User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

21:22:10, 28 September 2017 review of submission by TerrNickterr

• TerrNickterr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Robbi Racks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've made few edits on this page. Some new sources were added, info without sources was deleted, also I changed infobox to proper one. I think TS Robbie is famous enough actress, she appeared in pure.ts movies with Christian XXX and for me it is strange that there is no wikipage about her yet. Hope my efforts would be useful

Emil Eikner

On the topic of Emil Eikner, the user SergeWoodzing have been permanently blocked from Swedish Wikipedia, party because of this very issue. You can read the reasons here. Regards /Elzo 90 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Elzo 90: thanks for the info. I'm not an experienced editor on commons but I was astounded by the number of personal photos that this person has added, somewhere between 1000 and 1500 and created pages that are there just to promote Eikner and Jacob Truedson Demitz. I opened a section on the admin noticeboard Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:SergeWoodzing to try and see if this is normal. Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's ethical to notify a user being discussed and sneaky (like they do things way up north sometimes) not to. This Swedish editor has been heavily involved against me in the controversy in that language, where I also was defended by more neutral people (God's gift to Wikimedia projects!), and which you cannot assess because it (decimeters and decimeters and decimeters with me not very involved) is in Swedish. Whatever has happened in another language project is usually considered irrelevant to English Wikipedia anyway. I don't miss them.

He has also been proven wrong several times by me, mostly by e-mail, which is bound to have increased the long-running personal grudge. I have also been proven wrong by him a few times, and I actually thought, till today, that we were being cooperative.

Oh, and btw we've had a constructive reply to your Commons complaint, reminding us of normal procedure there. I am not in any way opposed to having any of the over 3000 images we have donated there looked at by neutral users. Has happened many times before. Personal attacks and accusations usually don't help anyone anywhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To this I must add that Swedish Wiki, doesn't work as this one (or anyone else, I hope) Just have a look at the extremely low article depth. The use of talk-pages ar extremely low. Lot's (hundreds) of contributors have been permanently banned, or given up. It's "ruled" by a core of administrators, who have private meetings in the Stockholm area, and draws up the lines. Its size is solely based on automated translations from English wiki. Largely everything MUST be written from a Stockholm point of view, like history and geography - and even climate ! This is partly an opinion, but the extremely poor DEPTH is an absolute fact. Boeing720 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Truedson Demitz & general templates

Hello Domdeparis ! Jacob Truedson Demitz is a quite well-known figure in Scandinavia (and possibly also in the US). The article is well-referenced. Non English sources are allowed, you may however request smaller translations. And please use "citation needed" instead of a template, as very little isn't referenced. (if it's about the short lead, are those to find further down) Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I have no problem with non-English sources I regularly add French sources myself. The phrase "quite well-known" is exactly what I am talking about. Most of the sources are impossible to identify and view and analyse if it is in depth coverage the rest of the sources are youtube videos or the like. Do you have a link to this person's page in Swedish I can't seem to find it. That may help to judge his notability. Domdeparis (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Ah I see why I can't find it, the page was deleted multiple times as not being notable. [1]. If in his home country he is considered as not being notable I'm not sure that in the US or anywhere else he will be. Domdeparis (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. He has appeared on several Swedish TV channels. Not limited to, but mainly on the Swedish commercial TV3, TV4 & TV5. For instance in a show called "Baren" (the Bar, the Pub), but that was some 15-20 years ago by now. Here are some sources YouTube videos [2], He is a "konfrensiär", a leader of various shows, TV-aired or not (presumably due to the large number of languages he speaks)[3]- (Note this source mentions "Baren" above). He is also (apparently) an author who has written at least one book on the Swedish Royalties [4], [5]. I'm not saying he's overwhelmingly famous. He is not. But he is still more known than several other living people, that we have articles on. Boeing720 (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

He has also been involved in negative public criticism of Swedish Wikipedia , which may explain if not a lot, so at least some matters. How well known he is in the US, can't I comment on. But I could give many examples of articles we have on people totally unknown in the US.Boeing720 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Wiki has an article on him [6], just by the way. If he is absent in Swedish Wiki, am I rather certain this has something to do with his criticism of SW-Wiki. And also French Wiki [7] Boeing720 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I am afraid that argument doesn't hold water. Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Deletion_of_articles explains this very well. And the selfposted youtube videos that have been seen (on the few that I checked) a handful of times despite being there for several years. Being the author of 1 notable book is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The Spanish and French versions were all created by the same user that if understand rightly their block discussion on Swedish wiki it is supposed that he has a very very very close link to this person. I am more and more convinced that this should go to AFD. Domdeparis (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I can only say that he appeared at various TV-channels (commercial ones mainly, I believe) for a duration of approximately 15 years, staring in the late 90's. As I can remember. Demitz would be at equal level with for instance Pål Hollender and far more known than Torkild Strandberg, if you had asked me. I found this [8] , which I find interesting. Is it something Dermitz has done himself ? But even if so photos don't lie, and there's one of Dermitz together with Dustin Hoffman. The reason I involved myself in this matter, is that I fear it has something to do with Swedish Wikipedia. And if this was SW:WIKI, woul'd we both, I presume, been warned for "long discussion" by an administrator ! Don't take my word for it, but just compare the Article Depths (see Detailed list at [[9]]), although SW-Wiki in number of articles is relatively close to this great Wiki, is the collaborative measurement tool, known as Article Depth, 1000 vs 5. Isn't that strange ? And as Dermitz once has criticised SW-wiki, do I believe there's a connection. Somewhere. It's no accusation of you, sir. I rest my case. And thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. I have a photo of me talking to King Juan Carlos but that doesn't mean anything more than I spoke to him. Domdeparis (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720:, this link, which you found interesting, is actually a carbon copy of the article on enWP and it says so right on the bottom of the page. I find this to be symptomatic of the issue of JTD's notability. Regards /Elzo 90 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is beginning to look just a little bit (BLP) demeaning. Just saying. Let's hope it doesn't get even more so, like it was at svWP last year, for weeks and weeks, until the list of people supporting me finally had to give up from exhaustion and from last minute gossip about how rude I had been in correcting unintelligible Swenglish here.

Nothing but the sources under an article needs to be discussed to establish notability, and that should take place on that article's talk page, to be of any value to it and thus to English Wikipedia. If that already has taken place and been decided, source by source (as in one of these cases), it should not be rehashed again from time to time, in my opinion.

Whether there are - or are not - articles on other language projects about now notability tagged Jacob Truedson Demitz, his most famous show Wild Side Story or his songstress mother Birgit Ridderstedt is irrelevant. I think (hope) that's what Domdeparis meant by including that "Other stuff" link. Whether or not someone has been blocked somewhere else is also just as irrelevant as if it had happened to any of you, so bringing that up (especially behind someone's back) has been considered a personal attack in several cases. Whom someone has been photographed with is also irrelevant, per se, especially if the context it not relevant, whereas slurs about such photos are inappropriate.

As @Boeing720: has tried to point out, Swedish Wikipedia is sort of like the continuing story of Another World and will probably never improve because (1) the U.S. Foundation does know (yet) how it's run and (2) the Swedish board does not want to clean it up. There is no dispute resolution there, no third opinion assistance, no rules against harassment or outing and no reason to be civil, fair, neutral or the slightest bit empathetic to anyone. Good people, particularly internationals, can't stand it and leave there. Fair people are ousted. That's my 2¢ in this forum. Good night! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what BLP demeaning is supposed to mean. And what slurs you are referring to? I get the feeling that you are taking this discussion about this person in a very personal manner. From what I can gather from the comments on the photos about this person and his cabaret you are closely connected to him and them. Your use of we and our and the fact that you have personally uploaded the photos with the different release statements attests to this. I had a quick look at your user page and I didn't see any disclosure there. I think that maybe a quick read of WP:COI would be useful. If you had read the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS link I added you would have seen that it has nothing to do with the different articles linked to this person but the use of the argument that less notable people have pages here so this one should stay is not a valid argument. And just to remind you that as you do not wish to discuss your editing on your talk page I suggested that you do it here and also all talk pages are public so there is nothing going on behind your back so please don't take it as a personal attack. Domdeparis (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I would appreciate it if you could avoid using WP:EASTEREGG piped links to illustrate some point or other. The how to guide discourages this practice. Domdeparis (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Elzo 90:Sorry, but at least the pictures are not, there is indeed a shot of Dermitz together with Dustin Hoffman. I have no more to to say that I haven't done already. Boeing720 (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

(But after I had a look in @Elzo 90: history file - I simply must say this as well) - Given that you appear to have Swedish connections, why did you avoid all my other comments like Pål Hollender and Torkild Strandberg. And the extremely poor values that our collaborative measurement tool Article Depth - see [[10]], [11] - gives to SW-wiki. Although SW-Wiki has 3,8 million article, to compare with this Wiki's 5.5 million articles, making Sw-Wiki 69% of this English Wiki, by number of articles. But if comparing article depth, has SW-wiki just 0,5 % of English Wiki. And not so few have criticised SW-wiki, like no other Wiki ever has been questioned. So, Elso90, please comment that also. Especially since I actually asked Domdeparis if he could see if Dermitz himself had made that website. Domdeparis, sorry to have brought up this part here. Boeing720 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Boeing. As you know svwp made a lot of articles. Several 100 000. That has made the statistics as it is. Adville (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As I stated before it is pointless to say that so and so has an article here and seeing that such and such is more famous he should also have an article. This is not a valid argument. Each article is judged on its own. So no please don't sidetrack on my talk page. Domdeparis (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Adville. Regarding Article Depth - this is a scientific-mathematical measurement of the collaborative quality of a Wiki. It's an absolute fact that Sw-Wiki has (the unitless) value of 5, whilst this Wiki has a such value of around 1000. Or in other words, English Wikipedia is, from a collaborative quality aspect, 200 times better ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Statistics is just numbers. You need info to understand it. Everyone knows lsjbot. Do not lie about why the numbers are low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adville (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Project?

Thanks for your fast work with deleting photos and checking articles for deletion. I have had no time to look into it yet, because it is such a huge affair. I was thinking to start a little project to check both the COI and strange use of sources made by SW (the last affair I was involved in with him was about a selfproduced source, therefor it might be good to check when he added sources, like the source discussed here] too). But it takes long time to check, and he will (as you see in the link) for sure say he feels harrased et cetera, that he wants neutral users input (eg users never involved with him, like you first was neutral until you saw all this). For others reading this: I am not haunting SW! I am looking here to make sure Wikipedia is accurate. Here we have a problem. Adville (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm trying to be as evenhanded as I can. There are certain photos that do illustrate the subject such as Mae West's tomb here Cypress Hills Cemetery (New York City), so those I have left. From the moment he has admitted to being a personal friend of Demitz so all the photos that he adds that link to this person are COI spam and he has promised not to edit COI articles. We'll see if he is capable of resisting the temptation to interfere once again. Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

We may have bumped into each other on Acute spinal cord injury. You moved the page to the Draft space just after I had already tagged it for deletion (A10 as a duplication of spinal cord injury). I'm not sure moving it to draft space was worthwhile since, even as an improved draft, it still covers a topic already fully covered elsewhere at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I think you're right, it was such a mess I moved it probably at the same time as you were tagging it but I'm OK with the speedy. Can that stay on a draft? If not please feel free to move it back or revert, I won't get huffy!! Domdeparis (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to move it back to article space simply to justify the speedy deletion, and I don't think the A10 criterion applies to drafts (it's an A10 because it only applies to articles), but I'll leave the situation as it is for now. I suspect that an admin will come along and either delete the draft or remove the tag as they see fit. I've already communicated with the author that they should probably concentrate on improving the existing article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Already deleted! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just about to write the same thing! cheers Domdeparis (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:21:36, 11 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Anncasciwrit

• Anncasciwrit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:PSE Healthy Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Domdeparis, Thanks for reviewing my PSE Healthy Energy article. Indeed, I'm SO disappointed. This groups has done nothing but publish peer-reviewed work since they were formed, and their research has been covered extensively by external media. I've read the notability page, but can you help me understand how I might improve the article to meet your standard? That is: Even if PSE researchers conducted their work completely as a function of the organization, if the individual--and not the org--is credited as author, that credit does NOT support their notability?

For example: A PSE researcher was the lead author on this study [[12]], which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. PSE is clearly listed under author affiliations, the journal is a source completely independent of PSE, and PSE's role is verifiable with just 2 clicks: thru to the publication link and then on the affiliations link. What am I missing?

Also, do reports they co-authored with other organizations, where they are credited *as an organization*, serve to substantiate notability? I would have thought such "gray matter" -- i.e., scientific but not peer reviewed -- would be LESS desirable as a source, since it is sponsored research and, while open to extreme public scrutiny given the state-level recommendations, is not peer-reviewed through the same process as scholarly research. An example of this type of publication is this Clean Energy Plan for the state of NJ, sponsored by two prominent (ie., not fringe or extremist) state conservation organizations [[13]]

Also: I can gather some other media coverage that is specifically on THEIR research (rather than as expert commentary) -- will that help?

Finally, they are nonprofit and receive various grants. Will adding information from independent granting organizations help?Obviously major foundations do not support fringe, minor, or unreliable groups.

Thanks so much for any thoughts or advice you can offer. I could be wrong, but I feel like the group is so established and well known in this very specific field, it's just a matter of correctly understanding your standards so I can submit references that meet them.

Anncasciwrit (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Anncasciwrit: notability is not inherited as per WP:INHERITORG. The sources need to be in-depth secondary coverage of the subject i.e. PSE itself and not just passing mentions (eg Baltimore sun fracking article). Sources written by members of this organisation are not secondary (eg The Hill blog). Studies written by members of an organisation do not infer notability on that organisation. You need to find sources that are independent of the subject that talk specifically about the subject. WP:ORGDEPTH is quite clear. If as you say they are that well known then sources should be easy to find. When you have found them resubmit the article for review. Domdeparis (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Brian Michaels - new attempt

Hallo Domdeparis, I’ve had another go at the Wikipedia article about Brian Michaels. Could you be so kind and take a look? Please let me know if the article works this way. Best regards --Granvillle (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Granville: to be perfectly honest I don't think the extra sources help but I'll leave it to another reviewer to check that. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Superstition Meadery - Promotional material discussion

Domdeparis Thank you for your help in creating an unbiased informationally accurate page. I will use the WP:EDITREQUEST if this avenue will better facilitate changes. For your understanding, know that I am using the Stone Brewing Co. Wiki page as guidance: To my knowledge and reason, everything I have added to the Superstition Meadery page has been factual, referenced and relevant for a well-known brewer. May I ask why Stone brewings comparable information has not been taken down? Best, Justindevine

@Justindevine: as a COI editor you should not be directly editing this page especially when the edits consist of listing your products and adding external links to them. Please read WP:EL. I removed the listing of the awards because of my doubts about their objectivity. I'm going to leave a message on the WP:BEER project page and ask for someone to assist you in the editing of this page. Domdeparis (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:03:14, 18 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by StarcevicVanessa

• StarcevicVanessa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thierry Philipponnat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! thank you for you comments on my article, I was wondering if you could give me more information on the sections that need more sources, if I add many sources, will the article be accepted or does it still have a chance of being rejected? Is there an issue with the presentation of the page as well ?

Thank you for your assistance StarcevicVanessa (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

StarcevicVanessa (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@StarcevicVanessa: looks much better. I would try resubmitting the article if I were you. Domdeparis (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification

@Drmies: I am pinging you here so as not to to pollute your talk page. I would like to clear up a couple of things you said that you have no problem with SW's editing but on the COIN you wrote "I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person." You were talking about SW I believe. At the very top of the WP:COI page it says "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead."

For days SW refused to admit his COI and only did it after a private exchange by mail with someone here if I remember rightly. I took your comment from the COIN page as an administrator to mean that his editing is a problem when it deals with Demitz. I am seriously confused why now you are stating that you do not have any problem with his editing. I'll be honest I took this as an implicit validation to clean up his editing. --Domdeparis (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• My problem is with the obvious abuse, the personal attacks. Of course SW shouldn't be writing about this person, but I can't stop him. This, however, is a problem that can be handled in a normal way: via a deletion discussion, or a talk page discussion, or dispute resolution. His having a COI doesn't mean it's OK to start calling him names, nor does it mean that therefore his arguments are without validity. Believing in rational discussion means that it should be the strength of the argument that takes the day, not whether the speaker kicks their dog or doesn't wash his hands. Of course he needs to clean up his editing (wash his hands), but what I read about him in that AfD is really not acceptable. And you will have seen, perhaps, that I had some choice words for him as well: very few people in that AfD discussion are showing their best side, which is why I felt it was incumbent on my to barge in with my bad manners. Thanks, and don't worry about polluting anything--just leave a nice picture, and a joke is always appreciated. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I honestly don't believe that I have been abusing or attacking him personally. I tried to limit my comments to his editing and he was the one that brought everything onto a personal level. Which is why COI is such a problem. When I suggested that being a front office manager of a hotel (or a duty manager) is not a claim for notability I was accused of insulting the subject. These 2 jobs are ones I myself have done in the past. When you wrote about friends and family and someone suggests that they may not be notable enough or that their picture is not the best for a particular article then obviously that will upset you on a personal level. There are other editors who have a much more personal view on the chap as they have dealt with him over a long period of time elsewhere and some of the comments are borderline or unacceptable. But as there is also another group of editors who have rallied around to support things have sort of equaled themselves out. Anyway thanks for replying and if you see anything that I may write that is borderline please don't hesitate to rattle my cage. Preferably here as I can control the pollution myself. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Just to inform you. You post is copied so someone could answer anyway. You may erase this post if you want because I understand it is a Little to much now. Best regards Adville (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fine by me everything written on WP is released to be reused so long as it is not deformed and correctly attributed I think. Domdeparis (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis - Thanks for you comments on "Neem the Half Boy" and "The Man with Bad Manners" pages. I read WP:BKCRIT. I have copied the text hear to save time.

Criteria A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1 The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5] 2 The book has won a major literary award. 3 The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4 The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7] 5 The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

I have more source but have not yet obtained copies of the book reviews. So that work will continue and add these in the next week. Also, I obtained these reviews from the online source called "Book Reviews Plus" published online by Gale Publishing. This source is equivalent to JStor, at least in my mind.

Still I would think that the articles would qualify based solely on Item 5. The author, Idries Shah, is a noted Sufi and he is well known for his book "The Sufies." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah) Shah had published over 30 excluding the 11 childrens books of which these two are a part.

I would appreciate your feedback.Woodmai (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks !

(a bit difficult to add new comments here, I hope this way causes no problem)
I appreciate your neutral and balanced description of the matters at French Wiki. If I may express an opinion, I find you to be a fair Wikipedian.
I also would like to give you this information.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Skottniss#Ingen_DANs_p.C3.A5_rosor.2C_men_tillsammans_.C3.A4r_vi_starka.21

Direct in Swedish from one admin to another:
Headline: Ingen DANs på rosor, men tillsammans är vi starka!
Hej
Kul du fortsätter som admin ett år till. Vi behöver ett starkt team som kan samarbeta när det blåser. Jag har skickat ett mail till dig. MVH Adville

Translated:
Headline: No DANce on roses, but together are we strong!
Hi/Hello
Nice you continue as admin one year more. We need a strong team which can collaborate when it blows/are blowing. I have send a mail to you. (MVH =a greeting) Adville

The capitalisation of DAN , I guess relates to their successful ONE YEAR blocking of one of Swedish Wikipedia's true pioneers, User:Dan Koehl. It's difficult to see any other reason for the capitalisation. But my actual reason for this message was simply to thank you. No favors wanted but - Thanks for being fair ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And I explained för you, right? On the Other page you wrote exactly the same thing. I am happy he wanted to proceed even if a user harrase him and in januari saying "a mental I'll person should not be admin"... so tjat person was blocked after not wanting to say "sorry" Hur proceeded to out him to be mentalt ill on facebook.... Adville (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys I don't want to get pulled into this. I try to be as neutral and fair as I can when I edit on wikipedia and not get pulled into disputes. I get more or less what the problems are on Swedish wikipedia but I have no idea who is right and who is wrong but to be perfectly honest I don't really care. It sort of spilled over here with the Demitz affair that should have been relatively simple but because 2 opposing groups got involved it got so drawn out. If only Serge had admitted to being a COI editor from the start rather than being so stubborn we could have found a way of editing out the COI. I had no intention of nominating the Demitz article for deletion, he shot himself in the foot when he went trying to look for help from an administrator. The trouble is when I see an editor acting as he did it rings all kind of alarm bells and so I go looking for dodgy editing. All of that because of a photo that did not have its place in an article. I have gone over all he photos he added and a very good many I have left because I find that they illustrate the articles correctly. Mae West, 1970s in Western fashion, Facial expression are just a few because they are good images. Others I deleted because I felt they did nothing to enhance the article such as Batavia, Illinois, Hotel manager, Nostalgia, Transvestism, Fever (Little Willie John song), Valentine's Day and were only there to improve the visibility of Demitz's cabaret family or friends. Domdeparis (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that, Domdeparis. Your have done a Good job, as I Said on frwp. Of Course SW did a lot of Good things too. Thats why we also let a lot of photos in the articles be there. Good photos. For me I just want to leave this behind me now and go on. But there are still some articles to look at for deletion. And you know I vote not Only delete but also keep. When it is valid. I Will look Into the last articles now. Might be keep there too. Best regards. Adville (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"we let" ? Let's quit A Boeing720 (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Domdeparis:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Skip Prichard - draft

Hello, thank you for volunteering at AfC. You recently declined a draft article saying that it needs reliable sources. The sources in the draft article are from well respected journals in the library and publishing sphere. Can you say what you find off about them? How can this be improved? Thank you in advance. Merrilee (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Merrilee: there is no way of analysing the sources as there are no links that can be followed. So it is impossible to know if it is in depth coverage. Please read the link about referencing that should help you. Also despite your disclosure it is not a good idea to write about your boss as there is almost no way of having a neutral point of view. Domdeparis (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. So it would help from your POV if links were added? Also please note that I am not writing this -- I have been giving advice to a well meaning novice editor but I have not edited this article at all. I do take COI pretty seriously in this instance. I would not have advised that anyone take on a new article as their first thing to do here but there we have it. Thanks for your help! Merrilee (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether you are writing it yourself or giving instructions to another person (this is called in Wikipedia language a WP:MEATPUPPET) it is a pretty bad idea. Links should be added if they exist. The tone of the article is pretty promotional as well. Domdeparis (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't like your implication that I am puppeting because I am not. I will have the editor take it up with you if there are other questions. Right now they don't really know about writing on talk pages but no time like now to take the plunge. Thanks again for volunteering here. Merrilee (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't take it personally it's just that when you are giving instructions to another user who is writing an article about a subject for which you have a conflict of interest in my opinion it is the same thing as writing the article yourself but using the signature of someone else. You may not see a problem with that but I really feel you should not be doing it. I presume this editor didn't all of a sudden decide to write an article about your boss and totally out of the blue contact you for help. This editor should declare his conflict of interest because he obviously knows you and the organisation. If he is an employee he should make a disclosure of his relationship even if he is an intern or a volunteer or unconnected the mere fact that you are giving him advice or instructions means there is a conflict of interest. MEATPUPPET may be a little strong especially as you are very upfront about it. But this means that you do not understand what constitutes a conflict of interest. In general we should not be creating or helping to create an article about our bosses. By all means get them to contact me but they must be upfront about why they are creating this article. Domdeparis (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to their motivations. They do not work for my organization, and they only contacted me recently because they were frustrated with the process. The only "instructions" I have been giving is trying to decode the process for them. If I was to hazard a guess about why they got in touch it is because I am a librarian who speaks and writes often and passionately about the need for librarians to get more engaged with Wikipedia (look it up) and they are a librarian as well. I am visible and can be easily found online - I have never met them in real life. You can believe me or not. Clearly you think something evil is afoot because of the template you put on the draft article. I can only report to you that I am acting in good faith and I believe this new editor is also acting in good faith. I wish you would assume the same of me. Thank you for the work you are doing here and how much you care. I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Merrilee (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Merrilee: @Krystav: I understand that you do not wish to continue to discuss this but just a last comment about this subject. As a new pages patroller and a reviewer at AFC I come across an awful lot of disclosed and undisclosed paid and COI editors. We are fighting an uphill battle to keep Wikipedia as free as possible from problematic conflict of interest editing and I am sure your motivations are more than honourable and you also are working to build a better encyclopedia. But you must understand that your message sends all kinds of alarm bells ringing. As it says at the top of the WP:COI page "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing." I firmly believe you are acting in good faith but I also really do not believe that you should be involved in the editing of a page that is linked to your employer. I would also suggest that you advise your fellow librarian to gain some experience in editing on Wikipedia before launching themselves on something as perilous as COI editing. I myself have created a page for a showjumping competition that I am involved with as an unpaid volunteer and despite having several thousand edits under my belt and having participated in a lot of discussions my first draft was unintentionally spammy. I took advice from an independent editor and cleaned it up before moving it to mainspace. It might be better for this editor to take advice from someone who has no links to the subject that he wishes to write about. There is a help desk dedicated to questions about AFC here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. The main problem with this article is referencing (it has been declined twice now for this problem) so they may want to have a look here Wikipedia:Citing sources; Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Domdeparis, unless you have evidence that Merrilee is "giving instructions to another person" (my emphasis), or in some other way in breach of policy, I would be very careful, lest you find yourself subject to administrative action for making personal attacks. Your "feelings " and "presumptions" are of no import in such matters. Furthermore, your assertion that "In general we should not be [...] helping to create an article about our bosses" is utterly false and unsupported by any Wikipedia policy; and there is absolutely no requirement for sources to be available online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: thanks for the advice but when she says "I have been giving advice to a well meaning novice editor but I have not edited this article at all." It seems pretty clear and this is not a personal attack. WP:COI is strongly discouraged (you can read the page for more info) and writing about one's boss is most definitely COI editing. Feel free to report me to the admin of you want. Your opinion and the threatening tone has been duly noted. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You continue to mistake "advice" for "instruction", and make further unwarranted leaps of logic, not to mention false insinuations such as "writing about one's boss". Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: do you me a favour and stop with the wikilawyering...desist... please. You might also try and go out of the box and check out the first definition of Instructions here. You're the one coming on to my talk page 3 weeks later uninvited and continuing this discussion. I have said what I have I have said and stand by it. If you don't like then don't read it. I would now like you to stop editing my talk page. If you wish to ping me on your talk page feel free I may or may not reply but stay away from mine. The matter was closed but to be honest your behaviour is sending off alarm bells. I have just seen that a new editor has popped up to edit this draft and decide to move it to main space without resubmitting it, very odd. I shall ping the other reviewers who refused this submission to see what they think. Have a look at my last ping to Merrilee's last message on this page and you will see I said that I believe she is acting in good faith. So once again I am asking you not to edit my talk page again I am sure you have much better things to do rather than taking raking over the coals. And as I said feel free to report me to admin. Domdeparis (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Matthias_Schranner

Dear Domdeparis, thank you for the suggestion of disclosing relationship of creator to subject of the article. I did so in the talk of the entry. Is this sufficient for the article to get published? Thank you for your help! AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmeldem (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lin Fengxiang and Li Kaifang

Hello,

You recently marked the articles for Lin Fengxiang and Li Kaifang as possibly not being notable. As stated in their articles, they jointly led the Northern Expedition (Taiping Rebellion), which consisted of 70,000-80,000 troops. I think that clearly qualifies them as presumably notable under [[14]], specifically

4. Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; or

5. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents); or

Unless you disagree, I plan on removing that tag. Once I get around to adding additional info from various other sources referencing them, I'll also remove the single source tags.

Sincerely, Dbrote (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dbrote: Ok no problem I think it was the rank of Commander which led me to think they may not be notable I assumed it was lower than a General. Domdeparis (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently the rank of commander was above general in the Taiping hierarchy (both were generals before being promoted to commander). Dbrote (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Steam Powered Giraffe

Hey Domdeparis, I just wanted to ask a few questions about the recent deletion of several articles regarding the band Steam Powered Giraffe. I see that you spearheaded the deletion of several articles about the albums of famous steampunk band Steam Powered Giraffe, namely the articles Album One, The 2¢ Show, MK III, The Vice Quadrant:A Space Opera, Live at the Globe of Yesterday's Tomorrow, all of the band member's pages, and even nominated the band itself for deletion because they were "barely notable". Steam Powered Giraffe is the single most popular band in the steampunk subculture, embarking on several national and international tours, performing at Disney Land and crowds of several thousand, and having over 200,000 Youtube subscribers, not to mention their own record label with over six albums of music under their belt. How is this "not notable"? I would like to start a discussion to undo the deletion of, at very least, the album articles. I will agree that the band member's pages weren't really necessary, but the album articles provided useful information to their fans and people who were interested. If the albums need more sources, that can be fixed (I can even see to that personally), but deletion of the album articles was not necessary. The band is significant enough to warrant these pages, as many bands with even less fans have album articles. Thank you, JesseAF13. JesseAF13 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)(talk • contribs)

JesseAF13, if you feel the deletion discussions were somehow improperly closed, then the proper venue is WP:DRV. If you think you can "do a better job" on these articles, then you should use the Article wizard to create drafts which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission (as a note, it is also possible to undelete the pages and move them to the Draft space for further work). Primefac (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

International Surrey Football

Hi, I had a couple questions,

Firstly another page, Yorkshire International Football Association has been allowed to remain (and has existed for some time now) and would like to know the primary differences between their page and International Surrey Football as a means of finding room for improvement of the latter. Secondly, I don't think the speedy deletion extends to my own user page which has acted merely as an extension of my sandbox to save the need or space for a second for merely a matter of convenience.

Many thanks

Sherms95 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sherms95: just because another similar article exists doesn't mean that this one becomes automatically notable. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which explains this idea very clearly. All pages have to show notability in their own right. There are what are called topic specific criteria and for teams organisations and companies they are WP:NORG and these are there to avoid speedy deletion and this one in my opinion doesn't meet it. You should read this WP:NORG to understand better. I don't know what you mean about your user page, it is not nominated for deletion (at least by me) I will have a look and try and understand. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion because I don't believe that there is an indication of sufficient notability but an experience editor may decide that there are sufficient claims for notability and remove the template but even if they do I will certainly nominate it to be deleted by discussion because it clearly doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean. Your user page should not be a fake article. If you had kept it in the sandbox the other editor would not have nominated it. Domdeparis (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Goddard Oxenbridge

Why are you so keen to perpetuate ill-founded rubbish?

The “Argus” article, offering no references at all, is just typical local paper filler by a lazy journalist.[15] Why, because a small newspaper had some space one winter afternoon years ago, is it a sacred source for Wikipedia?

The Brede site, again offering no references and therefore just some villager's opinion, does however print a corrective: “The real Sir Goddard 'The Brede Giant' was a very good and honest man who was knighted by Henry VIII in 1509.”[16] Why is this not in the Wikipedia article?

The Bob Chantler book I can only access by snippets, but it says on page 98 that the absurd fictions “gave Goddard a thoroughly undeserved reputation”. [17] Why is this not in the Wikipedia article?

Is there no question of quality in Wikipedia? Are we to bow down before our predecessors, even if they uploaded garbage? Is nothing ever to be deleted, on any grounds?

Renfrew Road (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Nobody​ is suggesting that it is not ill-founded information, rubbish if you will, but it is sourced "rubbish" and as such has its place on Wikipedia especially as it clearly states that smugglers invented the story. It has been part of local legend for over 300 years. It is similar to the way that Vlad the Impaler was more recently linked to the vampire character Dracula. The difference being that there is sufficient material on both subjects to warrant separate pages. Feel free to add on the quote from Chantler or any other that you may find. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would believe this folklore is based on truth but if you feel that there is the slightest possibility that they may do please don't hesitate to point out that there was no basis for these tales. If you want to contest the sources please discuss it on the talk page but do not unilaterally decide to remove sourced material just because you think it is rubbish. Nobody is suggesting that this is true but it is a sourced legend. Chantler says it was undeserved but that the legend existed. If you carry out a search with his name and the word giant you will come across dozens and dozens of sources that mention this legend and also the origins. If this legend was linked to others and not just him then I would say create a separate page but it isn't. There is even a Goddard association that mentions the tale. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we make decisions by consensus. For the moment you are the only editor who wishes to remove this part from the page. As I said please feel free to open a discussion on the talk page to see what others may feel. Domdeparis (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. After trying to make the text on Sir Goddard more comprehensive and better sourced, it is frustrating to see it followed by such low quality material. For example, unless there is sound evidence to the contrary, it is absurd to suggest he attracted hostility as a Catholic, when every inhabitant of Brede during his lifetime would have been Catholic. Of course there are village legends, part of life's fun, and the more persistent ones are worth recording. What I'll do is some editing of the legend section to make clear, in restrained and encyclopedic language, that it is wholly fictional and (as two of the cited sources state) bears no known relation to the historic Sir Goddard. Renfrew Road (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Question from D3323

How long do I have to wait until I have a least 1 source before adding the info of "Puppet Master: Axis Termination"?

@D3323: hi thanks for your message. All articles​ on Wikipedia have to be verifiable and we must not add unsourced information. Films to be notable in the first place have to meet the criteria in WP:NFILM and you need to also read WP:NFF for the criteria about future films. If you have the sources that prove that the film meets these criteria then by all means add the info but until then please leave the redirect in place. Happy editing: p.s. please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Domdeparis (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thank you for patrolling new pages! Thanks for helping us out with the backlog. Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Domdeparis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD(s)

Hi: I just found out (through a notation in teh list of my created articles that a redirect I created had been deleted) that you nominated Þráinn Hjálmarsson for deletion back in ... October, I think it was. I had a string of edits to that page, and the AfD had extremely low participation. Please consider notifying all substantial contributors to a page when you nominate it for deletion. Luckily the page creator successfully asked for it to be undeleted via WP:REFUND. The page creator is sometimes no longer active (as may have been the case here) or may have only started a page that was later considerably changed; there may be others in the history (whether adding to it or cutting it back) in a better position to argue its merits. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

1972 24hours of --

No, I did not make any mistake. The porsche of Louis Meznarie finished 13th in the standings and won a title that must be put on the race. The reference I have one - 1972: 911 2.4-liter for Jürgen Barth, Sylvain Garant and Mike Kyser, 24 Hours of Le Mans, 13th scratch ranking, 1st in category, only one 911 finishing, look on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Meznarie --88.136.200.141 (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@88.136.200.141: The question is not whether it is a mistake or not but the fact that you systematically add unsourced material. Add a source and it can stay. Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not sources, you have made this mistake many times. Domdeparis (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Glosters' Colours

Hi. I notice that the picture of the Glosters' colours that you uploaded and added to Gloucestershire Regiment is, according to the info in commons, subject to copyright as an official seal of a govt. agency. Is that correct? I'm wondering if it's valid to use it in that article under fair use, especially as there is another image of the colours in Gloucester Cathedral in the article. I have no idea how these things work, but I suspect the Cathedral image disqualifies your image because it counts as a non-copyrighted alternative. Hoping to take the article to FAC soon, and I'm pretty sure they'll pick up on this there. FactotEm (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I had to remove the image File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg from Gloucestershire Regiment. Questions were raised about its copyright status, and it was preventing the article from successfully completing its A Class review. I would have no problem adding the image back in if we could resolve its copyright status. On that issue, I have a few comments/questions:

• I really don't think any fair use rationale will stick. The image of the colours laid up in Gloucester Cathedral pretty much wreck the argument that there is no alternative.
• I don't understand how the government can claim copyright on the basis that it is a logo or seal, when anyone can simply go to the cathedral and take a photo of the colours there.
• You lifted the image from the regimental association website. It looks to me like the real copyright issue here is not that it is a seal or logo of a government agency, but it is an image that belongs to someone else.
• Who it belongs to is another question. The glosters website does not assert copyright anywhere, nor does it identify to whom the copyright for this image belongs. If it belonged to them, we might be able to ask their permission to release it into the public domain, but do they have the right to do so?

I would like to see this image in the article, but I intend to put the article up for FAC soon. If it is successful, it will be one of the very few regimental articles to attain FA status, and as far as I know the only British regiment to do so. This image, without proper copyright, will scupper that. Hope you understand. FactotEm (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Factotem: no problem whatsoever I fully understand. I have another photo that was taken with my camera when I was serving (I'm the one carrying the Queen's colours) so I am sure about the copyright. I'll stick it on to commons and send you a link so that you can add it if you feel that it would help add something to the article. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Factotem: feel free to add this image if you wish. I'll leave it up to you to decide if it would usefully illustrate the article or not [18]. Domdeparis (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I added it to the article. I also fixed a few typos in the image info on commons, and changed the date to 21 March 1993. You had put 21 April, and that can't be right, can it? Factotem (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: You're right of course! Thanks for that I did it on my work computor which doesn't have an English spell check and was in a bit of a rush! I added my support to the FA nomination. Congratulations on the work done hope it makes it to FA status. Domdeparis (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks. With 4 unopposed supports and no unresolved critical comments so far, it's looking good. It's been nearly a decade since I was last at FAC, but I believe these things run for around 3 weeks, so this one still has a couple of weeks to run yet. Fingers crossed. Factotem (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither King's nor Queen's, nor Royal Marines
But 28th, Old Braggs: Brass before and Brass behind,
Never feared a foe of any kind

And now with a gold star on Wikipedia! :)
Factotem (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: That's excellent news! Congratulations on all the hard work! Domdeparis (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stand High Patrol

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stand High Patrol, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: GNews search reveals some coverage in French in some newspapers, unfortunately mostly behind paywalls. Use WP:AFD instead to allow more people to evaluate those sources. Thank you. SoWhy 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)