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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

PC granted

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]