User talk:Drm310/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Drm310,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Wikipedia entry autobiography vs information on author provided by author

Thanks for your message regarding the page Nicholas Karlson. I am Nicholas Karlson and I am the author of ESDOT - Econometrics, Statistics, and Data Analysis -- Open Text. See https://nicholaskarlson.github.io/ESDOT/ for a link to a very brief introduction to ESDOT.

ESDOT is public domain (CC0) text and code I authored that will freely help people all the way from the high school level to the Ph.D. level. I have not created the ESDOT wikipedia page but I would like to do this. The Nicholas Karlson page is meant to provide information to ESDOT users about the author of ESDOT. I will gladly wait to post the Nicholas Karlson page after posting the ESDOT page if that is the appropriate procedure.

Kind regards,

Nicholas Karlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Karlson (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nicholas Karlson: Thank you for your message. You are welcome to create an article for ESDOT, but I would recommend using Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process. That will allow you to create a draft article that can then be reviewed by other uninvolved editors. As long as you are transparent about your connection to the subject and have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest, then other editors will be more confident that you are contributing in good faith.

Please note that a topic must be considered notable to be included in Wikipedia. You will be expected to show that this topic has already received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish its notability. You won't be able to cite your own unpublished personal knowledge, as this is considered original research and not accepted on Wikipedia.

If and when an article is created about it, you won't have any ownership or editorial control over it. What you post will be editable by anyone at any time, perhaps significantly over time. Article content is arrived at by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

I would advise you not to create an article about yourself, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is nearly impossible to accurately judge your own notability and write about yourself objectively. If you are a notable person according to Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, then it's best to leave the writing up to someone who's better equipped to write with the required neutral point of view. --Drm310 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thanks for your help and advice Drm310. I appreciate the upwards boost on the learning curve! Nicholas Karlson (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Nicholas Karlson

Deletion of Fusion Radio page.

I would like to draw your attention to the relevance of the article and field any concerns relating to its legitimacy as an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion Radio (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Radio --Drm310 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

changes to page

why did you undo my changes to the page Weethalle, NSW. I am a resident of this town and with respect, think i know a little more about what is going on in regards to local religion than you, some school kid sitting behind his computer half a world away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.69.183 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@180.181.69.183: If you bothered to look at the page history, you will see that I had no part in reverting your edits.

Be that as it may, the reversions were justified on the basis that they did not provide the required reliable source to verify what you'd added. Your own unpublished personal knowledge and experience (referred to on Wikipedia as original research), cannot be used.

Finally, do not act as if you own the page - Wikipedia articles are owned by no one. Good faith edits to any article can be made by any editor, regardless of their location, knowledge or experience. --Drm310 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I appreciate it! I've actually been editing Wikipedia for a while now, but this is the first time I got around to making an account. Cattyboi (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, well a belated welcome then! Cheers. --Drm310 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Iya Valley

I appreciate your concern that my additions to the page for the Iya Valley do not include a "source" but I can not cyber-tastically "cite" the 90 year old woman sitting next to me who has lived in this village her entire life on this page. Have you ever visited this place? I've lived here for over a dozen years. My "source" is my own eyes ears, nose, tongue, and hands. It is the stories of my neighbors. It is the verbal history which has no physical "source", for which I hope to establish with this wiki. Please come here and help cite a generation who's ways are quickly and quietly vanishing... or otherwise, stopping trying to prevent such documentation with your desire for citation and re-instate whatever content you obstructed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.215.91.136 (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@125.215.91.136: Please read WP:NOR. Wikipedia requires that any material added to an article must verifiable by citing a reliable published source. Your own unpublished personal knowledge and experience cannot be cited as a source as is impossible for a reader to verify it. The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth states that:

Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

To summarize: whether you know something to be true or untrue is irrelevant. If the facts have never been published by a reliable source, then they cannot exist on Wikipedia. --Drm310 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: OK, citations required. Everything's got to be verified, right? But why didn't you erase the whole Iya Valley page then, being that there are no other citations on the page? As a matter of fact, much of what's on many wiki pages have no citations, so it looks like you have a lot of deleting to do. Better get to work! Onward wiki-soldier! Such a fine benefit to human knowledge you are!!125.215.91.136 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your point is flawed. The subject is almost certainly notable enough to be retained, per WP:GEOLAND. The article is not unsourced - poorly sourced, certainly, yet there are a couple of external link sources. However the way it's written now is dreadful, and it needs a massive cull, perhaps as far back as a stub.

A great deal of stuff exists on Wikipedia that should not. Some bad articles persist for a long time because no one has noticed or taken enough of an interest in them to check their quality. Volunteer editors can only do so much.

Human knowledge is better served by high-quality, sourced information from credible sources. The presence of unsourced or poorly sourced material is more damaging to Wikipedia's usefulness and credibility. Therefore it is better for it not to exist at all. I am sorry that you've taken the removal of your edits so personally. Perhaps you should try editing a different topic where you have less emotional investment. --Drm310 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I wrote that last response, I have added a number of external links to articles from reliable sources. Rewriting the article with these as the basis will satisfy the requirement of content being determined by previously published information. --Drm310 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Tag Maintenance

I posted proposed edits to the talk page for Tom Joyce to address the maintenance tag for NPOV that you added to the article in April. I have not received any response on the talk page to my proposed edits and would like to move forward with cleaning up the article so that the tag can be removed. Should you have any suggestions for further edits to bring this article to compliance please let me know. NewQi (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Review

hello mr Drm310, I was a humanist of the city of Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia 45 155.

I am not doing spam, but is being revised on all pages of Cirebon culture.

Sincerely, Mohamad Katavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamadkatavi (talk • contribs) 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mohamadkatavi: I do not remember what was on your user page when I tagged it for deletion, but the reviewing administrator agreed that its content was of a promotional nature.

Please review Wikipedia's user page guidelines. There are some specific rules about what is allowed and what is not allowed. Your user page is intended for basic information about yourself and your Wikimedia-related activities. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not a personal website, blog, or social media site, nor should it be used to promote yourself, or host a fake article, CV/resumé or lengthy autobiography. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia and copyright

Hi, thanks for that information about my contributing to Wikipedia for Michel Olatuja. I didnt know that, and I thought that is a very good drafting. I never do to copy, sorry. I will think about that. Thanks. --Ailimes (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Ailimes

@Ailimes: You're welcome. Wikipedia can be a confusing place, with lots of rules that you might not know about until you accidentally break them. You might want to try out Wikipedia:Your first article as a starting point. That will guide you through step by step and hopefully you will avoid some of the more common mistakes made by new editors. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Drm310,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

VUONG-DE

(four tildes)**** User talk to talk :Drm310 (new section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VUONG&TRUMP (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@VUONG&TRUMP: I'm sorry, but I do not know what you are trying to say to me. --Drm310 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drm310, I am trying to talk to Jimfbleak as he has deleted a page that I created last week, but his talk page isn't allowing me to leave a message. Perhaps you could help or forward this message, please? I created the University of Essex Knowledge Gateway page as a paid communications employee of the University of Essex and all the information on the page is factually correct and non-promotional. The Knowledge Gateway is now a physical location and an address, and 20+ companies are now based there. Please advise on how I can alter or edit the copy so it will be approved. Many thanks, Jo. I havwe also posted this on: Jodaviesuniessex (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Jodaviesuniessex (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Drm310,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Intern at TCOC

Hey. I saw your warning message regarding this user's username. Originally, it was User:TimminsChamberofCommerce, and they changed it to what it is now. Since the rename was performed (see log entry), we can presume that this form of the username is acceptable.

I encountered a similar username a couple of years ago. I reported it, but it was deemed acceptable. I'm with you; generic usernames like that seem unacceptable, but I can see the other side of the argument too.

Anyway, I would recommend you retract your uw-username warning to User:Intern at TCOC is it's not necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Retracted, although I was loathed to do so. In terms of a position, there's barely a difference between "intern" and "secretary", which WP:ISU cites as an example of an unacceptable username. I don't agree with the others' interpretation of WP:ISU and we're sending mixed messages by allowing these. --Drm310 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I just see such name structures being routinely accepted, and in this case the person who changed the username allowed it to go through, so it already has a stamp of acceptance. Wikipedia, being the amorphous blob that it is, frequently disagrees with itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Prof. Biswajeet Pradhan#Recreation and new account

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: @DGG: I first suspected this might be this individual's colleague and a simple COI, but now I'm inclined to take it to SPI. Do you think there's enough behavioural evidence for it? --Drm310 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

DGG has deleted it and say he'll talk to the user. I'd say no SPI. Evidence is a single edit posting the same text. Could be an observer who kept a copy, a sock, or a colleague. who knows? We seek the path of least resistance. In this case, the outcome we want is the text gone and no further resources spent. Let's let sleeping dogs lie and search "Biswajeet Pradhan" once in a while, for a while. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anne's approach to this . Though I think its very probably the same editor, there's no point spending our time investigating isolated events of this sort. As she indicates, if it recurs, that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

quasardb

Hi, Thanks for your comment related to the quasardb content. Indeed I work for this company, but I tried to create the most objective page with the relevant sources whenever required. All the sources used are public and cross reference-able to ensure its objectivity. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia as an editor so I tried my best to make this page in Wikipedia's rules respect. Please let me know if by doing so I failed and I will see how to amend it to make sure it is 100% in line with Wikipedia's objectives. Best, gilles Gilles-quasardb (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gilles-quasardb: Hello Gilles, and thanks for your message. Looking at your article, I think you've done a very good job at keeping it factual and neutral. What I would advise you to do now is:

1. Make a formal disclosure of your employment on your user page, User:Gilles-quasardb. You can use the {{paid}} template to save you some typing.
2. Avoid editing the article directly from this point onward. Instead, use the {{request edit}} template to alert other editors to changes that you want made.
3. Look at Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure rules and plain and simple conflict of interest guide, if you haven't already done so. You've done a good job at following the rules so far, but it's good idea to review them fully.

Thank you again for your contributions. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. Take care. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Transylvania band

Good evening. Please restore the page. References: http://transylvania.cc official site1. https://www.facebook.com/transylvania.group/

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Thank you in advance!)--Елизавета Павлова (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Елизавета Павлова: I am not an administrator and I did not delete your page, nor do I have the power to restore it. It was deleted by User:Ritchie333 - you can make a request to him. However, before you do, please be aware of the following.

Wikipedia is selective about the topics it includes. The subject of an article must be considered notable to be considered worthy of inclusion. There are specific criteria for musicians and ensembles, so this group would need to satisfy them in order for an article about them to be accepted.

The only sources you have are the band's own website and Facebook page. Both can be considered valid primary sources, but because they are self-published they will not count toward establishing notability. Any band can claim that they are notable, but the true test is - did enough other writers with no connection think they were worthy enough to write about?

My suggestion is to create a new draft article. They are at less risk for deletion than articles created in the main space. It will give other, more experienced editors to review it and give you feedback before publication. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good evening. Thanks for the answer. --Елизавета Павлова (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thank you for your comments re The Imagination Gap page. I will try to navigate the copyright permission and other pages so I can create an entry re: the book, and the concepts addressed in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemmedia (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Littlemmedia: I'm afraid your problems don't end there.

1. Your username is the same as your business, which is not permitted by Wikipedia's username policy. Your account will be blocked unless you request a change of username.
2. Writing about your own work is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not for promotion or publicity, and writing about your book would seem to confirm that your intentions are for that purpose.
3. If you believe that your book meets Wikipedia's notability criteria as stated at Wikipedia:Notability (books), then you could try creating a draft article outside the main article space. This will give other uninvolved editors a chance to review and suggest changes.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Messemer

Although Jim messemer appears to be an autobiographical article, it did assert notability, by stating that the subject was a soccer player in the North American Soccer League (1968–1984). So I declined the speedy deletion and moved it to a properly capitalized title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Camp Dogwood feedback

Thank you for your feedback. This is the 1st time I have tried to write a Wikipedia submission. I wrote the text on the website that I used in the submission. It is my work. Is there a copyright issue if I am the author? I also modified it from the website version so it would not sound like a "marketing pitch". I appreciate any guidance you can give me. Sking3600 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Susan K, April 5 2017

@Sking3600: Hello, and thanks for your message and for your interest in creating an article. Unfortunately, you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights.

If you'd like to use the copyrighted content in an article but are not its owner, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission on how to obtain the proper licensing. If you are the copyright holder, refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to grant us permission to use your content. Bear in mind, though, that Wikipedia articles are edited continuously by other users. Your content will likely be edited by others, perhaps significantly over time, and the creator of an article has no right of ownership or editorial control. Article content is arrived at by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

You could try rewriting the content so that it does not closely paraphrase the source material. As my earlier message states, even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

There are other potential issues, the first of which is notability. I am not sure the organization you are writing about is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newspapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organizations that are not notable are typically speedily deleted.

The other potential problem is conflict of interest. If you have an affiliation with this organization, then writing about it is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

You could try writing an article in the draft space, where it would be at less risk for deletion. This is an area outside the main article space, where you can have more time to develop the article. Then when you are ready, you can submit it for review by other uninvolved editors. However you would still have to abide by the conflict of interest guideline, and even so, there is still a likelihood that the article may be declined due to lack of notability.

I'm sorry this message could not be more favourable. Writing articles for Wikipedia is a difficult task, and it's easy for new users to get discouraged when their initial efforts don't succeed. However, I would encourage you to stay and try following this helpful guide: Wikipedia:Your first article. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

About the user page

You can ask User:Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian if it was vandalism or not. He thought the edits were funny, as he is my friend in real life. Notice how he didn't attempt to change the page. --Mr.Election (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.Election: Very well, although I will point out WP:NOBAN that states "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." Also, user pages aren't meant for excessive unrelated content. Both are part of the userpage guidelines. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

About the user page

Please undo what you did. I apreciated that he took his time and effort to edit my page. Please ask me before you do anything to my page. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian: Although I tagged the page, for deletion, I did not delete it. I do not have admin rights so that is beyond my ability.

Please review Wikipedia's user page guidelines to become familiar with their purpose, and what is and is not considered acceptable content. While you're at it, it's also probably a good idea for you to look at Wikipedia's guidance for younger editors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310:

Oh, okay. Thank you.--Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Drm310/Archive 12,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Bri (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion appreciation

Dear Drm310,

 The deletion of my article is one of the best thing I encountered with in Wikipedia, really I created the article as a test and furthermore I am from a place with mere contributors I.e Nigeria, despite we have many more  to share with the world but we play no in exposing it.
Therefore I want to change the history, with you and your kind helping hand.
 Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amararranawi (talk • contribs) 12:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC) 

Talk page.

Thank you Drm310. Will do. Fudge0321 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Tidying at Raheja

Hi, I'm not sure what has happened at Talk:Raheja Developers but your tidying is not all showing. Eg: your moved the entry for Bhaskargupta269 but they don't appear in the live list at all. Some typo causing a truncation of the template? - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thanks for pointing that out. I looked at the template {{connected contributor (paid)}} and discovered there is a 10 user limit. I've split off the remaining users into a separate grouping like before. Now I know it was like that for a reason! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Pesky templates! - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Jutialians fellows association

As I mentioned before, I did write the stuff at site www.jutialians.com and i own that site too. That site is an alumni site, nonprofit organization where old fellows come across.The article there is written by myself and same I wanted to publish in intro for this association, on Wikipedia that has been deleted . If you need any proof, i can give it as iam the owner and author of all that stuff written in jutialians.com so your argument of copy right doesn't fit to me. For other reasons, of notability and references, should i recall that the institution is already referenced and present on wikipedia as : Public School & College, Jutial Gilgit, so pretending this association to be UN-notable doesn't make sense. References are already given, facebook page hs 2 k likes, other articles and writes are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaqhk (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ashfaqhk: Stating your copyright ownership here isn't enough. You have to provide definitive proof of your identity and copyright ownership, and agree to release the material for reuse on Wikipedia, using the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This process is non-negotiable and must be followed as written.

As for notability, there is no mention of this association in the article Public Schools and College Jutial Gilgit. I also see no mention of it in any other Wikipedia articles. Even if there was, it wouldn't matter because notability is not inherited. The organization must be independently notable before being considered worthy of a standalone article.

The organization's own website, Facebook and other social media sites are by definition self-published sources, and therefore not reliable sources. They won't count towards establishing this organization's notability. Only sources that are independent of the organization are acceptable.

You should not even be writing about this topic anyway, for reasons explained in Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It is correct for others to question your ability to write objectively about a topic with which you have a close personal involvement.

To summarize: if no published, independent writings about this organization exist, then it is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Drm310,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't talk in riddles

What did I do with "Notability of football clubs"? The reference you gave me doesn't clarify a thing to me.

In the league I worked on there are 12 teams with a team page and 4 without. I created a team page for the 4 without a page by copying the page of 1 of the other 12 and adjusting the team info.

So either there was something in the page I used as "template" or the other 12 teams shouldn't have a team page either.

Sending me a link to a page about notability doesn't help me. Can you be specific about what is wrong with the pages I created because up till now I got no clue at all. --Sb008 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sb008: To be completely honest, I don't usually look at football articles as I lack the experience or the interest for them. I simply saw that a number of your articles were tagged for deletion, so I found the notability essay and thought it would be helpful.

There appears to be some disagreement amongst editors about what makes a particular club notable, especially concerning ones in Hoofdklasse, which is in the "grey" area mentioned in that essay. If you want to know why they are being deleted, I suggest you talk to the following editors:

• Jone Rohne Nester, the user who tagged the articles for deletion
• RickinBaltimore, the administrator who deleted ASV Dronten
• Hut 8.5, the administrator who declined the speedy deletion of SDV Barneveld

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: What do you mean by "what makes a particular club notable" in this context? Does it mean is worthy to have a Wiki page? If so why are all 16 teams in the Dutch Wiki allowed to have a team page and only 12 out of 16 in the English Wiki? Or better why the remaining 4 not? Or does it mean something else like the use of some template/category/reference or I don't know what? Anyway, I have no clue what "notable" effectively means related to Wiki.

And why send me a message about signing my messages? Isn't that what I do? --Sb008 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sb008: Forgive me, I did not see your signature from your first message. Please ignore my notice about signing your posts, and feel free to delete it from your talk page.

You are correct when you say "what makes a particular club notable" = "worthy to have a Wiki page". Because each language version of Wikipedia has slightly different rules and editing culture, the existence of an article on one version doesn't necessarily guarantee its acceptance on another.

On Dutch Wikipedia, it seems all 16 teams are deemed notable per Dutch Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, there is some dispute about some teams here on English Wikipedia. I can understand your confusion and frustration, as this seems inconsistent. That's why I suggested you reach out to the other editors I mentioned above, who might be better able to explain the discrepancy. I could try, but football is one topic area where there are subtleties with the inclusion criteria, and I have no experience with them. I'd rather you engage with them instead of getting some potentially bad advice from me.

Anyway, try not to get discouraged... good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thanks for clarifying "notable", cause it had me puzzled. And yes, it is confusing and frustrating if someone deletes your work without contacting you first. Especially if it results in an inconsistency. Apparently what is notable or not depends on the mood of who ever does some verification.

Anyway, thanks for explaining and I will contact one of the others.

--Sb008 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)