Hi Nml25! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at George Hamilton Teed instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

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

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Harry Blyth, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JW 1961 ^Talk 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Harry Blyth a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Harry Blyth. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. JW 1961 ^Talk 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Francis Addington Symonds.jpg. 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) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Muder of me.jpg. 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) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Nelson Lee (detective), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publications of Nelson Lee has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sexton Blake bibliography 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/Sexton Blake bibliography 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 until the discussion has finished.

FishandChipper 🐟🍟 13:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Hercule Poroit in Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature

Here is Canon of Sherlock Holmes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Sherlock_Holmes

Here is a list of Hardy Boys Books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hardy_Boys_books

They appear to be very similar. What is the issue? Nml25 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those is shown to be notable with either references or articles on almost every individual book. Your article has none. Also please continue this discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexton Blake bibliography FishandChipper 🐟🍟 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, that may be true for Holmes and Poirot but most of the books on the Hardy Boys' page are not linked to anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hardy_Boys_books

The Sexton Blake Bibliography builds on the information provided on the Sexton Blake page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_Blake

It expands on the Publication History section of that entry.

It also has ties to Jack Trevor Story, John G. Brandon, Michael Moorcock, Maxwell Scott, Harry Blyth, William Murray Graydon and others who contributed to the Blake saga. Sexton Blake was the most popular detective of the first half of the twentieth century.

A Blake charcter is also listed here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_Zenith

It also has links to several of the key boys' storypapers on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack_(magazine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Wonder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys%27_Herald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys%27_Friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nelson_Lee_Library

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sexton_Blake_Library

This is the most complete list of Blake titles anywhere. Nml25 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

let me know if the changes are more of what you had in mind Nml25 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexton Blake bibliography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Mann. 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) 06:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sexton Blake bibliography, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nml25, letting you know that the page now remains in draft space, for similar reasons as above. Please feel free to ask myself or any other interested editors for assistance. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sexton Blake Detective cover.jpg. 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) 18:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All ISBN numbers have been added to the books where available.

Compliant with Wikipedia standards as reflected on page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Publish. Nml25 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isbn numbers are not references. Please see WP:CIT to see what needs to be included in order for a citation to be valid. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically needs a citation on this page?

the form and structure of this page is the same as this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

It is a list of books. Their existence is confirmed by their ISBN numbers.

I have already been over this with other editors.

Daranios

Liz

Onetwothreeip Nml25 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two months since the AfD ended with no consensus, but there was a clear consensus that sourcing was needed. During that time you have worked on the article, but only in expanding it with more unsourced material. Now, I've taken the time to remove all the unsourced material. Yet you keep re-adding it without proper sourcing. If you continue to do so, I'll have no other recourse but to report you at ANI. Please take a look at WP:BURDEN, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE SOURCED IT PROPERLY. The source of the Blake list is stated clearly on the page. Here's the paragraph which you obviously have not read:

The list originated in the pages of Story Paper Collectors' Digest where collectors began recording and compiling the list of Blake tales that appeared in the The Union Jack and The Sexton Blake Library. A master corpus was compiled in the mid 1960s by Len and Josie Packman and published as the Sexton Blake Catalogue.[5]

Source: http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/packman.html referenced on Wikipedia

Shall I upload a picture of the catalogue pages for you?

It lists: issue # title characters author

Due to the extreme length of the bibliography it has been divided into four eras:[6] Referenced

1893-1911: The Victorian/Edwardian Era Sexton Blake bibliography

1912-1945: The Master Criminals Era Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945

1946-1978: The Post War Era Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978

1979–present: Revivals and Republications Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Each entry has magazine title/issue # author and character. That is all you need.

Here's the Doc savage page on which this is based.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

You were not part of the original discussion.

Here's a message you haven't seen

01:52, 9 December 2022‎ Liz talk contribs‎ m 712,088 bytes 0‎ Liz moved page Draft:Sexton Blake bibliography to Sexton Blake bibliography over redirect: This article has already been draftified once, doing it again is inappropriate. Please check the page history next time. undothank

You are wasting a lot of my time by making unilateral decisions that I just have to undo. So let's bring in other editors by all means.

@Daranios

@Onetwothreeip

@Liz Nml25 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios

@Onetwothreeip

@Liz Nml25 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Liz to mediate. Try not to touch anything until we hear from her. Nml25 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nml25, I do not see any consensus or support for the unsourced content, other than from yourself. I am inclined to agree that there has been more than enough time for sources to be added to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Show me. What is the unsourced content. Highlight it. Nml25 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start here. What's unsourced on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_4:_1979-present

Exactly the same style as this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Tell me. Happy to listen. Nml25 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first entry on page, for example. "Sexton Blake Wins". Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first entry includes year of publication, title, publisher, author, the list of titles in the anthology and the ISBN number for verification. It is consistent with standard bibliographic information. What is missing?

It is consistent with information provided for books on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Take a look at Star Trek Adventures reprints (1993–1995) on that page. Tell me how my entry is different.

There are no double standards on Wikipedia. Either both pages are published or both pages should come down. Nml25 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not the problem, it is the verification. It seems that all we have for verification is the ISBN number, but I don't see anything to verify that this is the correct ISBN number. As for the Star Trek list, the verification is probably found in the 36 references on that page. If verification is not there, then I would agree that the entry shouldn't be there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All ISBN numbers are clickable. Cick on the ISBN number. It'll take you to the ISBN page. Click find on Amazon. Alternatively:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/sexton-blake-wins/author/adrian-jack/

"I don't see anything to verify that this is the correct ISBN number." What do you propose exactly other than the above? Nml25 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That could be used as a reference to support the verification of the list entry, but I am not aware if the source is reliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would it not be more beneficial to move this whole discussion over to Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography? As I had already pointed out there, with regard to WP:Verifiability, I believe the bibliographical information and plot summary is all verifiable by using the WP:Primary sources, as is outlined at that policy page. In addition, I have re-added the Blakiana website, which can verify a lot the that information as well. As far as I can tell, that one counts as a reliable case of a self-published source, as the author Mark Hodder is recognized as an established subject-matter expert e.g. by this academic source. Daranios (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blakiana website was always there as an external link on all four pages of the bibliography. Don't know who removed it. The alternative appears to be to upload an image of every single cover for verifiability. I have temporarily uploaded an image of the Sexton Blake Catalgue to illustrate origin. The catalogue and its contents are descibed on the bibliography page.

"The bibliographical information and plot summary is all verifiable by using the WP:Primary sources, as is outlined at that policy page." Yes I agree. What I had written in the notes before followed the List of Docc Savage novels model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Nml25 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The authority of Mark Hodder's work doesn't necessarily extend to a self-published source. We would need evidence that reliable sources rely on Mark Hodder's self-published work. The Sexton Blake works themselves don't count as reliable primary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Well, at least this journal article and this PhD thesis use Mark Hodder's Blakiana. "The Sexton Blake works themselves don't count as reliable primary sources." Why? I'd say there's hardly a more reliable source available for publication information than a publication itself. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to support the existence of the primary source, and then that would be a secondary source. Primary sources aren't used to support the existence of themselves, they are used to support information in an article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: I think that's more or less the opposite of what WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources point 3, and especially WP:ALLPRIMARY say: "Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." Also, you say "they aren't used to..." like there is some established consensus. Where would that be set down? WP:Verifiability asks that we should be able to verify everything on Wikipedia. Let's take your very first example: "Sexton Blake Wins" at Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present#1986. If I have that book in front of me, in which way can it not verify its title? Daranios (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have it in front of you, I can't verify its title. All we need is something to verify that it is a primary source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three sources that verify the existence of Sexton Blake Wins.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3616599-sexton-blake-wins

https://www.amazon.com/Sexton-Blake-wins-Jack-ADRIAN/dp/0460024825

https://books.google.ie/books/about/Sexton_Blake_Wins.html?id=U98qAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

How much verification do you need to prove something is reliable? What you haven't done is prove that the book entries and the ISBNs are unreliable.

Here is a list of Hercule Poirot's appearances. No citations nor references. Much less information than provided for the Blake works. How do you determine reliability of the works listed on this page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature Nml25 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia standards are inconsistent.

Here is a list of Hercule Poirot's appearances. Not a reference anywhere....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature Nml25 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: "If you have it in front of you, I can't verify its title." Huh, I don't get it, would you care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like you are saying that you can't verify this because you don't currently own that book. So I'd like to explain my position based on WP:Verifiability again: "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. [...] Its content is determined by previously published information" So in our example the Wikipedia article says: In 1986 there was book with Sexton Blake stories published, titled Sexton Blake Wins. Now if you buy/borrow/organize that book, so that you have it in front of you, then you look at the front page, you can see that the title is correct. That and reading through the book tells that its topic is Sexton Blake. Checking the page with the copyright will tell you if it was indeed published in 1986. Done. You've verified everything stated by the Wikipedia article for our example. Therefore WP:Verifiability is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:VERIFY is not something that is debatable. You need to provide valid sources for everything in this article. And simply citing a book, without providing the other information as noted in WP:CIT does not count, as there is not enough information to pass VERIFY. I've once again (for I don't know how many times) removed the uncited material. I've warned you that re-adding uncited information violates WP:BURDEN, which is seen as disruptive editing. Please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I really do not like taking folks to ANI, but if you continue to waste other editors' time by your refusal to follow WP policies, I'll have no choice but to do to.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Onel5969: Whew, so many things to say. First, any objections to moving this whole discussion over to Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography, where it seems to me to belong contentwise? I agree that WP:VERIFY is not debatable. Now it has been repeatedly claimed that just listing the books/magazine - which are the primary sources - would not verify the publication information. But noone has yet explained why this should be the case (in the face of what the various Wikipedia guidelines say of how primary sources can be used). And I can assure that, and have tried to explain just above why this is not at all obvious. Next you are pointing to WP:CIT, which right away says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." Next you are pointing to WP:BURDEN. Setting aside for a moment the basis for challenging this material in the first place, that paragraph asks to "providing an inline citation". WP:Inline citation in turn states "an inline citation is generally a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion." So for those cases where we don't have footnotes using a citation template, we still have in the tables itself the relevant information to look up the primary source, which can, as WP:ALLPRIMARY says, support publication information. That surely counts as "any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it". So would you please explain why and for which details exactly you think "there is not enough information to pass VERIFY" despite all that? Lastly, it's clear that we are not in agreement of what should be done. The result of the deletion discussion was not "draftify". It was "no consensus". So in accordance with the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we should keep the article in mainspace until there is consensus to do otherwise. And it seems to me that draftifying the article "for I don't know how many times" rather than establishing a consensus first is disruptive (see point 4. of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). As I don't think we'll easily get to an agreement, an outside opinion might all do us good here, I have no objection to getting one. I am only wondering if WP:ANI is indeed the right place for that, or if that should rather be at WP:DRN. Daranios (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First, I've never argued about PRIMARY. Primary sources are, at times, perfectly suitable to satisfy VERIFY. What they do not do is satisfy GNG, which is not the argument in this case. I point to WP:CIT, not to say they have to use any of the templates there, but to show what is needed in a reference to ensure it passes VERIFY. I do not care of the format of the footnote, only the information contained therein. Citing the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a valid source (I use that to contrast with the numerous times the The Sexton Blake Catalogue is cited, without including enough information. At the very least the page number the information appears on is required. I have no issue with moving the discussion to the article's talkpage. And I am not arguing for draftifying this article, simply that proper sourcing be provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Onel5969: So we are still talking about WP:VERIFY, right? I don't think that actually answers my main question. I have argued above for one specific example why I think the verifying source is right there in the article. Where do you think I went wrong with this argumentation for this example? Or which other details do you think need verification? And on a different note, don't you think the Blakiana website verifies a large portion of the publication information in addition to the primary sources being stated? Daranios (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have copied over the entire discusstion to Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. I hope that's fine for everyone, please let's continue the discussion there. Please feel free to change the section heading if you can think of a more appropriate one. Daranios (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945, is not suitable as written to remain published. It does not even come close to having enough citations to pass WP:VERIFY. At this point, you need to consider using the AfC process, rather than moving your poorly sourced articles into mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sexton Blake bibliography, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  10:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced properly. Read the article before you delete content. Nml25 (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sexton Blake Bibliography, you may be blocked from editing. The material you restored is not sourced and fails V. Revert yourself, you are edit warring. This material has been removed by multiple editors for the same reason.  // Timothy :: talk  11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You have been adding a substantial amount of unsourced and unverified original research to several Wikipedia articles. In addition you are edit warring with multiple editors Sexton Blake bibliography to restore unsourced unverified material. This needed to stop. Wikipedia is not Fandom. If you revert yourself, I will not post this to the edit warring boards.  // Timothy :: talk  11:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Just want add here too that I think that "The material you restored is not sourced and fails V" is incorrect. I have explained why at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?, and I really would be interested where you think my argumentation is wrong there. Daranios (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say this because the material does not have a reference and cannot be verified.  // Timothy :: talk  11:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you have sidestepped my other question:

If you want to be a constructive voice in the discussion address the following:

Here is the page for fictional detective Hercule Poirot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature

I have provided more content for each entry.

Explain to me how it is different. Be specfic.

Here is the list of Star Trek novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Here is the list of Doc Savage novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Nml25 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Nml25 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS  // Timothy :: talk  11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer. Explain to me how the entries above are different. Be specfic. The Poirot article has no relevant citations. Nml25 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the material has a reference. It's all stated clearly in the article:

"The bibliography originated in the pages of Story Paper Collectors' Digest where collectors began recording and compiling the list of Blake tales that appeared in the The Union Jack and The Sexton Blake Library. A master corpus was assembled in the late 1950s and by The Sexton Blake Circle.[7] Led Len and Josie Packman expansion and revision on the master corpus was ongoing throughout the early 1960s as research brought more titles to light.[5]

The Sexton Blake Catalogue was published in 1966. The announcement in Story Paper Collectors' Digest read: "This long anticipated catalogue, prepared with loving care by members of the Sexton Blake Circle, is now awaiting you. It is a veritable encyclopaedia of Sexton Blake lore, listing all the titles, authors, and leading characters of the stories in The Union Jack and in The Sexton Blake Library from the very beginning till the present day. There is also a wealth of information on the Sexton Blake adventures which featured in other periodicals. Beautifully produced, it sums up to a magnificent job."[8]

In 1970 Josie Packman announced the a reprint of the Sexton Blake Catalogue along with a "supplement of all the new information."[9]

Due to the extreme length of the bibliography it has been divided into four eras:[10]"

An example of the cataloguing of Blake tales in the Union Jack is on page 87 of Story Paper Collectors' Digest v12 #135 march 1958:

http://www.friardale.co.uk/Collectors%20Digest/1958-03-CollectorsDigest-v12-n135.pdf

This is repeated in sevral issues of the Story Paper Collectors' Digest until all entires where collected and published in the The Sexton Blake Catalogue.

Other sites that confirm some of the entries are:

https://www.friardale.co.uk/BFL/Series%201/BFL_Series1.htm

https://www.friardale.co.uk/Union%20Jack/Union%20Jack.htm

https://www.friardale.co.uk/Boys'%20Herald/Boys'%20Herald.htm

https://www.friardale.co.uk/Dreadnought/Dreadnought.htm Nml25 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail verifiability. And there was no consensus to the removal just unilateral decisons that have been opposed by other editors. I have asked for other opinions. I have provided other examples on Wikipedia. If you want to be a constructive voice in the discussion address the following:

Here is the page for fictional detective Hercule Poirot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature

I have provided more content for each entry.

Explain to me how it is different. Be specfic.

Here is the list of Star Trek novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Here is the list of Doc Savage novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Nml25 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS  // Timothy :: talk  12:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Erm, should I repeat my explanation why I think "the material does not have a reference and cannot be verified" is not correct? Happy to. But just ahead, to avoid misunderstandings, the one thing I see is that we don't have are citations in the form of footnotes, but those are also not required. One example of article text that was supposedly not verifiable was "Sexton Blake Wins" at Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present#1986. WP:Verifiability says: "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. [...] Its content is determined by previously published information" So in our example the Wikipedia article says: In 1986 there was book with Sexton Blake stories published, titled Sexton Blake Wins. Now if you buy/borrow/organize that book, so that you have it in front of you, then you look at the front page, you can see that the title is correct. That and reading through the book tells that its topic is Sexton Blake. Checking the page with the copyright will tell you if it was indeed published in 1986. Done. You've verified everything stated by the Wikipedia article for our example. Therefore WP:Verifiability is fullfilled. In addition that information is also verfied by the Blakiana website, which is in the references. So please explain where you think this is wrong, otherwise "cannot be verfied" remains a claim without basis. Daranios (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I found someone about "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue" - Was this self published or fan club published? [1]  // Timothy :: talk  13:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  12:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't make an argument. Instead of answering my question with a specific example you try to bully me and bury me with a long article that does not reference the pages I have asked you to explain. Nml25 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what is the ISBN or SBN number and the publisher of "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue". I can find nothing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN numbers were first used in 1967. Nml25 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found someone about "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue" - Was this self published or fan club published? [2]  // Timothy :: talk  13:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Collectors would published a catalogue that would lead other collectors astray?

The validity of the Packman research is cited in The Men Behind Boys Fiction

https://archive.org/details/menbehindboysfic0000loft/page/20/mode/2up?q=packman

The catalogue also made the Weekend Telegraph

http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/packman.html

Another reference to the catalogue is here:

http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/ref.html

Sexton Blake Catalogue + Supplement. L & J Packman, 91pp. Monumental guide to Blake, pvt. publication.

Second edition of the catalogue was published in 1993 p 19

http://www.friardale.co.uk/Collectors%20Digest/1993-11-CollectorsDigest-v47-n563.pdf

Why whould anyone go to that trouble if the catalogue was worthless and unreliable? Nml25 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a self published work?  // Timothy :: talk  18:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Sexton Blake bibliography for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you've read any of the points that I mentioned above.

The Sexton Blake bibliography is a compilation of titles in which the character Sexton Blake appeared in throughout his 70 year run. The source of the list is the Sexton Blake Catalogue which was published in 1966 and again in 1993. It was compiled by collectors. Author lists and titles were verified from the archives of the Amalgamated Press. It was published by The Sexton Blake Circle in 1966. It has been used by other authors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._O._G._Lofts) to inform their research. There is no original research on this page. No opinion. Strictly facts: Magazine Title, issue #, Author, Title of Story. Year of publication. Characters in story. All of which are verifiable.

The works listed on the list can be found and checked in several libraries.

Here for example is a library entry for 1909's The Mammoth Hunter which Timothy Blue deleted.

https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM2893945&R=2893945

various other sites that confirm some of the list entries:

https://www.friardale.co.uk/BFL/Series%201/BFL_Series1.htm

https://www.friardale.co.uk/Union%20Jack/Union%20Jack.htm

https://www.friardale.co.uk/Boys'%20Herald/Boys'%20Herald.htm

This list was designed and modelled after three other lists on Wikipedia. It is consistent with design and citing listed on those pages.

Here is the page for fictional detective Hercule Poirot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature

Here is the list of Star Trek novels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

The list of Doc Savage novels. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

Though I have asked repeatedly for someone to point out the difference between the citing of titles on these pages and the citing of titles in the Blake bibliography not one person has replied. Blue insisits that every entry be cited which is not a requirement for a bibliography.

These pages are consistent with the WikiProject Fictional characters initiative.

So @Daniel Case as you've made a unilateral decision to block me for a week without asking me a single question, provide guidance on the question above. I'll ask it again:

This list was designed and modelled after three other lists on Wikipedia. It is consistent with design and citing practices on those pages. Show me the differences in citing practice and design, and explain the double standard. Nml25 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS  // Timothy :: talk  13:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously pushing your luck in continuing to edit the article you have been blocked from.  // Timothy :: talk  13:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations to a page I haven't been blocked from. You asked for citations did you not?

I did some more research since you seem to be avoiding the citation topic.

This is Wikipedia's citation policy. There are four areas that must be cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Direct quotations

Any statement that has been challenged

Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.

Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons

The information that requires citations on those pages--statements--have been cited. Statements are opinions.

The magazines and novels do not require mandatory inline citations. Bibliographic material is not a matter of opinion.

Worldcat lists the titles listed in the Sexton Blake bibliography (the Union Jack, Boys Friend etc, ) as magazines and journals. Look it up.

https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=union+jack+high+class+library

The required info for magazines and journals on Wikipedia, are title, author, issue number, year of issue, place of publication and publisher. All of that information was supplied.

Here is an example of information you deleted.

1909

| The Boys’ Friend Library 88 || The Mammoth Hunters || || Anon. (Cecil Hayter) || ||

Here's the link that verifies it from a library.

https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM2893945&R=2893945

The fact that all the magazines can be found on Worldcat makes all the titles verifiable. The ISBNs on Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present make the titles verifiable. Which is all that is required for any issu of a magazine, book, journal etc. Because their existence is not a matter of opinion.

Reliability speaks to statements made about a topic. Opinion.

You and Onel5969 did not delete opinions.

You and Onel5969 deleted verifiable facts.

I restored those facts.

Onel5969 was also reverting the various pages of the bibliography to draft mode after editor Liz informed all that such a move was inappropriate. He did it twice. On the main page he deleted verifiable facts, not statements. Disruptive mischief, nothing more. The question is "why"

Your motives are your own, but it doesn't appear to be out of a desire for being in step with Wikipedia's citation policy or good editing practice.

You have still to address the double standard issue. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid answer to different standards in citation practice, when that citation practice has been defined on Wikipedia.

@Daniel Case @TimothyBlue @Daranios @Liz Nml25 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with how you handled the disupte: continually restoring while talk page discussion was ongoing.

To me, it is you who are not getting this. I am worrying that it might be necessary to extend the block if you give every suggestion that you intend to resume the same behavior once that block expires. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been pinged, adding my version: While I think there are two sides in this edit warring, it clearly is not productive to continue reverting one another (in addition to the rules and sanctions against it). So let's continue this on the article talk page - I have a bit more to add as soon as I can find the time. But expect we are very close to the point where I'd like to follow Daniel Case's advice to get an outside opinion/ruling at WP:DR/N. Daranios (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does one continue the discussion on content, if the content under review is deleted? There was no consensus to remove entries. Nor was there ever a timeline for citations proposed. Onel5969 made a unilateral decision to revert articles to draft space even though he had been told by Editor Liz that that was inappropriate. He did it twice. And I restored them.

You have not commented on that.

Onel5969 also made a unilateral decision to remove entries he thought needed citations. Again a unilateral decision. The entries conformed with Wikipedia’s citation policy. They were all verifiable.

You have not commented on that.

The content did not merit deletion. As I have explained, the page as designed met with standards set out by the WikiProject Fictional characters. It was designed to conform to the designs of other fictional characters. The precedents for design and content all come from Wikipedia.

From what I can see, Onel5969 does not work for Wikipedia. He is not paid by Wikipedia and was not trained by Wikipedia. He is a volunteer that read some pages and learned some buzzwords and has misapplied them. Ditto TimBlue. They have made decisions and taken actions that do not conform with Wikipedia policy.

Here is what @Liz wrote on 6 December 2022 when discussing whether to keep or read the article.

"The result was no consensus. Lots of discussion here but the only area of consensus I see is that this article could stand a few good editors trimming it down and working on the sources. Please don't take this No Consensus as an invitation to launch a 2nd AFD soon, this discussion has been relisted twice and I doubt there will be a different outcome in the near future. I think editors need to be encouraged to pay attention to the constructive criticism here and work on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

3/4 of the material has now been deleted. That certainly does not improve the article. I doubt that this is what Liz intended. There was never any consensus. The entries met Wikipedia citation requirements and the material was verifiable on World cat.

So again I'll ask you, how does one continue editing and improving an article of the bulk of the content in that article is deleted?

Every single item in the 1979 to present page had an ISBN and was verifiable on Amazon or other platforms. Only one entry was kept from that page. No explanation, no rationale given. Perhaps you would like to provide one.

As people that are supposed to be interested in scholarship, this behaviour is disgraceful.

@Daniel Case @Daranios @Liz Nml25 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

You have almost determinedly failed to address the inadequacy of the citations. You ask for more good faith than anyone is required to assume by continually (and, yes, tendentiously) asserting that the mere existence of the book is enough to constitute a valid citation.

If you reread what I wrote and linked to above, you will see that I grant you the point about the ISBN since they were introduced four years after the Bibliography was compiled (a point that also distinguishes your List of Star Trek novels example, since all of those were published after 1970 and have ISBNs). But that still does not excuse you from giving publisher, publication date, and (most importantly) page number in cites. That is also no reason to repeat the same bare-bones cite over and over. If you understood that quite a bit of the material you cited would be OK with a simple ((sfn)) cite to the page number, since the Bibliography is intended to be an authoritative reference to work published in periodicals decades before (and again, this is another point where your comparison to the Star Trek novels list fails: they are all independently published as books, therefore it is necessary only that their existence as books be verifiable.

Your recurring wall-o-text (well, at least you double-space them for readability) responses, in which the ratio of new argument to repeated material is depressingly low, are increasingly coming across as an attempt to bludgeon the debate, to wear us out so we drop the argument and go somewhere else, much as your needless repetition of the book citation likewise seems an attempt to substitute quantity for quality. This, too, is tendentious.

Look ... we all still have reason for good faith. No one questioning your citation practices is doing so because they doubt the existence of the Bibliography (and I can recall instances where people did make up sources completely). We are not questioning the content of your citations, just the form. All we would ask is that you follow the same practices as elsewhere on Wikipedia for the citation of specific material from a large published book of many pages. What you have been claiming is sufficient is, to me, the equivalent of citing "Jesus wept" to just "The Bible".

That is all you can do, and all you need to do. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Star Trek were all independently published as books, therefore it is necessary only that their existence as books be verifiable."

That is the point that I make for Sexton Blake tales. All tales were independently published in magazines most often as the sole tale or headling tale in the magazine.

Here is the entry for one tale from the Sexton Blake Library as it appeared in the bibliography:

1955

| The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Title of Story, Author

Enough for verifiability?

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

No claims or statements were made about the title or its contents. There is no "Jesus wept" moment here. Why was that entry deleted? I would argue that the information provided meets Wikipedia's citation requirements. If you disagree tell me what's missing.

@Daranios @Daniel Case Nml25 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nml25: I think the "Jesus wept" comparison refers the Sexton Blake Catalogue as a reference, where the citation was perceived as not detailed enough, like no page number being given. So adding that with page numbers would be helpful in my view. I also think the discussion should not so much be taken up with Daniel Case, who has been trying to guide the discussion into a productive venue rather than deciding on content. I have gotten no reply to my last question by TimothyBlue or onel5969. If that's still the case in a few days, I was planning to ask an outside opinion at WP:DR/N (which can also be Daniel Case's answer to your "How does one continue the discussion on content..." question). Except if you would like to do that first. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case @Daranios

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page oof Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nml25: Thanks for extending the citations. As I've gotten no reply so far, I am somewhat at a loss which citations TimothyBlue and onel5969 would want to see exactly. So would you mind posting the same over at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography to ask them? Hopefully there will be input before something is undone again. Daranios (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have disappeared. Though onel5969 reappeared a couple of days ago to combine the bibliography pages again. I guess he hasn't read this post. As the pages complied with Daniel Case's guidance, I undid onel5969's changes. @Daniel Case @Daranios Nml25 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nml25: Hello there! While I think content-wise you are correct, there is no consensus either way, so I think undoing onel5969's edit is not the next step to be taken. As there is so much contention, I actually think it would be best to take TimothyBlue's suggestion to get back to onel5969's version for the time being. Unfortunately, onel5969 has just acted based on their previous position, and not discussed further. So the next step, as suggested, would be getting an outside opinion at WP:DR/N. But to keep that constructive, that should be started while avoiding the appearance of an edit war. Daranios (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to leave the pages as they are. Daniel Case actually works for Wikipedia. onel5969 and TimothyBlue are volunteer editors that for whatever reason have taken a dislike to the page. They have made accusations against me that are simply not factual. One has merelty to read the discussion. I agree a WP:DR/N. would be the way to go. Nml25 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from everyting else Daniel Case has stated, they also said "continually restoring while talk page discussion was ongoing" is not the way to handle things. TimothyBlue and onel5969 see things one way, we see things differently. If they decide to redirect again at this stage, simply restoring back and forth would be edit warring and that cannot resolve things. More opinions which side of things is correct, or at least preferable, have not been forthcoming, so we are still at "no consensus". So we cannot claim consensus for the side of restoring the content. In my view we need outside guidance or possible a decision one way or another made for us. We believe we are correct. But so do the others. So in the face of the original block, leaving things stand as redirects for the time being in my view is better to show the openness to accept outside guidance. Daranios (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work for Wikipedia ... I'm a volunteer editor like everyone else and, indeed, every other admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know... well, since you had the power to block I followed your guidance and this is where it got me...

It would be nice to read your thoughts on the citation practices of the four pages in question. To the best of my knowledge I have been compliant with Wikipedia policy

Here's page 4 One of the pages that TimothyBlue and onel5969 took down. They say things need to be properly sourced but provide no specific examples. Perghaps you can find one :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_4:_1979-present Nml25 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly continued edit warring. I expect you to revert yourself.  // Timothy :: talk  14:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed with Daniel Case. All changes have been made with his guidance and guidelines. Daniel Case was informed of this on the 19th of January. He made no complaint. The material has been up for over a week with no complaints from anyone. Others have been tweaking and modifying. You obviously have not read the talk. I do nothing in secret. I have asked for people to use verification or citation needed for entry they believe requires one. So far that has resulted in one entry that promptly I addressed. So what is the issue? To my knowledge neither you nor onel5969 work for Wikipedia. You have not been trained by Wikipedia. You are a couple of volunteers that have become fixated on this page for whatever reason and are acting unilaterally. Nml25 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  15:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I have responded.

And yet you have not responded to the fact that the changes were made with Daniel Case's full knowledge and that at no time over the last week did he message me to take them down. Nml25 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nml25! I've stumbled over a small thing at the Sexton Blake bibliography, maybe you can shed light on that: Pedro's first appearance is listed within 1905. But the general note for 1904 says that's the year where Blake, Tinker and Pedro first appear as a trio. Maybe that has slipped up by one year?
In the citation discussion I have also individually marked the few sentences which I think are not yet covered as plot summary by the primary source within the respective line. Maybe you have a source handy here or there? Daranios (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daranios. Good catches. Thank you for the highly constructive going over of the page. I've addressed some of the citations and will fill in more later.

With reagrd to this quote regarding a work from 1902:

Grey also appeard in Enemies of the King in Union Jack 426, The Sea Detective in Union Jack 455, and The Death Ship in Union Jack 473.[citation needed]

The only mention of Maxwell Grey online is here:

The Crime Fighters by W.O.G. Lofts and Derek Adley

Maxwell Grey

This detective appeared in Union Jack No. 420 in a story entitled “The Sea Detective,” but little can be said of him since details are scarce. Nevertheless the story is strikingly descriptive, portraying an area of London in the early days of the twentieth century, an area with dense, yellow, choking fog and wet cobbled streets-usually so true in the month of November.

http://www.philsp.com/resources/CrFi/i0011.htm

Lofts and Adley's work was incomplete. I own the three Union Jacks I listed. The best I could do would be to upload the covers. Nml25 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased and shortened that to fit to the secondary source you've found. If you don't like mention of the other two stories being dropped, in my view you could provide citations for the two magazines in question as primary sources. That would satisfy me (rather than needing uploaded covers), but as usual others may disagree. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nml25: BTW, I can only recommend using citation templates like Template:Cite magazine or Template:Cite web like here: It's slightly more work, but makes things look more uniform and tidy. Also gives some guidance which parameters might be included for a full citation. And it would be small step towards critics dissatisfied with the form of some of your citations. Daranios (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daranios

When you have a moment I'd like to get your unbiased opinion, please. Please take a look at the Dixon Hawke page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_Hawke) I created on Wikipedia and let me know if you think the character meets notability. As he was one of the most published fictional detectives in the boys story papers of the 20th century, I believe a page on Dixon Hawke complies with Wikipedia's 'Project Fictional Characters' initiative. Nml25 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nml25! From what I've seen I'd think the character/series is notable, but it may not be a clear-cut case: You did manage to create a full article mostly based on reliable secondary sources, fullfilling WP:WHYN. Some of the sources you have used may not count towards notability, though: The blogspot page very likely; the ComicBook+ page probably; I am unsure if Steve Hollands book counts as a primary or secondary source; the Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes seems to be self-published (now there is an exception in the guideline for self-published works by recognized experts in the field - I would not know if this may apply). Many editors also expect two (or more) secondary sources which talk about the subject in significant detail. The Sunday Post article should count. The Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction would if it was not self-published. Not sure how much detail there is The Men Behind Boys' Fiction. And as I said Dixon Hawke: Detective is not clear to me either. Would you know any other sources which may qualify? Anyways, as notability had been tagged, it might be good to discuss that question on the talk page, explain why you think this topic is notable, and give other the chance to explain their stance. If there's no agreement, then this may come down to how many persons share which viewpoint, i.e. local consensus. Daranios (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios

Thanks for the quick reply.

Here you go. How's this? Seventy-Six Years of Dixon Hawke. W. O. G. Lofts was one of the Authors in the Men Behind Boys Fiction. This article informed Jess Nevins' Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes.

http://www.friardale.co.uk/Collectors%20Digest/1989-03-CollectorsDigest-v43-n507.pdf Nml25 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks good to me as the (minimum) second extended source. So I guess you are safe in removing the notability tag now, but if it should be placed back again, you can discuss and justify it. Aside, I can just recommend again to use citation templates like Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite magazine, which help to make things look more nice and uniform, give hints to what parameters might still be missing, and make things more transparent. (I.e. I am not completely clear if the citation of the Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes refers to the website or the book(s).) Daranios (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Daranios Nml25 (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Dixon Hawke, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Parliamentary privilege has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexton Blake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Murray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]