User talk:Seraphimblade

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ; ;

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade.

Please read before posting

Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email.
If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cambridge Precision Ltd Wikipedia Page

Hi there, i was wondering why you deleted the page Cambridge Precision Ltd. I had spent a long time creating the page and providing a range of sources from local newspapers to national coverage and regional awards.

They are a large employer in Cambridgeshire UK and have recently expanded as well as working with the government and Cambridge University directly during the pandemic.

They also work internationally with The University Of Ethiopia with a space creating a ventilator for developing nations. They also look to sponsor heritage crafts, seeking to preserve ancient methods of craftmanship in the UK.

I provided numerous sources for all information on the page and it was written from an impartial point of view. Please will you consider approving the draft for me please - Thanks

Deletion of Windows (Jazz group) Wikipedia Page

Hello, I am writing to you with some hope that the below information or anything else I you may request that I can provide, will assist and help in reinstating the Windows (jazz group) Wikipedia page. I have included a link to download the images in support of all the (R&R) Radio top 30 charts.

https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/oAKgeTSOQA

Thank you for your time. Skipper Wise

Request for the reinstate the Wikipedia page for the group Windows.

The following links and articles are examples for verification and credibility of this national contemporary jazz group. Content in digital format is light due to the internet just developing during this period of time 1983-1996 Indicative with this period most content was in published in Trade Magazines such as Radio and Records(R&R) Billboard, The Gavin Report. The band toured the USA during this period of time playing venues and festivals such as Catalina Jazz Festival, Orlando Peabody Jazz Festival, Milwaukee Summer Fest, and various Jazz clubs. The band receives national airplay on radio stations. Six of their 11 albums charted in the Top 30 (three in the top 10) with The French Laundry reaching Number 1 in Radio & Records NAC Chart. The band was signed to respected Jazz & NAC Adult record labels of this period: Cypress/A&M, Intima/Capitol, ITI/Allegiance and DA Music Deutsch Austrophone. The groups albums and songs are currently sold through online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.

All Music https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-french-laundry-mw0000203036 https://www.allmusic.com/album/is-it-safe--mw0000649788

Labels https://www.discogs.com/label/52358-Cypress-Records https://www.discogs.com/label/54724-ITI-Records https://www.discogs.com/label/105963-101-South-Records https://www.discogs.com/label/9393-Da-Music https://www.discogs.com/label/27214-Intima-Records https://www.discogs.com/label/755-Enigma-Records-3

Sources https://www.onamrecords.com/artists/windows https://www.onamrecords.com/search-all?search_all=Windows&type_1=All

Windows Performances Articles

Catalina Jazz Festival: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-10-10-ol-447-story.html

Billboard https://books.google.com/books?id=wg4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=windows+jazz+group&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFgeGT2sX-AhWxkokEHT7cCr04ChDrAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=windows%20jazz%20group&f=false [1]https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/oAKgeTSOQA Sonic Sunset (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Sunset, the prior article was deleted on the grounds that there was no indication of notability. In specifically the context of Wikipedia, notability means that multiple reliable and independent sources exist which cover a subject to reasonable depth, not just a mention or name drop. Chart positions and the like are not particularly important (they may sometimes indicate when such material is likely to exist, but they do not substitute for it actually existing). "Onam Records" is not independent, and Discogs is not really anything for it. The LA Times and Billboard sources are only a brief mention, not in-depth coverage. If that is the best reference material available about this subject, it looks to me like the result of the AfD was the correct one. Do note that sources need not be "in digital format"—sources must be published, but if they were published in print form and have not been made available digitally, that is still fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. R&R (Radio and Records) was the most reliable source for chart positions during this period of time. I included a link which I am not sure you were able to use that contained jpegs of the groups success on radio nationally. The 10 albums released were not done independently but through recording contracts secured with recognized record labels. If you can point me to a way to upload theses pages (jpegs) I will do so. I can also send the links to each source however it’s the full R&R magazine and the viewer would have to read through to find the NAC (New Adult Contemporary) Top 30 page that Windows charted on.

Do you need more of theses type of links below?

LA Times Review (Bottom of page)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-07-04-ca-3418-story.html Sonic Sunset (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is in depth review from an Amazon customer

https://www.amazon.com/Funky-Distinction-Windows-2006-04-04/dp/B01M6AGOL0/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1N7INJXKU1O96&keywords=windows+a+funky+distinction&qid=1686430842&sprefix=windows+a+funky+distintion%2Caps%2C164&sr=8-1 Sonic Sunset (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what makes a source reliable. An Amazon review is not a reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you asked a different question above which I didn't see above. No, I don't need anything showing what their chart positions were, since that does not matter. There would need to be in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, not anything other than that. A simple photograph of a chart position is not in-depth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for sources based on this information. Is the LA Times review an acceptable example? Sonic Sunset (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. That only briefly mentions it. Mentions don't count. In-depth coverage must be substantially about this exact subject (in this case, the band "Windows"), not just a brief mention of it in something which is about something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Boris Johnson on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

abortion under communism

Which were the policy-based arguments that you weighed more strongly than the others? If you look at the content of those saying keep, there really quite terrible (it seems a useful article, per [the person who just said "it seems a useful article"], I think that the topic is notable, a "keep with conditions" that doesn't present any reason at all to keep, and a keep that's actually a merge (and provides no reason to retain the article) ... that's ... all of them). The merges aren't any better. Nobody really bothered to address any of the issues raised (e.g. the huge WP:SYNTH problem). At minimum IMO it should be relisted to see if anyone attempts to respond to the actual issues raised. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the debate was more or less about the appropriateness of the article subject. A clear consensus of editors agreed that the article is suitable. You disagreed, but that was not the consensus position. I will not, therefore, relist it—relists are for cases where a clear consensus hasn't yet formed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To address the synth issue, would you advise I take it to DRV, or renominate with a different rationale? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can, in the end, do whatever you like with it. I think the consensus at that discussion was quite clear, but if you disagree, you certainly can always request a DRV if you like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bertram MacDonald

Can you relist WP:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bertram MacDonald? None of the Delete comments addressed the possibility of merger that I raised. Most of the information and the references would fit in well in Westmount Subdivision which already mentions another veteran for which a park was named.

Also, consensus is weak - technically it's 6 deletes to 3 keeps - but 3 of the deletes were before any independent sources were added to the article, and 2 of them never came back and discussed again - and the 3rd never mentioned what was added and was debating minutia about service medals. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also puzzled how some of those who declared the sources don't meet GNG seem to have spent only a minute or two looking at the article between the other things they were editing - and actually managed to review the various articles, which are only available by request. How many other than me, User:Wp20151110, asked for a copy of the scanned articles? (I'm sorry Wp2015... that I didn't get around to improving the citations - I figured that with 3 keeps and 2 deletes (and a 3rd after I looked) after detailed independent sources were added, that it was going to be a relist). Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus there is quite clear. Relists are for when consensus hasn't been reached, and there it clearly had been. I know you disagreed, but on that one your arguments didn't convince most who commented. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most who commented never saw the references; none discussed the references in particular - I'm doubtful if many even looked at them. Besides - consensus isn't based on a vote - it's policy based - and not one of the delete's discussed why a merger was not appropriate. With no consensus the only possible outcome after only a week is a relist. Please do so. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked that, and already received the answer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the author of the article that you deleted. The deletion log 17:03, 14 June 2023 seems to be referring to the A7 reason of 09:39, 5 June 2023 Justlettersandnumbers or is there another reason for the deletion? Wp20151110 (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking. Justlettersandnumbers deleted the article on 5 June under the A7 speedy deletion criterion. Following that, the article was recreated, and nominated at AfD. That AfD resulted in the deletion on 14 June. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you for replying. To clarify my question: What specifically in the AfD convinced you to delete it, and if possible how can the article be improved for it to be accepted? Wp20151110 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about convincing me, but rather those who participated at the AfD. The delete arguments were generally based upon the subject not being notable; that is, that there does not exist a sufficient quantity of reliable and independent reference material to make an article viable. That's a question that depends on the existence of such material rather than anything about its current state, so a decision that a subject does not pass the GNG generally indicates that there should not at that time be an article about the subject at all, not that improvement is needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the clarification. When the article was first published it was a basic version to help understand how this process worked. As feedback was given the article was improved. The question of notability was addressed by references to several newspaper stories and one book. On request scans of the newspaper articles were sent to Nfitz who then declared them as GNG quality. Did others in the AfD see them? Wp20151110 (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not and cannot know what any given editor considered in making their argument beyond what they actually said. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Wp20151110 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While you don't know what some of the later editors considered, you do know that half the delete voters made their opinion before the article was WP:HEYed, and that the other delete voters didn't address their issue with the references that were being claimed as GNG. There was no explanation by any of the deletes why the articles in question didn't meet GNG. I'm not saying there was consensus to keep or merge. But I don't see consensus at all, given the first 3 votes - and normally when there's not a very clear consensus, at least one relist is standard - if not more. I'd ask you to relist again, but I think that's clear. Can you mail me a copy of the article; I'm working on a DRV, but the references (the citations themselves) need to be improved for a proper evaluation - which I noted in my keep vote I was going to do, but hadn't had the chance to do before it was deleted. Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do email, but if you'd like a list of the references used in the final version of the article, I can give you those. Let me know if you'd like them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Aleksandar Vučić on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on a COI/linkspam matter

Hi Seraphimblade, I’m reaching out for guidance on a situation re: COI editing and linkspam that has re-emerged regarding Public Art in Public Places (PAiPP) and their associates. You may remember this matter from a couple years ago. Since then an IP-hopping editor has added back numerous links to PAiPP (all IPs originate from the same location, which I believe is connected per off-wiki evidence that I won’t post here).

Fellow editor User:Barte and I have been having a discussion of the problem here: [2], and here: [3]. Additional diffs can be supplied if you like. The COI problem goes back to 2014 [4], however the organization director K.M. Williamson (now known as User:M Na zdravi), denies having ever edited about PAiPP, however this proves differently: [5]. She may have also edited as TashaBehrent (now known as User:Shabehr), Barte and I are uncertain about this, although the two accounts seem deeply intertwined. They both stopped directly editing after one of them was blocked (by you) and subsequently unblocked, which is when the IPs began showing up, most recently with this diff: [6].

Because of the complexity of the issues (COI, linkspam and/or promotional editing, possible socking or COI editing while logged-out) it seems like an administrator should be contacted. I try to avoid drama on WP, which is why I’m contacting you directly to inquire what might be the best course of action, if any. I apologize in advance for the length of this message, thank you for your time and consideration. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated the PAIPP article for deletion in September 2020, I counted some 80 references to the organization on Wikipedia, for example, here, most or all being added from the same accounts. A few years later, my impression remains the same: PAIPP seems to view Wikipedia more as a promotional vehicle than an encyclopedia, and when it received subsequent pushback from @Netherzone:, it questioned their integrity, then went silent rather than discussing. The situation is, as noted, complex and long-standing, and I appreciate your looking at it. Barte (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone and Barte, I think you're right to be concerned about this, and I do remember this mess, though not all of the details off the top of my head. Since I will not immediately have time to dig into what looks like a rather complex situation, I would suggest bringing this matter up at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where editors used to dealing with COI issues can take a look at what's going on here. I'll try to check it out too, but it will likely be at least a few days before I have time enough, so COIN is probably the best option. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm speaking here for me and Netherzone: we've been proceeding carefully and would really like your take before going further. So, happy to wait. Barte (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gordon Ramsay on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing

In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia

Featured content: Content, featured

Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]