User talk:TeaDrinker

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TeaDrinker. 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)

Tradescantia pallida article

I think I see what is going on here. I pointed out that Edward Palmer collected the original type specimen of Tradescantia pallida in 1907, and referenced the collection from the US National Herbarium. After further review, I realize that this reference doesn't fully support that statement. The Encyclopedia of Life article on the plant fully supports the wording I used, so I'll add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDogg310 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamarhat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent upload

Hi, I just uploaded an image to en.wp, but I would like the image metadata to be scrubbed. Could you either do this for me directly, or have the file deleted so I can do this and upload it again? Thanks in advance. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: I don't know of a way of removing the metadata from an image, so I have gone ahead and deleted the image. Hope this helps and let me know if there's anything else I can do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again. I uploaded the file again thinking that I had scrubbed the metadata, but it's still there. Could I ask you to delete it again for me, please? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Not a problem. Done. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:45:06, 4 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jneuhaus99

• Jneuhaus99 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jneuhaus99 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I authored a page on Dr. "Ayodele Odusola" United Nations economist. It was rejected due to copyright violation – of a work to which I own the rights, myself (here: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/odusola/home). Now, I would like to put that copyrighted work in the public domain, then resubmit the page to Wikipedia, so no copyright violation can occur. How can I put the original work in the public domain, to satisfy Wikipedia's standards?

Thanks, in advance, for your help. Best regards, James

Jneuhaus99 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jneuhaus99: Thanks! Indeed, there is information on how to do this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The easiest way to donate the text is to place a notice on the website itself. The linked page also has other instructions. Note that it may not apply to the image, which as I recall was a picture of a book cover. The author of the book probably still has the copyright. Let me know (just post a note below) when you have added the note to the webpage and I will be happy to restore the draft. Do keep in mind that the article still should have references to other sources about the subject; I am happy to help with that if you are running into trouble, just let me know. I have gone ahead and restored the draft article, and will restore the text when the license is available. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the text to the webpage, as suggested. Is it possible to restore the draft? At that point, I can modify and add the photo (the rights to which I own, myself) Thanks and best regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneuhaus99 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Neo

According to http://www.elle.com/culture/news/a34512/woman-who-started-incel-movement/ the term incel has existed since the 1990s. Yet you describe it as a neologism. Why? 92.10.227.10 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference and your interest in the project. Obviously, reviewing an article requires some measure of judgement and the mere existence of a word for 20 years does not mean the term suddenly rising to prominence precludes it being a neologism. In that case, I found little evidence for use off the site Reddit.com. In my estimation, were I to move the article into the main article space, it would be deleted for a seventh time. We're not here to fight for the recognition of people or hide ideas, instead we're here to write an encyclopedia. And in my estimation, the draft did not demonstrate the widespread use of the term off the site Reddit.com. I note that Reddit.com has recently banned the Incel group from the site. Perhaps that will change the separability of the group from Reddit.com. However in my estimation, the term is currently used virtually exclusively in the same breath as the Reddit.com site, and as such should be included in that article and only split after discussion on that talk page. Hope this helps and thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

25 years. It predates not only the subreddit but even the entire website. Either way other incel communities online include Discord, Voat, /r9k/ on 4chan sluthhate, PUAhhate, Lookism; and that's just off the top of my head. The highest ranking incel forums per Google search returns are incels dot me and incel dot life. In other words incels are in no way shape or form limited to Reddit. The term "involuntary celibacy" is even older. 92.10.227.10 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also the concept is discussed in 16 other languages none of whom seem to be focused on Reddit: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q332395 92.10.227.10 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The job as a reviewer is to determine if the article will likely be kept by the community. The most recent article for deletion indicates it will not be. It was extensively discussed and the conclusion was that at the moment, the online movement outside of the Reddit community was not sufficiently well covered to justify inclusion as a topic in its own right and the term "involuntary celibacy" was not a term used in the literature, except in passing context. I saw nothing in the draft which would indicate that this had changed. Thanks again for your interest in building an encyclopedia, --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:54:19, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Certus UT

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You just reviewed my article on the Carbon Canal and rejected it because it allegedly included copyrighted material based on another article that is nearly identical on another website. I wrote that article as well, and it was not expressly copyrighted. That is also why it is essentially identical. Since I am the author of both articles, and the intent of all parties involved in its posting on the other website was for the article to be published in two locations, how do I address your objection?

Certus UT (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Certus UT: Thanks for the note and explanation! Indeed, you can donate your material to Wikipedia (keep in mind that this means licensing it under some conditions). Check out Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The easiest way to let Wikipedia use the material is to add a notice to the coal canal website that says the material is licensed for use, for example

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

There are also ways to email permission discussed on the Donating copyrighted materials page linked above. Let me know if you have any questions (you can post a note here) or I can help in any way (the content you wrote and formatted is not gone, merely hidden. If we have a compatible license, it can easily be unhidden.). Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:46:24, 7 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Certus UT

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the guidance! I've requested the "release" language be posted to the canal company web page with the identical article. Assuming they agree and post said language, how do I notify you all and resubmit the article?

Certus UT (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Certus UT: Just let me know by posting a message here and I can take care of putting it in the main article space. It looks like a great article and the product of a lot of work. I do apologize for the difficulties with copyright. Thanks so much for all the time and effort! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray Iwazumi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisuke Suzuki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alstroemeria orchidioides has been accepted

Alstroemeria orchidioides, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TeaDrinker (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with rejected article

Draft:Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (a medical school) is now distinct from Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (a college/university with several schools). Both pages should exist, much like Creighton University School of Medicine (a medical school) and Creighton University (a college/university with several schools) coexist. Please take another look and let me know your thoughts. Trantorian (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trantorian: Thanks for the note! As I understand from the two articles, the school of medicine is a subsidiary school within the college, but this distinction is relatively recent, correct? If that's the case, the shared history should primarily be discussed in the College's article, and only briefly in the school's article. In any event, if you want to take on sorting it out, I can certainly see what you're getting at and will move the draft to the main space. Thanks again and if I can be of any help, please let me know. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@TeaDrinker: Thanks for following up! The School of Medicine has been a subsidiary of MCCMS since its founding in 1972. The recent development is that Mayo Medical School was renamed Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in 2016. I will see if I can make that clearer in the article.

Thank Your For Reviewing My Article!

Hey just dropping by to say thank you for the input!

I'm always looking for help. If you have any time I'd love to collaborate with you on a few articles. I could use your expertise! Thanks, you can visit my talk page to leave me a reply, its less busy than yours!--PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

16:10:14, 13 February 2018 review of submission by Cskane

• Cskane (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Caroline Colucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cskane (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

HI. am curious what is missing on my article? Let me know.

CskaneThird party response here. I probably would have declined it as well. Looking at what is provided for Ms. Colucci's career, the four talent agencies that she has signed up, none of them have wikipedia pages, not sure why *auditioning* for Fat Joe's video would make her notable, and the photographers she has worked for don't appear to be notable either and who she has met does nothing to show notability.Naraht (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cskane: I have to agree with Naraht here. There are a couple of requirements for a Wikipedia biography article, among them are notability and verifiability by independent, reliable sources. What is needed are, for example, news interviews with the subject of the article, or articles about her in published media. Let me know if this makes sense or if I can provide more information. Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer vs. Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor

Comment: Is this the same topic as Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor or the more general version of Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer? TeaDrinker (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker, the new article "Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer" is more general and more comprehensive. "Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor" (ICP) deals with the same techical matter but only with regard to one of its particular brand names. Both articles may coexist but "ICP" should be linked to the new one. I just noticed that there is a third article about this subject called "Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer". It is hard to find, may be because of "electronic". I would suggest to delete it. It explicitly refers to accelerometers although IEPE is used in other sensor types as well. Also there are some doubtful numbers in it and no additional content. I think most users will look up the abbreviation "IEPE", not he full name. Thank you for your support Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBurg (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@JanBurg: Thanks! Is there anything in the existing Integrated circuit piezoelectric sensor or Integrated electronic piezoelectric accelerometer articles that should be merged with the Draft:Integrated Electronics Piezo-Electric (IEPE) article? If so, we should move the existing article to a better title and then merge your draft into it. Otherwise, I can just move your draft into the main space and make the other articles redirects. Heron (talk · contribs) wrote the accelerometer article, and is still active on the project. They may have some ideas on how to handle this as well. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Heron here. I agree that the draft should become the new article and the other two should become redirects. IEPE is the most general term, with ...sensor, ...accelerometer and ICP being hyponyms. Thanks for asking! --Heron (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, I think I have got it moved around correctly. Let me know if there are any issues or I can help with anything else. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Project Censored article restored?

It fails to meet notability standards. None of the concerns expressed in the deletion discussion were met: there is literally zero independent WP:RS coverage of the organization[1]. What's worse is that the article was literally authored by the organization itself and the vast majority of sources are the organization itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The article was draftified after the AfD by Killiondude (talk · contribs). You're right, it was the director of Project Censored who worked on it, and it was resubmitted. I advised MickeyHuff (talk · contribs) to declare a COI, but did not see a real problem with COI since he was editing under his own name. And really, it was us who dropped the ball on this one--even if what's in the article is not sufficient, a cursory search reveals plenty more reliable coverage. As far as notability, it is not only asserted it is well-demonstrated. Multiple books have been written highlighting the work product of the organization are mentioned in the article. A quick search finds articles commenting on their work, commemorating their 40 year history, commentary on the passing of their former director, and of course, articles talking about their findings. Heck, I even see the Iranian News Service citing them as a source and China News referencing their work.

My view is that we're here to write an encyclopedia, and deletion is not a remedy for notable organizations which are imperfectly written. My view re the AfC is that the notability was adequately demonstrated and so I moved the article to the main space. You're welcome to disagree, but I don't see the notability argument sticking. I'll add some more references to demonstrate notability, and feel free to contact me if you have any further concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The books are published by completely unknown publication houses. Anyone can publish a book anywhere. I did do a cursory search for mentions in several RS, and found no substantive coverage. These are all things that were brought up in the deletion discussion, and no one could substantiate that there was any substantive RS coverage of the organization despite assertions to the contrary. I have never heard of the "Iranian News Service" or "China News", and these can't be found through a Google Search. Please link to RS coverage of the organization, and please add it to the Wikipedia article. It's completely unacceptable that RS are not used to support the text in the Wikipedia article if the organization has indeed been covered by any non-fringe sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

When you refer to "Iranian News Service" and "China News", you are talking about the propaganda outlets of the Iranian and Chinese regimes? And they don't even cite Project Censored in their news reporting, but in editorials. This is the RS coverage you have in mind? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Seven Stories Press is not a "completely unknown publication house." I think your statement that you did a "cursory search" is accurate. It was only cursory. You found passing mention in reliable sources, but you did not find the multiple articles which cover the subject in depth. I linked some of those. You're correct that the use of Project Censored by US media critics, and by critics of US policy in state media overseas, does not alone establish notability, but it does demonstrate the breadth of the impact of the project. But the article, mentioning books and movies, should have clued you in that more independent sources were available. I am not sure why it did not. But I have added some to the article and I hope that settles your concern. --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good job. You found four local news stories about a local project over a 15 year span, and two editorials by the propaganda outlets of authoritarian regimes taking a stab at the US. Totally not a fringe organization. I'm gonna renominate this for deletion as soon as I figure out the most appropriate way to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The gall to chide me for not locating local news stories and blatantly non-RS propaganda arm content about the organization! Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: We are not an index of what's easily found on Google; ten minutes of googling is not a great way to assess notability. Local news stories are fine as reliable sources. I apologize if I come off as chiding, but to me, this is a softball when it comes to challenges we normally face in assessing notability. The fact that major state propaganda outlets reference them is significant, I think. Imagine you're a researcher in 50 years, trying to figure out where Iranian State Media got their information. Well shucks, it is right here in Wikipedia. In any event, I am happy to discuss the matter at an AfD and I can certainly continue to add more sources; they are not difficult to come by. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that my grandchildren will be amazed when they find out that one Iranian propaganda editorial cited an American fringe organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside, I will add a few more reliable sources to the article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project Censored, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page China News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, help me

Help me for my articule Draft:Emil Cerda, his references is reliable. Please, help me with the wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48730313. His references are real, so, help me to building that articule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santateresaio (talk • contribs)

@Santateresaio: Thanks for your note! I have taken the liberty of changing the link from {{}} to [[ ]] since the former transcludes the whole article, while the latter merely links to it. I'm afraid wikis in general (including Wikipedia and Wikidata) are not generally considered reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content. What you will have to find is independent sources, generally this entails in-depth coverage in the media. Hope this helps! --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I already applied and researched thoroughly, and I put all the information in the references. Is something else missing? Santateresaio (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Santateresaio

@Santateresaio: Thanks! I looked over the article, but I'm afraid it still lacks adequate citations to be a Wikipedia article. It is possible you have included all the information that is available about the subject, however the article subject does not meet the notability requirement. It may be too early in his career to have a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help clarify further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@TeaDrinker:Hey, how's everything going? I was investigating thoroughly and there is still more about this article. It is not that it is very early in his career to be on Wikipedia, but, it is the media that want "reliable" information from him. That is, if you are on Wikipedia, you will be able to participate in many more formidable and large projects, you know that Wikipedia is important. Please, I ask you to consider my article. Santateresaio (talk)

@Santateresaio: Thanks for your continued work, however I don't see the article being created unless there are multiple independent reliable sources which cover the subject in depth. That has to come before it is included in Wikipedia. I understand that some folks use presence in Wikipedia as am indication of fame. However we can't use the need of the subject as a basis for approving articles. Also, if you're closely related to the subject, do check out our policy on conflicts of interest. Sorry I don't have better news. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@TeaDrinker: Fame? Never. I'm just looking for true sources. I ask for my consideration, and don't worry, I will continue improving the article. That yes, also verify the sources so you can see that they are verifiable. Santateresaio (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Santateresaio (talk)

@Santateresaio: Take a look at the guidelines on reliable sources, Verifiability, and notability for people. Hope this helps. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft Rejections:Nano (cryptocurrency)

Understandably, repeated deletions of an article can be considered when rejecting new drafts in the interest of mitigating Wikipedia "spamming". However, while I was aware of the deleted RaiBlocks articles, I did not author or edit and had only briefly skimmed the now deleted articles for RaiBlocks before writing drafts of Nano (cryptocurrency), formerly known as RaiBlocks. As such, the criticism that these editions is "very little in addition" to previous entries which were rejected or deleted for reasons of notability/lack of reliable sourcing falls short of objectivity due to the non-transparent nature of the previous articles or drafts (which were deleted). "Diffing" or using a MinHash implementation such as tlsh to compare the current with previous articles would likely support the assertion that I am not the original author. Wikipedia admins with access to server logs with my ip address could probably confirm this as well (though I do not wish to "out" myself, due to security concerns surrounding the cryptocurrency market).

Since the rest of the community does not have access to the deleted versions or the logs, could you expand a bit on the purported lack of significance of my previous submission? With respect to my most recent submission, Forbes, Fortune and TechCrunch all strike me as notable and reliable sources.

Bitcoin-centric sites include more articles relevant to the topic, but I wanted to focus on sources from the mainstream press from the get-go. Including translations, a Google site search of cointelegraph.com returns 35+ articles from January and February 2018. 13 pages on coindesk.com (from December, January and February). 1 article from bitcoinmagazine.com. With the exception of the multi-million dollar BitGrail hack, most of these are mere mentions of RaiBlocks/Nano. It wouldn't be hard to criticize contributors to the bitcoin-centric news sites of marketing or market manipulation. But these are also source which the mainstream press routinely cite (e.g., CNBC), so repeated mentions on sites like coindesk are significant elements to consider in accepting the draft submission, even though their inclusion in the article itself would constitute either insignificant/redundant information or original research in compiling the relevant statistical analysis.

The most in-depth coverage of RaiBlocks/Nano has been on themerkle.com, but I purposely avoided that source until David Z. Morris cited an article on that domain because previous editors didn't seem to find that content significant or verifiable. I do not and have not held a significant stake in Nano. I am however interested in questioning the lack of diversity in code and the overall lack of exploring or commenting on the code base within the greater community of 1000+ cryptocurrencies, of which a large percentage are shelled out with precarious ICO funding, inefficient programming languages or simply forked from bitcoin.

The repeated draft rejections and inconsistency with respect to inclusion of other cryptocurrencies lead me to believe that there is an apparent lack of interest and a subjective stance against Nano or cryptocurrencies in general on the part of the editors who have reviewed Nano and RaiBlocks article submissions. A more objective approach in reinforcing anti-spam policies might be to store tlsh hashes of deleted articles when scheduling them for deletion, retaining the hash after deletion. In lieu of this, a more descriptive summary comparing editions would be greatly appreciated. That said, the comments from this rejection are much more acceptable than the ignorance expressed in the glib, sophomoric criticisms from the previous reviewer ("yet another bitcoin ad" and "if it quacks like a duck"[deleted]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptolyzer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I see that your draft is different from the one that was rejected by AfD. Establishing the notability of cryptocurrencies is challenging and we currently have no single standard that is agreed upon, and to compound this, such articles often become targets of intensive promotional "adjustments" which lead to a lot of unhappy (volunteer) editors. While this latter point is not itself a reason for deletion, it does make it a contentious issue. I will add a comment to this effect to the draft and see if another user is willing to move it into the article space. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:14:49, 20 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by PTMY

• PTMY (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Unihertz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Unihertz Draft. Would it make sense to change it to a page about Jelly and Jelly Pro, the "world's smallest 4G smart phone," because that got more coverage? If so, would you suggest starting fresh, or re-purposing the current page? Thanks.

PTMY (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@PTMY: It is possible, I think it stands a better chance than the company, but world's smallest 4G smartphone (for the moment) is not much in the way of notability either. There are just a lot of consumer electronic products, each with *something* unique about them, but not really the stuff that normally is documented in an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dangjia village AFC

Hi, I see that you approved Dangjia village. There's a leftover draft at Draft:Dang village so that should be scrubbed or deleted. Not sure how much it has improved since those rejected versions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks, I have deleted it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Arctic Zero article

Hi. I've edited Arctic Zero article following your comments and would like to ask for your expert advice. Do you think that further edits are needed? Thanks. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:36:52, 5 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Certus UT

• Certus UT (talk · contribs)
  • User:Certus UT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm following up on your review of my article on the Carbon Canal and the copyright/patent issue associated with its posting on another website. The other website has now posted "release" language at the bottom of the web page on which the article appears. You can find that here: http://carboncanalcompany.com/carbon-canal-history

Please, let me know if this resolves the copyright/patent issue or if additional action is necessary to move the article forward in the review process.

Regards, Certus_UT

Certus UT (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @@Certus UT: Thanks for your note! I have restored the article and moved it into the main article space at Carbon Canal. Great work and thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Political Economy of Research & Innovation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''Political Economy of Research & Innovation''. Since you had some involvement with the 'Political Economy of Research & Innovation' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

17:15:33, 12 March 2018 review of submission by Lindseyweeks

• Lindseyweeks (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thank you so much for your review. I humbly request your assistance in deleting the old pages Ovarian Cancer Research Fund and Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and replacing with the new page, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance. The two former organizations were merged together to form the latter. All of the info on the older pages is now outdated. I created the new entry for Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance because I thought I had to do that - create a whole new entry and then delete the old ones - rather than make extensive edits and a name change to one of the old entries. Apologies if I misunderstood and went about this the wrong way. Please let me know what you'd need from me to make this happen and thank you again. Lindsey Lindseyweeks (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Lindseyweeks (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)