This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hola Creffett , Me puedes ayudar en este por favor Muchas gracias -- Historiadormundo ( talk) 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

The text of the Newfields draft is based entirely off of the Indianapolis Museum of Art article, as discussed here. I looked back at the latest revision before the article in question was published on 3/23/2016, and found that the Wikipedia text predates the ArchiTravel article. In fact, the text was first introduced in 2011 with this edit that completely overhauled the article. I believe the draft should be fully restored as it seems clear to me that this is a case of plagiarism in the opposite direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cerebral726, please discuss with the deleting admin - I can't see the deleted draft, so I can't see the problematic text or compare it to the website. However, if you're basing the text off of the Indianapolis Museum of Art article (and if you did, you need to attribute that in your edit summary), then why not just have the existing article moved instead of duplicating it? creffett ( talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not realize Barkeep49 was the deleting admin. There was discussion of splitting the article into a Newfields article and an Indianapolis Museum of Art article. It seems likely that we will keep it as one article, as is my preference, but I wanted to start the draft so if the discussion went the other way we'd have a bit of a head start. My first edit summary is "Created very rough draft based of (sic) Indianapolis Museum of Art", is there a more formal way I should have attributed it? Cerebral726 ( talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cerebral726, I'd suggest explicitly mentioning that text was copied from there (per Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia), "based off" is a little ambiguous since it could just mean you used the other article as a template rather than actually copying text. Once the text is restored, I'd suggest leaving a note on the talk page mentioning this copyvio false-positive as well (so that if someone else tags it for deletion, the deleting admin will see the note on the talk page). Sorry about how messy this was. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 17:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, at edit filter false positives, you said that "This filter is private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager." but I never got any notice of whether an edit filter helper or manager actually evaluated my request. Can you help me with this? I would like to be able to post on this WP:BLPN noticeboard 24.217.247.41 ( talk) 09:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I really can't do anything about that, unfortunately, only someone with the appropriate permissions can actually see the change and the edit filter in question. Sorry! creffett ( talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then who do I talk to who has "the appropriate permissions"? 24.217.247.41 ( talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to contest the nomination for speedy deletion, however the page is no longer in existence that I can see.

It was referenced as G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The information was factual and based off a number of external wiki resources as well as internal wiki references. If it was believe the content was not written from a neutral point of view i would have like the opportunity to adjust the text accordingly

According to the List of Policies Criteria for speedy deletion ^[1] Articles, images, categories etc. may be "speedily deleted" if they clearly fall within certain categories, which generally boil down to pages lacking content, or disruptive pages. Anything potentially controversial should go through the deletion process instead. The content was not lacking or distruptive and would not cause any controversy. The only criteria that the page cold have fallen under would be a Proposed deletion of biographies of living people ^[2]

If you could advise on how i can proceed, that would be appreciated. or even recover the article as i alot of time was spent learning the system, only to have it disappear overnight.

Thanks Gerard Reinmuth ( talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Reinmuth, you can request the article be un-deleted at WP:REFUND. However, Wikipedia is not the place to write your autobiography, so I wouldn't suggest getting your hopes up with regards to that ever becoming an article. creffett ( talk) 01:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[[User:Creffett] but somehow my page has already been deleted, how do proceed now? Gerard Reinmuth ( talk) 02:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Reinmuth, like I said, you can go to WP:REFUND to request un-deletion. creffett ( talk) 02:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi ( talk, I appreciate your help with this, when i went over to the WP:REFUND they told me i had to contact the administrator who marked the item for speedy deletion. I am so sorry to bother you on this, i am rather new to this whole wikipedia process. Any advise is welcome and appreciated Gerard Reinmuth ( talk) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Kmk. palanivel/sandbox. I do not think that User:Kmk. palanivel/sandbox fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This is a properly sandboxed user draft of a plausible article, and not in the least suitable for U5 deletion. The subject may not be notable, and this may be an autobiography, but neither of those is reason for a speedy deletion.. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Kmk. palanivel/sandbox for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, all right, I accept your decision and will not contest or re-tag. Comment, though: this may smack of WP:OTHERPARENT, but I've tagged blatant vanity pages in userspace as U5 many times in the past (especially when they have a number of social media links on them) and generally have seen them deleted by other admins without a problem. Whether or not deletion is appropriate is a matter for a different forum, of course. creffett ( talk) 01:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on where to draw the line on U5, and others of the CSD. I am generally strict that if the written criteria do not fully apply, it is not speedy deletable, and a draft which is, in form, a valid article is not speedy deletable because a tagging editor thinks in lacks notability. Notability decisions require consensus, not one or two pairs of eyes, in my view. Of course, you may list this at MfD if you so choose. Without more sources it is not likely to be approved for mainspace. If the sources are in fact there, and get added, well that is different. I have marked it as a user draft, so search engines will not index it. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Jalila Haider. I do not think that Draft:Jalila Haider fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This appears to be a sourced draft about a plausibly notable person. Tone may need adjustment, but this is not in speedy deletion range. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Jalila Haider for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 17:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the direct copy. I just copied the whole article to see what important information was in there, an then was going to delete it. Superbrickbro ( talk) 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Superbrickbro

Hello
I was making a reply and (stalkerishly) I noticed this conversation;
How about this? (do with it what you will). Regards, Moonraker12 ( talk) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Moonraker12, ha! Very nice, I might just add that next time I'm working on my userpage. Thanks! creffett ( talk) 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Why do you think my link is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? it seems as appropriate as the link that is already there "Explanation of the physics behind Snell's window" which only really explains Snell's law. I have over 30 years experience in optics check out :- https://staffportal.curtin.edu.au/staff/profile/view/Charlie.Ironside/ and over 20 years experience of SCUBA diving. I can assure you the web page that is linked is accurate and free from any commercial sponsorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Ironside ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Ironside, thanks for asking, the basic problem is that you linked to your own website. Per WP:ADV and WP:COI, you're discouraged from doing that - ...in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. I don't doubt your expertise, the problem is just that it's really easy for people to use the external links for less-scrupulous things (driving additional traffic to their site, promoting a product, etc.), so we err on the side of caution and prohibit it for everyone. I'd encourage you to try bringing up your link on the article talk page, so that other editors can review it and add it if they think it's appropriate. creffett ( talk) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat inconsistent since the link "Explanation of the physics behind Snell's window" is to somebody's website - that's indeed why I put in a link that I thought was a more complete explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Ironside ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you've been doing a lot of patrolling of newly created pages. Want to give Wikipedia:New pages patrol a try? The area could likely use your help. Just let me know and I'll grant you the permission. -- œ ^™ 04:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

OlEnglish, sure, hadn't really thought about it, but I'm willing to give it a shot. creffett ( talk) 22:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. œ ^™ 02:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OlEnglish, thank you much! creffett ( talk) 02:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the request, I added some more sources and content to the page. Also, I'm owned by a rescue border collie as well retiredprogrammers ( talk) 22:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Retiredprogrammers, cool (on both counts), I'll take a closer look when I'm on my main account tonight. I'm glad to see that you added that he's an ACM fellow (I wasn't aware of that fact), because the notability guidelines at WP:NACADEMIC include The person has been...a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor, which definitely applies in this case. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I was simply listing people who were killed by animals every year. I wasn't threating to harm anybody or attacking anybody else article. This is complete favortism by adminionstraters because someone else created a list of people who were mauled by dogs every year. If your going to delete mine you should delete their's too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneciaTaylor ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

JaneciaTaylor, first, that wasn't a speedy deletion, that was a proposed deletion, which can be removed by anyone (including you, which you did). Second, favoritism has nothing to do with it, I tagged it because it duplicated the purpose of an existing category and didn't seem to need its own page. Third, I'm not an administrator, and no administrators have gotten involved on that page yet. Fourth, I never said that you were claiming to hurt anyone, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 17:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of regional nicknames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonym ( 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) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious what I'd need to do to remove the maintaince tag from the article. Everything in the article is currently sourced, and I think that the references are reliable. Is it because it's a stub or something else? Clovermoss ( talk) 18:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I think it's good at this point (now that you've added more sources), it's sufficiently referenced. It could definitely use expansion and more significant external coverage, but I'll remove the template. creffett ( talk) 18:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You might find the recently closed deletion discussion helpful for more about signifigant coverage, Levivich found some other sources that I hope I can use to expand the article from where it currently is. Clovermoss ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

why was this unreviewed?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, accident on my part. Re-reviewed. creffett ( talk) 16:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

no problem, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett! You created a thread called RFC "magic links" at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{ nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Croatian Colombians, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, that this was created by a probable sock. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, all right, thanks for the heads-up. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 12:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett,

Please explain the conflict of interest in linking to research materials from wikipedia. We (archivists and librarians at NYU's Bobst Library) held an editing workshop to provide information for potential researchers and you seem to have removed all links we created. I do not see a conflict of interest in providing more information to people.

Catlactica ( talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Catlactica

Catlactica, certainly, I'd be happy to explain. The basic problem is that you are adding links to an organization you are affiliated with, which looks to other Wikipedia editors like you all are trying to link to your website without those links necessarily adding value to it and without acknowledging your relationship. First of all, I would recommend taking a look at the "GLAM" getting started page, as it's specifically made for people in the gallery, library, etc. area. As for the links: if you take a look at the policy on external links, you'll see that there's a rule of in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. The rule isn't necessarily as strict in the case of libraries, but if you look at the getting started page I linked earlier, in the section "Make links relevant and unique", you'll see some advice specifically for this situation. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 16:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, thanks for your reply, and for the link to the GLAM getting started page. At NYU Libraries, we’re just embarking on learning about how we can contribute to Wikipedia and Wikidata, so this information is much appreciated. I’ve created my user page and added a disclaimer about my employment. I also took a look at the “make links relevant and unique” section and the GLAM external links guide, and I believe the links we’ve added are appropriate and in scope. See: Daniel_Leab#External_links. The GLAM external links guide states “Generally, links should only be added to actual online information on the article subject, not to pages saying you have information but not showing it – for example, library or archives catalogues, or a page saying what a fine collection you have, without much illustration of it or discussion of the topic.” The links we’ve added are direct links to archival finding aids about the subjects of the articles, which include historical and biographical information and details about the contents of the archival collection. Again, thank you for helping us better understand the policies so that we can contribute useful resources to Wikipedia. Catlactica ( talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Catlactica, all right, if you think they're relevant after reading the guidelines and have disclosed your relationship, then go ahead and add them. We're happy to have you here to edit Wikipedia, and if you all have any further questions about the policies around here or aren't sure of the appropriateness of something you want to add, please feel free to post on my talk page and I'll help you as best I can. Happy editing! creffett ( talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Creffett, please note I understand the guidelines of Wikipedia but not so much how it technically works (programming language) therefor I hope this message finds you well.

You reverted my revision because of 'Unexplained removal of COI'. Howeer, I did explain to Mdd under /info/en/?search=Talk:Henk_Stallinga but maybe this was technically not properly placed and signed

please see below the explanation:

Content is key. Could you please advise on what is wrong with the content on current page? this page has not been touched by Silodam for a long time.. You earlier suggestions were answered and acted upon; no more contributions from Silodam. so why this sudden CIO tag?

Please note being close to the subject does not necessarily mean it is not correct or unjust, moreover there is more accurate information available. I do agree however it needs close attention. Therefor we decided not to contribute on the wiki page anymore (other then responding to spelling, language and more formal inaccuracies from others) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silodam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Silodam ( talk) 13:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Silodam, I wasn't aware of the discussion on the talk page. When you remove certain kinds of warnings (like COI and advertising templates), it gets specially logged, and when someone removes one of those without an explanation it usually means they haven't discussed the issue on the talk page. For next time, please make sure to use an edit summary explaining what you're doing - something like "removing COI notice after discussion on talk page," so that someone like me will know that there actually was discussion and you weren't just removing the message without discussion. creffett ( talk) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I want create a wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa, But However it prevents me from creating the page by displaying

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"

Please kindly remove the blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaroche ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Chaturaroche, I'm not an administrator, so I can't really do anything to help - I just posted that comment to point out the issue to whichever administrator responds. Please be patient, an administrator should see your message and reply soon. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} ( talk to the boss) 18:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm restoring one of the two quotes that you removed from Moritz von Stuelpnagel. Before I accepted the draft, I spent a couple hours searching out reviews of his work to make sure the original author hadn't cherry picked the most favorable ones. Terry Teachout is an important drama critic at a major US newspaper, so his view is relevant. Von Stuelpnagel seems to be something of a darling of Teachout, who has written other glowing reviews of his directing since Hand to God. They verge on sycophancy (unusual for Teachout), basically calling him the greatest living director of theatre comedy. The quote in the article is one of the tamer ones, but conveys Teachout's opinion. Being WP:NPOV doesn't mean making articles devoid of opinion, but fairly and accurately summarizing the views of experts.

It appears that the WP:COI author or their confederates intend to keep editing the page in article space, so it would be helpful if you could join in watching it for bias. The article mentions a number of awards in which the director is not named, and I would be interested in your opinion about their relevance. It felt like an attempt to claim importance by association, but I was undecided about whether to remove them. I'd also be interested to know which of the cited source you feel may be unreliable, since that wasn't a problem I noticed when I reviewed it. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce, thanks for the heads-up, no objection to you re-adding the quote, and I'll add the page to my watchlist. As for your other questions: I'm unsure as well about the other awards. My first instinct is to remove the awards that clearly name somebody else, like "best actor," for the reason you suggested. However, I don't feel knowledgeable enough of theatre in general and Tony awards in particular to feel confident doing that, I think I'll go raise it with Wikiproject Theatre and see what their usual rules are. The source I have concerns about is AboutTheArtists, since it appears to be a fellow community-generated site. I was also concerned about IBDb, but that was a mistake on my part - I guess I thought it was like IMDb in terms of reliability, but I'm looking at it now and am realizing I was completely wrong there. I'll just go ahead and remove that tag. creffett ( talk) 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett,

I come back to you regarding the page you suppressed because it would be advertising.

I discovered the brand in an international fair in Germany and got a free kit from them so I wanted to write something. I got inspiration for my text from razer or corsair pages which are among 2 biggest brands and which to me seem professional contribution if you compare with my 20 lines.

What if I write about rygby, am I goingt o be considered as a ryby player or belonging to a club (I would love it though)

Thank you in advance.

Hobbies list ( talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hobbies list, when you're writing about anything on Wikipedia, you have to show that it's notable enough for a Wikipedia page by showing that there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. When you don't have that and you're writing about a company, it usually looks like advertising for the company (especially if you have product lists on the page). You're welcome to make a new draft, but I'd advise you to take a look at the notability guidelines for companies before continuing. creffett ( talk) 22:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett!

Thank you very much Creffett.

I understand the ambiguity, I though the product list was "clever" as given a lot of info. I will read what you recommended and will redo it without product list if it is sensitive.

Best regards,

HL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbies list ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

16:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)