Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:13, 1 July 2017

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Archived

Page has been archived. CatcherStorm 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello CatcherStorm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Michael Ingemi

Speedy deleted A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sitravatinib

Hey,

I see that you're a new reviewer! Welcome! It's probably not something you'll run into often, but FYI, experimental drugs are considered notable if they have reached phase II clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Tagging at NPP

Hi CatcherStorm, and thanks for helping out at NPP, it's an important task where extra hands are needed, and it's great to see all the red links in your CSD log. Well done! In a case like Nazma Khan it is just A7, not A1+A7. Do you see why it can't be both? Could you please revisit

1. Munke Mølle (AfD)
2. The Calutron Girls (AfD)
3. Gandarpur (AfD)
4. Teo Čorić (BLPPROD)

and with a good look at our PAGs on deletion, and the applicable notability guidelines, see if you think these articles should have been handled differently and why. I'll be happy to offer you my input, but since you have been here for a few years I'd be even happier if you could identify the possibilities yourself. — Sam Sailor 04:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: When I first came across these articles, they were not as improved as they were now. For example, I thought Teo Čorić did not have any references because there wasn't a reflist. With the Calutron girls and all the other ones, they didn't have any references either. I can see now that I should probably wait a bit before tagging the articles. I hope you can see why I tagged them in the first place, but if the articles were in its current shape when I first saw them, I would not have tagged them. CatcherStorm 12:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

For pings to Northamerica1000, Drmies, Premeditated Chaos, and Adog104 regarding OmarGosh, skip to here

Thanks for your comment, CatcherStorm, you hit the nail hard and precise when you say I can see now that I should probably wait a bit before tagging the articles. Yes, not being hasty is one part of it. But you should also hit another nail: Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Always quality over quantity.

WP:BLPPROD: This is often misunderstood, even by editors with long tenure and advanced permissions, so don't beat yourself up over it. There are no requirements to citation style. I.e. a general reference such as an external link, or a source listed anywhere, e.g. just as a bare URL inline, invalidates {{Prod blp}}, if the source "supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". The other thing to remember is: there are no requirements to source quality. This misunderstanding is so common it even has its own hatnote on WT:BLPPROD.

There is a similar misunderstanding when it comes to citation and verifiability article maintenance templates: {{Unreferenced}} is for articles with no sources. Example: in this diff the article gets tagged with {{unreferenced}}. But the article has {{IMDb name}} in § External links. So the better template to use would have been {{BLP IMDb refimprove|living=no|only=yes}} since subject is dead. The even better thing to do would have been to just WP:SOFIXIT: search for sources, generate citations, add them inline in ref tags, and add a § References section and a {{Reflist}}. Much better for the readers.

Inre AFDs, you wrote: if the articles were in their current shape when I first saw them, I would not have tagged them. Comment: WP:UGLY: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws." and WP:NEXIST: "absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Suggested mandatory steps: WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD (read here about my own experience and embarrassment).

Inre tagging with maintenance tags: Take time and read the template documentation. Twinkle is a powerful tool, but it comes with the risk of WP:DRIVEBY-tagging and misunderstanding the finer details of each template. Hear that from a man who knows he made the same kind of mistake in the past.

Example: Here you tag Joshua Wilkerson with {{disputed}}, {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} two minutes after your last edit of another page. The article had three sources and all three lines had inline ref tags with nice citations. Personally, I would not be able to open three links to references and read them in two minutes. Why did you tag with {{refimprove}}? {{disputed}} is a tag that in my opinion only can be used if a note is left on the article talk page. Otherwise, how should other editors know what it is I'm disputing? Your {{notability}} tag is good, and we should take it one step further and ask if this is a WP:BLP1E that fails WP:CRIME. What do you think?

Example: in History of Santa Cruz de Mompox you tagged with {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} in this diff. When I look at that diff the first thing I think is "right, this sounds like a translation, we need someone with dual fluency in Spanish and English to copy edit". Which template might be useful for that? When we encounter a "History of <subject>" page, it's almost always a content fork of <subject>, otherwise it would be in § History in <subject>. If <subject> is notable, and there are good reasons to make a fork, the fork will be notable and {{notability}} misplaced. But look at the history of History of Santa Cruz de Mompox and the history of Santa Cruz de Mompox. See the beef? What could be done in such a case?

Example: Tjeep was a short article in Danish (it was later tagged by Kudpung with db-g11 and db-corp, and handled at CAT:SPEEDY by CactusWriter who knows the language), and it looked like this:

tjeep ApS er et dansk teleselskab, der tilbyder telefonabonnementer til lavpris. tjeep blev etableret i september 2016.

Selskabet tilbyder udelukkende mobilabonnementer, og er et online selskab.

tjeeps mission har fra starten været at vække et stagneret marked, og på ny rive op i priskrigen på det danske telemarked. De underbyder alle deres konkurrenter med priser, der er de laveste i Danmark. Visionen for selskabet er, at de en dag vil tilbyde gratis telefoni til kunder.

tjeep gør brug af TT-netværket, der er ejet af Telia og Telenor.

• Hjemmeside

References

1. "Nyt dansk teleselskab: Tjeep kaster sig ind i priskrigen - har planer om gratis mobiltelefoni". Computerworld.

You tagged it with {{not English}} and {{unreliable sources}}. But the lack of |da in {{not English}} suggests that you did not identify the language, and then it's difficult to apply {{unreliable sources}}, isn't it? And Computerworld.dk is regarded as a reliable source.

One more regarding OmarGosh: In this diff to OmarGosh you added {{COI}}, {{notability}}, {{peacock}} and {{unreliable sources}}. I'll collapse that revision here for reference, in case the article gets deleted from main namespace.

Previous revision of OmarGosh

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "LJF2019" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message) OmarGosh File:OmarGosh.jpgOmar in October 2016 Born Omar Arafat April 15, 2002 (Age 14) Texas, U.S. Nationality American Occupation(s) Singer, Songwriter, YouTube personality Years active 2016-present Omar Arafat (born April 15, 2002), better known by his stage name OmarGosh, is an American singer, songwriter and internet personality. He is most known for his single "Hold Hands" produced by Gospa Studios, which started off his career by gaining him a lot of popularity especially on the social media. He was then added to the MTV Artist list, along with other platforms for artists, such as BBC UK. This provoked him to be Rank #1 in his city on the musician website "ReverbNation". This started his career off recently, sparking a lot of attention to the popular young artist. Early Life Omar Arafat originates from McAllen, Texas. He had a comedy channel on YouTube called "omarbowser3434" at the age of eight, where he had over 40 comedy videos. The channel never grew in popularity, but some of his close friends who found inspiration in this, followed him in creating their own channels. A few years later, he then went on to create another YouTube channel called "YoungBrockens" that involved pranks, trick shots, and funny short-films. The stage name 'OmarGosh' was created when he frequently misunderstood his friends when saying "oh my gosh" in amazement, sounding very similar to ‘OmarGosh’. He looks up to fellow musician Justin Bieber, and always tweets that he is motivated by his work ethic. Career Omar began to develop a strong passion in music in 2015, when he started recording his first ever song having been influenced by Justin Bieber, who also started off by uploading YouTube videos before he was discovered. He later started learning the process of music production and began adding his vocals on various beats, later signing to independent record label, Gospa Studios. His dreams of seeing one of his major influences became a reality when he watched Justin Bieber perform live in 2016, and later when he got into contact with one of his inspirations, Jacob Sartorius, with whom they even talked about working on a collaboration with the young singer. OmarGosh released his first single Hold Hands on August 19, 2016, which is available on music stores such as iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, and Amazon. He then released the music video for "Hold Hands" on September 8, 2016 on his "YoungBrockens" YouTube channel, which was trending for over 2 hours on YouTube and has reached over 50,000 views. He later performed the song which was an opening act for over 1,000 people at the McAllen Convention Center on November 23, 2016. References ^ "OmarGosh: The Next Big Thing?". article.wn.com. Retrieved 2017-01-28. ^ feedsforyou. "Community Post: OmarGosh To Release New Single In Spring 2017". BuzzFeed Community. Retrieved 2017-01-12. "Omar Gosh | Music Videos, News, Photos, Tour Dates | MTV". MTV Artists. Retrieved 2016-12-09. "Omar Gosh - New Songs, Playlists & Latest News - BBC Music". BBC. Retrieved 2016-12-09. ^ eMinor. "OmarGosh | Pop from Mc Allen, TX". ReverbNation. Retrieved 2016-12-09. ^ "Biography". OmarGosh. Retrieved 2016-12-09. "YoungBrockens". YouTube. Retrieved 2016-12-09.

Nothing is wrong with your tagging as such, but ... is there really even one credible claim of significance here? Me don't think so, and I would perhaps have thought about tagging with {{db-person}}, because this to me sounds like a WP:BLOATED autobio or a paid job. In case I did that, and the A7 was declined, I would do my BEFORE and ATD, and presumably conclude that the article should be proposed for deletion failing GNG and MUSBIO and deleted per WP:DEL8. But, wait ... it's often a good idea to have a little look at the article history. The article was created in 1 single edit at 16:23, 2 February 2017 here (size: 4305 bytes) by MrProEdits, and looking into his contribs we see that it was a copy-paste from Draft:OmarGosh as it was at that time, also 4305 bytes. Draft:OmarGosh was created by Amandahduran (talk · contribs) (who is now stale, so no reason to file at WP:SPI), and if it wasn't for the assumed lack of CCS, there had been reason to consider a history merge in order to preserve attribution per WP:ATTREQ.

But if we further read the conversations found at User talk:MrProEdits, and at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV the impression I get is that MrProEdits hijacked the article OmarGoshTV during AfD with material identical or similar to Draft:OmarGosh, and that that was the material Drmies and Adog104 !voted about at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV. With that assumption I would normally be bold and add a {{db-g4}} to OmarGosh and to Draft:OmarGosh, the "worst" thing that could happen is, that the speedies are declined by an admin saying OmarGosh is not substantially identical to the deleted version of OmarGoshTV. Here however, seeing that a redirect was made this morning from Draft:OmarGosh to OmarGosh in this diff, I stop. The editor is Northamerica1000, they have (a) been here longer than I, and (b) they have the sysop bit, so they might see reasons for retaining OmarGosh in mainspace that I have missed, and they can see deleted versions of pages and decline speedies pursuants to WP:G4. Now NA1000 has been pinged, and they will take care of the matter. (If notification fails, I leave them a message on their talk page.) Also pinging Premeditated Chaos who was deleting admin in this case.

CatcherStorm, my apologies for the verbosity. Forget about the forensics concerning OmarGosh, sooner or later you'll do that like "just another day at the office". Focus on the other things I mentioned, and let me hear from you. We want confident editors at NPP. — Sam Sailor 16:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Apologies. I am coming off a long break- and I will absolutely take into consideration what you've just said to me. Thank you for taking time out of your day to help me out with NPP policy. As I become more seasoned at NPP, you should notice that I make fewer blunders. CatcherStorm 16:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, for what it's worth, that OmarGosh thing was a huge mess. Everyone made mistakes in that one, including me. It was basically decided in the end that deleting either one on the basis of an AfD for a hijacked article was no good, so the AfD was effectively voided. OmarGosh has been put up for a full, fresh AfD. OmarGoshTV appeared to be notable in its own right and was therefore preserved as a stub with references that could be re-nominated again for AfD without prejudice if anyone wanted to. Which, it seems no one has. So yeah I wouldn't worry too hard about that particular can of worms. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Re: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chim cham, you'll find the admins are much more open to launching an investigation if you provide some kind of rationale for your belief that these two are sockpuppets. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Brian Burakowski

Hello CatcherStorm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brian Burakowski, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: That is correct, but it was actually speedy deleted prior and the user recreated it, which is why I CSD'd it. CatcherStorm 16:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Prior speedy deletions do not make a page eligible for G4. I ended up deleting it as a hoax, since I couldn't find any evidence of his existence. A7 would have also worked. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Printed source addition--could it change the notablilty characteristic of the article about an artist?

You reviewed an article about Tania Antoshina yesterday. Now it has a printed US source about this artist. Do you think that a Museum publication will be enough to make this article more suitable for inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovuletto (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ovuletto: Yes, absolutely. See WP:GNG for more info on what kinds of references you need to add! :) CatcherStorm 16:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How can you revert aft discussion with out discussion/

3rr may be applicable (Boxoffice11 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

@Boxoffice11: You are removing speedy deletion templates from a page you have created yourself. I've warned you 3 times. The reason I am reverting your edits more than "3 times" is because removing CSD templates from a page you made isn't allowed. Your article exists only to promote the subject, which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. CatcherStorm 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of S. Dallas Dance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S. Dallas Dance is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, you have my apologies for my comment there. The misunderstanding was caused by the lazy vote by the other editor. I've participated in close to 500 AfD discussions and I've never seen an editor simply quote another editor as a vote. But, yes, I should have looked deeper. We obviously disagree about this fella, but that's ok. Viva la difference.

On another topic, when you mention another editor at ANI you are required to post a notification on their talk page. A ping is nor sufficient, especially when it's malformed. Please keep that in mind if you ever feel the need to return there. Now that my confusion is over, I'm certain you are acting in good faith (IMO misguided, but good faith nonetheless), but all the socking has me wondering what's up. Perhaps it's just Drmies's fan club. Arbs can piss a lot of people off quickly. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

A HUGE backlog

We now have 823 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.

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)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Misplaced Pages's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Misplaced Pages at its 16th birthday celebration

RateBeer Best

Hi there.

I've seen you tagged the article 'RateBeer Best' as speedy deletion. I was still building out that article but let me explain why I think it should exist. As a craft beer enthusiast, there aren't many entities listing the best businesses out there like the Oscars do for movies or the ESPY awards for sport, etc. Even though I have totally no affiliation with the company here stated - RateBeer.com, nor an active account on its website for that matter, their yearly awards are important for the business. I'm not trying to promote any company here if not the whole craft beer movement.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

14:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaopmgoncalves (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Premi O Premi

I removed your WP:A1 tag because I can't use Twinkle to tag an article that is already tagged. I think it did provide context, but maybe that is because I knew it was an unreleased movie. I have tagged it at already deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:37:29, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Theautist

• Theautist (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:A Decent Ride (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm sorry i don't understand what else needs referencing in the A Decent Ride page, i took on board what had been said about the parody, but cited the subsequent material - there was an extra blank references section at that end for some reason, which i've now deleted. Is that what was confusing things? What else do you want me to reference, explicitly? Cheers

Theautist (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Porn_Detection_%26_Deletion_Software, I just added 5 notable references to scientific papers from IEEE and various universities. Thanks for reviewing in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.179.187 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I added significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Porn_Detection_%26_Deletion_Software. Thanks for checking it out. It is growing to comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.179.187 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 09:20:18, 7 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Seanhinkle

• Seanhinkle (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Explain Everything (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi CatcherStorm! I was wondering what made the Explain Everything draft I wrote seems so (for lack of a better word) advertise-y. I basically copied the structure of other similar apps' wikis like Prezi: https://en.wikipedia.org/Prezi

Is there a particular change that could be made to make it more neutral? Maybe cutting down the history portion? Eliminating the features? It seems like they have a pretty decent number of sources and reviews with Forbes and Techrunch (don't know how I didn't use those the first go round).

Anyway, thanks in advance for the advice! I'm actually enjoying the writing/editing of[REDACTED] so far; I've never done it before.

Seanhinkle (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Pete Durnell

Hello CatcherStorm, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pete Durnell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Major politicians are generally notable. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Nördic Nightfury 15:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of Checkmarx

You reviewed my submission of Checkmarx and chose to decline it. This is despite the existence of articles that have far less proof of notability in the same field such as BlueOptima, CAST Application Intelligence Platform, , and Imagix 4D. The article on Checkmarx has sources that are similar to those articles, and for all of them has more sources, that are more reputable that report more precisely about Checkmarx. Can you help me understand what type of reporting you would be looking for? אגם רפאלי (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

אגם רפאלי, I have looked at the articles you have just mentioned and I have nominated them for deletion. The reason is because there are no reputable or reliable news sources that indicate the subject of the article is notable per WP:GNG. That said, I reviewed your draft and I could not find any sources from major news sources like CNN, Dailymail, the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times, that mention your article's subject as its primary topic. These are the kinds of sources that we need. CatcherStorm 17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has sources from Bloomberg News which is akin to CNN, Dailymail, the Guardian, Washington Post, NYT etc. It also cites SD Times which is a publication in the field that Checkmarx is operation. Furthermore it cites articles from Globes and The Times of Israel which are equivalent publications to CNN or Bloomberg, but in Israel. All of these citations are in line with WP:GNG which states that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, which is the case with all of the citations. Do you still feel this is the case? אגם רפאלי (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

אגם רפאלי Personally I don't consider 2 or 3 sources enough for an article like this. If you can find at least 5 then I will accept the draft. CatcherStorm 15:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I added sources from TechCrunch, The Wall Street Journal and CBS News. Do you feel this is enough now? אגם רפאלי (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

אגם רפאלי Resubmit the draft CatcherStorm 14:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Submitted. אגם רפאלי (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving a small prod in this direction? The article has been nominated for deletion and I'm asking for your help. אגם רפאלי (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

One more attempt? Maybe you can help? אגם רפאלי (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

8-2-2017 Bathgate Regal Theatre

Hi CatcherStorm,

The article on the Bathgate regal theatre is a copy of the German wikipage of the theatre. The difference is in the English once there is some extra references and some extra information. Please explain why the article is approved for the German wiki but not for the English wiki? The general guidelines are not any help and only lead to more questions: Please also explain why the sources are not reliable enough(they are all official and serious sources as you can see). What do you consider to be significant coverage if newspaper coverage, TV news, the official visit Scotland page(and west Lothian page) isn't enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Regal_Community_Theatre_Bathgate

https://de.wikipedia.org/Regal_Community_Theatre

Kindest regards, Zonneroos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonneroos (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

18-2-2017 Hi CatcherStorm, would you please help me? I don't know what to do.

Can I speed up the review of changes in the article I created?

Recently you nominated the article I created (Tania Antoshina (artist))for deletion due to lack of reliable reference sources which could prove that this artist is notable enough to be included here. Now I added quite a lot of respectable printed sources to this article. Can I speed up the review of AfD status of this article? Ovuletto (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Urgent help requested for a page you reviewed

Thank you very much for reviewing the page I created and not causing any harm. But kindly extend urgent help as I am a new user to present it well according to the guidelines of Misplaced Pages , and to avoid other people from tagging it . Kindly help Sir! Does your review mean that it will not be subjected to deletion ? I read that you are willing to extend a helping hand and I am requesting for urgent help from you. Thank you Fan in Awe (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

13:05:33, 10 February 2017 review of submission by DiplGlue

• DiplGlue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Liquid Nitrogen Wash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear CatcherStorm. I am feeling a little helpless, since I thought that I referenced enough: I am referencing 6 books with citing notes inside the text for almost every statement now, and I am giving additionally two external links and even a link to a granted patent, and still my article is declinded because is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Are there not enough sources, or do the sources need to be accessible online to be reliable or is it the quality of citing that is not enough. It would be kind, if you could give me a hint, since I really would like to contribute to[REDACTED] with my article Thanks. DiplGlue (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

question

You have recently deleted a page called Dr.molrok this should have been an english version of an german wiki entry . can you please explain how i can set on a english version according to the terms ,to get the original page been recognized internationally ?! thanks (Denbenutzernamengibtesnochnicht (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denbenutzernamengibtesnochnicht (talk • contribs)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

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

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

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 823 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)

13:27:21, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Albdemo

• Albdemo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Clickfunding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello CatcherStorm,

Thank you for your review. I was wondering if it were possible to follow up on the issue with the references for the 'Clickfunding' draft? I understand that they are not perceived to show enough notability, but could you tell what aspect of the references needs improving?For example is it a lack of significant coverage, or a lack of independent/reliable sources etc.?

thank you, Albdemo

Albdemo (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Misplaced Pages in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Misplaced Pages

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

Subject: Ruth St. Denis "controversy" paragraph Crescentius (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually knew Ruth St. Denis as a boy of 11 until her passing a few years later. I have never read about her stereotyping or black-face performances. The person who wrote about her "controversies" should be citing where he read this. I am not saying it is complete fiction, but there were no major "controversies" as far as I am aware. It's also true that Ms. St. Denis was very close friends with Devi Dja, a famous Indonesian dancer and Devi would never have befriended St. Denis had she been the least bit racist. I knew both women, who are no longer living and cannot defend themselves. My step-father was Raymond D. Bowman, who was friends and colleague of both women. I strongly believe that article should be removed for lack of evidence and if it is found, the paragraph should show exact quotes, not just opinion or hearsay. Thank you.

Review Request

Please kindly review Blasio Vincent Ndale Esau Oriedo (https://en.wikipedia.org/Blasio_Vincent_Ndale_Esau_Oriedo). I am the primary author of the page/article. Thanks! U249601 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

18:38:00, 1 March 2017 review of submission by TheSandDoctor

• TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tamalada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this draft while looking through random drafts and noticed that the declining comment does not relate to the article content? "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" was the comment on a draft about an event — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Apologies for the warning there, Twinkle seems to think you created the page. Have you any ideas as to what could have caused this?

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 16:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: I think I created his user talk page when I left him a warning. CatcherStorm 16:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, I'll leave a note with the developers to see what they can do to avoid this happening in future. DrStrauss talk 16:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Culture of the Mbunda people

Hi CatcherStorm, thanks for letting me know. I strated that article expecting assitance from an editor who was creating a lot of problems with a glut of unsourced material distributed over six articles on the Mbunda. The idea was to strip the problem articles and salvage valuable aspects, source them and build a respectable article. Soon after that the editor was banned for persisting in his habits. We would have worked together to ensure all policies were adhered to. For now, I don't have the resources to complete it on my own, so if it must be deleted, so be it. I have saved the structure in my sandbox in case one day I decide to revive it or to use it elesewhere. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ruth St. Denis "controversies" (Crescentius (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

The "controversy" sub-article on the biography of Ruth St. Denis is something I have never heard of. The sub-article does NOT have any citations and is written as though it's a personal opinion or assessment. I believe the author should cite where he read these things and also if he provides such controversies, he should re-write the piece to refect the facts as they are stated in his sources. Ms. Denis created many of the Oriental Dance moves because they are based on 18th and 19th-century artworks. Her dances were interpretations of European paintings and illustrations from books and never meant to be authentic. They couldn't be, since no person knows what the dances of ancient Egypt or other Oriental cultures were really like a century or more before she did her interpretations. She was imagining and her dances were fantasies, just as the book "A Thousand and One Nights" was not meant to depict what Ancient Persia was really like. It was an imagining. As far as blackface, we all know now that blackface is offensive to us all. But if she is going to be singled out for using it decades ago, the same could be said of Fred Astaire, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, and many other stage and screen dancers who didn't know blackface was offensive until at least the 1950s. Ms. Denis died in 1968, only a year after interracial marriage was legal in the USA. I recommend the article be deleted or show specific citations. Whatever you decide, I won't try again, but I think that paragraph is unfair to who she was and her intent. Thank you.

Review Request

Please kindly review

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Porn_Detection_%26_Deletion_Software

again. The article has grown to a good resource about the topic with significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I realize editors are busy with many articles to review however it has been more than a month since the last review. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji8402 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

userbox request

Can you make an Emma Watson userbox? CatcherStorm 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can.

Your spiel here

Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

14:49:34, 19 March 2017 review of submission by Albdemo

• Albdemo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Clickfunding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello CatcherStorm,

thank you for taking a look at my draft for the Clickfunding page. I understand that the main issue was that the sources did not demonstrate the subject's notability. Is there a key area where the sources could be improved? For example, was it that the sources listed were not seen as independent enough from the subject or that there was not enough significant coverage?

thank you, Albdemo Albdemo (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 823 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) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to BAMN. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I've added a source. If you don't believe BAMN organizes violent demonstrations, I can link YouTube videos. The very name of the organization implies violence. I'd also prefer if you didn't leave templates on my talk page. CatcherStorm 19:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The source you added is an opinion column, which is considered a reliable source for its author's opinion, not for facts. See WP:RSOPINION. Please provide reliable sources, not opinion columns or YouTube videos, for this exceptional claim. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: So a YouTube video from Fox News clearly showing a prominent leader of BAMN, Yvette Felarca, assaulting a free speech activist and acknowledging that she encourages other BAMN members to do so isn't a valid source of evidence or proof that BAMN leaders (maybe not all, but this one in particular) encourage violence? The argument can be made that a YouTube video showing Yvette Felarca assaulting people doesn't equate to all BAMN organizers supporting this, but it absolutely validates the claim I'm trying to add to the lede: That the group has been criticized because some BAMN organizers have incited violence and assault in the past. The name of the organization suggests that it supports the use of violence (By Any Means Necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherStorm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If it exists, such a YouTube video would only be a reliable source to the fact that Felarca had assaulted somebody. How does it establish that Felarca is a leader of BAMN, or that other leaders of the group also assault people? It certainly doesn't establish that the group "organizes violent riots" (as you wrote) or that its recommended approach to dispute resolution is to assault others. If you think that "validating your claim" or the inferences you draw from the group's name mean anything, please visit WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and explain how you would like to cite your "validated claim" and your inferences as reliable sources. Or find reliable, published sources that meet the requirements of our guideline. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: First of all, the video exists, and it was used by a Fox News anchor/host on prime time television during an interview with Felarca. In the video, it is established that: 1. Felarca is indeed a BAMN organizer, 2. That Felarca, the BAMN organizer, has assaulted people with dissenting political viewpoints at rallies, 3. That she believes that any method necessary, including physical aggression/violence, must be used to drive "fascists" out of Berkeley because they spew "hate speech", and that 4. She has been criticized for doing so (by Tucker Carlson). is the video link. If YouTube is intrinsically an unreliable source, then I can get a link from a Fox News. Nevertheless, the video shows a segment from a Fox News show (Tucker Carlson Tonight), where the video is displayed and where Felarca is asked to answer. I don't know what's a more reliable source than an interview on a reputable American news organization showing that Felarca believes violence is necessary. She said it with her own mouth on the show. So I'm having trouble understanding why when I provide a reliable source, it might be considered inaccurate because you didn't take the time to look through what the source contains. I'm pretty sure Fox News can be used a source here, and I'm pretty sure if someone states their beliefs with their own mouth on national television, the assumption can be made that this is what that person believes. This interview should show that "A BAMN, organizer, Yvette Felarca, has been criticized for assaulting others at free speech rallies and for promoting that violence should be used in order to prevent people she views as fascists from speaking". I have my own concerns with how this sentence sounds, (it doesn't sound encyclopedic or neutral) but for the sake of convenience, this is the message I'm trying to add. And this interview wholly confirms the statement. CatcherStorm 23:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you keep losing credibility. Tucker Carlson Tonight is no more a reliable source for facts than The Rachel Maddow Show would be. Can you cite a news news show, or a newspaper article? Otherwise, you can cite your video as a source for what Felarca says she believes—not what the organization she may or may not be associated with believes. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and start a discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you continue to believe that a segment on Carlson's program is a reliable source for facts. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I've already established that I'm not trying to say "all BAMN organizers think alike because Felarca did this". And for the record, the fact that it was on Tucker Carlson's show has nothing to do with the fact that Felarca said with her own mouth that that is what she believes. It didn't come from Tucker's mouth or anyone else's, Felarca said it herself. If I, for example, go on a news segment like Tucker Carlson Tonight and say "I like to eat fruit," then it should be a valid claim to say that "On Tucker Carlson Tonight, CatcherStorm said that he likes to eat fruit". Because it came from my mouth and I said it, and I wasn't forced by anyone to say it. On the other hand, if Tucker himself says "CatcherStorm likes to eat fruit", then I can fully understand why it wouldn't necessarily be considered a valid claim.

However, this isn't the case. Just because someone says something on a show where the host cannot be completely trusted to stay facts-based doesn't automatically negate what that person said. No one else said it except for her, and it's in the video. If it's decided that nevertheless I can't use this segment, then would it be viable to link to the actual footage of Yvette Felarca assaulting someone and then making the claim that "On (insert date), BAMN organizer Yvette Felarca was filmed assaulting another person at a free speech rally."? CatcherStorm 00:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Misplaced Pages just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Misplaced Pages bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

Editing Of Huffington Post (US) Completely Wrong (And Hopefully Not Maliciously So)

Sorry dude, gotta say describing Huff Post as far left is hopelessly inaccurate, and shows that you do not know enough about politics to be editing Misplaced Pages on such topics. It is a respectable mainstream politically left/liberal newspaper NOT far left. I'm gonna be generous and say this is a silly, ignorant mistake and not fake news by some weird far right nutter. Please sort it out.