User talk:SeraphWiki

Welcome!

Hello, SeraphWiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alt account

Hey there! I see that you're an alternative account to Seraphim System - can you use your Seraphim System account to leave an edit to verify this? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sure. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool - thanks a lot :-). Carry on! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

PC granted

You now hold the pending changers review flag on this account. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

About your user page

Hi SeraphWiki, not speaking as a member of the arbitration committee, but I would like to request you to either rephrase or remove The creation of this account has been discussed with a member of the Arbitration Committee. on your user page, as the sentence right now is very misleading. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih I removed all the extra text since it doesn't seem to be helping, I just followed the example from other editors with linked legit alt accounts and left the banner. If it's ok like this that's fine, if you think I should disclose formally I can do that too. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks fine now, thank you. Formal disclosure is unnecessary unless if sensitive information are involved. Alex Shih (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know.SeraphWiki (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft G6 tags

Hi, as far as I can remember, when an AFC draft is reviewed and moved into mainspace, the draft link is left behind as a redirect. I've never seen it tagged as G6 before - has the script changed while I wasn't looking? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I seem to remember them being cleaned up and deleted when I was last at AfC, but you probably know better then I do. Is there a reason to leave them there when nothing links to them? SeraphWiki (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll go and review an AfC submission now and get back to you! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked them before tagging them btw, they're only linked to sandboxes and usertalk pages, some of other reviewers and some as double redirects. Did I miss something? SeraphWiki (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, having actually found an AfC submission I want to pass - Lygon Arms, the draft Draft:The lygon arms is left behind. It doesn't cause any harm and if we deleted it, the user may look at the link on their talk page and think "where's my draft gone"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes I think the redirects are sometimes deleted by admins cleaning up in draft space, but not immediately. I guess it makes sense to leave them up for a time. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:These redirects are never deleted.Winged Blades^Godric 14:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but it never hurts to AGF. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my visit to this t/p was post the CSDH decline.If I had seen this conversation, I would have avoided the template:)Winged Blades^Godric 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really been back at AfC for months, I'm just trying to help out with the backlog. I think I've made about a dozen CSD requests during the year I've been editing and I've been pretty careful about it. I'm just used to tagging redirects from my own userspace, but draft space doesn't effect me so if you guys want to leave them there, I'm not going to argue about it.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

what is actually supposed to happen, is that the draft page is linked to the talk page of the resulting article. If it does not happen automatically, the most likely reason is that the draft was moved without using the AFCH template, which usually but not always means it was moved by someone without the AFC permission. If it was moved legitimately, the redirect should be done. If not, it means the article need to be rechecked to see if it does meet mainspace requirements. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: I am using the AFCH script and I was added to AFC participants - is this what you mean by the AfC permission? The script is creating the redirects automatically. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

in a situation like this I think it simplest to fix the ones it did wrong, and wait till it happens again. At that point ask at the AFC talk p. (My own experience with that script is that it still makes unpredictable errors, but fewer than it used to) DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Legal & Literary Society

Hello SeraphWiki. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Legal & Literary Society, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Such redirects are always kept. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I replied above - I always tag redirects in my user space to keep my own subpages comprehensible to me, but there's really no reason to do it in draft space and I guess it would just be more stuff to do. Already too much to get done. But you should neither be stalking my work at AfC nor contesting these - my understanding is that the creator of the page may contest the nomination. I don't think a G6 of a draft space redirect needed to be contested at all, since the responding admin will likely be competent to answer the request.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I could recollect, we haven't ever crossed our paths before.(And, I made the comment in the section just-above, after I had already used CSDH (while patrolling G6 taggings) and then found the above-section, while landing at your t/p to check whether the template was correctly placed)So, not sure about stalking.As to the utilization of keeping the redirects, it preserves the old AFC-decline/comment-template links and that it's the current way of doing things.And, no, my understanding is that the creator of the page may contest the nomination is a fatal misunderstanding of the policy.Almost every CSD could be contested by damn anyone (sans G12 et al) and actually, there are many CSDs that can't be contested by the authors.The aforesaid template is a result of WP:CSDH and is typically meant to inform the template-tagger about why the contesting (which is in it's essentiality some polished lingo for--Hey, XYZ, that didn't fit the CSD/other policies.Hence, I declined it! ) was done.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I don't know what "G12 et al" means, and I'm not going to try to figure it out right now - CSD is not a big part of my life. The only one I use regularly is per request of page creator. Maybe in a few months, if I have time for NPP, I will learn more about it. Right now, I'm really just trying to help with a critical backlog.SeraphWiki (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

G12et al is shorthand for copyvio or other reasons that would require deletion via speedy for any page, not just an article. For example, vandalism , or attack pages, or nonsense, or really outrageous pure advertisements, As for duplicates, see my comment above. The AFCH submission should have made the redirect. If your acceptances are not doing this, perhaps this account needs to be given the AFC acceptance permission. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 02:04:59, 4 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Avatar317

• Avatar317 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California housing shortage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello.

I submitted the above article for creation and you rejected it with the statement: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

I attempted to write it with a neutral point of view, and it includes no original research that I know of, it is all sourced and referenced.

Can you please point out the SPECIFICS of what statements in the article you feel are either original research or non-neutral point of view, so I can improve the article?

Thanks!

(Additional comment) While the section: "Causes" of the CA housing shortage may APPEAR to be original research, it is really points condensed from the CA LAO report (reference 1) p 12-14. If there is a better way to reference these sources, please let me know. I tried using a named reference and including a quote, but I would need to relist the entire link every time I use a different quote, and it would appear as a different source...but if this is the better thing to do, please let me know.

Thanks!

[[User:|Avatar317]] (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Avatar317: From previous discussions, my understanding is that most Wikipedia editors have a strong preference for secondary sources. Part of the reason for this is original research, and part of it is to judge whether the analysis is WP:DUE. Our goal when writing Wikipedia articles is to represent the majority position in reliable sources. Thus where you have cited largely to the California Legislative Analyst's Office and also added (Taking into account the drastic drop in home construction after the 2008 Great Recession.) sourced to the LA Times, and follow with the unsourced statement "Had California built at the 210,000 rate since 1980, the ratio of residents to housing units in 2016 would have been 2.2, and the ratio of jobs to housing units would have been 1.0." you are not following the analysis of the LA Times, but rather developing an original argument that is not cited to any secondary source. This would be considered original research under Wikipedia's policies. If you have not read WP:SYNTH already, that might be helpful. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I had not read the WP:SYNTH, but have now. (I had read WP:DUE and tried to follow it by remaining neutral, which I feel the LAO is.) I will work on re-doing the article to remove any of those types of unsourced statements. Avatar317 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

04:02:03, 4 January 2018 review of submission by Lasya K Elzibeth

• Lasya K Elzibeth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Idi Maa Prema Katha (Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have connected through Live Wikipedia help and there few of them said that the Facebook resources I have mentioned are good and not needed to remove it. Could you please elaborate which links you think are inappropriate so that I can replace them with other sources.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasya K Elzibeth (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lasya K Elzibeth: They don't count towards establishing notability because they are not independent sources. Primary sources like Facebook and Twitter are generally accepted for basic facts. For example, if Justin Bieber tweets that he is 23 years old, most editors will not challenge that. But Justin Bieber's own Twitter is not an independent source and can not be used to establish his notability for the purpose of inclusion in the encyclopedia. The major independent secondary sources you have are more about Anchor Ravi then the film itself. The film may be notable, but the sourcing to independent, secondary sources will have to be improved before the article is accepted.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Atloon-Johnstown scandal

Regarding your comment, there have been sentences, before deleting content you might have been better researching them.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/03/altoona-johnstown_priest_sente.html

Priest Joseph Maurizio.

Note that the majority are dead, we still report allegations on the UK scandals, why not here? I am undoing your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cencoredme (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cencoredme: I didn't revert anything, I only left a comment because I want to move the article back to mainspace. You should probably comment here before reverting anything Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Draft:Altoona-Johnstown_child_sex_abuse_scandal SeraphWiki (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct my mistake, however the point still stands and is consistent with the rules of the site regarding other such controversial cases.Cencoredme (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

3 January Submission Review - Assistance Needed

Hi! I was hoping you could help me. I'm new to creating an article and you recently rejected my article due to not containing reliable sources. I really need help in understanding what's considered reliable. I have read the guidelines but perhaps I'm not clear enough. I've included many reputable sources (Modern Drummer, Drum Magazine, Podcasts, etc.) that are completely independent from the artist. Can you please help me decipher how to approach the needed changes? It would be really appreciated! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officefan0385 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Officefan0385: Can you please link me to the draft? SeraphWiki (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:United States Marine Corps: Ground Sensor Platoon

Can you tell me what you think the deleted content is a verbatim copy of? Nthep (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto all the other draft articles you've marked for revdel. Please make sure you use {{Copyvio-revdel}} properly. Cross checking the revisions against the the source takes long enough without having to identify which revisions and what the source is first. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: The mission statement is a verbatim copy from the source it is cited to - this does not look like a very reliable source for official government documents, but (if) it is government text it might not be copyrighted - though verbatim copy could still be considered plagiarism. I just learned about the revdel template, I can try to track down the sources for the others also and add it to the templates from yesterday, and I will add the URLs and revision ranges from now on.SeraphWiki (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

this script might help with that in the future. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: @Primefac: Can you please also take a look here Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Recent_listings - I followed the instructions on the copyvio template but I think I may have done something wrong because they are not listed on the January 3 page and January 3 has no separate heading. One of them is for an editor who copied several citations from another paper (including their page numbers) - I had to restore the copyvio template after he removed it, but I don't think this would be causing the issue on the listing page. SeraphWiki (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages marked with {{revdel}} end up in Category:Requested RD1 redactions, not on WP:CP. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I used copyvio for two that were more significant - one is largely promotional but I think the subject may be notable, so I didn't know if CSD would be appropriate. However, it has significant copy and pastes of copyrighted material throughout the article. The other was copied citations, I don't know what the consensus on this is but the golden rule of substantial taking is "if you would mind if someone took it from you it is substantial" - my opinion is citations (with even the page numbers copied directly from a source) are a copying issue, but I wasn't sure how others would feel. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

to clarify the underlying problem, marines.mil is a US government source, and text it can be assumed to be PD-US. marines.org is not a government source, but the website of a private association. It is affiliated with the Marines, but membership is open to marines or anyone else. Its pages carry the copyright of the association. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the issue I had with determining the source for the document (and figuring out its copyright status) is that the document is sourced to Rage University which is self-described as: "a free online University for global and local activists...Rage University has progressively expanded its scope from the People's Republic of China to offer access to activists worldwide." SeraphWiki (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Rage Uni content is free to use. If there's a question it's generally good to find pages like this which explicitly spell it out. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the revisions etc. However if you find copyrighted material, please remove it then ask for revdel. As the template says Note to the nominator: Make sure the page has already been reverted to a non-infringing revision or that infringing text has been removed or replaced before submitting this request. Nthep (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nthep: Sure, I see you removed the long quote as well. I thought it might be a bit too long, but I wasn't sure. Those types of blockquotes would probably only be fair use, not free, but their use in articles is commonplace.SeraphWiki (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In a longer article I probably would have left it in but as it stands it's the entire article bar four lines which makes use excessive. Nthep (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kiwi Farms

Hello SeraphWiki. I've declined your CSD request as I think this needs broader discussion. I think that best option is to take the page to WP:MfD if you insist that the material is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vejvančicky: I don't insist per se, but the article is full of poorly sourced negative BLP content. For example unsourced statements comparing people to Hitler and Nazis, statements sourced to court documents, the Daily Beast. NYPost, PJMedia - almost none of these sources are suitable for this type of content. I considered it before nominating - I don't mind cleaning up articles, but wen I looked it over carefully I didn't see much in the draft that could be salvaged and the article has previously been deleted as A7. I guess I will try nominating it for MfD as a breach of BLP. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SeraphWiki. You have new messages at Eclipseofthemoon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Corrections to Draft:Communication Research Reports

Hello! I just received your notice about our pending article on Communication Research Reports. Indeed the last review (21 Nov 2017) also critiqued us for having external links in-body, and it seems that we had left one in by accident (at the very start of the article itself. D'oh!

We have removed this final external link now, and we hope that we're ready for final review as a result. Thanks for your careful read of our submission.

NOTE: The only external links we have now are in our References section

Bowmanspartan (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

Good call. The user is almost certainly a sock, and this is an off-wiki dispute that we don't need. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reversions on your talk page

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)