User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 1

Add topic
Active discussions

Request to return to English Wikipedia

Pinging participants in previous discussions


  • Requesting return to project under this username with disclosure of whole situation on new userpage
  • Perfectly happy for a couple of months of "probation" if anyone feels that is necessary
  • Willing to accept a restriction to one account (not even an alternative account for AWB)
  • I'll wait a few months before requesting user rights back.
  • It won't happen again.


Well, it's been just over four months since User:Janet-O was blocked as a sockpuppet of my main account User:DrStrauss. Per the standard offer (or the similar CheckUser-endorsed version which was alluded to earlier), I'm requesting to re-join the project. I realise the standard offer is six months but I'm putting this one in two months early because I will have intermittent internet access from 20/03/2018 to 21/05/2018 as I am studying abroad. So in effect, it's the six month mark.

What happened

My feelings with regards to this whole situation have not changed since my sincere apology on User talk:Janet-O four months ago. I was impatient and decided to circumvent the community process for reviewing good articles using User:Reviewer 65 and denied it on User:DrStrauss. It was only by chance when a real-life incident occurred when suspicion was raised due to CheckUser evidence. I then created User:Janet-O and attempted to do a behind-the-scenes fresh start and that went about as well as a trapdoor in a canoe.

I was having a difficult time personally November time last year. This is not an excuse for the things I did: I am ashamed and wholeheartedly sorry for the deception I committed; it's merely an attempt at an explanation as to why I did it, however poor the rationale. Some regular editors who I've spoken to off-wiki already know the specifics but it's not the sort of thing one goes into in detail about on a public forum.

What I've been doing since

After a few weeks I contacted ArbCom who kindly authorised me to create a new account and edit other Wikimedia projects in pursuance of a standard offer (it would be useful if an ArbCom member could be notified so they can confirm this). I've been using this account to participate on Commons in this period. I really enjoy partaking in the Wikimedia movement and while Commons is great in its own way I don't quite get the same level of enjoyment from it as I did on English Wikipedia. IMHO the editing I've done on Commons over the past few months shows that I can still be a constructive contributor to a collaborative project.

What I'm requesting

People in real life know about the whole User:DrStrauss, User:Reviewer 65 and User:Janet-O incident. However, nobody I know in real life knows about my new account with which I've been editing Commons. I hope to keep it this way and while there are no technical restrictions on me editing the English Wikipedia with this account (per the aforementioned agreement with ArbCom) it would still be sockpuppetry until my standard offer is approved which is why I'm coming in through the front door so to speak. I no longer have access to User:DrStrauss, User:DrStrauss (AWB), User:Reviewer 65 or User:Janet-O but I am happy for those to remain blocked just as a pro forma.

I of course realise that I have broken a considerable amount of trust and work will need to be done to repair this. However, my main areas of activity were:

  • Anti-vandalism / pending change monitoring
  • New page reviewing / AFC
  • Closing RMC discussions
  • Renaming files listed at shortnames
  • Getting rid of the February 2009 orphans backlog.

These are gnome-y tasks which for technical reasons require elevated user rights. Anti-vandalism and pending changes monitoring require (or are made a heck of a lot easier with) rollback and pending changer reviewer rights. New page reviewing requires new page reviewer right and the parallel script for AFC. Swapping pages often requires page mover and moving files requires file mover. The only area of activity I was consistently active in which did not require a user right beyond autoconfirmed was the orphan backlog.

I am more than willing to work solely in the few areas I worked in which didn't require special rights e.g. February 2009 orphan backlog or copyediting just to prove that I'm still here to build an encyclopedia, and once I'm back into the swing of regular editing I will request the user rights back from an administrator to enable me to work in the areas I was most active in again. This waiting period seems to me like a good way of regaining local community trust whilst still participating on English Wikipedia in some form.

Speaking of which, if this is all approved, can we undelete Aimee Richardson and Antoinette Flegenheim which were G5'd as Janet-O creations? Interestingly, I chose User:Janet-O because it was lexically dissimilar to User:DrStrauss but I enjoyed my short time of work at Women in Red and plan to add that to my list of regular activities if I'm accepted back.

I'm fine with a couple of months of "probation" or something similar and I am happy to accept a restriction to one account with no legitimate alternative accounts for AWB and the like. Heck, I'd even be willing to accept a daily CheckUser on my new account just to prove the abusive behaviour has stopped, I just want to get back to editing like I used to!

Future of this page

And finally, please can we blank this section once this discussion concludes (re IRL connections)? I don't know the procedure for standard offers (whether there's a compulsory 7-day run like with RfAs) but I would be extremely grateful if we could get this discussion done as quickly as possible because I know for a fact that people I know in real life would be keen to pick up on this.

I am however fine with disclosing my previous accounts on my userpage as per standard procedure.

Thank you for considering this request.

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this needs to be copied to AN, as you're not community banned - pinging @Berean Hunter: as the blocking CU - TNT 19:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
SO is an essay, and specifies simply an admin, but since it's a CU block I believe a CU needs to weigh in before anything can happen. Posting at AN is... almost de facto policy in the way it's adhered to. But you know, I'm not a Steward or anything. So it's not like I can take BH's mop away in a fit of unbridled rage like some people. :P [FBDB] GMGtalk 21:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In my capacity as an Arbitrator, I can confirm that Strauss did send an email advising ArbCom of his intent to create this account for use at Commons. The account was not blocked here because it would draw unnecessary attention for it to be ArbCom or CU blocked right off the bat, and it was understood that Strauss would not use it to edit here (which he has not).
The remainder of this commentary is strictly personal and reflects my opinions as someone who's friendly with Strauss, not as an Arbitrator. Generally speaking, I think Strauss is a good but impatient contributor who did something very stupid, and then compounded that stupidity by not being honest about it. I think it speaks to his good (if misguided) intentions that when he returned as Janet-O, he came back and wrote decent content, as opposed to coming back and acting disruptive. I think his work at Commons, and his restraint in not editing here during the following months, also demonstrates his good intentions and personal improvement.
I believe this unblock request shows that he understands what he did wrong and why he can't and won't repeat it. His intent to honestly disclose the history on his userpage speaks well of him. Furthermore, if he is unblocked, all of his actions for the foreseeable future will be under an industrial-sized microscope, and he knows it. If he steps out of line, someone will swing the hammer.
I think the one thing that speaks negatively of Strauss here is the fact that this request was made two months early because of future "internet issues". It demonstrates a little bit of the old impatience that got him into trouble before. If there's going to be internet issues for two months anyway, it would've been better if he'd waited to appeal until afterwards even if it forced him to wait a little bit past the six months exactly.
Still, on the balance of things, I support Strauss being unblocked in May, when the standard offer would have come up normally and barring any behavioral issues that arise between now and then. ♠PMC(talk) 22:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth (and apparently because my friendly banter didn't come off as friendly as I intended it to... my bad), I've worked with SITH on IRC helping him somewhat grow accustomed to editing on Commons as much as I can. In the the time he's been gone from enwiki, he's made over a thousand contributions there, almost all of which have been in file space, which is non-trivial for someone taking on a project they weren't previously active in. I think he cares about the community and the project, and I think his socking was precisely because of that, and because he didn't want to be separated from something he cares about improving, which sets him apart from a lot of folks who have similar problems. I think he'll do fine if he's welcomed back, and I look forward to it. GMGtalk 01:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As the editor who discovered the Janet-O sock, I'm would support any unblock appeal at AN. If there is no objection from the CU team to an unblock, I don't think we need to take it there (he does not fall under the new community unban requirements as he only block evaded once). Berean Hunter, if you have no objections as the original blocking CU, it might make the most sense to block this account until the 6 months are up, and then just let the block expire rather than having this odd discussion about whether an account that is super-technically unblocked can be unblocked, and when that date should occur. Also, for the record, I agree with PMC that this should have waited until after the internet issues were over, but I don't think that's enough to get in the way of an unblock if CUs don't have any issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos, There'sNoTime, TonyBallioni, and GreenMeansGo: thank you for your kind words. I'm just about to leave now so I probably won't be able to communicate until I get back, I of course support Tony's suggestion of a block on this account expiring in two months on this account. In fact, it's probably an eminently sensible idea because it doesn't create a backlink from my old account and it also ensures that a fair representation of a somewhat tarnished record is preserved in the block log. If it does so happen to have to go to AN, I won't be able to respond until I get back but I think I've said all that needs to be said. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • SITH (Sith?), do you have any other accounts that you have used for Wikimedia projects? Also, have you been editing as an IP?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Berean Hunter: sorry for the delay in response, it's due to be being away. I don't think I'm as evil as a Sith lord, it's just an unfortunate contraction of Strauss In The House! And no, I've declared all my accounts and as far as I can remember the IP I'm currently using is the only one I've ever used to edit in a logged-out state but that might be incorrect, you might want to check the page history of User talk:DrStrauss because if I have it's only when I've been away or on holiday. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I'm not sure if I made this clear but re IP editing the only IP editing I've done is curating my old user talk page while on holiday or accidental edits made not realising I was logged out, nothing substantial. This was all done before any of the blocks and I haven't been editing English Wikipedia since the Janet-O block via accounts or IPs. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've accepted your request for unblocking with two conditions. The first is that you limit yourself to just one account and the second is that you are not to edit while logged-out. Those can be revisited after a year if all goes well. If you accidentally edit while logged-out, you are to proactively report it to to prevent any misunderstandings. Failure to abide by these conditions will result in a reinstatement of an indefinite block status.
Good luck and please behave.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: thank you, I'll leave this here for a while and then archive it. I'll make my userpage in a bit. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see you back. Hope you’re having a good summer. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tony, glad to be back! My summer's going fine thanks, I hope yours is too. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ditto Tony's comment, glad to see you again. Weirdly, I was the one who found and reverted this account (see [1] and [2]) and was stunned by what came afterward. Wishing you the best. Home Lander (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Home Lander. Yeah, it was a messed up situation, I'm glad ArbCom was so understanding.   StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Strauss! It's good to see you back. I'm looking forward to working on the Feb 09's with you again :) ♠PMC(talk) 14:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi PMC, good to be back! I'm having a look through them now, there are a couple of recurring themes we might want to highlight :) StraussInTheHouse (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: could you possibly restore my old userpage to User:StraussInTheHouse/old so I can transfer across the relevant elements? I recall having some nice Wikicode in there that I can't remember. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  Done TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
(and if anyone wonders why it's a redlink, I've since deleted it under U1) ansh666 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, welcome back! I've restored Antoinette Flegenheim per your request, but Aimee Richardson has been recreated since its G5 deletion. Anyone have any ideas on whether the old content can be restored, and if so, how? I thought about history-splitting the old version to a draft, but maybe someone else with more experience can think of a better way? ansh666 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ansh666, thank you! That looks like it could work, I'd be happy to incorporate any material. A history split sounds like the way to do it, although I'm not an expert on the tool. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Think I remember seeing somewhere, if you you delete the existing version, you should be able to restore both the existing revisions and anything else that's been deleted before. Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure. Home Lander (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I know I can do it, I just don't know if I should, or if there's a better way to handle it. ansh666 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion I can't find at the moment about something like this not that long ago at ANI. Something about an administrator deleting a page's current version, moving their own draft version to the page, then deleting that version before restoring everything, leaving their version as the final. I don't think anything came of that, and this case wouldn't even involve changing the currently displayed version of the page, so I don't see it as controversial. Home Lander (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ansh666:, After looking at the old history, USERFY applies and the deleted version could be a cut and paste to a sandbox subpage i.e User:StraussInTheHouse/Aimee Richardson and simply link to this specific diff in the edit summary which should serve as ample attribution for that version of a deleted article. The Janet-O account is the primary contributor and only one other editor, Dumelow changed the content slightly...negligibly for these purposes (reorder of sources and one spelling correction (this). Two bots made small changes but that isn't an obstacle. I don't think that altering the article history is a good idea at this point. Just follow the correct process for deactivating cats etc.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and did the cut and paste.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: thanks, I've copied across my draft. The only difference was that the other version said she was Irish, however, she was born in Northern Ireland. I don't know whether or not that means she's Irish or British but the source cited next to the word Irish didn't seem to be an explicit declaration of Irish identity so I'll stick with British for now, feel free to change that if you wish. Thanks, I'll go ahead and U1 the userspace draft unless you want to do a history merge? StraussInTheHouse (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Go ahead with the U1, no need for a histmerge. Cats reactivated.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, I was just going over what happened last December and I'm so happy to see you again! L293D ( • ) 14:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: thanks, it's good to be back! StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


I've been having fun using PetScan to pull categories out and de-orphan them all at once, have you tried that? I've been using User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox2 to keep track of what I'm up to. Feel free to peruse or make notes. ♠PMC(talk) 14:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, that looks promising! I'll have a peek in a moment, I'm just doing some recent changes stuff at the moment, there's a lot of stuff that needs checking on footballer BLPs due to the World Cup. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh yikes I'll let you get to it, that's not my jam. ♠PMC(talk) 14:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't stand football but it seems like most people can, and some even enjoy defacing the Wikipedia articles of players that let them down in the World Cup. I don't see it myself :P StraussInTheHouse (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: that PetScan thing is a lifesaver. User:StraussInTheHouse/sandbox has some of the topics I've found hard to de-orphan. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I live for PetScan, it's so useful! I like to do bios by country/city (because lots of places have "List of people from X") rather than occupation alone. You could try adding "Category:People from X" to your artist query, then adding all those to "List of people from X" (some places have "List of artists from X", which is even better), then changing X to the next location before carrying on. ♠PMC(talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, I'll give that a go! StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ek Abla

has been de-prodded by me.On a side-note, aren't you a little conservative as to A7? Best,WBGconverse 16:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: fair enough, I'll do some more source searches and take it to AfD if nothing comes up. Yeah, one of the most annoying experiences I had on my old account was to have an A7 declined only for it to delete as an expired PROD. It all depends on the individual administrator's interpretation of WP:CCS so I thought I'd hang fire with A7 so I don't set myself up to enter rage-mode. Hope you're well by the way. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely fine:) And, I'll be searching for sources too! As to A7, yeah discretionary stuff but I bet that slightly aggressive tagging wouldn't hurt.And, by the way, welcome back:)WBGconverse 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

  Hello, I'm ZfJames. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Charles J. Moore, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@ZfJames: I didn't add anything to it, I was reverting an unsourced quote while recent changes patrolling. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit: ah, you accidentally templated me, I had already reverted it, it must be a mistake in Huggle, I've undone your revert because you restored a vandalised version. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry StraussInTheHouse! It must be an error since I didn't want to template you... :P zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 15:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Heh, no problem :) StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Deprod: Magnetrixx

Hello, I have deprodded Magnetrixx because it was at AfD back in 2005. I only did this to comply with policy and have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion please feel free to open another AfD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info   StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Grudge Match (website)

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Grudge Match (website), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: contested PROD and previously at DRV, so deletion might be controversial. Use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 12:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ipa-Nima

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ipa-Nima, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previously kept at AFD, not eligible for speedy deletion. Thank you. SoWhy 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The script does not offer the option to add this, so here have a



You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

as well. Do try to check the article's history before nominating for deletion, will you? Regards SoWhy 12:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: heh, no problem, I'll check the page history in future, previous AFDs usually show up in a little box in the MoreMenu gadget but clearly it's not working! Thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@SoWhy: on a related note, I noticed you converted the A7 to a PROD on Maroghini, which I'm fine with, I'd just like to know for future reference - is the credible claim of significance clause unlimited? The facial hair example seems like the antithesis of an unlimited claim of significance because it makes what would be an A7 a PROD - is there consensus on this? Thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't do it because of the facial hair claim but because I found some mentions in RS on GBooks and GNews and thus couldn't rule out that more coverage might actually exist. I couldn't find any though, hence the PROD so someone else has the chance to look as well. Regards SoWhy 16:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm contesting the prod. The article was created in 2006, so I think it at least deserves an AFD. I have no connection to the subject, but when I created the article I was told that the subject was a traveling teacher of reggae who had inspired several more notable reggae musicians. I don't have an RS for that particular piece of info, but I do think the article could be improved and not deleted, but you may of course file an AFD for it. Andrevan@ 18:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back!

  So stoked to see your name pop up on my watchlist this morning. I missed ya! Hope all your travelling and time away was fun. Now that you're back, are we gonna conquer Feb 09 for good or what? :D ♠PMC(talk) 21:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Premeditated Chaos, thanks for the tea, it's good to be back! As for that orphan list, I'll let Joe sum up my thoughts. Best, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh Premeditated Chaos, can you add me to the AutoWikiBrowser checklist please, it's very useful for generating orphan analytic lists beyond the functionality of PetScan? StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done, try not to wreck the joint with it :) ♠PMC(talk) 12:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Psst, you PROD'd Ingelore Ebberfeld last year (I have it watchlisted because I've seen it in my own queries and meant to AfD it but never got around to it). ♠PMC(talk) 13:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ta, I'll send it over to AfD. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Franklin Chang Diaz

I merely fixed the Cantonese romanization if his name, which was wrong. The pronunciation can be approximately to chuerng fook lum in this and with canonical romanization Jyutping should be zoeng1 fuk1 lam4 and Yale romanization would be jeung1 fuk1 lam4. Alternatively just remove the Cantonese altogether. Either way "Foo ling" is some fake cantonese pronunciation that is no way close to the actual pronunciation.

Grizzzzz (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

At any rate you can check each of these pages to see that it is indeed the correct romanizations張 Grizzzzz (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Grizzzzz, my apologies, I was using an anti-vandalism tool called Huggle and I must have pressed the wrong key. Please feel free to remove the message left on your talk page, I'll mark the edit as good next time I'm in Huggle. Many thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Automated update

It appears you may be doing some form of automated update of unreferenced tags to refimmprove tags. I have some concerns that the result may have some issues. You have a decision not to update the date which may or may not be appropriate. while the results are probably in general more positive there are some instances where the result refimprove tag seems dubious or have produced a syntax error such as Craigleith, Edinburgh and Cockburn Harbour. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Djm-leighpark, I am very sorry, I have identified the issue which caused this. I didn't tick RegEx which meant that "ref" was taken to include "reflist" (the script I was using assumes that reflist connotes no sources because you can have an empty reflist. This means that some articles will have been incorrectly tagged and I will re-review all of the edits to check for errors although I think Boleyn got most of them. I did stop editing as soon as I got your message in line with the advice for AWB users and I will endeavour to make sure the right boxes are ticked next time! With regards to the date, I assumed it would be better to spread them out according to when their sourcing issues started as opposed to making an abnormal increase in one month category. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping, I only noticed as you processed Monasteraden which is on my watchlist .... I'd had a scan of a few of the updates and felt one had introduced an error and I was a little unsure about a few others ... Sometimes because of something unusual or incorrect in terms of the article. In general the updates were typically an improvement but on occasions a little minimal. Having looked over a couple of things since my main concern area was where there were citations/references but not inline Template:More footnotes would perhaps have been better. I also noticed Employee monitoring software (which may have other issues) where the tagging might have been a bit harsh if done automatically rather than with a (semi?) manual check. Another example of an issue is Cabra de Mora ... this may be a case where the unreferenced tag was wrong but the refimprove is possibly worse but it may be harder to get the reasoning why it was tagged. Overall the automation is improving X%, perhaps being equally wrong on Y% and perhaps making Z% worse. I'm fairly sure Y is less than 20 and Z is less than 5. If you are automating these you might need to use smaller batch sizes and perhaps getting a second pair of eyes to review. One of the purposes of the dates is to see when the edits were may and to identify the version of the article in the history. So if that date is wrong I will be looking at the wrong placed in the history to see the state of the article when the tag was placed/updated. But you might want to seek other opinions on that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Djm-leighpark, I've written to the AWB development team about possibly upgrading AWB to recognise template diffs with higher accuracy. I've binned the script I was using, unfortunately it's a job which will probably have to be done manually, possibly PetScan could be of use. Thanks to Boleyn and others for helping with the cleanup. SITH (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for working on article tagging. I've changed some of the ones you recently changed from 'unreferenced' to 'refimprove' because they do not have any references at all. SOme of these have 'external links' or 'suggestions for further reading' but no clear sources and no references.

I've been coming across these on Wikipedia:Mistagged unreferenced articles cleanup, I don't know if you're working through the same list? If so, please delete them when you have checked them, otherwise no one knows they've been checked and another editor has to go through it all again. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Boleyn, firstly, thank you for reverting the changes which were incorrectly made (see the above section for the technical explanation). I was unaware of that page, I'll take a look. I'm working through orphans and I noticed AWB detects when tags need updating from unreferenced to refimprove and that some articles which are tagged as having no references whatsoever had references. As I said in the above section, I'll look through the edits but from a cursory scan it appears you have rectified most of the errors. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I might submit a bot I've been working on to do this without having to go through the intermediary of AWB. SITH (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, StraussInTheHouse. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to brag but

27 de-orphans in one diff: [3]. Technically 28 because I also de-orphaned the list itself! Beat that if you can :) ♠PMC(talk) 07:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos holy... I'll try! SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Beat my own record here with 29 at once :O ♠PMC(talk) 04:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, StraussInTheHouse. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: I/We and You and Your Work ... (Re: The Case for Restoring the Article Regarding Interfaith Furnishings)

Dear M.,

I have labored with this organization - and have provided clear, concise, and accurate information.

This organization is legitimate, is recognized, and is noteworthy and respected on The Randolph Township Municipal Website and The Morris County Library Website.

This organization continues to be almost annually acknowledged by the Russ Berrie Award Foundation.

I have cited repeated coverage from local and county writers who are – or were – with legitimate publications (e.g. The Randolph Reporter, The Morris County Daily Record, and NJN-TV).

I have also cited: Even appointed representatives with M(r.) Barack Obama's White House administration have officially recognized our struggle.

This is indeed a Wikipedia-worthy organization based on the facts I've presented – and more than 1,000 families have benefitted from volunteer efforts.

I hope you will restore my many hours of significant writing and fact-checking upon reading my plea.

Sincerely, Notablenews (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)M(r.) Christopher S. Welch Volunteer, Interfaith Furnishings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notablenews (talkcontribs) 02:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Notablenews, it appears from my logs that I nominated Interfaith Furnishings for deletion per WP:CORPDEPTH, a guideline we use to assess whether companies are notable by means of how much coverage they have received and the quality of said coverage. I nominate quite a lot for deletion and I can't remember exactly the contents of it. I am pinging the administrator who accepted the deletion request, Explicit, who might be able to help you. I see you have been advised on your talk page about managing a conflict of interest, am I correct in understanding from your message that you work for the company in question? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why did you relist this?


Uncontroversial RMs should generally just be implemented if they remain unopposed after seven days. I could have just fired ahead and implemented the change myself but figured I'd request community input instead. I didn't get any, but relisting only left the door open for another editor who has been on-and-off hounding/trolling me on that article and its parent article and now it is suddenly not uncontroversial for that reason alone.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Hijiri88, thank you for your message. I relisted it because per the relevant guidelines (1, 2, it is generally advisable to seek more input on potentially controversial move requests. I considered it potentially controversial for the following reasons:
    • To an extent, you had recognised it yourself by submitting a requested move instead of a technical request.
    • The article is about a book written by a living person so, to an extent, falls under WP:BLP, meaning extra caution must be taken.
    • There is often dissent in RMs surrounding the addition and removal of diacritical marks and the transliteration of titles, so more input is probably the best option.
Please be assured that whoever closes the RM will take into account not the number of support and oppose !votes, but the strength of the arguments within them, so if you believe that the user who opposed isn't doing so on rational grounds (Special:Diff/873963550), then that will be assessed by the closer. It's also worth noting that another user has supported the proposal since the relist. More discussion is almost always a good thing for determining consensus. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Point 1 and 3 is good-enough but 2 is umm........ WBGconverse 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: that alone wouldn't be grounds for relisting but I always consider whether there are BLP issues even to the nth degree because it's the area where Wikipedia gets the most controversy. But taken along with points 1 and 3 it probably strengthens the case for more input. Hope you're doing well by the way! SITH (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I can understand point 1 in theory (although not granting an editor's request because they are generally cautious and reflective in their editing seems arbitrary), but points 2 and 3 are ... well, BLP can't possibly since the Japanese title (romanized or not) is much better sourced than the English and even if this were not the case ... yeah, I don't even know how to explain how irrelevant BLP is. 3 doesn't work because the last time use of diacritics to romanize Japanese was controversial was in 2013; I should know, because the three main instigators of the "controversy" (Kauffner, LittleBenW and JoshuSasori) conspired to drive me off Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hijiri88, my experience tells me that if you've fired ahead (without community input), AD would have plainly reverted you:(
At any case, Strauss' relisting was within closer's discretion. If the argument forwarded by the nominator is not exactly grade-2-stuff, closer(s) often prefer to relist RMs with no participation for yet another week. WBGconverse 11:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but if Andrew had done that his targeted obstruction would have been even more obvious than it is now, I could just ask that he be blocked or TBANned, and re-implement; doing so now is complicated by the fact that that would probably not be resolved before the RM is closed as a 1-1 "no consensus". Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:07:34, 16 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Hettie.epstein

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your quick response. Actually there is an English language page for Joshua Epstein, violinist but because the search forwards to the Professor of Epidemiology, Joshua M. Epstein, I cannot move the page to the Articles area. I tried to disambiguate so that this page could be published, but I need help.,_Violinist

Hettie.epstein (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear StraussInTheHouse, I need help because I created a page for Joshua Epstein the violinist but the name automatically redirects to the Professor of Epidemiology. Please help me.,_Violinist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hettie.epstein (talkcontribs) 13:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hettie.epstein, thank you for your message. Looking at the page, a few things pop out.
  1. It might get substantially trimmed or deleted because of the lack of inline citations. We require extensive inline citations for biographies.
  2. The page will need moving to Joshua Epstein (violinist) per article naming guidelines.
However, it looks like you have established notability, but verifiability is probably going to be the main concern here.
I strongly recommend moving it back to the draftspace to work on and then resubmit it. I will be more than happy to walk you through the disambiguation process once it has been published.
Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  Ok, thank you so much. I'll work on adding inline citations! Hettie.epstein (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Abor, Ghana - copyright violation

Thanks for catching the copyright violation at Abor, Ghana. Fortunately, it wasn't the whole article that constituted the copyright violation, just the additions of the SPA Padmorea this past September (2018). I remember writing the original article, and having some trouble finding out the name of the lagoon. Once I did, I found a lot more interesting history, but not verifiable in reliable soures, so I omitted it. When I checked what I had written back in 2011 against the website you mentioned, there was no correspondence at all. I am glad that Justlettersandnumbers figured it out before the whole article was deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the main thing is that (a) the page wasn't deleted and (b) the copyvio was noticed, and so cleaned up – that's a positive outcome, and thanks to StraussInTheHouse for his/her part in it. Strauss, just for another time: in general, a page with a long history and many contributing editors is relatively unlikely to be speedily deleted (because of the wording of criterion G12); in those cases it may be preferable to blank the page with {{copyvio}} (and then follow the instructions that the template generates). Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, my apologies, I usually use WikiBlame to find out if there are non-copyvio versions to revdel but it's down for me. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hey Strauss! Merry Christmas! :) ♠PMC(talk) 06:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Premeditated Chaos Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I look forward to getting those orphans down in the New Year! Best, SITH (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your AFD close

I just noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Jarl shortly after you created it saying that you would speedy redirect it to "the video game", but you have not done that (and neither has anyone else), so the (hoax) article Jon Jarl still currently exists. It is also unclear what the name of the video game is or even if it has an article on already. You should convert the article into a redirect as you described in your close if possible. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: I realised the target didn't exist and then I questioned the possibility of a transliteration error, awaiting input on talk page (Special:Diff/875464072). Feel free to change the AFD result to something more generic like "withdrawn" if you wish. Best, SITH (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Whitaker

How did you arrive at your conclusion that the consensus in this move discussion was to move the article, when the votes were 7-2 against moving as requested? R2 (bleep) 06:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ahrtoodeetoo, I thought I counted three oppose and five support but I can see now (considering the nominator hadn't endorsed the alt proposal) that it's even. A relist probably was in order, please feel free to revert, I agree that the close was, on closer examination, not correct. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ohhh I see what you did now, you counted up the supportive comments for the alternate proposal. I guess my main concern is that there was no notification of the discussion at Talk:Matthew Whitaker (pianist) or Talk:Matthew C. Whitaker, but I'm not going to make a stink about it. R2 (bleep) 02:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha


I see you did a round-robin move of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha per the RM (and it was IMO properly done and the close was good... but then I was involved).

But I'm puzzled that the round-robin was necessary. The history that ended up here doesn't look significant. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, thank you for your message. I did a round robin because the target page already existed I couldn't move over it, even if the history was insignificant. I use the PageSwap script for moves which have extant targets and its default setting is a round robin move. Speaking of, the only history on that page was the addition and removal (in 2005) of what the reverter called a copyvio; could you revdel the diff please? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Excellent point re revdel... done. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and I think you've done the right thing given our current facilities and documentation, and that you understand what is going on very well (as do most page movers in my experience... on average better than the average admin in fact, as you are specialists). But I also think that a round-robin shouldn't have been necessary. See wt:page mover#Talk page redirects for some (long I'm afraid) discussion on improving things.
Would you mind if I added a subsection there on this example, citing your comments above? I think they're relevant. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa: sure, no problem with that! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus

to move the BB UK articles. Suggest you stop before getting in to deep. See the discussion on the page for BB1 which you have just moved. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 14:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Leaky_caldron, if you disagree with my determination of consensus you're more than welcome to take it to move review (hang fire till I've finished though). I don't have a horse in this race, I was just determining consensus and there were two oppose !votes against six support !votes and one of the oppose votes was directed more at the person and not their argument. But as I say, I'm not infallible and I may be wrong, if you still think so, feel free to review. SITH (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is it not Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. season 2) rather than Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season)? MSalmon (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Msalmon: those are two different move requests, if you want a move review for the United States version that's fine. I'm just implementing what I have determined to be the consensus. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the consensus. SITH (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi there. I saw you reviewed L-Bank. Can you confirm that it is distinctly notable from Landesbank Baden-Württemberg? Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, thanks for your message. It appears that they are technically separate legal entities but I suspect the difference is much like the difference between WarnerMedia and Warner Bros. I see potential for a merge. All the best, SITH (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Marx deletion

I've just seen a notice on my talk page about this. Just to let you know you can go ahead and delete the page if you want, I've got no arguments to make against. I knew the guy from a fangroup we were both in, and when he started getting work from the BBC I setup the page and assumed he or others would update it or whatever as his career progressed. I haven't heard from him in about 10 years though and the page looks pretty superfluous, I think the only thing that's since been added is his birthday so I presume he's not bothered about it either. -- Analog Kid (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Cheers  --DBigXray 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks and Season's Greetings to you to!   SITH (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing unnecessary tags.

I hate them. I hate the people who add them with little to no reason. I hate the people who then insist on readding them. I think tags should go on the talk page

Hey Tony May, thanks for your message. I get what you mean about tags but I suppose they are necessary and much discussion has occurred on the topic. At the moment, I'm just using a query I generated using PetScan and Quarry to downgrade the tags of articles which have the unreferenced tag but invoke citation templates and are hence incorrectly tagged. Worse than having lots of tags is having lots of incorrect tags. There's about 6,000 of them! I'm just taking a break to alter my RegEx for AWB because I've come across a problem with the unreferenced stub template which has now been deprecated but I'll finish the remaining 3,600 off this afternoon. Regards, SITH (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysia)

Greetings. I've reverted your AfD nomination of this page on technical grounds. Specifically, this page was the subject of a previous AfD in 2009, and the Page Curation tool you used does not properly handle second and subsequent AfD nominations. Your nomination ended up adding new content to the previously closed discussion page and linking to the old discussion. I have cleaned this up. Please note that this is not a judgement on the merits of the nomination itself.

If you still wish to nominate the page for deletion, I suggest either using Twinkle (which does handle subsequent nominations), or making the necessary edits by hand. Thanks. --Finngall talk 18:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Finngall, thank you for letting me know, I didn't know that was the case. I'll renominate it in a bit. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The Chocolate Rockets

Just a friendly heads up on The Chocolate Rockets. I declined your speedy request, as the albums and touring are a good faith claim of importance. In my edit summary, I suggested PROD or AfD if it has to go, but in looking at the edit summaries afterwards, I see a PROD has already been declined because the international tour would meet WP:MUSIC. So if you still think it should go, AfD is your only option.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fabrictramp, thanks for the heads up! Happy New Year, SITH (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Susan Wilson (photographer)---your rejection comments

Hello. You have commented as follows on the submission for Susan Wilson (photographer):

"First two sections only have one reference despite making multiple assertions."

Your comment is not clear, as the first section, which begins "Susan Wilson is a photographer, author,...," has 5 citations.

Can you clarify exactly which sections and paragraphs have citation problems? Thanks.

Usimodo (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Usimodo

Hi Usimodo, you're counting the lead paragraph as a section. Although stylistically you'd be correct in doing so, I was referring to the wikitext-defined sections per the system's way of numbering them. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Epstein, violinist

Dear SITH, Happy New Year. Thank you for your interest in and help with my first article. I have reviewed your comments and attempted to delete what I now think I recognize as 'promotional' wording. When you get a chance, could you please take a look and see if there are other edits I should make so that the article conforms to BLP guidelines. I plan to add further citations once I know I'm on the right track. Hettie.epstein (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hettie.epstein, Happy New Year to you too! No problem, I'll have an in-depth look at it later tonight. One thing which might need fixing is the lack of references in the first two sections; they'll need some references because of the biography policy. Other than that, I'll just give it a quick copyedit and it should be done. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
First two sections, got it. Thanks again!
Hettie.epstein (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just looked it over, removed the promotional tone tag, the only things now are the first two sections and the four inline tags (two citation needed and two year undefined). Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


(cur | prev) 08:09, January 3, 2019‎ StraussInTheHouse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (971 bytes) +19‎ . . (Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement and corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 08:09, January 3, 2019‎ Whispering (talk | contribs)‎ . . (952 bytes) +65‎ . . (Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)) (undo)
We declined it at exactly the same time. Ha. Whispering(t) 13:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Whispering: you pounced on two others that were mine :P same conclusion though, great minds think alike and all that! Best wishes, SITH (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

your comment

has been removed, please check. --DBigXray 16:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I've reinstated it, assumed good faith that it was an edit conflict. The summary is odd though, if it happens again, remind them of the appropriate rules. Thanks for letting me know. SITH (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
you are welcome, yes it seems it was edit conflicted but should have been handled correctly by re-adding your comment. cheers.--DBigXray 16:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Derek Piotr

hi Strauss, you recently declined an article i have been building because of peacock text. i have removed the PT and added sources and a little more info, and was able to confirm the artists birth date. should i resubmit this article? if not, what is it missing ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedigitalskies (talkcontribs) 17:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thedigitalskies quick glance that looks much better. SITH (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi StraussInTheHouse resubmitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedigitalskies (talkcontribs)

Early close as "move"

Hello StraussInTheHouse, you closed this discussion as a move before the requisite seven days had elapsed. I have mistakenly done this on certain occasions in the past as well, but please be careful not to do so. Best, Dekimasuよ! 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: d'oh! There wasn't anything in the elapsed subheading so I must have just auto-piloted into the next one! Noted. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello, I apologize for disruptive editing, but the first warning which I just now received was not towards me. This edit was made either by someone who hacked my account or others who use this computer. I rarely use this for more than e mail, but my grandson often sits on the computer up to lord knows what. I apologize for any inconveniences if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

regarding article publishing

Hi sir, i am new editor to wikipedia. i would like to publish an article about my favourite school located near my hometown . after typing some information about that school, acceptance for that article is not issued for me please guide me to publish my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subramanianrangasamy (talkcontribs) 09:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Subramanianrangasamy, I assume you're referring to Draft:Veveaham Prime Academy. I declined that and tagged it for deletion as advertising. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, please feel free to try again but don't submit an advert or it'll be deleted again. SITH (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

youve been deleting the article that i took hours to create

it is properly referenced and needed for other to look for info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoflunacy (talkcontribs) 09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingofluncay, per WP:BLAR any user can, in good faith, blank and redirect an article if it isn't notable in itself. I don't believe it is, feel free to undo it, but I will attempt to gain consensus for a redirect at AFD unless you can source it to show it passes WP:NMUS. SITH (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  in appreciation for your generosity in revisiting the discussion. Your first comment helped me to see the page as you did, and improve it. It was a pleasure to work with you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi E.M.Gregory, a pleasure working with you too, I'm always happy to change my mind when needed! Best, SITH (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Changed ref tags

Hi, I've seen you do this at a few caste-related articles. I understand that you are strictly speaking correct but, in every case I have seen, the source that had been added was inappropriate and had to be removed. This is a common problem with the topic area, and one of the reasons why there is a special sanctions regime in place. Just a heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Gyan is not a RS. WBGconverse 11:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, that was one of 6,000-odd edits I was doing as part of a project to keep maintenance categories up to date. If something invokes a citation template, it shouldn't have the unreferenced template, however, looking at the source in this instance, I agree it is not reliable and should be removed, thus leaving the article without sources so you were right to reinstate the tag. Any of my edits made with the tag "AWB" are extremely unlikely to be making a comment on the veracity of sources and is just likely to be semi-automated maintenance. Insofar as content disputes, I tend not to take sides in articles under sanctions (I presume you're referring to WP:ARBIPA), it's just better to follow what ArbCom has decided IMO! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I think AWB should be renamed ABT - A Bad Thing. And definitely a bad thing for sanctioned topic areas. The edits can end up doing more harm than good, especially because they make for misleading watchlists. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I AWB. SITH (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Writing regarding my declined submission "Koreans in Turkey"

Both pages have 3 sentences each, an infobox and one source.

Koreans in Turkey has a source from an official government, whilst the other none does not.

I'm wondering, what makes "Turkish Brazilians" eligible for the public, whilst "Koreans in Turkey" is declined?

The initial reason was " not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

1. This is also the case for "Turkish Brazilians" 2. The only source needed in this context(population) is primarily the only authentic source which is official government documents. 3. What is a secondary source in this example? Journal and articles about Koreans in Turkey?

Thanks in advance for the help and understanding. Illustrator91 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Illustrator91 please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The former doesn't meet the same guidelines and has thus been nominated for deletion. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the ref. Very interesting read considering how much there is that shouldn't be there. Illustrator91 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cervecería Dos Aves page

Draft:Cervecería Dos Aves

Hello. Please help me understand what parts of the page need references, and I will add them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkameko (talkcontribs)

Anxiously awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkameko (talkcontribs)

Hi Fkameko, the brands section was entirely unreferenced. SITH (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:13:37, 5 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BARRY BARON

Under the title Saint Matthew And The Angel Redux I take an exception with one of the verification processes. Wikipedia review editors complain about verifiability with a major journal, news agency etc. Someone want to explain to me that a news story documentary produced in 1986 was or was not created by a major news organization? I cited the year, the title, the investigative reporter and probably one of the most recognized news broadcast personalities, still alive and broadcasting today. The newsgroup is NBC (National Broadcasting Company). You couldn't go much higher in an authoritative news source in the United States. NBC is a national entity and one of the oldest. The broadcast story video (and its location) was posted and viewable for verification as to the claim, justifying the claimed authenticity. Does someone want to explain to me how NBC, who reaches tens of millions of daily viewers nationally is not an official source? Again, the video is the source produced by a major national media company. The source video verifies the claim within the context of the story. What else do you need? This has a monumental impact on the art world because of the subject matter. It changes everything that was wrongfully interpreted about an irreplaceable major work of art since 1945. I think I know what I am talking about. I am also an editor of a small media journal BARRY BARON (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

BARRY BARON (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @BARRY BARON: the issue was the way you'd referenced. You used some inline citations, some bare URLs, some inline external links and some link lists. I never questioned the veracity of your sources, just the aptitude you had presented them with, which is why I suggest you read WP:REFB and H:CITE1. SITH (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: removed ref tags, not on talk page. SITH (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
User:BARRY BARON - You haven't answered the questions that I asked on the sandbox talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on text not understood

Hi, first of all thank you for reviewing my submission on the relational frame theory. I saw feedback you've given that the text had to much original research. I don't understand this feedback very well. In my point of view there is no new data involved in the text. I did use some examples, because my experience is that the technical terms of the theory are not understood easily. These examples are one on one related to the theory as referenced however. Therefore I don't consider the examples original research. I could be wrong of course.

Could you please give me examples of my text in which I use original research, and what makes them original research?

RvR86 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RvR86, please can you provide me with a diff, I don't appear to have edited the article you're referring to? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SITH, it was send from my sandbox envoriment to you to review: I'm quite new to all of this to be honest. RvR86 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi RvR86, the issue is with using phrases like "To go further with the examples above" "Take these two sentences for example:" without citations. It means we can't verify the content, so we must assume that the examples have come from the writer of the article. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SITH, functionally the examples are the same as the statements wich are refferd to: the statement "Given the relation A to B, the relation B to A can be derived" I have referenced and is functionally the same as: "Joyce is standing in front of Peter. The relation trained is stimulus A in front of stimulus B. One can derive that Peter is behind Joyce. The derived relation is stimulus B is behind stimulus A." There is a direct relation between the examples and the statements which are referenced.I don't understand why it's necessary to reference examples when there is a direct relation between the example and the referenced statement as that they are functionally the same.RvR86 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Hyman Draft

Thank you for your comments, I have edited to include footnotes and removed the inline citations. I have more references from old newspapers to add but the current references, I hope, should suffice. Appreciate the quick feedback and have a great day.Josephintechnicolor (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Josephintechnicolor, thanks for your message. I've filled out the bare references, but I will review it once I've done some more in the queue. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Review of Draft:Harold Macy Award

Thank you for your comments. As you probably know this is the first time that I have submitted article. I believe the article has improved since the first iteration. This last submission included changes made to the text to reflect the national nature of the award and adding links to recipients with Wikipedia pages. As I made these changes I took note of how some other Wikipedia Food Technology award pages were structured. The pages I looked at included (to name a few) the Babcock-Hart Award (, the Elizabeth Fleming Stier Award (, and the William V. Cruess Award ( As the draft is now the number of references exceed other food technology award articles, and for the most part all the references do is point out that the person was the recipient of the award. I looked for additional references, but considering the nature of awards references outside of those listed by the predominate professional society (Institute of Food Technologists) are very few. As you noted the ones I did fine with personal webpages. Considering the preexisting Wikipedia articles of awards of the same nature as this one is there a way to have this draft reconsidered for acceptance? Jlarkin0 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jlarkin0, unfortunately no, other stuff existing is not a valid reason to include other things, but you can nominate such things for deletion. SITH (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Article Submission declined

What on earth this Draft:Amiya_Patnaik seems to be based on advertisement material,was completely baseless.Late Mr. Patnaik was a very different kind of Filmmaker whose films are National award winner and State film award winner.on one side,Where Upcoming film articles are created but on another side,you can't give permission to an article of notable filmmaker about whom people wanted to know and thats why i am really dissapointed.Please reconsider yourself.Thanks for your cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskyishwar (talkcontribs) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Riskyishwar - Parts of this query are incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
+ 1, Riskyishwar: please make your argument based on the applicable policy (NPOV). SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I do understand,What i have written is completly Unbiased and on a Good research.Based on the policy (NPOV).I have added some changes to the article and resubmitted it.Plese check,Thanks a lot.--IshwarTalk Y 11:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think it's ready for re-submission, go for it, but I'd strongly advise you to take the feedback on board before doing so. I tend not to review drafts on request because it will lead to a bazillion talk page messages plus it's unfair to others who are waiting in the queue. I don't know if that's the case with User:Robert McClenon but I would have thought this is a policy (not in the Wikipedia sense, just in general nomenclature) practised by most AFC reviewers. SITH (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I would very strongly suggest that, before resubmitting a draft, you review, understand, and act on the reviewer comments. Resubmitting a draft without addressing the previous reviewer comments is likely to result in the draft being nominated for deletion. If you do not understand the reviewer comments, either ask the reviewer or ask for advice at the Teahouse rather than resubmitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you are having difficulty in discussing your drafts in English, it would be a good idea to consider contributing to the Wikipedia in your first language. Not every reviewer can guess what you are trying to say if your post is incomprehensible due to a grammar or syntax issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I got this.Resubmitting was a huge mistake without informing StraussInTheHouse.I am completely ready to take the consequences.You guys are very good on communicating and I don't have that skill.Thanks for your help.IshwarTalk Y 12:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
StraussInTheHouse Please help me.As a human being i made a mistake,Please forgive me for First and Last time.I will not repeat that action again.Take a look on the article has some changes made by me and give a feedback whether it still violates the policy (NPOV) or not.IshwarTalk Y 13:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Riskyishwar: no need to apologise or ask for forgiveness. I note you resubmitted it and another reviewer, declines it on the same grounds. I’m pinging said reviewer, Whispering, to see if there’s anything to add to what I and Robert have already said. SITH (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@StraussInTheHouse: I need to learn from you guys as you are very experienced.Thanks again.IshwarTalk Y 15:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry got caught up in a meeting. Said article is still rather promotional with sentences like but always had a passion for movie making as a example. Whispering(t) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Whispering: I have removed those sentences.Please overlook and give your valuable feedback.Thanks.IshwarTalk Y 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand Tree Crops Association - references

Stickshark (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I know understand the issue, have made changes and resubmitted. Thanks for your feedback.

Stickshark (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Article was declined because article had not references. "Author has added (reference?) inline and has left a section empty, assuming premature submission"

However when I look at the article, I can see 24 references:

I do understand the importance of high quality references, so limited the details on the page to information dug out of off line material.

Clearly being a newbie I have done something wrong so that the 24 references don't show up for others ???

help please

Thanks David

Stickshark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stickshark, thanks for your message. The (reference?) I was referring to is in the sentence "Almonds had been grown successfully in NZ (reference?) however due to New Zealand's climatic conditions almonds". I assumed you had left it as a meta-comment to further develop the draft, in addition to the now-removed empty section. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)