Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting


AE

Hi. Please don't post in the section restricted to uninvolved administrators. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I think I'd like a little more explanation for that, please? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::This Post.[1] Doug Weller talk 07:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue being vague, I'm just going to end this conversation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::I thought I was being perfectly clear. You posted in a section that says "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I said that in my first post and then, because thought you might not know what edit I meant, linked it. You know, if you just assumed I knew what I was talking about (in wikispeak age) I think you would have understood me. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And normally, we would add a "Because..." after making such a request (or in this case, rather a demand). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you two doing this the cryptic way? Since Seraphimblade is an admin, I assume Doug is claiming that Seraphimblade is involved in this issue. I have no idea if that's true or not, but you guys should just address that head on. It'll go faster... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I presume the same thing, since I figure Doug is aware I'm an administrator. But I have no idea why he thinks I'm involved, and have received no clarification as to that. To the best of my recollection, I've never been in any way involved with RAN and creating articles. I didn't even know he was doing it again until I saw the AE request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea that you're involved is truly out of left field, then yeah, it's Doug's move. Surely he hasn't confused you with non-admin User:Seraphim System (I hesitate to admit I've done that before...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible, it wouldn't be the first time. Doug Weller, any clarification? Because I honestly have zero idea why you made the above request, let alone in the tone that you did. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit. I can't believe I've been so stupid. And you an ex-Arb to, a status I'm beginning to yearn for. @Floquenbeam: is absolutely correct. I feel like digging a hole and pulling the dirt in over me. Many, many apologies. I won't do that again! I haven't noticed you around for a while as we don't seem to cross paths much, but that's not really a very good excuse. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You had me quite confused! I hadn't considered the possibility you might've mistaken me for someone else, until Floq brought it up. I thought you figured me for involved somehow, and was really at a loss as to why that would be. And yeah, it's definitely a change being an ex-Arb, but certainly not an altogether bad one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the userinfo script (mentioned at Drmies' talk page), so now when I look at the top of your user page I see you have edited for 12 years 11 months, are an Admin with edit filter rights also, etc. Plus another script that when I look at the history of a page highlights all the Admins in cyan. Nice addition to the script that shows all blocked editors struck out. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of cool. I use popups for that myself, but the immediate visual identification (especially for blocked users) would be kind of nice. Might have to take those for a spin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with the Teradata article

Hello, Seraphimblade. I recently began submitting a series of requests to improve the Teradata article on behalf of my employer. My initial requests were well received, but responses to the later ones (all answered by the same editor) have been frustrating and confusing. I've struggled to get the reviewing editor to reconsider my proposed improvements or offer further feedback, even when I've suggested alternatives. I am specifically referring to this request to update the "Technology and products" section, and this request to create an "Acquisitions and divestitures" subsection within the "History" section.

For the first, I've provided alternative sourcing and wording for consideration, but the editor declined to reply. For the second, I proposed no major content changes, and instead of actually implementing my request (which they said they did), the editor changed the entire history section into bullet points. I'm afraid the article looks worse than before. I replied to the editor, asking for the bullet point to be converted into prose, but I did not receive any reply.

I then reached out to User:Linearizable for help, as a member of WikiProjects Databases, but they are hesitant to become involved after a discussion with the editor who reviewed the request. Linearizable suggested I reach out to you, as an active WikiProject Databases member, for additional feedback on these edit requests. If you are willing, you might consider looking at the pre-bullet point version of the article, for context.

If you are not interested, do you have any suggestions for where I can go for additional help? I am trying to improve the Wikipedia article, but feel stuck when my replies are not being answered. Thanks for advance for any assistance or feedback. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 18:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodds Writer: Well, first off, appreciate you being open about what you're doing and why. It's been some years since I used a Teradata myself, but it was an impressive machine, especially the way it handled parallelism. I have to wonder if it still gives the same rather funny "is predicted with no confidence to be..." message. That aside, there's a bit to go through there, and I don't have time tonight, but I probably will shortly. I'll see what can be figured there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen

Can you please explain how you came to a decision to close this as delete rather than no consensus? Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop which closed today. Not only do I think a delete close for Cherise Haugen was unwarranted given the discussion, I would suggest the two results are contrary to each other. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns of WP:BLP1E were never really addressed. Also, many keep arguments focus on the fact that she won something, which is irrelevant since that's the very one event in question. A couple of keep arguments did attempt to address it, but there weren't enough to carry it. Other stuff exists is never a valid argument, so I won't speak to why someone else closed a different AfD a different way. You can ask them if you like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been good to provide an explanation - whilst I know AFD isn't a headcount it appeared you were going against the prevailing sentiment. Also, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) closed as keep today which has caused a very confusing situation. Three people notable for the exact same thing, one keep, one delete, one no consensus. Not really sure how to deal with that going forward. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the one you cite there, the concern was GNG rather than BLP1E. Someone did what should always be done in that instance—they went and found sources. Given that, the arguments for deletion were directly addressed and presumably refuted. One keep was rather weak, focusing on her gender which is irrelevant, but the rest directly and explicitly addressed the reason deletion was proposed. So I can easily see why that one was closed the way it was. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nakon has now revised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop to a keep. Your close is contrary to the two other Miss Teen USA winner AFDs despite there being very little difference in the articles & discussions. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some issues seeing how the result could be Delete. A No consensus result would have been suitable, after I reviewed all rationale on both sides. Such rationales as per Black Kite., WP:SINGLEEVENT as a teenager, fails WP:Notability (people) and The subject won a single beauty pageant 30 years ago, can only be considered weak at very best. But that close is on you, I leave it at that.BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West of Scotland Pattern Novices' Chase

Enough is enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good evening. I'm curious as to why the above article was deleted. This was the last post made on the page's discussion;-

I would be interested in clarification on what makes for a notable race. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Horse_racing it states that there is notability in winning graded races and https://www.racingpost.com/results/3/Ayr/1993-01-30/49920 demonstrates that the race was a Grade 2 contest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability goes into a little more detail but it is very much set around American racing rather than European (where individual races are more a measure of quality and importance than "meets" - which isn't even a term used here) and is too ambiguous for the purposes of this article (even though there's nothing to even remotely suggest that this one ought to be deleted). Furthermore, I am greatly concerned that if this page gets deleted, a great number here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_National_Hunt_races may suffer similar fates for incredibly vague and ill-informed reasons. As such, I think it is in the interests of all concerned parties that the notability standards of this subject matter be scrutinized and the ambiguity removed - preferably by somebody with a legitimate familiarity with the field

You have left nothing which satisfies the aforementioned queries. Kotkijet (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard for notability is here. That applies to every article. The discussion made clear that this one didn't pass it. Others may or may not, that's evaluated case by case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started off there and worked my way down to find that the standard for notability on this particular subject is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Horse_racing which applies to articles pertaining to horse racing. The discussion did not make it clear as this standard is clearly vague and warrants being cleared up by somebody with a familiarity with the second most popular sport in the UK by attendance - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/dec/14/horse-racing-attendancesKotkijet (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject essays are not policies. Articles must pass the actual notability guideline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "actual" notability guideline states that the article "meets...the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". The box on the right contains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) which states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline ***OR*** the sport specific criteria set forth below." The sport specific criteria brings me back to the very page you're dismissing as a "Wikiproject essay".Kotkijet (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion made it clear that sourcing was inadequate. That is the answer and will remain the answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank you for addressing my direct rebuttal of your previous argument but you have completely ignored it. With regards to sources, taking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ashes_series as an example. What makes wisdens almanac and ESPNcricinfo appropriate sources but their direct equivalents in Timeform and racingpost inappropriate?Kotkijet (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've already gotten your answer. I'm not going to go evaluate a hundred other things, because they are irrelevant to the discussion in question. That particular discussion found sourcing to be inadequate for that particular subject. That's it. I am not going to repeat it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I already had an adequate answer then I wouldn't be persisting in seeking same. "That particular discussion" did not even attempt to address what made Timeform and racingpost inappropriate sources. Again, referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ashes_series, this page made it as a *featured list* - a standard of wikipedia excellence - even though the sources are genuinely no more reliable than the sources I used for my article. Please do not take this personally but I feel you (and those who flagged the article for deletion) were completely overzealous in acting within an area completely alien to your expertise. Since you are unable/unwilling to justify your actions beyond blunt and reductivist dismissals then perhaps you could direct me to somebody more qualified. Kotkijet (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion review for Cherise Haugen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cherise Haugen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delated page was draft

Hi the page [Sukhi Wahiwala] was deleted however it was a draft that needed further work, but we were unable to edit it because you deleted it. Please advise on how we can build this page properly so its no deleted again whilst we are working on it, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfanta (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigfanta: The page was not a draft, it was in mainspace. Draft articles will have a "Draft:" before the page title. That aside, we do not allow promotional material even in draft space. Since this will be the fourth page you have had deleted as promotional, please clarify who "we" is. If you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment, you must disclose that fact before we proceed further. Such disclosure is mandatory. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, just trying to figure out how to use wiki, I personally just find it confusing. I want to do it properly and is not intended as promotional but seem to keep messing up. What do you suggest are the best pages to look at to do this properly if ok? Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfanta (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's full of stuff like "...British Award Winning Multi Millionaire Business Leader..." ("award winning" is almost never appropriate to use, it's marketese, and "multi millionaire" isn't shown relevant by the body), "Sukhi was born..." ("Wahiwala", not "Sukhi", we write in a formal tone, not like a "get to know ya" piece, so we refer to a person by full name on first mention and last name only on subsequent), "Sukhi attributes his near death experience to his later success and the invention of his Daily Focus Time Strategy." (Rather fluffy, did any sources cover this?). Essentially, the whole thing is an entirely unreferenced fluff piece. We write articles from reliable and independent references, and stick only to presenting in a strictly neutral tone the facts that those sources verify. "Profiles" and puff pieces are not permitted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community redirects (2)

When you turn a Community episode article into a redirect, please unlink the article from the season's episode table per WP:SELFREDIRECT and also remove it from ((Community (TV series))) per WP:EXISTING. Thank you. -- Radiphus 07:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud 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/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KTC (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Your user page made me feel better about my lowly anonymous editor status. I’ve happily confined myself to minor typo fixes and "Personal life and Death" info. I like the term deletionist. I’m not brave enough to do it on a large scale since I think deletions require a broader knowledge of wiki policies, but I have deleted death info that reads more like an obit (full of euphemisms, words like “beloved”) than a neutral wiki article. I loathe vandals, so it’s nice to know that there are those out there with the tools to deal with their shenanigans. Thanks. 72.129.236.61 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's effort helps, large or small. Yours is appreciated too, and thanks for the kind words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Raymond Neutra page

Happy Sunday. I understand your reasoning for page deletion was that the tone was promotional, and I agree that the content could have been edited to adopt a more neutral/encyclopedic tone; However, I feel that the subject warrants a page. So, I'm requesting that you userficate (if I can be so bold as to use that as a verb) the page so I can address your feedback and rework the article. Or, would you recommend I recreate the page under the Articles for Creation section?

To generally respond to the page deletion, my understanding of the wording from User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ: "If an article even asserts something that might make the subject notable, it is not eligible for speedy deletion,"[1] is that this article would not have been eligible for speedy deletion, as I sourced the assertion that the individual is notable because he is the son of a famous architect, whose work continued his father's legacy. So, based on that, I don't believe the page should have been speedily deleted. Secondly, I responded to your initial marking of the page for speedy deletion, and I do not see any response there.

In the end, I'm very happy and willing to work with you to edit the article to meet your expectations. Looking forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbmhca 717 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more thing. Wording from the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page about G11 speedy deletion: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional...If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." [2] Because the subject and his work is notable, and related to notable work already described in ]]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neutra%7Canother Wikipedia article]], I'd like your help to rewrite the text with a more neutral point of view. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbmhca 717 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsbmcha 717: Before we proceed, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including if you are asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment. If any of those are true, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed any further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Bhide

This regards to deletion of the above article. The article is a well sourced reflection of reliable secondary sources written in a neutral tone that conforms to how a “Biography of living persons” ought to be written. Please reinstate it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: I'm afraid not. The article is a collection of puff pieces by largely anonymous sources, with language such as "Uddhav Thackeray holds Bhide in high esteem.", "Narendra Modi has commented that Bhide's persona belied his greatness his sacrifices and penance", and so on. The entire thing was a fluff piece hagiography. Promotional material like that is not permitted and will not be restored. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pl paste the article text here with sources, so that I’ll be able to explain my rationale in including those sentences in it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "rationale" that makes promotional writing like that acceptable. You're welcome to make another go of it, but the article needs to be kept strictly neutral in both tone and content. "Talking up" a subject is not appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You describe it as promotional, I disagree with your discription, my position is that the article is a representation of well sourced facts about the subject, written in a tone that is recommended for a BLP, so I request you to paste the article here with sources so the same can be discussed, holistically, not descrete discrete sentences, because you deleted the article, if it were about a sentence or two that had been edited out, that would have been a content dispute, with reference to those particular sentences. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "no", and will remain "no" regardless of how many additional times you ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so it now is a dispute between the two of us, that we are not able to resolve between ourselves, will you suggest a forum where this dispute can be addressed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you need to do is create the article again, minus the promotional and talking up language. It is not a "dispute". You are not permitted to create promotional articles. No one is allowed to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is your interpretation that the article on the whole is promotional. You could have edited any words or sentences in order to create a version that in your opinion complies to Wikipedia standards. You didn’t do so, you deleted the article. I requested restoration, after which anyone can edit in order the perceived violations are removed. You refuse restoration. Subsequently I also requested you to paste the text of the article here, so I may be able to present my position in this matter. You have refused that too. So there is a disagreement between us, that we aren’t able to resolve amongst ourselves. So I desire to take this matter up with others. I haven’t been involved in such disputes ever afaik so I don’t know the forum where I can take this. I could have pinged the help desk, but I desire we go forward as friendly colleagues attempting dispute resolution. So if you wish please guide me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaging in pointless "dispute resolution" for no dispute. Promotional articles are disallowed and are deleted. Go rewrite it appropriately, without the promotion, or don't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will seek opinion from others as I mentioned above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade/Deletion_FAQ#Notability
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11._Unambiguous_advertising_or_promotion
More