User:Markdask/Archive 4

Hi @Soumya Sarit Mohanty: - thank you for the star and sorry I have not been on recently - my work takes me all my time when I am working. According to the discussion page listed in the "DELETION" notice, your article looks like an advertisement and your references are unclear. If you want it to remain I will have to make many changes that will make the article much smaller okay? Also, can you please give me a link to any newspaper or magazine article in which "Jeet Visual Arts" is mentioned? This is very important - you must be able to show that someone other than the company itself is talking about the company. Also - the license for the site Jeet Visual Arts expires in three months - it would help if this was updated. Also - the Jeetvisualarts domain was only created in 19th October 2015, do you really think Jeet Visual Arts is important enough to be must Wikipedia? It's just over one year old. Also - the Mika Singh website was created by WingsMedia - not Jeet. You must send me INDEPENDANT sources or the page WILL be deleted.Mark^Dask 16:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Soumya if you do not reply to the above in the next 24 hours I will vote your article for deletion. DO NOT IGNORE THIS. Mark^Dask 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mark! I'm extremely sorry for the delay in my reply. But I really want this article to be there here in Wikipedia as it's encyclopedic one. And about the sources - I'm trying my best to get as much reliable sources as I can. I'll give you some in a few days of time. But please help me keeping this as one article in Wikipedia. Regards! SM Sarit 22:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)SMSarit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumya Sarit Mohanty (talk • contribs)

And I'm sorry also Soumya but I simply cannot find ANY news article in any newspaper or magazine to show that Jeet Visual Art is "Notable" - meaning important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I managed to get the "Speedy Deletion" tag removed but I cannot stop the article being deleted - its in the hands of administrators. Ooh well - at least we tried. Mark^Dask 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Markdask,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 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

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
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)

February 2017

Hello. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent contributions to User talk:Markdask has been automatically undone by a computer automated software called 107.77.194.72. 107.77 makes very few false positives but it does happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.72 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

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

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Markdask,

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 804 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Perpetuallocomotion.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Perpetuallocomotion.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Review thanks

Thank you for reviewing Flounder house. Hope you have a great day! —Verbistheword (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference to the movie

You added tag to the page Sokolovo (film) that "This article does not cite any sources." The IMDb page doesnt count?? --Honzula (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Honzula, thanks for asking. IMDb is a great source of information - I use it all the time. Unfortunately it is not very good as a secondary reference because anyone can write anything on IMDb if they are registered. I have added a good reference and removed the tag okay? Sorry it took so long to reply. Mark^Dask 18:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, this page only quotes the ČSFD movie database, which is basically analogical to IMDb. But the cited description there is supposedly the official text of the DVD distributor, so we can consider this as the proved info. I just move the reference to External links (note: neither the description on ČSFD nor the text of the DVD distributor was created in 1974...) --Honzula (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find any contemporary review online but without success. Just one short commentary on whole trilogy in German Der Spiegel 17/1976. Would you like to add it too? --Honzula (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

roger wagner

Thanks for your feedback on the page on Roger Wagner which I created. I agree that some images would enhance the page but have previously found it difficult to do in Wikipedia because of their strict rules on copyright. There are plenty of images on his website - http://www.rogerwagner.co.uk/work - and if you know how to upload these within Wikipedia's copyright rules, please feel free to do so and I'm sure that it will add considerably to the text. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@User talk:MrArmstrong2 - not a problem MrArmstrong - I will list your article on my "things to do" and get back to you although v busy at the moment, but yes I will find some "Free" or "Fair use" images to put in your article - sometime next week. Mark^Dask 15:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photograph of Kendra Haste's Lions.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Kendra Haste's Lions.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) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Street (Havana)

Hello, many thanks for your help in this work, now I put some sources in the page and I think that the tag can be remove. I wait your answer, and thanks again. --Al-Baco (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Al-Baco - thank you for adding the references. I formatted some, but some others did not work. As you can see, reference (3) doesn't work so it would be great if you could go to the site again and make sure you copy the exact Url - then I will come back and format it for you. Also it would be great if you got a Url for each of the "Places of Interest" and I can format them all

I have removed the tag.

Also, I visited your User page and saw you have written many good articles but your references were bare Urls, so I formatted most of the references on the English translations you have written, but I am unable to format the references in your Spanish articles using the "Refill" tool. let me know if/when you have translated any other articles that need references and I will be happy to format those also. Mark^Dask 11:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the reference (3) is broken, I think than it can be removed, about the others sources for each "Place of Interest" I will try find a URL, but I tell you than where I work I have a access limited to internet and only I can go to the national Webs sites of Cuba, often in spanish. many Thanks for your helps, I will tell you when I put another reference. We remain in contact. --Al-Baco (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Instead using page curation to add {{stub}} (like you did at Al-Morabito Mosque), please stub sort instead. Thank you. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Markdask,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

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

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

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

History of A Cuban Struggle Against the Demons

Thanks for all. Yes, I believe that this name is more near to a good translation. Thanks again. Al-Baco (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Session

Thank you for reviewing my page about sessions! Would love it if you could review/patrol my other new unreviewed articles, too. Climate7298 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR Review.....

Hi, can you please clarify how you found Astro de Ogum to be so good; that you need not place any tag.A cursory glance leads me to use Stub and More sources(BLP).The same also goes for Dhangadhi Premier League.That was a prime candidate for More references.Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 13:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope Winged Blades of Godric - I guess I cannot clarify. After 10 years as editor, with a BA in English, I guess you're better than me. Ooh well - I'll just keep trying to do my best.

Mark^Dask 21:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Chris Conway (psychic)

Just to let you know, as the page patroller, that I have nominated for deletion. Mcewan (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicola Hicks' "Dressed for the Woods II".jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicola Hicks' "Dressed for the Woods II".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) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 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.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Markdask, 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)

Stub sorting

Please don't use the {{Stub}} tag if you can find a more specific stub tag; stub sort whenever you are able. To do otherwise will backlog Category:Stubs. Thank you. (I realize some people aren't able to stub sort very well due to issues surrounding memory or feeling overwhelmed by the unfortunately long list of stub types; sorry if you're one of them). -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I dream of horses I'm totally with the idea of avoiding a category:stub backlog but I don't even know where to find the stub list. Until someone sorts out a dropdown for the stublist I think I'll avoid stub altogether and just get on with doing what I'm best at, improving each unreviewed article where I can and modestly tagging for improvement. Mark^Dask 21:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a list here, which is linked in the original message. Would that help, even minus a dropdown menu?

There's a script here, but I keep getting error messages when putting it into my js. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi I dream of horses - I'm kinda adjusting to this stubsort thingie. I find it's better to understand the script than search the LIBRARY of existing stubs - eg - when I find a Portugal-related artical I stub it as such - but that's just one level of specification. Frankly anything more specific seems to me just asking too much of the average editor - eg "Portugal - politics - party...". Stubsorting is a giant pain but meh, I'm learning

. Mark^Dask 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FIFCO official logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FIFCO official logo.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) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Markdask, 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)

Replaceable fair use File:Five Blues lake in Belize after draining.png

Thanks for uploading File:Five Blues lake in Belize after draining.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Train2104: for taking the time to elaborate on why the image fails Free Use criteria. I think the images make the article so I'm going to contact the authors of the article immediately to request they release the images to Commons. This might take a few days but I think they would be amenable. We will see. Mark^Dask 01:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Harper Whitley

Hi There, did you read the article? It wasn't written in the form of a person, it was written in the same form as all other Shortland Street articles. Besides, the article is still a work in progress. The character has been a regular on the show for 5 years now and the characters info is just too large to be in the list of characters, maybe you could help edit the article to develop the character. But she defiantly needs a page. There are other points to be bought up too, such as her relationship with Drew and Nicole. Thanks, Hatio93 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Hatio93. If you click on any other character in the list they don't have their own page but they do have lots of info about the character; some more, some less. And each character even have their own infobox. In your case I think your work will look great in the list. Just to be supportive I will add an infobox to the Harper Whitley section - but only same as every other character. You are very welcome to add as much text as you like about Harper Whitley, but what's important to understand is that Harper Whitely is only Notable within the context of the series in which she exists, and not as a standalone being. So give me 30 minutes and I will produce the infobox. Then you can write away. If you need a copy of your work it is readily available - it aint vanished okay? Check back on the list in 30 minutes okie? Mark^Dask

Hi Again, if you look in the navigational template, there are many characters with their own articles. Chris Warner and Leanne Black to name a few. I have reverted the edits on Harper Whitley. The characters for that list are only ones that have played minor stints in the show. It is not meant for long pieces of writing. Check out some Neighbours articles too, many main characters have their own page, for example Terese Willis and their articles perfectly show them within the series. What your suggesting is not standard for WP:SOAPS. There are guidelines that are discussed on here to how fictional soap opera characters should be written. The "Creation and casting" section is the only part that says anything about Ria Vandervis, that plays the role of Harper, as it should as it provides information about her casting. Look at those other soap articles I suggested and you will be able to see this. Hatio93 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, I have spent a lot of time working on the mess that Shortland Street articles are today. I have also spent many hours of my time to create Harper Whitley. The article is still a work in progress. I am finding more sources and info. It also important to understand that the page is important as the character involved in a high profile storyline involving abortion. It is crucial when a character is tackling a storyline this big. Hatio93 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it aint exactly my field Hatio93, and I've checked out some of the links you provided - yup - the field is yours

. You write very well btw - Mark^Dask 18:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks user:Markdask, I admire your dedication to editing . Hatio93 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Il Destino (Classical Crossover Duo)

Dear Markdask, I have raised an objection to your speedy deletion of the Il Destino article on the grounds one of the duo, Jon Christos is particulaly notable, and major cruise ship operaters are renowned for the quality of their entertainers. I feel one person should not act as judge, jury and executioner when contributors like myself sometimes spends weeks dilligenty preparing articles for submission. I hope you can now remove the tag in this case as you have really discouraged me from parpicitating writing articles for Wikipedia in the future. I suggest maybe the article can be a designated as a stub rather than remove it altogether? Regards, Alfshire. Alfshire (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alfshire, thank you for getting in touch. I'm at work rt now - will address the matter this evening - I have meanwhile removed the tag :). Mark^Dask 12:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Mark, I do understand you need to be vigilant, maybe I should have created it a stub so more information can be added as time goes on. Alfshire (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Alfshire – let me first say you present your articles very well – as a new-page reviewer I wish more people would make such effort. Secondly, I do not use the “Speedy delete” tag lightly, i.e. it is not merely a matter of my opinion when I use it. Thirdly, the “speedy” tag is not a decision made – only administrators can delete an article and I am not an admin, merely a reviewer, so when I use the speedy tag its no more than a referral for consideration. Much of my work is as a “wiki-gnome” - when I come across an article that fits the “Notability” criteria but needs technical assistance, I can sometimes invest a lot of time researching a subject in order to improve an article before “approving” it. A favorite of mine is Damat Ali-Paša's Turbeh, on which I spent five hours researching and adding the infobox / photo / map / coordinates and references in order to bring it up to “encyclopedic” standards. Now while very few people will ever read the article, (the title is Serbian), what makes it encyclopedic is that it is a unique historical monument with a very illustrious provenance.Therein lies the difficulty virtually every novice experiences, (as I well know from back in the day) – what is “encyclopedic”?

The key word for any article even before finger hits key is Notability – a page that (with hindsight) every new editor should have to read closely. And “who says” a subject is notable? A good example of notability is Malala Yousafzai – and she's barely 20. In the case of Jon Christos I would say yes but half of the references you introduced on his page are either blogs, dead or unrelated, (very common mistakes among new editors). In the case of Adam Lacey, check all 8 references – (google Adam lacey) – not one national newspaper article – so nope, not notable. But what's most relevant here is the subject is neither singer, but the times both singers perform together as Il Destino, and of the nine references on the page, only 3 refer to the subject; one is a local gig, (Ribble Valley), one is an advertizement, (Warner Leisure Hotels), and the last is their own website, none of which qualify as “Independent sources”.

Lastly Alf – and you gotta give me some credit here for patience – between Dec 24th '15 and Jan 17th '16 you [Wikipedia:Articles for creation|submitted] a draft of Glen Gabriel four times and you were declined four times by four different senior editors, the first 3 of which are very senior admins, so for you to have simply posted the article nine days ago is a little bit naughty

. In fairness it should have been explained to you why the draft was declined on the first occasion – which would have saved both you and me a lotta effort, but at least now you know why. I have now tagged all three pages questioning “Notability”, but please don't think I'm being mean here – if I didn't tag them I couldn't mark them as “reviewed” and some other reviewer would inevitably have come along and “speedied” them. This way you have time to read up on Notability – check the references – and finally accept the three articles are dead ducks. Please don't feel you've wasted your time. Perhaps consider them as practice runs. You are clearly a more experienced editor for the exercise and I have no doubt you will make immensely worthy contributions in the future. I will of course be happy to assist with your next project, I'm quite a good researcher given a worthwhile subject

. For now though, please save me some time, sift through those 55 refs on the Jon Christos page and remove blogs/dead/irrelevant links. Mark^Dask 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)3

I should also emphasize Alfshire, the standards for Biographies of Living Persons are even more stringent than other articles so please do not be tempted to remove the tags yourself. Mark^Dask 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mark, I realise you are an expert in your field, but I'm still adamant Glen Gabriel is notable, even if only for his two nominated Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Some very famous stars have been nominated in the past by that organisation, so in my opinion he is notable for that distiction. I have to say I had issues in the past with some holier than though editors on Wikipedia over some submissions (you aren't one I hasten to add) which is why I re-submitted Gabriel's as a new article 'stub' for others to improve on. I will take on board you advice and appreciate all your time and effort. Regards, Alf Alfshire (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Malagasy politicians

Hate to be a nitpicker, but I don't agree that they meet CSD A7 - there is an assertion of notability, as both articles are about members of a national legislature. (See WP:POLITICIAN.) What they lack is references...which were there when I created the articles, but which appear in both cases to have been stripped out for one reason or another. I'm working on finding them again, but it will have to wait until later in the day, the way things are going now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ser Amantio di Nicolao. maybe they are politicians today, but are they "Remarkable" people? I think it is sufficient for them to be listed in the main article, (if current), but to make a seperate page for every politician who is/was is not justified. I will redirect rather than tag CSD in future. Mark^Dask 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well...I think they are remarkable people, just as members of other national legislatures are. I don't agree with redirecting the articles, simply because I wouldn't do that for members of any other national legislature. Better to expand them if possible...it appears that at least one can be expanded with information about his Lutheran activities. I will attempt to do so when I have time, but that won't be likely until later today, if not later in the week.

But then, I'm an inclusionist, too. So there you go. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie Ser Amantio di Nicolao I'll remove CSD and question Notability instead. Thanks for getting in touch

. Mark^Dask 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Any time. I'll try to get in there and work on the articles soon. But...well, I forget easily, so feel free to give me a little poke now and again. :-)

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: Where did Denmark's first computer go, to the HamNet? (Check us out at www.tobeornotto.be!*)

*Please note - I don't actually know where this leads. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dinesh Nandan Sahay

Hello Markdask. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dinesh Nandan Sahay, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:NPOL. Thank you. Jujutacular (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Tendamix

It has come to my attention that Tendamix has been marked for speedy deletion. I ask that you give me more time to add more information to the article.

Thanks.

Thanks for reviewing Kalekuri Prasad

Thanks for the valuable suggestion on new article Kalekuri Prasad and usage of words "well known" and "important role".i agree with you. I will try to change those words or try to explain the importance of article adding few more citations and edit article.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Markdask. 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)

Galileo University

Hey, I'm guessing you just pressed the wrong button, but you cannot put a BLP prod on a non BLP article, and even then, it must have absolutely no references. Even an external link that could reasonably construed as a source disqualifies a blp from BLP PROD. Articles created before a certain date are also ineligible. I see no reason you cannot apply a regular prod. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction John from Idegon. Yes it was accidental. Right now I'm working through the BLP backlog, (2015), and came upon Eduardo Suger - an article begging for deletion in order to clear the backlog of un-notable BLPs, hence the accident - I was preloaded lol. I promise I aint scattergunning the list - I'm taking time to properly review each article in the list, but hell we do have an awesome number of skeletons in the BLP cupboard

. I will pay more attention - and again - thanks. Btw is Galileo University even a thing? (DELETE). The one link is PRIVATE. I will leave it to yourself to decide its fate. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't know and frankly don't really care. Your prod caused it to be listed on the article alerts for WikiProject schools, where I am one of the coordinators. I looked at it to try to determine why it showed up on our alerts, as universities are not our bailiwick. Failed at that, but now it's on my watchlist, so I may get back to it some year. Lol. Happy editing, and Merry Christmas! John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nicolas Cowan

I'm not offended. I am slightly confused. The article in question is over a decade old at this point. I know longevity doesn't necessarily indicate relevance, I'm just confused as to why it took so long to get tagged. Vercalos (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vercalos, I'm very sorry if my recent PROD of this article has upset you but the rules of today are considerably more demanding than they were 10 years ago. Let me explain. As you can see on my userpage, I am a gnome, a BLP rescuer and a new page reviewer. In both the latter I choose to work on "oldest" articles, because they don't attract the fierce heat of instant argument, (hence gnome). I do ordinary stuff like housekeeping.

Whereas it might have been acceptable to an administrator like Atama to consider Nicolas Gowan Notable in May 2008, (as he did here), the terms he uses to justify his argument, namely WP:ENTERTAINER, make explicit that Nicolas Gowan is nowhere in the ballpark of acceptable today. I should also point out that Atama's perspective is clearly outdated given he has only made 21 edits since July '14, (check his contribs).

As for Gowan himself, his IMDB high point was in 1993, when the movie you mention had a limited showing in the US and then bombed. Gowan has not since acted in anything - he is therefore not an "actor" in Wikipedia terms.

I note that since the "No Sources" tag was placed on the article in March 2015 you, as creator of the article, (2006), have made no attempt to improve the article, therefore for you now to express concern for the article is kinda thin. I am not an admin so have no authority to actually delete the article, but for our purposes here I think it best if we agree this parrot is deceased

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't care all that much, and if you hadn't notified me, I'd have never noticed. As you pointed out, I created the article, which is something I had even forgotten at this point, and failed to offer any substantial edits to the article after its creation. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because you brought it to my attention. As to this:

"I note that since the "No Sources" tag was placed on the article in March 2015 you, as creator of the article, (2006), have made no attempt to improve the article, therefore for you now to express concern for the article is kinda thin."

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was concerned about it, or why you felt the need to criticize my supposed concern for the article. I was just surprised that it came up at all. As I pointed out before, it has been over a decade, so long I had forgotten I'd even created it. I spent a good few minutes browsing around trying to figure out why you even notified me, before looking at the history and realizing I created it.--Vercalos (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies Vercalos for my tone. I found the article in a list of long forgotten articles that were clogging up the "BLP unedited " category, an area few people go, hence why it still exists after 10 years. Merry Christmas

Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 10:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please subst PROD's

Just a friendly reminder that when you BLP PROD an article, please use {{subst:blp prod}} so that the timestamp is automatically populated. Thanks! – Train2104 (t • c) 16:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Train2104 - just so I understand - I've just prodded Norbert Wissing using Twinkle - can you check and see it conforms? Thanks - Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It has since been deprodded, but it looks fine to me. Twinkle will do it correctly. An easy way to tell is that the last line of the BLP Prod template will display ...remains in place for seven days, i.e., after... instead of remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

BLPProds

You marked a number of articles with BLP Prod. I was very easily able to add a reliable source to every one one them. They were articles where it's obvious that there would be sources: published authors, legislators, people with articles in other WPs, ... All that it took was a straightforward search with Google or Google News or WorldCat.

It would help enormously if you would do this when you add the BLP PROD. Otherwise the work has to be done by us overworked admin when we're patrolling to see which should be deleted.

Please check if there are any others that I missed, and find and add the refs. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I fully appreciate the value of admins time - you shouldn't have to be reffing ancient BLPs but frankly nor should we gnomes. I have been quietly working through the BLP unreffed Feb '15 subcat, often making the effort to ref each in turn. However a great many are very old and without even one ref over years; DJ Smash being a good example. That article was created 11 years ago and yet is unreffed. Someone tagged it as unreffed in Feb 2015 and nada. So I'm guessing every poor gnome who has trod this path over the years has had to bump into this kinda nonsense, waste more time trying to ref it, and then move on. Now I suppose there is some independent ref for DG Smash in the archives of some Russian newspaper but do you really think this guy is worth the effort? Just by way of example of my willingness to work on any given article, (if it's worth it), Damat Ali-Paša's Turbeh was a block of text with a misspelled Turkish title when I first came upon it. I invested 5 hours in it, (history, infobox, photo, pushpin etc). But as a proud gnome I think every now and again these skeletal BLPs like GJ Smash should be dragged out into the daylight and their fate assessed by you lords and masters of my universe. Perhaps you could take a look at the category yourself, (only 9 left), because I most definitely don't want to spend another breath on them, and nor should any other well-intended gnome who comes after me

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not feel I would be entitled to discuss AfDs if I did not also work to source articles--and most experienced people I see there do this also, some more thoroughly than I do. I cannot fix everything in WP, and I can fix a little of what I come across; if everyone did likewise, we could indeed fix every one.

I spotted this group because I noticed a group of prods with the reason "aint found even 1 ref since 2006" which I think is not right--you should not be nominating on the basis of what others may have failed to do, or assumed, as you seem to, that the people who came before you did things properly. Second, because there seemed to be a number of politicians who I knew could be both immediately sourced and were undoubtedly notable by established standards. And then third, because you were making the common error of not looking at the equivalent article in other wikis.

The first example you're using is the field I know least, and I decided when I was originally screening unsourced BLPs when we were about to adopt BLP Prod not to get involved in, but using it as a challenge for the fun of it, 1/ it is very difficult to source a musician when there's a much better known musician who goes by the same name--that's the Russian musician you identified and thought was the same person--from the bio it's a different person. It would be easy to write an article about the Russian, especially considering I can read a little Russian. However, I cannot tell whether or not he is important enough to pass AfD, or be worth fixing, as I have no feel for the subject. 2/.searching under his earlier pseudonym and under his birth name name I found a few items; I doubt that most of it is really reliable, but again, I do not really know our standards in this subject. 3/ according to what we have in the article--and in the article it links to-- he did co-found an easily documentable record store, but it would take a while to see if any of the refs on the store covered him in particular. I cannot tell if the store is in fact notable, either.

All of this took me about 10 minutes, but evaluating it by actually reading the refs would take longer. I picked up the skill from being a librarian half my life--it's a combination of knowing to check every one of the hits in Google, and to try auxiliary terms.

You are essentially saying its not worth the work to document him. My response, is that you cannot know unless you try. I've seen many hundreds of absurdly cryptic stubs that in fact proved quite important, though probably thousands that proved unimportant. The ones I did work on, I worked on because I thought there was potential for an article, like the legislators. We do try to cover them all.

And you are right that we need better ways of documenting what people have previously looked at. It bothers me when I see dozens of good people fixing something in an article and not dealing with its radical problems. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that very considered response DGG. Believe me I do try quite hard sometimes to ref seemingly obscure subjects. Here's one I saved earlier, (from deletion)

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 02:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Markdask, 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)

Roberto Danova

Hi Mark, When you have time please could you have a quick run through of my latest as yet unpublished Sandbox article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alfshire/sandbox, he is definitely notable. but it was difficult to find good independent references, particularly as many worldwide record charts from around the 1970s just aren't available anymore. I've done my best to reflect the major impact he had on the music business, so your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Alf Alfshire (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Alfshire - as you see I've had a look. Wonderfully well sourced though needs cleanup. We can discuss once you publish. Let me know as soon as you do and I'll review it

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll probably publish it tomorrow. Alfshire (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC) ...Now published, can't fathom how to do the artist cross references though like you did for Tom Jones? Alfshire (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross referencing is simple Alfshire. First click on "edit" at the top of the page, so you're editing the whole page. Then scroll down to the ref you want to use a 2nd time, then "name" the ref you wish to use, then copy the <ref name=whatever> section, then find the place where u want to use it, (it makes no difference whether you want to use it above or below the existing ref as it's automatically corrected). When you have pasted <ref name=whatever> just after the end of the sentence, don't forget to add the forward slash to the end of <ref name=whatever> so you get <ref name=whatever(/)> - job done. Lemme know if I can assist further

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 00:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfshire when you want someone to read what you write, wherever you are on Wikipedia, you need to include the person's name in the format I just used yours, to get the person's attention. I read what you wrote on your own page but only because I went looking for it.

So you can tabulate stuff already written with use of some appropriate script. I'm guessing you'd like to sub-categorize the discography based on country / influences. Let me know what you have in mind and I will happily assist

. Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 22:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'm not a literary scholar by any means, I much prefer researching subjects, this is why your advice is always invaluable. I'll experiment with the tabulating in my Sandbox - my next subject being a notable football manager not at the moment profiled on Wikipedia. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and Happy Year. Alfshire (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)