User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

COPYPASTE on Draft:Kurt Pudniks

I was very confused in reading your most recent decline comment on Draft:Kurt Pudniks. I placed your import of Pudniks's presumed Reddit comment inside a quote box with attribution in hopes of making it clearer to other readers what was going on. Still, it may be a violation of WP:COPYPASTE. (The other half of my confusion was your recent change of username, but I'm getting over that.) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have actually been emailed by the author asking for that comment. I am not sure I appreciate being called a "NYC wikipedia editor fuck" or a purveyor of "piss-weak reviews", so given that no one on the policy board thought Kurt Pudniks was notable either, and given that the article has been rejected 4 times with extensive comments. I really can't be bothered to get involved with it anymore, if I did I would be biased against the author given the offense anyway. I will leave it to your best judgment. Dysklyver 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Primefac has disappeared those edits anyway, so the issue is now moot. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A note regarding your last comment - if you cannot be bothered with XYZ, then don't deal with it. Leave it for someone else. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony Parella Bio Submission

Hello,

I am writing in reference to my submission about SVRA & Trans Am CEO Tony Parella. You declined the submission and in doing so, said: "the references are a mess." I have authored other articles for Wikipedia before. I want to submit a quality article, but I am not sure what you find objectionable. Would you be so kind as to tell me a little more clearly about the objections you have to the references?

I did notice there is a bunch of gibberish at the bottom of the page, but I have no idea how it got there. Is that what you are referring to? I have tried to delete it, but that has not been successful.

Here is a link to the article I am referencing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tony_Parella&oldid=803930170

MarkdillMarkdill (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Markdill (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC), October 5, 2017,Markdill (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017

• I can only begin by marvelling at how you manage to paste dubious adware code on every page you visit, I suggest you seriously look into your browser add-ons. Regarding the obvious issues with the article, well, read WP:RS - and then work through each reference, when I reviewed the draft there were numerous hyperlinks floating at the bottom of the page, these have been removed, that is good. the actual tone of the article is still a tad promotional and could use some work. Dysklyver 18:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Account creation

Could you please explain why you created this account? My initial thought was that it was a long-term abuse editor who has harassed Oshwah for an extended period. If it has a legitimate use I will unlock it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In the middle of filing an unblock request for my IP... @Ponyo: That account (User:I Love Oshwah) is not a legitimate account to my knowledge (although I do have a test account User:Thebookperson), I have no worries about you blocking it, but you did also block catch me with an autoblock, it would be nice if this was removed/an exception for me was made (This block has been set to expire: 21:37, 6 October 2017. The block ID is: 7877220.), in no way am I the only person living in this house so I could always cite WP:ROOMMATE I suppose :), I will leave the technical IP details to someone else, I haven't bothered to check if my IP is dynamic or not. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very odd. The account was created within 5 minutes of your last edit on the same device and IP that has been used exclusively by you. I would certainly be wary of your roommate's intentions with regard to Wikipedia, and please ensure you keep your computer secure at all times. I've removed the autoblock, but you may have to request WP:IPBE if there is additional cross-over.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that this account was definitely created from my immediate location? Cause if it was I need to talk to someone about this. Dysklyver 21:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It was made from your IP with the exact same user agent as your computer/device. You made this edit and then 5 minutes later the I Love Oshwah account was created. Would you like me to have another checkuser confirm?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that enough evidence, I am talking to Steve. I have a question though: can you just block my IP without blocking my actual account?, or just block account creation or some other arcane block to stop this happening again? I always lock my account when leaving but that won't stop this. Dysklyver 21:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's not a dynamic IP, and since there's abuse coming from the IP, I'd be willing to do that. Are you okay with that, Ponyo? Katie^talk 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure Katie, but it should only do it for a week or two. The IP has only been active since late September.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Presumably I get a new IP address every so often? because I have been editing for longer than that and have not moved geographically. Dysklyver 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely to be somewhat dynamic. I didn't check your account so I'm not sure how dynamic (your account only came up due to the check I made on I Love Oshwah). If you get caught in an autoblock again, just ping me and I can add IP block exemption to your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Dysklyver 22:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked your current IP for a week, anon-only. It looks like you're getting a new one every week to ten days, so hopefully that should give you time to discourage your mates from causing problems. Katie^talk 22:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated :) Dysklyver 22:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest nuisance editing from your IP as well.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

yes [1] [2] were spotted, I am sure it connected somehow. Dysklyver 22:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

World Resources Institute

I have returned this article to the mainspace. Please don't draftify established articles without establishing consensus somewhere, typically via an AfD but possibly the talk page also. People do it on NPP because it's less BITEy than CSDing a newbie's first article, but this isn't that, so please don't make a habit of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Smelly fart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smelly fart 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/Smelly fart 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. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Help!

Can I impose and ask you to look at Talk:Highland Clearances. I am fighting single handed against 2 editors who do not seem to think a history article needs to follow WP:HSC and that any source that supports their beliefs will do? The section "A deletion, with reasons" is the latest episode in the saga. Any advice, guidance, assistance of any kind would be welcome (even if it is you telling me that I a wrong). I have fortunately been able to dodge the worst aspects of Wikipedia editing in the past, so now find myself without the skills and knowledge to deal with this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically you are right, but also so are they, expect the content to come back once someone has expanded it (I left a comment on the article talk). Dysklyver 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. All I probably needed was not to feel isolated in the matter. Previous interactions on that article's talk page have been substantially more productive (expanding the reading list I am working my way through and introducing me to important concepts, such as duthchas and oighreachd, which, as too different ways of considering land ownership and rental, will need explaining).

I note, though, that I cannot raise any interest on the Wikiproject History. The article really needs more active, hardworking editors - at the moment it is relatively fossilised!!ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Most Wikiprojects are also fossilised :) Dysklyver 22:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Cornwall. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.   DDStretch  (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've immediately unblocked you, as the edit-war may be over, but be warned that you will be blocked if you indulge in edit-warring again.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated, I don't think the edit war really took off as I took it to the talk page on the second revert, but glad to see someone keeps an eye on things. Dysklyver 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I was really concerned that both of you would go full on and then get an administrator who would go full-on with a non-token block if it did take off. I was trying to deflect you both from being too lax about such things in the future.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It is an incredibly inflammatory issue, thankfully I can take a neutral standpoint or I would have been warring over the last change to the lead. I am busy writing a response on the talk page to the last comments now, hopefully this will get resolved for now, but it almost certain to happen again at some point, these recent events in catalonia have only made things worse on the "Cornwall is not England" front. Much much worse. Anyway keep a eye on it, is all I ask. Dysklyver 18:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

AFC

Looking at some of your comments to in your talk page archive, it is clear that you must learn to be more polite to contributors, even when you are absolutely right. And you are not always right. As an extreme example, you declined an article because of a reason that amounts to a denial of the fundamental policy NOT CENSORED, saying "WP is read by children". Considering the poor judgment shown in the recent series of deletion nomination, I think it is necessary to withdraw at least temporarily your right to review New Pages. Acting as an administrator, I have removed your ability to use the AFCH macro; I cannot automatically remove your ability to comment, but I urge you to be extremely careful about this--it would be best to refrain altogether. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@DGG:Um about that, I thought my access to the AFCH script had been suspended a while back. Can you clarify what is happening here?

I am unsure at what points I have been impolite, to be honest I have avoided ever making statements beyond the bare minimum required to explain my position, and yet have received all kinds of negative comments both on and off wiki, many of which are borderline harassment. I have had people refer to my work in a negative light, and make negative comments which wear my patience a bit, as do certain aggregated issues related to particular subjects, like the definition of where I live, which is blindly obvious yet still manages to attract people who want to edit war. And issues I had when I dealt with an article related to India and wished I hadn't enabled to option for people to email me. None of these things have particularly improved my opinions on certain aspects of Wikipedia.

I am not complaining too much, more people have been nice to me than those who have not, although they make more comments and longer comments.

The issue with Deris Documentar was not a draft review, I actually CSD tagged it and it was then deleted by RHaworth who also contested the deletion review, it was later merged at AfD with another article about an equally disturbing film. I still stand by my assertion of an unreferenced graphic explanation of extreme rape, killing and mutilation and then corpse rape and graphic sexual acts, being unsuitable, but appreciate that it is totally allowed by policy (although I never did find out whether wp:gratuitous was relevant). Dysklyver 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it wasalready removed--I should have checked. you are entitled to remove the email facility if you wish, but if you do that you will also not be able to email others. In my opinion, the best way we can judge if you are ready to return to afc and nNPP, if relevant, is through good fairly detailed comments at AfD and appropriate nominations for deletion. . DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nilla advice

Just some friendly advice: you may wish to reconsider your condescension toward a national group in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nilla_(2nd_nomination). It doesn't strengthen your case for deletion and even mild bigotry could damage your credibility as an editor. --Mark viking (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously this crusade is ridiculous and it's making you look ridiculous. Slow down with the tagging. Wikipedia won't collapse if the issue of cookie brand notability isn't settled right this week. You will improve your credibility in both AfD and PROD by performing a detailed WP:BEFORE and spelling out where you searched and what for so other editors can evaluate the legitimacy of your arguments and whether or not there's something you missed. You also need to consider WP:ATD like merging together into a list or a parent article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well there are plenty more 'cookie brands' left for me to tag, I deliberately only did about 20 at once, as a wp:before I searched about 10 pages of google search and 5 pages of google news, did a Gbooks search and spent two hours arguing with drewmutt on IRC. I try not to say what I have done on an AfD because that encourages 'delete' pile ons who haven’t bothered doing a search themselves. The basic issue is 'its a well known brand' - presumably only in the US, therefore has no references. some of these 'cookie brands' have been through AfD's before where people have literally argued that 'its everywhere' and 'everyone knows about x, of course its notable', I am fed up (pun) with seeing my favorite British food brands deleted/merged and these US ones being untouchable.

...improve your credibility... I am not even vaguely interested in my credibility or my AfD record or PROD record, I see it as a success if an article I nominate is kept, because that improves Wikipedia, but likewise I only nominate articles I consider to be of no value to Wikipedia.

My 'mild bigotry' towards groups such as; English people / American people / Indian people / Nazis & far right / Far left activists / politicians / lords and barons / Irish people / French people / Spanish people / my mates / masochists / misogynists / aliens, is not an issue which affects my editing, all these groups have ulterior motives based on their mindset and worldview, obviously I will take these into account when considering their editing. I have no problem with accepting that my background affects how I look at things, and therefore how I edit, so if others claim they are somehow immune to their own mindset, then really what are they thinking?

The merge system is broken, without a centralized place like an 'MfD board', things just don't get anywhere, since a merge is a valid outcome of an AfD its pretty obvious that if it should be merged, it will be.

"other editors can evaluate the legitimacy of your arguments and whether or not there's something you missed" - well I disagree with that, my argument is not the relevant issue, my nom reasoning is just a short statement of what guideline the article fails, whats relevant is each editor who comes to the AfD checking the article and saying whether it should be deleted or not based on their own assessment of the article and sources. - otherwise it would simply become a pile on battle with people saying 'delete per nom', which is not helping anything, the whole idea is to get more opinions and suggestion to improve the article, not to present a winning argument and hold it down whatever happens.

Dysklyver 09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Laying out an argument for deletion is essential to nominating an article for AfD. "Fails GNG" is not an argument unless you actually state why you have come to the conclusion that that is the case (ie by spelling out where you have searched and for what). Editors are regularly criticized at AfD for weak nominations like the ones you have been churning out; if you have any experience at AfD you should know that. Refusing to elaborate on "fails GNG" is nothing more than intentionally wasting the time of the other editors, both AfD regulars and the editors of the subject areas you are nominating in. "Fails GNG" is especially not an argument when paired with passive-aggressive commentary like "note to Americans: fame is irrelevant" and "despite editors being affected by its ad campaign". That kind of smarm makes it clear you're not making your AfDs with the purpose of improving WP by removing non-notable content, but with the purpose of making a point about US vs UK brands. Your comment above, I am fed up (pun) with seeing my favorite British food brands deleted/merged and these US ones being untouchable, is excessively telling.

Swamping AfD with fourteen poorly-argued nominations in the space of two hours (not to mention the amount of PRODs and CSD attempts on similar topics) just to make a point can't be taken as anything more than disruptive editing. That's less than 10 minutes between them on average, by the way; not a lot of time for a real thorough BEFORE search although in fairness to you your pithy commentary can't have taken long to write so that does cut you a little extra time for research. On the other hand, that doesn't take into account the fact that you were dropping PRODs and CSD tags in between like it was going out of style, leaving you even less time to actually search for sources in between all that tagging.

In short, I recommend you either withdraw these disruptive nominations as hasty and incomplete or put your money where your mouth is and expand upon your nominations (I hesitate to call them "arguments" with the state they are in) to actually demonstrate that you've done a proper BEFORE and have a real reason for nominating that isn't just a big temper tantrum.

Create any more of these point-y, disruptive food-brand deletion attempts more while the current crop is rolling and I will take you to ANI for disruption the second I see them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok i will cease my crusade against cruft for a few hours.

It would stand to reason that any comment I make about systemic bias is immediately shot down with claims I am a raging lunatic.

My 'swarmy notes' are based on voicing a concern on previous nominations, there is nothing wrong with "fails WP:GNG" as a deletion argument, it makes it perfectly clear what is wrong with the article. I am reasonably sure I sent 20 to deletion, but I suppose 6 were proposed deletions. My concerns are valid, although I am not stating any 'point', I simply sent a test group of articles to AfD to see how they fare.

When other editors say: "Comment, WHAAAATTT!!!!!, how could chips ahoy! be up for deletion? they are about the tastiest bikkies out there, surely they meet WP:YUMMY? oh drat, don't we have such a policy..... Coolabahapple (talk) 8:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" as a response, I must only consider that this is an issue.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of your favorite biscuit brands, even if they are notable, there is no evidence they are, or even any effort to show they are, and despite your comments, a wp:before search really shows nothing significant on most of these brands. I have no knowledge of there adverts or fame and to an involved person this looks like a string of promotional cruft.

most of the comments I seem to be getting is that promo rules cannot apply to a big brand, this is categorically irritating, at the point when you accuse me of disruptive editing for sending unreferenced articles about brands I have never even heard of, after doing searches that show no reliable sources, to AfD, obviously I get upset.

Rather than concentrating on the articles, you accuse me of disruptive editing, have at go at my reasons, have a go at my nominations, say my editing is a pointy disruptive 'big temper tantrum' and threaten me with doom if I don't withdraw them or if I send any more articles to AfD.

I find it incomprehensible how people always assume that nominating articles I earmarked earlier means 'no time for a wp:before' I mean how is this even vaguely relevant, you know I use IRC, you also know I keep offline records and use bash to assist my editing, why do you assume that my contributions is a real time record of everything I do?

I have already explained the short nomination reasons are deliberate.

It is exactly or this reason that I nominated the articles separately, and I only hope other editors concentrate on the actual articles. rather than piling in on what you have started here. Dysklyver 11:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I simply sent a test group of articles to AfD to see how they fare. This is not how AfD works. We do not throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. WP:BEFORE is not a suggestion; it is a requirement, and your nominations show a general if not complete lack thereof. You may consider this a warning if you like. Frivolously nominating almost 20 articles for deletion within 48 hours is not acceptable. GMG^talk 14:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, that is exactly how consensus building works, we do not have the time or inclination to argue thousands of similar articles individually, I will see what stays/goes, wait a few weeks and then send them though in multiple batches. also you don't seem to have read my above comment or you would realize how uninformed your comment about wp:before sounds (unless a search takes you several days, it only takes me about 30 minutes). Dysklyver 14:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree, but when no less than three editors tell you you're not doing it right you should probably listen (and when GMG starts sending out warnings you know it's serious). You don't build a consensus by throwing things at a wall. You are very close to being considered for a topic ban from nominating articles for deletion. I would take a very hard look at what you're doing, and why you're doing it, before continuing with this mass-nomination crusade. Discuss it with other editors. The only thing you lose is a few days time. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Better to do things right than to get sanctioned for repeatedly doing it wrong. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hello, if you think you meet the criteria (it looks like you do), you may want to put yourself forward at [3]. Your articles are easily good enough to not need New Page Patrol. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

On further examination, you might be turned down right now - it seems to be just a case of needing to spend one minute looking over it at the end, for example on one you'd forgotten to add categories and on a blp, you'd forgotten to add sources, which is a big one. The articles on female pilots don't seem clearly notable either. It's nothing that couldn't be easily fixed, and I'd recommend you put your name down in a couple of months if you've fixed these issues. Thanks for creating the articles though, they are a benefit to Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the suggestions :) Dysklyver 11:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mount Charles, Cornwall

Hi, I'm Boleyn. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, thanks for creating Mount Charles, Cornwall!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as needing improved referencing to confirm it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve UPT Class 77-08

Hi, I'm Boleyn. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, thanks for creating UPT Class 77-08!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leslie Becker

The article Leslie Becker has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Boleyn (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Florence Mary Bird - I created This page and it has been deleted and sent to DRAFT status

Hi, I am new to creating a Wikipedia pages so please bear with me and also allow me to vent on some small level. I notice that you stated that the page Florence Mary Bird was well-written but obviously done by a close friend or contact - much like the work I created has come into question, I can't help but question what facts or evidence you have that I have a close relationship to the subject and person in question, Florence Mary Bird. I have no personal relationship with her beyond a friend in Wisconsin asking me to help create a page for Florence. she is 87 years old, has no computer experience and would be hard-pressed to even begin to build a page. I created this page for two reasons, to help a person in need AND to give some level of recognition for a lifetime of work by a talented, well-know (in her region) artist who's life work CLEARLY deserves to be cataloged on Wikipedia. I have included several "news" links and articles but the fact is that Ms. Bird has never sought media coverage for her work so there is not much to show. Ironically, I know many people whose professional careers that span decades NEVER get media coverage so using MEDIA coverages as practically the SOLE benchmark for notoriety is dubious at best. Your "assumption" that I am a close friend of the subject Florence Mary Bird is both inaccurate and wrong. I cam only hope that you clarify your mistake as it is leading to more difficulty in me getting this page approved. Respectfully yours, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Schiers (talk • contribs) 19:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Two issues, both of which I will clear up.

Firstly, it is clear from the way the article is written that you know a lot of details about this person which I cannot verify, yet you quote no published biographies in the references, therefore by logic, you are her biographer. The information you include which cannot be verified is original research. Generally original research is done by those close to the subject, I apologise if this is not the case, but note that the article has not been tagged for COI so it ought not to be an issue.

Secondly without being able to verify the information in the article from a number of media articles or published biographies, the article is not eligible for inclusion under our general notability guideline.

Our sole benchmark for having an article is verifiability, the so-called notability test simply says to prove the information with multiple reliable sources. Her relevance and notoriety are not being assessed, only there presence of reliable information, if no one ever wrote about her, then an article cannot be made, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Dysklyver 19:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello, Thank you very much for this. I am not doing so much on Cornwall-related articles nowadays.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems very few people are, however when auditing the members list, I found that you are one of the more active people and that you have a solid set of contributions :)

The members list was revealing though, I found that around half our members had only worked on one article or a few related articles, often adding quite a bit of information, but had then stopped editing and not edited for several years. several of the names on the list I removed as they had never edited (not even to put their name on the list). In total there are now 25 active members, 5-6 of which are regular contributors. Dysklyver 09:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your user name

As I'm interested in languages, I was intrigued by your user name. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is probably the Cornish equivalent of your other user name, A Guy Into Books. It looks very much like Breton. But shouldn't it be "Dysklyvrow"? If you are interested in covering Cornish women, you might find some worthwhile names in resources such as The Female List: 50 of Cornwall's leading ladies and strongest women and Cornwall Artists Index.--Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes I am very interested in those lists you mention, I will busy myself making some redlists myself at some point soon.

My username is not an exact translation, it was too difficult to translate it precisely. English is a vastly more expressive language than Cornish is, trying to translate 'into' with the meaning I was using it with was impossible, the term 'guy' also didn't translate either, apparently all Cornish 'books' were 'text-books' so that was hard too. Therefore it 'mostly' just means 'a man who likes a book', (hence book singular) but it is losing most the meaning in translation. Dysklyver 18:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I don't know if you understand spoken Cornish. If you do, you might be interested in listening to the Breton radio broadcasts from France. I think there are great similarities.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I can speak some Cornish, maybe not enough to follow a conversation in Breton though! You are right, Breton is very similar to Cornish, I could perhaps study this in more detail, especially as there is a kw-wiki. After your suggestion, I have started on User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/redlists/Cornish women as well. Dysklyver 15:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The list is a good idea. You might be able to pick up some women's names from List of Cornish writers, List of Cornish scientists, List of Cornish musicians, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 23:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Leslie Becker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leslie Becker 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/Leslie Becker 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. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI

Wondering your relation to the subject of this article? Leslie Becker Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would describe it as vaguely disinterested non-acquaintance. I rescued this stub from a larger cruft sometime during my misguided attempt to be nice to newbies on IRC. If it hadn't created it I would not be interested, as the subject is close to being a 'film-star' (I don't like articles about popular culture), but as I did create it I will try and keep it. Dysklyver 14:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Knave go by

Hello! Your submission of Knave go by at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

hello can you tell me about "this article needs attention from expert template ?

Please stop nominating articles for deletion

Your AfD nominations contain way too many completely incorrect statements and frankly ridiculous choices. Please stop nominating articles for deletion until you are much more familiar with our rules and sourcing requirements. Participate in AfDs started by others, write more articles, ... but for the time being stop nominating please, as it is really getting disruptive. Fram (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Noted and I will take your advice, or at least I will stop nominating mainspace articles for a while. Dysklyver 12:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence Agency

In the past between various editors re espionage/intelligence and military things - I find Intelligence Agency to Law Enforcement puzzling - any particular reason ? JarrahTree 14:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

no bother, I think I see the logic of your editing - no need to reply JarrahTree 15:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: - I already typed it up! I found it like that, but I must say it is an odd target, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force or Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage seem much better choices. I presume whoever pointed it to law enforcement was thinking of the FBI, although the FBI was never covered by this project, the CIA was and they are sort of alike? I dunno, I will just point it to those better targets I just mentioned. I have archived the actual project under espionage. Dysklyver 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

the balance between usage of the term espionage and intelligence and the relative projects - and the relative inaction between reolving the two side by side lingered on for years - until the current format espionage and the milhist intelligence task force evolved - I think it is far from satisfatory - but hey - this is wikipedia right? JarrahTree 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I wasn't there for the argument but it seems now: the MilHist folks are taking responsibility for the historical scope, leaving Espionage with the current scope. I am seriously thinking of the possible merits of merging the semi-active Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance into Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage. Dysklyver 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

good idea - it's all a moving feast with projects - the discussion I had at Hong Kong Wikimania those years ago with someone who had been prominent in milhist circles just looked at me somewhat inertly when I resolved the intelligence vs the espionage difference in my own mind - from reading a current penguin by a former cia operative - but hey things went another way - there were semantic differentials that had the inert and static standoff between the parallel projects of inert intelligence and inert espionage - which I think really shouldnt be left to the milhist mob - but espionage as it is at the moment seems ok - seem to repeating myself - imm signing off - cheers JarrahTree 15:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, would you please tell me why wikiproject intelligence now redirects to WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force? I mean, can you provide a link to the discussion where this was decided? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Usernamekiran:, according to the edit history it was redirected with this summary:

* (cur | prev) 02:44, 22 November 2012‎ [[User:Mabeenot|<bdi>Mabeenot</bdi>]] ([[User talk:Mabeenot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Mabeenot|contribs]])‎ . . (76 bytes) '''(-3,188)'''‎ . . (redirected per discussion) (undo | [[Special:Thanks/524290289|thank]])

I looked into it and think the discussion was this, which appears to have been for a move to WP Espionage, however when this was implemented it seems to have been to point it to the existing MilHist taskforce (their archive, it is unclear exactly why this happened, possibly it is because WP Espionage was inactive at the time, and MilHist Intel decided it was within their scope. Dysklyver 18:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that they dont already have a lot of low activity task forces already JarrahTree 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: they do have a lot... I merged Wikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillance into Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage into a kind-of joint wikiproject until we come up with a permanent solution on the name and deal with all the talk page banners. Dysklyver 00:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Logically "mass surveillance" falls under "espionage". So I think getting everything under the banner of "Wikiproject Espionage" would be the best choice. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going through) 05:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Further comments re WikiProject Digital Preservation

As a graduate of a museum curators course I do find it a bit offensive to think collections care is in bed with digitization.. going back to the council comment - I do think the much harder and much more challenging task is trying to encourage projects to be encouraged to exist - not merge JarrahTree 09:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well really I was thinking that digitization being an integral part of collection care it would make sense that the two projects had closer connections. Certainly I completely agree with you on the task of encouraging projects to exist, but in my opinion, most projects are too isolated. I mean we could feature a WikiProject sitewide every week or something, but otherwise there is really a limited supply of editors who actively participate in WikiProjects, and getting them to interact with them long term is difficult.

Obviously the main collections of a museum which you are probably mainly thinking of have a whole section of specialist care, but I think more in terms of archives where many museums and libraries are spending many millions on digitization programs for purposes connected to preservation, public access and research. This is creating a situation where museums and libraries have Digital collections to care for as well. Anyway I thought since the British Library had merged them then it would make sense for us too. Dysklyver 10:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In the very long run you are touching on things - if we were in the same city - over the appropriate multipe doeses of beer/tea/coffee/wine - we could probably realise we are at the crux of the whole future of wp in what we are discussing in bits pieces on wiki here - where are the editors - how does one increase/improve collaboration - and so on and the cows would have been and gone in the time. Some sense - there is every hope something will encourage somebody - and the is the possibility it will end up like - no one ever turns up .... JarrahTree 10:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Deep comment ^

Part of my inspiration is the Wikiproject X concept, which while totally incomprehensible, appears to be a plan to integrate and streamline projects into a single project-space discussion board which integrates local and greater discussion to allow wider discussion of groups of articles and to facilitate the sharing of advice and resources with new editors. (feel free to tell me that WPX is not that).

The other part of my inspiration is MilHist, which seems to maintain activity and orderedness through having a reasonable size, and WIR, which has a similar concept. These projects work because they are grouped by people, not grouped by articles.

The main flaw is that Wikiprojects should be grouped by the interest of the editors, but infact they just mirror article categories. Thats why MilHist works, it is a project for vets/military editors - focused on anything military related. If they want to focus on a specific topic within that, they can create a taskforce, which will become inactive like any other small group eventually, but without fragmenting everything into over 2000 unconnected pecies. Onece the taskforce is gone, the articles are still maintained by the wider project. The MilHist coordinators are another success worth noting, a certain amount of coordination is useful for a larger project.

Rather than cycles of Meta discussion, I propose that we simply copy what works, one step at a time. Dysklyver 10:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to think you have such a high opinion of them ... I think my major response to your enthusiasm is not printable here :) - cheers JarrahTree 10:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Grinning widely at this. I don't care too much for some aspects of how a group of mainly army vets behave regarding 'their' project and 'their' articles which 'must' be written to 'their' guidelines, because 'they' know best and are 'terrifically important' :) But in general the concept works, and to be honest any large subject area of Wikipedia seems to get like that whether they have a coordinated project or not. Dysklyver 11:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

hello hope you are doing well.

In regards to mir mohammed raza page I request for some clarification about the template needs attention from expert astrologer .

Is it a kind of authentication needed ?

Many Thanks

• No, it is simply a request for someone more experienced than me to add context to the article and I have explained in more detail on your talk page. Dysklyver 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Kindly stop editing wikiprojects

There has been no consensus for anything. Kindly stop making changes to project pages. After 5-6 days, I will restore most of project pages to its original state before you came in. We can have an actual discussion at appropriate venue, and make changes after that. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 16:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: is this wikiproject espionage merge you are talking about, beacuse I was planning further improvements to it which would pointless if they are going to be undone? Dysklyver 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided that since my improvements are probably better than what was there previously, to just leave it as is and focus on getting some activity happening, I don't own the new layout, If you want to change something that's fine by me. I will probably make some minor improvements to some of the pages over the next few days anyway. I got the article alerts and assessment tables working, but not the cleanup tasks or to do lists. I will also build a custom talk page setup for the dual project as the current system is not up to scratch. I still need to add footers, more resources, template and category finders, basic help links, put the pages in categories and tweak the color scheme to fit the theme better. Also once the revitalisation discussion on the talk page is complete the members will need to be sorted into active and inactive sections. At some point checking the talk page banners are correctly applied to all relevant articles is needed. Dysklyver 22:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

hmm in dangerous territory (again)

It looks like above :)

I have just had permission from Skysmith to reproduce a brilliant set of redlinks - and seem to have got wrong format -

maybe they should be in a to-do part of espionage rather than resource ...

please adjust if you can do a better job JarrahTree 08:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

nah  Done fixed it anyways - cheers JarrahTree 08:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can see what you have done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage/Open tasks, it looks pretty good to me, and gives an idea of what needs to be done as well. Dysklyver 08:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

VIP to notice it is a copy from Skysmith - it is now linked  Done to the original version - there might be a range of changes - maybe needs to be linked after all

I can see the point from above - the mixing and mucking with another project like mass surveilance is ugly and yucky - there needs to be some serious discussion where things start and and on this - I can think of some rather crude analogies that could be drawn -

From all my experience in project revivalising (sic) - I am sure what you have done is a complete no-no - expect early termination of that mixing

cheers JarrahTree 08:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

ahah - the conversation that I had in Hong Kong comes back now - the distinction between the activities:

• [[4]] - there is a sense that the Intelligence part of Milhist might be a better fit JarrahTree 09:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nutz / Nut

Get consensus before you do stuff like redirecting something to a clearly unrelated target. Nutz the soft drink is obviously not Nut the plant product. There's BOLDly redirecting to a related topic, and then there's BOLDly redirecting just because you dislike brand articles. If you don't think Nutz the product is notable enough to have its own article (and I actually would agree with you in this case), you know where to have that discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD

"Noted and I will take your advice, or at least I will stop nominating mainspace articles for a while. Dysklyver 12:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)"

I see that you have kept to this for a full four days... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo Momma is again a clearly incorrect nomination. Either you voluntarliy stop nominating articles for deletion for at least 6 months, and first try to demonstrate that you know our policies and guidelines well enough to be able to have a reasonable success rate at AfD nominations (e.g. by rescuing some AfD nominations you can demonstrate that you know how to find sources and how to evaluate them); or else I'll raise this problem at WP:ANI and propose an involuntary topic ban for you instead. Fram (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have kept to said promise, I have not nominated any AfD's for four days and then I did a single nomination, you should be aware that I would happily nominate many more than this if you weren't concerned about my nominations.

"Either you voluntarily stop nominating articles for deletion for at least 6 months" - this is an unreasonably long time, if I had known that your definition of 'a while' was six months then perhaps I would have been more argumentative to begin with. My AfD nom stats show 41% with numerous unclosed, in no way do I see how this merits a topic ban. I have created more articles than I have had deleted, and my WP:HEY standards are very reasonable (which does not help my score). I regularly interact with other AfD's but it seems that alot of the time I just comment rather than voting, I have a 50/50 rate overall according to the AfD stat tool.

Since you haven't taken this to ANI, I am not going to complain about your behavior. I assume you simply think I being irrational, I can assure you this is not the case, your narrow interpretation of what GNG means is no more reasonable than my interpretation. Until AfD standards are defined by guidelines I argue that neither viewpoint is provably correct. A consensus at Arbcom may or may not find either view to be correct, however I have not seen them defining policy in this way before. You repeatably vote speedy keep on the strength of a single good source whilst saying I have no knowledge of guidelines, I have already argued with you on this one. AfD is not CSD, if an article has issues which make it a possible deletion candidate, and no-one is working on it, then I think it should be discussed - I don't mind if it is kept, I have no plans to be an admin, my stats don't need to be squeaky clean - if it helps the encyclopedia, it helps the encyclopedia.

I will briefly outline why I edit what I edit:

Stub articles about brands are obviously promotional.

Articles about anything in popular culture should have at least three references to prove they are relevant.

Articles about subsidiary companies are normally unnecessary.

Articles about songs/albums that never charted are suspicious.

Obvious crap (like an article about the King of Wales) are not acceptable.

Anything that needs to rely on WP:NOTCENSORED must not be a stub, and must be clearly notable under a specific guideline.

Anything referenced to a pre-1901 source is almost certainly relevant.

Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a company directory, dictionary, Google ranking tool or other means of making your money making enterprise more important, this applies to everyone, including large American corporations.

I have a strict view of passing mentions.

I have a strict view about the independence of sources.

I often copy what other people do.

If its been tagged for over a year its fair to say no one is going to improve it, sending it to AfD won't improve it either, but at least the tag can be removed. Most my nominations have been tagged for serious issues for over 7 years.

I like to save stuff and often do, from places like the unreferenced BLP backlog, and the articles with unclear notability backlog.

I have other views, if you have a specific

> Dysklyver 11:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't even stopped until the AfDs that sparked the request had been closed (all heading for a keep), nor have you shown any indication that you have learned anything from them. I didn't state a timeframe, nor did I have one in mind, but since that turned out to be a mistake, I have now specifically given a timeframe of sufficient length to give you a chance to thoroughly familiarize yourself with our guidelines. Your own opinion on what should have articles or not is not a basis to start numerous AfDs from if this opinion is not widely shared by others. Your use of AfD as cleanup is specifically disallowed. And in any case, you need to make sure that your AfD nominations are correct. When you say "only sources I have find are unreliable tabloid features." in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo Momma, you have either not done the most basic required search, or you are misrepresenting the sources quite badly. Missing a good source when opening an AfD happens to all of us, but not all of the time, as happens with too many of your nominations. Fram (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo Momma will be kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWA Super Sunday will be kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakhary Mallett will be deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Wood (journalist) unclear, probably deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Particularly Bad Art will be kept (at best no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley of the Wolves: Homeland kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of South Park Elementary staff will be kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mountains in Manhattan will be kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Killahz (2nd nomination) no comments yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The E.P. no comments yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Georgia (Political party) will be kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Byte This! (2nd nomination) no comments yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eren Bülbül perhaps deleted (or redirected more likely)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAMEK deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nulab Inc. deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep 6 deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superdiversity kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young night drifters kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollocks (2nd nomination) kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olgu Caglar deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography in Greece redirected
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornotopia kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitter pornography merged
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilla (2nd nomination) kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutter Butter (2nd nomination) redirect / merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit (2nd nomination) keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUC (cracker) heading for a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheat Thins keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handi-Snacks undecided
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filipinos (snack food) heading for a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy Life Foods no consensus yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chips Ahoy! (2nd nomination) kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese Nips no consensus yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvita kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoned Wheat Thins merged
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vichy Pastilles no consensus yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Resources Institute kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freewill (song) kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland's Pies no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racist love (2nd nomination) delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klemme Community School keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promotional Tool (2nd nomination) delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Story of the Alps: My Annette episodes keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filipinos (snack food) heading for a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In a Biskit no clear consensus yet

So this gives in 45 nominations 23 keeps (closed or going to be), 9 deletes, and 13 other (no clear emerging consensus yet, merged or redirected). Let's be generous, and call it 13 deletions in the end, on 45 nominations. This is way, way too little, certainly considering how many have been speedy or unanimous keeps. Fram (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• if an article has issues which make it a possible deletion candidate This in and of itself pretty much demonstrates that you don't yet understand the way AfD works. Several editors have expressed concern over this, and you don't seem to be taking those concerns to heart. The offer you've been given is a good one, and I suggest you take it, because it you don't, and Fram can't be bothered to open an thread about it, I'm sure myself or one of the other half dozen people who have commented on the issue thus far can probably find time to manage it.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong, and we probably all learned how to AfD by being publicly bad at it at some point, but there is a difference between that and being copiously and obstinately wrong, to the point where you are wasting a substantial amount of community time, which is what seems to be happening. Take the six months, participate in existing AfDs and get a better feel for the process, and when you come back, nominate articles slowly and deliberately, and only after doing thorough searches to attempt to establish notability. GMG^talk 12:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you have called these correctly and they close as stated (which I mostly agree with). It is 23/23 if you count merge/redirects as delete (the article isn't there anymore so why not) and note the 2 multiple noms I asked primefac to help me with.

Out of respect for your concerns I will not nominate any more AfD's until all these have closed, and then 25 weeks, and give you notice of any articles I would normally AfD, CSD or PROD rather than tagging them myself.

I wrote this before GMG's comment, which is pretty much algined with Frams, so fair enough really. Dysklyver 12:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I am generally stubborn to the point of obstinance, you can congratulate yourself on a good argument to get me to change my mind on this. Dysklyver 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis (author)

Hello. I had to revert what appeared to be a misformatted vote. I invite you to please recast it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, its a bit late to recast the !vote now though. Dysklyver 15:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An

I disagree with your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An. Shall I take this to deletion review or will you revert? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: - I have relisted it as requested. Dysklyver 15:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lý Thuần An

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lý Thuần An. 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. Another admin closed the AfD as keep, and I'm taking it to DRV. I've notified them but I thought I'd notify you as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony Bruin draft page was declined

Hello ... I got your message declining Tony Bruin's draft page. I would still like to advocate for Tony's page. He is a really well-known college basketball player who was drafted by the NBA and also played professionally overseas. In the message that was sent, stating he was declined, it was because there were not enough references, sources or newspaper accounts of his career. The problem I am facing is that Tony played in the 1970s and 1980s and there are not many links readily available to stories about him. HIs career predates the internet boom, so there is not a lot of links out there about him ... I went into the NY Times archives and the NY Daily News archives and there is plenty of coverage about Tony Bruin. But how do I present these for approval? I have PDF files that I can email or post somewhere? Do you have a suggestion on how I can make these archived stories more available to viewed or to be judged by Wiki to determine that Tony's is indeed a notable athlete. Thank you for any help on this matter. Jrowanpr (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @Jrowanpr:, you can cite offline sources such as newspapers, you will need to correctly fill out the references to include information like, name of newspaper, date of publication, page number, headline of news article, and the name of the journalist who wrote the article. you can find out more, and how to fill out the reference, at Help:Referencing for beginners. There is no requirement for you to make the source available, archives of most published sources can be found by using the information you provide. Dysklyver 20:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For writing a brilliant, sourced article about a wrong-way snail named Jeremy. I'm just... I'm at a complete loss right now. Who in the world would have known. Anyway... here's a spiffy Barnstar for your efforts. Thank you for the hard work. Operator873CONNECT 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)