Hello, Yesterday you tagged this draft as G13. However, I just wanted to mention that I had edited it in February this year (albeit a minor edit) so it was not correct to say it had been abandoned for six months. It was deleted six minutes after your message so I did not see the notification in time. However, it has now been restored so, in the long run, 'no harm done'. Hoping to finalise it very soon! Eagleash (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: Thank you for reaching out and my apologies for the inconvenience this may have caused (I should've run by your page first to see that its on your To-Do list). While in the midst of cleaning up the articles that had shown to have no significant edits, I had marked this draft for deletion too, judging by the last edit made. I'm glad it has been restored now for further persual and in case I could be of any assistance, please do have me posted accordingly and I'd be happy to help! Thanks, again. TopCipher (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Rewiewer
Hello Topcipher. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk
.
URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 18,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users
- they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Thank you for the message; I see that the priority is to having worked over the unpatrolled pages ASAP. Will get to it at the earliest. TopCipher (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy: Gretta Louw
Hi, this article was creatd at a editathlon and the author reworded the sentences in questions. Can we remove the tag? --Frock (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frock: Done and thank you for reaching out. I've also modified some content based on this assessment here as it was directly copy-pasted; hope that is okay. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcipher:great, thank you!! & i'll get more references for the article as i have time. Frock (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just about to delete the copyvio contents the author posted on the page. I think Addo passes for notability, so will need a rewrite. I'll remove the CSD, so it can be rewritten. Jake Brockman (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this page to the title you suggested. Please help edit it. Thank you.
Greeninventor999 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BKCRIT (point 2. The book has won a major literary award). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy nominations
I note that you are nominating some draft articles for speedy deletion, on the basis that they have not been edited or submitted for at least six months (CSD:G13).
You are correct in your assessment of these articles, but you are not nominating them using the correct procedure. I would be grateful if, before making any more of these nominations, you would look at Template {{
WP:G13 but couldn't figure out what may've been incorrect (or different) when I nominate a draft (I couldn't see the ones which were deleted except for this one here that I had previously nominated) and the template you've proposed, they look exactly the same. Kindly help with what could've been done differently (or correctly) and I would follow through accordingly. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It is, perhaps, a minor point. If you look at the CSD page and find a correctly nominated Draft article you will see that the pink box has a green bar in the middle on which is inscribed "This article MAY be deleted because....". If you study one of your nominations you will see that it contains a deeper pink bar containing the text "This article MAY NOT be deleted because.....". It is a small point, because everything else is correct. You are clearly missing one step in the process, although I must admit that I cannot quite identify it. --
@Anthony Bradbury: I see the difference that you've pointed out but unfortunately, I still do not see those lines in either of the templates - could it be an 'admin-only' criteria? And, in case if that is alright, I'd like to continue tagging them using Twinkle as it makes it much more easier to having the authors notified and having marked the page under my watchlist too? Kindly have me posted if otherwise. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, you are nominating the right draft articles. Every other editor who does so gets it right. Please look carefully again at the link I sent you; you are clealy omitting something somewhere. --
@Anthony Bradbury: I'm sorry but once again, I'm unable to see what is it that I'm omitting or the point that I'm missing since via Twinkle, I'm also automatically letting the authors know about it too. Is it that you would not want me to use Twinkle for this task? Again, I apologize for sounding foolish in this regard as I simply am not able to understand what is it that you would want me to rather do. Could you also please share a diff or two to help me understand? Appreciate your time. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have picked out a random nomination made my another editor. Here [1] it is. If it comes across correctly you will see that there is a message in green in the middle of the template, which says in part "MAY". yours come up as aa a band saying in part "MAY NOT". I cannot quite see why, I'm afraid.--
@Anthony Bradbury: Sorry, I still don't see a green line segment with any of those texts! Plus, I see that even this article was nominated for deletion using Twinkle. And, it says the exact same thing from when I do it too - please refer to this example here. TopCipher (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled. As the nominations are, as I said, correct, I suggest you just carry on as you are. --
Well, thank you for your consideration. TopCipher (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thought (I had not forgotten our/my problem). When you nominate a draft for G13 deletion, do you post a message on the article talk-page? And if so, do you do it before nominating? If so, that would account for the anomalous message I see on the deletion template. --
@Anthony Bradbury: This indeed is interesting; thanks for investigating further. No, I don't post any message over the talk page (of the draft? not the article); basically, I let Twinkle take the task up and from what I understand, it only tags the draft (not involving the talk page) with speedy nomination and also lets the author of the page know about it. Nothing else. Hope this helps with your query. TopCipher (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
CAT:VERYOLD as it drew me crazy to see about 60+ pending a day-and-a-half ago - I've been trying to work on having this cleared ASAP. In any case, will ensure to nominate old drafts judiciously without jeopardising the health of any good ones. Thanks, again! TopCipher (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
You said my page already esisxt but that worldwide this is domestic? So it doesn't already esisxt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@82.38.157.176: Thank you for reaching out and for pointing the difference. In that case, I recommend that we incorporate the distinction within the existing article itself as the information is almost exactly the same. Also, please read through other comments and reasons provided by various other editors for reasons to having the draft declined. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reed through other comments yet I do not know what they maen I also ask for some help but no one wants to?82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@82.38.157.176: Sorry to hear that but please be assured that it is not because of any intentional regard that either me (or others too, maybe) haven't been able to help contribute towards adding / rectifying any content for the subject matter, but simply because we may not be too well connected with the knowledge or have any expertise over the same (although, I cannot speak on everyone's behalf but this is what I assume); however, might I suggest you reach out to the community via a film related portal (ex: Portal:Animation) to see if someone could assist with your queries over the same? Appreciate you writing back and my apologies for not being able to much assist with your tasks. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have refused a page I proposed
Proulx michel (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)I have received from Wikipedia a notification that you rejected my contribution on Michea for a variety of reasons,[reply]
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. The comment the reviewer left was:
This is, of course annoying, since my purpose was essentially to give the English speaking reader an opportunity to read something about one of the few (along with Christopher Lasch) commentators of George Orwell's thought whose analysis of the social and political situation of our days seems to me to be rather useful.
Of course, I translated the French article for that, but I'm a bit baffled that my point of view should have been deemed partial, in that occurrence.
I would also be grateful to you if you could point out to me where (at least one example) the tone would have been too informal. Or, for that matter, where I would have used any "peacock terms".
Whatever you could indicate to me as to what was not an encyclopædic format would be greatly appreciated.
You highlighted a section that you believe is a copyright infringement since it was cut and pasted. I assure you that nothing was cut and pasted. The text in the article is all original and nothing on the referenced website is similar text except the name of the internship. The reference to the website was to confirm the veracity of the statement that an internship exists. I can remove that reference if it makes a difference.
@Bluetele: Thank you for reaching out. The copyright material is very little, yet they do exist. I was referring to this statement here - "permits a qualified student working in architecture, planning, design, or a similar field to gain hands-on experience in the theory and practice of preservation by working with foundation board members and staff" - which is available as a direct copy-paste from this website here and a report towards the same is available via this link here (statement highlighted in Red). Hope this clarifies. TopCipher (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
My name is Dan Warner, Ph.D. and I am the executive director of the nonprofit organization, Community Data Roundtable (www.communitydataroundtable.org). Our organization implements what are called "outcomes systems" in social services environments. This means I help large systems measure the clinical impact occurring in the system. This is a large and established field in health care. The particular science that I use for this approach is called "communimetrics." It is a well established approach used across the country by governments (Massachusetts, Wisconsin, California, Oregon ... to name just a few), insurance companies (AmeriHealth Caritas, Magellan, and others), and private providers for measuring care, and also distributing care in new ways due to the analytics made possible by the approach. Certainly a capitization of communimetrics at this point would have it a field that is worth millions - with software vendors, academics, insurance companies, private providers and government all investing in it significantly (As stated, this is my organization's main topic, and we are just one of several players in the field).
I am noting all of this in order to stress that communimetrics is a very relevant topic in today's world, and is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I would like guidance as to what we need to demonstrate in putting this entry up into Wikipedia, as well as the many ancillary pages that are connected (such as the tools one builds with communimetric science, the analytic models generated by it, etc..) I assure you that there is sufficient documentation to speak to the significance of the field, and that this is not a passion project of a few eccentrics. If we are not demonstrating this sufficiently, please help us, otherwise I truly think this entry deserves place in Wikipedia.
Thank you for the consideration,
Dan Warner Ph.D. Danielnoamwarner (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@
WP:COPYRIGHT. It states that "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA license". Hope this helps and you may refer to a full evaluation on content here (highlighted in Red). TopCipher (talk
) 06:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Article Turned Down for copyright infringement.
I've redone the article on Norman Cooling which was hit for too much copyrighted material. I added new sources and rewrote the main section that had come from the newspaper. I pretty much left the small paragraph on Cooling's personal awards alone as this is the style used for listing personal awards in order of priority. The awards need to be accurately named, and they need to be listed from the highest to lowest award. There really isn't another appropirate way to list them.
I hope this suffices. There are other Wiki articles that mention Cooling, and he should be listed in the Wiki pages of general officers.
I've added more sources from the San Diego Union Tribune, the LA Times, the Naval Institute, and a book published by Random House. For some rason, reference # 7 is also #13. I can't merge them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloneljon (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Coloneljon: Trust that this link here has been cited thrice; hope its okay that I updated it to a manner in whcih it is supposed to be. Will further review the draft and share my thoughts over the same, shortly. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Should I just delete the section on the awards? The Legion of Merit is a high award, but the rest are not as high. This is the standard method that the military uses when reporting on an individual. It will be essentially word for word as this is a set pattern.Coloneljon (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Coloneljon: No, no. Please don't delete the section - as they do definitely count! For this, all we need is a credible source to justify claim of significance i.e. about subject winning the Legion of Merit. That should do. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I did reference two sources that mention the LOM. This award is pretty high, above the Silver Star, but it is not normally reported in the press. I can try and contact the general to ask for the date of the citation, then find out how AP references them, if that is necessary. I can also reference his official Marine Corps bilography on the usmc.mil page, but that section is now restricted to the general populace.
Another editor, TheSandDoctor, turned down the article today simply posting "fix the above," but I hadn't resubmitted it yet waiting to hear from you.
secondary & tertiary sources. I suppose the other editor may have declined it so as to reduce the backlog in the task - no worries about that and once we have said resources available to verify the claim, then we should be good to resubmit the draft for review. Thanks. TopCipher (talk
Please be more specific.Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Xx236: Sorry, I only have information as much as it was provided with the reference with which it came. You are, however, free to add as you wish. Thanks for taking time and reaching out! TopCipher (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit Arnab Goswami wiki page
I request you to re edit Arnab Goswami's Wikipedia page. Please add the "ethnicity - assamese" slot to his Wikipedia page again. Previously it was there but now it's not there. People are confused on his ethnicity so I request you to add his ethincity Assamese column in his wiki pageMrigank09 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
So when is the matter regarding Arnab Goswami's ethincity going to be settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrigank09 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@
be bold when updating the encyclopedia and don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted :) TopCipher (talk
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 removed 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. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schadenfreude, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limited resources. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
17:29:29, 16 April 2017 review of submission by 174.31.24.203
Hello, Please tell me what needs to be improved or left out. I am anxious to get this Seattle early Heavy Metal band some recognition since there was nothing like it before their time that I am aware of. Thank you for your valuable time.
Meteor Marvel Guitarist Mondo Bando
Please refer to
Notability (music) to better align article with it's inclusion over encyclopedic content. Thanks. TopCipher (talk
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on
section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify
their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on
section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify
their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
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 removed 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. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Oh, absolutely! Thanks for having me notified. Will ensure to doing that going forward. Appreciate you looking into it and my apologies on not having done that in the already created articles. Thanks, again! TopCipher (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Notability and references
I think I understand your question. The individuals for whom you've created articles are notable because of their status as fellows of IEEE but the fact that the article doesn't get deleted doesn't make it a good article. These articles really don't say anything about them except that they are fellows of IEEE - but there is hardly any point having an article about them at all if it doesn't contain any information. Articles as a rule are expected to be more than a couple of sentences long and to have multiple references to
verify their notability. It's a bit like if you had created an article on Horatio Nelson saying "He was an admiral" and nothing more. Deb (talk
) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deb: Noted and let me profess this by saying that I see your rationale towards the maintenance tags provided over Andrei Nickolay Slavin and I think it would be best if I let it be as is; however, I would also like to clarify a few other details - 1. Definitely not a good article - agreed! I suppose it is for the same reason I've added a stub-class template on them and also classified them as such over their talk page. 2. I think the articles, besides stating that they are IEEE Fellows (as indicated by the subject's names), also indicate the following - >> Place from where they may've applied for fellowship i.e. university/work >> Location >> Specific criteria over which their contribution claims significance all of which are verifiable via the reference cited. What I was hoping to achieve here is since there is no other content that needs verification, would it be advisable to remove the tag that indicates that 'needs additional citations for verification'? Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so, unless you are not planning to expand the article to include missing information like date and place of birth, educational details, and career history. The notice is not there to single you out, but to indicate to all contributors what needs to be done to bring the article up to standard. Deb (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deb: Oh, no! My apologies over the confusion and yes, I agree that the article needs further expansion with at least a list of the aforementioned minimal information. What I was indicating is that since there are 2 maintenance tags - 1st - "...is missing information about..." - please retain this; this does not need to be removed (regret the confusion but I wasn't indicating removal of this tag) 2nd - "...needs additional citations for verification..." - this is the tag that I was trying to justify towards the fact, that the information that is provided in the article, albeit extremely less, is being verified by the reference cited. In case either I or someone else expands it which is not referenced, I was hoping if we could then re-add this tag, since then we would have content on the article that needs citation (as opposed to now i.e. the current state where the content is already too skinny and yet, verifiable by the citation provided). Again, thank you for taking the time in helping through this! TopCipher (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I think the tag is still valid. Normally we would tag anything that relies on a single source for verification. I could have used Template:One source but that's really intended more for primary sources. Deb (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deb: Okay then :) Will try to add further details and also source reliable references accordingly. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Deb: I've updated the article with relevant content and removed the maintenance tags accordingly. Please do try and have a quick look in case I missed out on anything, at a time of your convenience. Also, might I persuade you to take a look into this conversation here? - since it borders on our current discussion? Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure which article you mean now, because there were lots that were tagged. I've also worked on a few myself. Deb (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit: On second thoughts, please ignore my follow-up request. SwisterTwister just helped with resolving the same. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not my first article, some how it got mixed up and I have since fixed what had happened. It will never happen again. The page should be ok now.
talk
) 21:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
New message
Hey Topcipher,
Thanks for your message. I want to finish the article, but I'm having some issues sourcing the sort of external links required. I thought I had enough, but alas, it seems I'm somewhat short. Feel free to delete if that's the case. I write it up again if and when more links become apparent
Thanks MrAliMcCall (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@MrAliMcCall: Thanks for reaching out but the article was proposed for deletion as it had not been edited for more than 6 months and as such, was considered abandoned. Hope this clarifies. TopCipher (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Allegiance bias
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk
) 07:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Done Kindly have me posted in case any further information be required over the same. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
23:02:41, 23 April 2017 review of submission by Neilchristopher100
thanks for your comments, it is appreciated. I see where I have gone wrong as I used some of the information that the subject provided. I have re-written the areas you have questioned and I hope this is sufficiently new. I tried not to paraphrase.
I look forward to your further comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilchristopher100 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tassedethe: Thank you for reviewing the articles and for having me notified. The 'Living people' and 'Date of death missing' has been done due to this request here - looping in Rich Farmbrough. My apologies on having missed out on the pre-existing category; did not come-up when I tried looking it up. Will ensure to having rectified the same going forward. Thanks, again. TopCipher (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that you have been adding articles on people, merely saying they are fellows of some professional society. Although its a claim of importance and so avoids an A7 delete, notability is not proven and they will be liable to be at AFD even if the meet WP:PROF. So I recommend that you supply independent references to prove that they are important in their field of work. Also please give some more information about the person. Otherwise with such minimal mention they may be better just having their names in a list article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for reviewing my articles. Please be assured that I do intend to expand on them (ex: Andrei Nickolay Slavin) soon - on some of these, if not all. The reason I did not go with having created a list article is because the individuals most certainly have accomplished a lot while significantly contributing towards their fields of expertise and is merely a matter of sourcing the information & having added them in the article - which I will get on right away :) TopCipher (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That is good news. I am hoping there is more to them than AAAS membership! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I agree with Graeme Bartlett regarding notability, additional references, and more info on each person. It is good that you are planning to expand on these stub articles. In addition to the concerns of Graeme Bartlett, I have some of my own. It appears that you are using a sort of personal template for these and I would suggest some changes. Let's look at Lee G. Sobotka:
Washington University does not take the definite article ("the")
there shouldn't be a comma after "Washington University"
I don't think the word "Fellow" needs a reference, nor does American Physical Society; the third reference, after "2009", is all that's needed.
"after they were nominated by their Division of Nuclear Physics" should be "after he was nominated by his Division of Nuclear Physics"
the sex/gender can be determined from the pronoun used by the awarding group
the awarding reason should not be in italics
These issues are typical of your stub creations of scholarly people. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: Thank you for having me notified and let me profess this by saying that I have ceased creating such article stubs for now as I realize that the information in them may not be sufficient and will require more details. Also, to confirm, I have been using a template of sorts that has helped me add these articles with the information that I could source and here are my comments towards the concerns as below -
Noted; should've managed these better within the template and will ensure to proof-read them during expansion
Noted; will have the comma removed - in case I resume creating new stubs (which for now, I don't) and during expansion
Noted; will have that removed - This was only done as there isn't an article for APS Fellowship (
IEEE
)
I was unable to determine the gender with a 100% accuracy by their names (although, most was possible) as I did not have direct access to that information; the pronoun is available only for some and is not consitent within my data source - not that this is a valid reason for not having it on the articles
Noted; will have the italics removed
I was rather hoping to work with a task-force (of sorts) who could help with expanding these articles as they do pass notability based on set guidelines but for sure, require more details and attention - the idea for me was to restrict my role towards having the subject established with an article and then either expand them myself or request assistance from the community. In any case, until I'm able to figure that out, I would no longer be creating such stubs (although I do have access to the data for over 5000 such fellows, whose existence, I believe would help expand the availability of information on Wikipedia). TopCipher (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and great intentions. Good luck on mobilizing a task-force! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi
Just to remind you, when restoring CSD tags with Twinkle, be sure to turn off "notify page creator if possible", otherwise it will
@Lil Johnny: Oh, yes. I typically do. Just that I had not checked the already CSD'd tag on that article from you and went with adding my own. Will make sure to check first, though. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Adrian Howells
This draft, which you have nominated as a G13 deletion was edited - albeit trivially - in February of this year, and hence does not qualify under existing criteria.--
"talk"
09:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury: Thank you for reaching out and my apologies in case this was tagged incorrectly; however as disclosed in our previous conversation, I have been nominating drafts where only automated edits have taken place that do not actually contribute towards draft completion. Would it be advisable for me to stop? TopCipher (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, but it is not policy to make such an exception. Many of those you tagged today: e.g.
Draft:Beaver_Creek_State_Wildlife_Area
show the red bar, indicating that it does not qualify. Could you please undo those?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Appreciate you pitching-in. I'm afraid I would no longer be able to act upon the aforementioned article (Beaver Creek) as it has already been deleted; would however like to re-iterate the fact that I typically nominate drafts for deletion where there are no significant edits beyond 6 months, including the ones that only have either bots or semi-automated edits done using tools that do not essentially help with completion. In light of that, my question remains (or rather, I understand it now) that whether or not do I nominate such drafts? Oddly, I realize that it stands at admin discretion and interpretation. Looping in RickinBaltimore who has declined one or two of my nominations from today (except the one mentioned above - Beaver Creek). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Did I just miscalculate the months? I saw the last edit, saw the bar and though there may have been an issue and THOUGHT that was 6 months. No it's 5, so that's a mistake on my part. However, I do think that a draft that hasn't had an edit other than a maintenance bot in 6 months should qualify under G13. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh and to add from the conversation you mentioned previously, JamesBWatson said "However, since bot edits don't count for G13 deletion purposes, if there have been bot edits then the "MAY NOT qualify" message appears even though the draft actually does qualify for deletion.". That was the case for sure here, so I'd say that this article I deleted was fine in the long run. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And one more comment, from
WP:G13 "This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits)." So the CSD criteria also says that these bot edits are not included in the 6 month window. RickinBaltimore (talk
) 15:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It is my opinion that you should not. I do fully understand why you think they should be considered acceptable for deletion and I agree that they should be considered acceptable for deletion. Despite that, I urge you not to for the following reason. Many admins carry out the actual deletion and their process may not exactly follow mine but I like to explain mine because I believe I delete a material percentage of G 13's.
I worked closely with the developers of the template, and helped create the convention that the template would display a green bar if everything checked out, a red bar if the most recent edit was too recent, and a yellow bar if there were problems identifying the date.
It won't surprise you to learn that G 13's are often identified in batches. Someone such as you goes through the eligible pages and nominates a number of them at the same time. My process is to open each of the nominated pages in a separate tab. If I see that the nominators name is new to me, I spot check to make sure that everything is fine (it almost always is). For names I recognize, I can simply glance at each submission, ensure that the template has a green bar and then batch delete all at once. If some have a red bar, I either have to manually check to see if the recent edit is automated or manually remove the entry from the batch list. This roughly triples the time it takes to process the entries. (While it will no doubt occur to someone that the developers could modify the tagging to exclude automated edits, this doesn't sound trivial and there is an easier solution — just wait until they qualify).
In summary, while I understand your position, it materially slows down the deletion process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
06:44:14, 28 April 2017 review of submission by Foolsgold28
Thanks for the assistance with my original decline. I have been researching over the last month with a lot of newspaper clippings and believe that I have corrected the issues that were highlighted by yourself.
Thanks
Fools Gold
@Foolsgold28: Appreciate your consideration. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Done and thank you for reaching out. I've also modified some content based on this assessment here as it was directly copy-pasted; hope that is okay. Thanks.
It would be Category:Living people or Category:Date of death missing. If APS lists them as (deceased) then Category:Date of death missing, otherwise Category:Living people.
