.” How about that? Xirevam (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xirevam: Hi, you misunderstand my motivation. I reverted what you did because the majority of your edit was to add a blog as a source: www.printique.com/blog/. Blogs are largely unacceptable as sources. You are welcome to switch matte to glossy, or let me know if you'd like me to do it. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko:Hi Lopifalko,

Rather than just switching "matte" to "glossy", I'd like to rephrase the last sentence as I proposed: "Lustre photo prints have rich colour saturation that gives a vibrant colour finish and, like matter photo prints, they are not vulnerable to fingerprints, whereas glossy photo prints are prone to fingerprints."

The reason is that the original phrasing started with a plural subject "Lustre photo prints have..." whereas in the latter half it used a singular verb "...but it is not..." A careful reader cannot help but wonder what "it" refers to. "Lustre photo prints"? If so, it should have said "...but they are not". My proposed sentence solves this problem while retaining the intention of the original writer(s). What do you think?-Xirevam (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ship article names

Please stop moving ship articles before reading the entirety of WP:SHIPNAMES. Under the section Ships from navies without ship prefixes it states to do exactly what the articles used to be named as. Therefore I will be undoing all of your changes. Llammakey (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Llammakey: Ahh. I am truly sorry about that. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Techtalktv

I said i know him personally. By that i mean that i asked him about his DOB(his official social media account). I said that because the source was authentic(that is himself). I dont know him personally, i never met him, and he is not my friend or family. I thought he is famous so i thought he is worth a wiki article. So i did it. I never did self promoting here. Also Forbes renamed the article. As he might not be a Samsung insider. But that was true that they mentioned him as a insider. Check here. https://twitter.com/Mr_TechTalkTV/status/1145709095367794693?s=19 Now everything is fine. You corrected the typo and now its ready to go. He doesn't appear on the Google search because of one reason that is his face. He didn't reveal his face on YouTube. He uploaded his pictures on other social media. He is quite famous. He uploaded 1400+ videos till now. He uploads on a daily basis since years. Please clear all the AFD Messages. Mohammed aquib k (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mohammed aquib k: That you "know him personally" sounds unambiguous, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If Forbes named him as one thing, then removed that because they may have been at fault in naming him so, then it is stretching things for us to go with their first removed description of him. Even the Tweet you reference appears to have TechTalkTV denying this, so why would you wish to use this information? The lack of Google search results has nothing to do with him not showing his face. If he is "quite famous" then the AfD process will bring that out, experienced editors will search for evidence that he is notable in Wikipedia terms. It is not constructive to stop the AfD process part way through before notability has been demonstrated. If you wish to strenghten the article's chances of survival then you should look for multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, and add them to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hello, Lopifalko, I had created a wikipedia draft and submitted it. Its has not been reviewed for almost 3 months. Please could you help and review the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed. Thank you very much. (Kuruvillac (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC))

@Kuruvillac: Sorry, the topic isn't one that interests me enough to have to dig through those sources looking for the right kind of WP:SIGCOV. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hey (email service) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hey (email service) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey (email service) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ü = u?

How can you say (in an edit summary) that Jürgen = Jurgen. Yes for the sort function, no for pronunciation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I thought that considering the likes of MOS:HYPOCORISM, that "Jurgen" was redundant. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd understand if it was "Juergen" which would (in German, not in Dutch) sound the same. Jurgen is a distinctively different sound. I don't know, though, if it's just that the umlaut wasn't available, or a choice, but "ue" is the normal way to put "ü" when the character is missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I defer to anyone more knowledgable than I with regard to the pronunciation, as I know nothing about that. But in general terms, I defer to the sources, and all of the spellings—where the name is rendered in the titles of those sources used in the article—use "Jürgen". -Lopifalko (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I just - independently - made the round to where his name is linked in articles, and practically in all articles where he is mentioned as the author of books used as references, it's Jurgen (sound similar to first syllable of music, while Jürgen sounds more like mystic, - can't think of a really same sound). See also NPG, and google books. I have no time to investigate further, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: My feeling is that "Jurgen" is being used out of a technical lack of an umlaut, or out of laziness to try to include it, or not understanding that "Juergen" can be used in place of it, but obviously that's nothing more than a hunch. Having searched a bit now too, I find "Jurgen" is rarely used in comparison with "Jürgen". I don't yet see that it is appropriate, but if you think I'm wrong and would like me to restore "AKA Jurgen Schadeberg" then I am happy to do that. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In native German, "ü" and "ue" are for practical purposes the same; indeed the former has evolved as shorthand for the latter ([1]). For example, there is a German kitchen furniture manufacturer called Häcker Küchen, whose website is haecker-kuechen.de Jurgen in German is comparable with "fotball" in English - you might be understood but it'll still make people scratch their head a bit, though it appears to be correct in Dutch, such as Jurgen Verstrepen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In German (and I am a native German), "ü" and "ue" are not the same. There are two reasons for "ue"; avoid umlaut and have a name name derived from Dutch, where the added "e" is used to indicate a long vowel. Famous example for changing umlaut the transcription: Arnold Schönberg to Schoenberg. "Schonberg" would be a different story, and again a different vowel sound. When searching for "Juergen", you get tons of Jürgen for which it is a redirect. When searching for "Jurgen" you get all the Jürgen, without redirect because our functions seems to treat them the same. My point: "Juergen" would be normal, "Jurgen" is unusual. I found South African Jurgen Visser, though, - perhaps Jurgen is more usual in SA, who knows? - Thanks for adding to the article, Lopifalko! No need right now for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I checked WorldCat [2], - I wonder if that was his name as an author? Can't see any title page of a book clearly enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If you simply google for his books, you'll see plenty of clear evidence that he used "Jürgen". I haven't made a systematic search, and wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that at times he also used "Jurgen" (or had a publisher impose this on him). Umlaut-dropping is common in English-speaking countries: just limiting ourselves to photographers, we have Inge Morath (Ingeborg Mörath; oh dear, en:WP gets this wrong) and -- oopsie, I was about to add Evelyn Hofer born Höfer, but de:WP tells me that no she wasn't. Well, Mörath/Morath at least. (I wonder how "Morath" was pronounced in the US. /ˈmɔɹæθ/, perhaps.) ¶ Just be sure to get "Spın̈al Tap" right. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If he used Jürgen - fine by me - should we then change where it's Jurgen on Wikipedia, for consistency's sake? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes, I would always use the article title in this way. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aventus Protocol

The article Aventus Protocol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability not established, covered only as a side note in reputable media, other sources are press releases (unreliable) or merely a side note

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ysangkok (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Aventus Protocol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aventus Protocol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aventus Protocol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of edits

Hi Lopifalko, I noticed that you have deleted edits I made to pages listing festivals and awards in Australia. Both of these entries - 'Head On Photo Festival' and 'Head On Photo Awards' - have had an online presence since 2004 and are documented online by many thousands of independent sources and media. I'd appreciate it if you revert the text to include these edits or assist me by explaining what needs to be done to include them. Thanks, BigM100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigM100% (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Can you help me out by giving the name of the articles I made these changes to please? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got it. You added inline external links to the body of articles. Please read WP:EL as to why this is not allowed. If the sites you describe have innumerable potential references, that kind of reasoning relates only to their notability for the existence of a Wikipedia article on those subjects, not to whether it is ok to add inline external links to them. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The links added are the official links to the Festival and the Awards - https://www.headon.com.au and https://www.headon.com.au/awards and explanation about the organisation https://www.headon.com.au/our-story. My understanding is that this falls under 'official links' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links).

Happy to be guided by you on how to add these entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigM100% (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@BigM100%: Hi. I believe that "Official links" (WP:ELOFFICIAL) applies to within a Wikipedia article that is about the individual subject. Where as List of photography awards is a list of Wikipedia articles, or at worst articles about the organisations behind them, not lists of the names of awards in general. It was your edit to this that I reverted first and I stand behind this. List of festivals in Australia is a mix of items with and without Wikipedia articles, and with external links. I hadn't agreed with this article's use of external links, but on further reading I find that such links are almost made in line with WP:ELLIST: "In other cases, such as for lists of political candidates and software, a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table". List of festivals in Australia doesn't include the links in a table, but that seems like something that merely needs to be tidied up. There may still be an argument for the fact the items in the list should still be for where each has a Wikipedia article, but WP:ELLIST doesn't specify this directly so I will ignore that. I will restore your edit in this latter case. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for re-instating the entry for Head On Photo Festival.

Regarding the other entry for Head On Photo Awards in the list of Photo Awards- I don't believe it is solely for Wikipedia aggregated pages according to the page intro. The page includes other events without a page on Wikipedia such as 'Photographer of the Year' by 'Austarlian Photography' or 'Prestige Grant' by Getty (which is not an award). It also includes 'World Press' even though it is dedicated to 'photojournalism' (should not be included according to the intro to the page) and also includes 'Rencontres d’Arles' which is a festival not an award.

Considering that Head On Photo Award is one of the longest-running and largest Award in Australia and internationally, with $70,000 in prizes every year, it should be included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigM100% (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@BigM100%: The first line of List of photography awards states "This list of photography awards is an index to articles that describe notable awards" [my emphasis]. Thanks for the heads up about Photographer of the Year by Australian Photography which doesn't belong there, I have removed it; and that the names of the various Rencontres d'Arles awards were missing, I have added them. I am not sure about the Prestige Grant by Getty; and also am not sure about omitting photojournalism awards from this list, that might want switching to allowing them, so I have left World Press Photo. Wikipedia is not interested in whether Head On Photo Award is the "longest-running and largest", but whether it is notable. Are you interested in assessing its WP:NOTABILITY (as judged by finding independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject) and perhaps writing an article about it if it is? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles about the Awards (and the Festival) in major main-stream media which I assume constitute reliable independant sources. As example see: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/head-on-2016-the-peoples-photographic-festival-20160502-gojzt1.html https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/head-on-photo-festival-review-the-haunting-bizarre-and-unreal-20180515-h102n8.html https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/exhibitions/head-on-portrait-prize-2015 https://www.australianphotography.com/news/winners-of-70-000-head-on-photo-awards-announced.

Is there anything or anybody else you know who could attest to the Festival's notability? I'm afraid I may be exluded from writing about it as I am related to the organisation but am happy to find someone independant to write the copy; would you be interested to look over it when done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigM100% (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@BigM100%: I went to start a draft article and found someone had already written one that was awaiting review: Head On Photo Festival! -Lopifalko (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to consider declaring your involvement with the organisation as this user has done: User:Annaehonan. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Thanks, will follow up

Tony Phillips painter

Thanks for reviewing the new page about him so swiftly. You've improved the organisation of it - many thanks! I will seek secondary and/or tertiary sources for his activities. --MerielGJones (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Hart (photographer) has been accepted

Paul Hart (photographer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lopifalko (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lopifalko

Thank you for creating Alice Bulos.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

There are many sentences without inline citations, and just the one citation at the end of a whole paragraph. Please source each sentence.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lopifalko (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving "Austin Smith (poet)" to draft

I saw your recent note on Draft:Austin Smith (poet). As you wrote on my talk page, the draft "does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published." I had thought that 13 independent sources would qualify as a sufficient number of citations for a poet's bio, based on my fifteen years' experience editing Wikipedia. Do you have a suggested number that I should be aiming for instead? Thanks, --Think Fast (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As it stood at 16:50 when I looked at it, it had 9 prinmary sources (publishers of books by the subject, and the subject's poems resproduced in newspapers). As I reached for the Move to Draft button you appear to have added additional notability info and sources, then as I pressed the button to move to draft they were already in place in the background. So it is an unfortunate case of timing. However, those you had since added include the artist's own site; an announcement from his employer; and a bio from the National Endowment for the Arts, which the subject likely wrote themselves. These are too closely associated with the subject. Where are the independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject please? If any of the fellowships are enough in themselves to satisfy notability then I'd be happy to see this move to article space with a warning that independent sources were required. But without that, I don't yet see where this satisfies the sourcing requirements of Page Review.-Lopifalko (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Spijkstra

Hi Lopifalko, I could not find footnotes for all awards and solo exhibitions for Ellen Spijkstra, but for quite a few. Can the template "More footnotes" be removed now? Kattiel (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kattiel: Hi, does the article have 2 independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? Also, I suggest that if they cannot be sourced, then the unsourced exhibitions and awards be removed; and the museum collections need decent sources, such as primary sources of the museums themselves. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Three independent and reliable sources are the books listed under Sources. Kattiel (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kattiel: OK thanks. I can mark the article as reviewed, but only if we first remove the unsourced exhibitions and collections. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Lopifalko. I am still searching for more footnotes, so please be patient. Kattiel (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kattiel: I will be patient, but I suggest that better still is to remove these facts, have the article reviewed and then it can be found via web search engines, and add the facts back in when they can be sourced. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the collections for which I could not find a source. Can the template please be removed now? Too bad the pictures have been deleted, Permissions.nl has received the declaration more then three weeks ago but has a backlog in processing them. Kattiel (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kattiel: I have already removed the ref warning. Thanks for removing the unsourced claims. I have not been following along with regard the photos, but be patient and don't worry, Wikipedia is a work in progress. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Kattiel (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Betsy Wade

On 5 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Betsy Wade, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Lopifalko,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Qingdao Metro stations

Hi there, I have noticed that you have recently deleted/redirected several pages of metro stations on the Qingdao Metro. I should point out that these pages have been approved by other page reviewers and they are considered noteworthy enough to have their own articles. While some articles lack explicit detail they are tagged as stub articles and can be added on. If there is any specific reason why you have redirected these pages please let me know. Thanks! Dpm853 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dpm853: Hi. WP:STATION says "There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For ... stations on metro ... if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." The articles I redirected had only 2 sources, not necessarily reliable sources such as only in a listing at Travel China Guide, and had only very basic information, not amounting to enough for an article. If there is enough material for a stand-alone article then the redirects can be replaced with this in future, but as they stood they did not satisfy WP:STATION. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: But there are plenty of articles about other metro stations in Qingdao and in China that only have one or no references yet the common consensus on Wikipedia is that those articles must be kept. What makes the articles about the Qingdao Metro stations different from the others? Dpm853 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dpm853: I have only just seen these new articles that you have just written. All other articles in a similar condition should also be converted to redirects, according to WP:STATION. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko: Sure but many of those other pages about metro stations in China which lack sources are over ten years old and the consensus among Wikipedians has always remained the same. If all those pages aren't considered noteworthy enough then thousands of pages (some of which cover major stations) would have to be redirected. Also one reason why these articles don't have many sources is due to fact that the main consensus on Wikipedia is that Chinese state-media is considered an unreliable source which limits the number of sources which can be used for these articles.Dpm853 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dpm853: "consensus among Wikipedians has always remained the same" sounds like justification you have made up, rather than a provable fact. I think it is more likely that the articles have merely been overlooked. Which major stations lack independent reliable sources? It seems unlikely that an article on a _major_ station would lack such sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Could you explain the addition of this tag on a redirect? To me, the redirect seemed like a useful redirect, and certainly not a redirect to another namespace. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: Hi. Earlier I moved GymKit to draft because it had only 1 source, thus tagging this redirect for deletion. It seems the article has since been moved out of drat. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Lopifalko, thanks, that makes sense. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Manith Jupiter

Hi Lopifalko. Do you have any idea as to what’s happening over at Manith Jupiter? It appears you draftified this a few days ago, but now it’s somehow back in the mainspace. Did it get approved AfC or did the creator just skip that all together? It appears to have been directly created in the mainspace by a new editor who might have a WP:COI or might just be a super fan. I’m not sure whether the subject meets WP:BIO or any other WP:SNG, but it’s so poorly written and formatted, and filled with likely copyright violating images that it might need to be completely rewritten from scratch even if the subject is Wikipedia notable. The creator probably means well but English doesn’t appear to be their first language and they simply might have the language skills to write or even edit not only this article, but some others they’ve contributed to. Anyway, I’d like to get some feedback from others just in case I’m being too pessimistic here and also to see if there are any alternatives to deletion. Maybe draftifying again is an option, but that was already tried one. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It appears to have been cleaned up now. It makes some claims of importance, and is not written in an overly promotional manner, so WP:CSD seems unlikely (unless the claims of importance are not thought of as great enough). This leaves the only option I see as being WP:AFD. Looking at Norasky53's contributions leads me to examples of what you mention such as Aok Sokunkanha. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. It does appear that another editor did a bit of cleanup, and then I also did some minor stuff so perhaps things will be easier to assess now. It also appears that the image issues have also been dealt with (basically through deletion). FWIW, I did ask about the Jupiter article at some WikiProjects and maybe that will lead to further improvements, etc. or AFD depending on how some others feel. As long as there are no attempts to revert back to a fan page type of article, there's probably no need to blow things up and start from scratch (assuming the subject is notable) per WP:PRESERVE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Re Brian O'Brien (space scientist)

Hi, I inadvertently re-created the Brian O'Brien (space science) page (now a redirect) after you moved it. I was expanding it at the time, and couldn't figure out where it went, at first. Facepalm

In future I'll draft it first, or put an 'In use' template on it.
Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 10:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with a new page

Hello, hope you can help.

I have created my first page in wikipedia about Spanish/British photographer Janire Najera. I did lots of research for weeks into the artist and wikipedia itself and I got inspired by two of your pages to create my draft (Jack Latham and Lua Ribeira) I found over 40 references about her in English and Spanish which I know the basics of. But this badge has appeared in the page saying that the article may be written from a fan's point of view or that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If you have any advise of how I can improve my writing I would appreciate if you can share, as I want to start my next draft about another artist as I am really enjoying the process of writing here. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanchoIII (talk • contribs) 09:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@SanchoIII: Hi, welcome, and well done, it's a fine article in any respect, and especially given it's your first. As you'll see, I've made various adjustments and removed the what I consider to be improperly applied notability and fanpov warnings. Hopefully you can analyse the changes I made and the edit summaries I left, in order to understand what I've done, but I'm also happy to spell them all out here. Just ask. I will also give you more general feedback here, but just not today. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lopifalko:

Oh wow! Thanks so much for all the edits, they all make perfect sense this end. There were few mistakes on there I had overlooked, such as the order in the listings by year and so on. I very much appreciate all the suggestions, and this has motivated me to write more and improve as I go. Thanks for your time having a look at this and all the feedback. Have a great new year!

ITN recognition for Grace Robertson

On 16 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Grace Robertson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (inventor)

Johnson was the business partner of Alexander S. Wolcott. I happen to have the article up for Good Article nomination. Maybe if you have time could you look at it also. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: My pleasure. Done. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported Characters in Page Names

Can I ask what an (Un-Dash) as you recently moved the articles related to Vendee Globe to a character I cannot write or understand. The character you used is neither a "-" hyphen or "-" minus sign you called it an Un-Dash it is essentially the same character but slightly longer I can only write it by copying it I was confused why my linking wasn't working for a while. The amendment adds nothing to the title but makes it impossible to link for a user using an English keyboard without copy and pasting it, also unlike accents wikipedia doesn't interpret it to we will needs lots of redirects. I can understand the arguments about positive and negative of accents in URL but not this your thought will have been interested. To be honest I am tempted to move the page so it only has the start year in it. - Yachty4000 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yachty4000: I was typing one handed because of injury earlier, so must have made a typo—it's an en dash (see MOS:ENDASH). It's Wikipedia policy to use this symbol for describing a period of years, in article titles and in text. I recommend it be left as it is. I left a redirect that used your minus sign or hyphen, so that people could still use that approach. Who wants to type such a thing out anyway? when there's wikilinks, hyperlinks and auto suggestions? You'll find all such article titles use it. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ENDASH specifically says "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span.". -Lopifalko (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've checked back and I did correctly refer to it as an en dash in my edit summary, and not an "Un-Dash". -Lopifalko (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification now I know how to write it using code and what it is about. I still don't think it is a good idea in page names as it is worse than I though and not on anyone keyboard so this seems a strange policy. Seems strange wikicommon and other languages don't follow this policy. But now having looked into most pages follow this policy so I will live with it thanks for the explanation. Yachty4000 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Help review

Hello dear...good day, please help me review this page Wofai Fada thank you Amosflash (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Amosflash: I've given it a go over, but haven't time to look at the sources in order to deduce notability. Someone else will have to review it. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

British Culture Archive, or maybe People's Archive

but anyway not Modern Conflict archive. Would you perhaps be interested in giving this a nudge? But only if you're in the mood for it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, my pleasure! -Lopifalko (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Blimey! -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I was aware of it as an Instagram feed but nothing more. So what a joy it is to discover it's already so established, and has had such media coverage that it can easily justifiably be incorporated into Wikipedia. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kilo-G (artist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kilo-G (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilo G. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kilo-G (artist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kilo-G (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kilo_G. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aspening (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Faridah Àbíké-Íyímídé

Hello, Lopifalko. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Faridah Àbíké-Íyímídé, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)