User talk:HistoricalAccountings/Archive 1

Hi HistoricalAccountings! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

An article you recently created,

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

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Naturally, Socrates and his disciples are notable subjects. However, I do not believe that this article offers anything substantially different from the articles available on the topic (Ancient Greek philosophy, Socrates, Socratic dialogue etc.). Also, I'm sceptical whether 'the Socrates School is a term consistently used in secondary sources. My recommendation is to try and improve the existing articles with the sources used for this one.

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

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

Modussiccandi (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Percy Barnett 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/Percy Barnett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

  // Timothy :: talk  07:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Charis Frankenburg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.   // Timothy :: talk  07:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gary Hershberger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DMySon 11:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Phoebe Augustine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails

WP:NACTOR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMySon 11:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mo Moulton 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/Mo Moulton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your contributions. I tagged this as a notability concern under

- Hi User:Spiderone. Her arc in Twin Peaks was quite long (half a dozen or so episodes) notable for a few reasons - she was hired directly by David Lynch, her arc came during a much-maligned sequence of weaker episodes and her arc was one of the most-notorious, giving her a lot of cult attention at the time and still in the fandom. One of her episodes was notable too for being one of Diane Keaton's first and last directing ventures in TV, very noteworthy at the time. Other noteworthy/cult-status ventures include a famous "Riptide" episode that got buzz at the time for mocking/parodying "Moonlighting", which beat it in the ratings, leading to "Riptide"'s cancellation. (She played a mock version of Cybill Shepherd's role.) She's also known for some cult 80's movies, such as "Creature". Was in a lot of other major shows, had a decent stretch on "Baywatch". Comes from a mini acting dynasty and left the business rather abruptly. Still gives cult interviews for Twin Peaks and things. She seems to have retired but has loads of major credits and links to other articles she's mentioned in. While a lot of her roles were small, all the credits are major, and some of her roles gave her cult status. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that makes sense. Thank you. Spiderone 17:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi User:Spiderone. I'm working some of this into the article itself and its talk page.--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are decent supporting sources it should be fine as, from what you say, it sounds like there's enough to make a case for notability Spiderone 17:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi User:Sphilbrick. Can any of this be put back? I did take some of it from Moonlighting article but reworded some of it plus you also deleted a large swath of my own writing, the citation itself, plus a quote I used from The LA Times article (but cited and said was a direct quote). Can I use any of it and the cite? HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Charles Lamar Grant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.

I would have reverted but you made intermediate edit so reversion doesn't seem to be the right course. Feel free to add it again but make sure to follow the guideline so that it doesn't get reverted again.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi User:Sphilbrick I can't access the deleted material? I rewrote an entirely new concise passage using citation link. I may expand this if I can figure out how to access deleted material. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Charles Lamar Grant. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HistoricalAccountings,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jessica Wallenfels for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Al Berry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Wallenfels 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/Jessica Wallenfels (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ExRat (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessica Wallenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ellen McElduff 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/Ellen McElduff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Celestina007 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoricalAccountings! The thread you created at the archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Please note that as per the Template:Infobox film, the only people that go in the infobox for a movie are those that are billed. Billed actors means those that are in the main billing block for the poster advertising. So for Blade Runner, Walsh and Hannah were not billed actors and are not in the infobox. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I still feel she should be there (perhaps with an asterik or parenthesis to explain not on poster). What do you think? Can the cast list be moved to left and/or made bigger/more visible? -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard on Wikipedia, infobox only ever contains billed actors. Just like in promotional material for movies. Not all actors get billed for a movie, billing is only the top stars they wish to promote as attached. For instance Kevin Spacey isn't in the box for Se7en. Aliens only contains Sigourney Weaver. It's all down to how people are billed. I don't think we need to explain why people aren't on posters, I'm fairly sure most movie goers understand the difference between billed and are in the film and it's all covered in

WP:FILM

.

As for the cast list, you're welcome to try and improve the flow of the section in the text, but I don't see any reason or need to explain non-billed actors. Canterbury Tail talk 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I won't try to move it in case it messes up article - but my suggestion is to the left and larger. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of scholarly references that I think show that Wallenfels's brief appearances in Twin Peaks were particularly significant. Scholars were disagreeing with other scholars over their interpretations of the creepy poem. So, I agree with you that she should not be dismissed as just a supporting actor. Mind you, that show was so well written many of the characters transcended the "just a supporting role" category.

I participated in a discussion on spoilers, and those brief blurbs that appeared in TV Guide and similar guides, around the time the show was being broadcast. One wise guy said that TV Guide could re-use the same summary for every Twin Peaks episode -- "Truman and Cooper's investigation takes an unexpected turn."

I loved that show. I had eight or nine friends who came over to my place to watch it with me, every weekend, when it was first broadcast.

Anyhow, here is my heads-up - I got smacked down, a dozen years ago, for calling for a snow keep, when there were still a couple of people who thought the article in question should be deleted. The exact definition of when to use snow keep is when no one has voiced a delete, and lots of people have voiced keeps - or everyone who initially voiced delete has gone on record that they have changed their minds, because the article was massively improved, or the keep arguments were extra-ordinarily convincing. I had that very pointedly brought to my attention.

People who voiced a delete get mad, feel insulted, when someone calls for snow keep as if their delete opinion should be ignored. Just so you know.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Geo Swan - Thank you and for your help with the article too. I really do feel Wallenfels has at least two claims to notability - career as child actress/TP cult status AND later career in choreography - which makes her an interesting figure. Twin Peaks was a great show.... -- HistoricalAccountings

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessica Wallenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I left a note for you at Amphilis Middlemore Middle More Rider (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks okay to me. The only part that may need to be cited is this "Charles G. Bell reading 26 poems from 'Delta Return' at Library Of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/item/94838429". Rest looks okay. If you can find anything about him in major newspapers like NY Times or others, it would help even more. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference was already there, number 8, but I have done it again, also as number 11. Middle More Rider (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you closed this as N o Consensus? With 9 Delete/Merge/Redirect to 4 Keep there seems to be a clear consensus here in line with other recent AFDs. The sourcing about Bauer himself remains very thin. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was an error, mistaken for another AFD. I've reversed it, another closer can decide how to proceed. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoricalAccountings, Could you clarify why you closed this as no consensus. I object to this closure. There were five delete votes and an equivalent number of keep votes. But if you carefully look at keep votes, The first keep vote was from the page creator who got indef blocked, there was one IP vote and one clear sock-puppet vote among them. And two other keep votes did not address the basic criteria outline under WP:BASIC. I think the consensus was clear to delete the article. Could you revert the close?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao Seemed like a clear no consensus to me, but I'm happy to reverse it and let a more experienced closer decide. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's leave it to an admin or a more experienced editor to decide. Please also restore the AfD banner to the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao Done. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that relists are almost never necessary when there's a consensus, even if it's a quite weak one; for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Peter probably didn't need to be relisted. Some people get quite upset about superfluous relisting, so if you're just getting a feel for it, it's worth participating and being particularly certain you're making a correct relist. Low participation per se isn't always a relist justification alone. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vaticidalprophet I've undone it. A more experienced closer can decide how to proceed.--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annette McCarthy 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/Annette McCarthy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan D'Arcy 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/Jan D'Arcy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,