Misplaced Pages

Marc Soustrot

DYK? You should, just read the praise, help with translation appreciated: "Umsichtig und stilgenau differenzierten Gastdirigent Marc Soustrot und das Opernorchester zwischen der behutsam abgetönten Debussy-Klanglichkeit und dem breiten Pinsel einer auch gröbste Wirkung souverän einbeziehenden Interpretation der Honegger-Textur." (Prudently and precise in style, the guest conductor Marc Soustrot and the opera orchestra differentiated between the carefully toned Debussy sonority and an interpretation of the broader brush of the Honegger texture, including even crude effects souvereignly.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ps: pictured, - heard an excerpt yesterday as preparation for a talk with a priest and a prof on the topic of miracles. I'd like a small miracle: the absence of the perennial summer show this year. Thanks for improving music in Pompeji. The runtime should also be in the text, referenced, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, I apologise for a belated reply here but I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about - though hopefully Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii is in a better shape now. Unfortunately none of the major Pink Floyd sources give it much more than lip service, even I though I think it's got probably the best live version of "Echoes" on it (though the BBC Paris Studio session from a week earlier does come close). Ritchie333 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I was too obscure? Sorry, and more plainly: Several operas were staged by David Hermann (DYK today), mentioned in his article are Ascanio in Alba, Rigoletto, Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher, Macbeth, Věc Makropulos, Les Troyens, Boris Godunov, Das Rheingold, Rusalka, La traviata, Der Diktator, Das geheime Königreich. One of them looks as if it is about a person ;) - I saw the last two, very entertaining! - Soustrot will go to DYK next, with the one looking like a person mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Ritchie333, I noticed that "The Co-Captains" page I created got deleted. I understand that the reasoning stated insufficient sourcing, so I wanted to try again with more verified citations. Their work has been featured on Billboard and nominated for Grammys, and they're mentioned in numerous Misplaced Pages pages (Ciara: , Omarion , and Candice Glover . It's imperative that I create the page ASAP. Please let me know how to move forward. Thank you.Brunanessif (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/I%27m_Out
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Self_Made_Vol._3
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Music_Speaks

(talk page stalker) @Brunanessif: Misplaced Pages is not considered to be a reliable source because it's user-generated. Also, might you be able to tell us why it's "imperative that you create the article ASAP"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I understand. I was just referencing the Misplaced Pages pages that they are credited on to show that it would be beneficial to have a page linking back to them. And what I mean is that there are important music events occurring this weekend in which having a Misplaced Pages page would be highly beneficial. All I'm asking for another chance to do the page again.

@Brunanessif: You could make it at Draft:The Co-Captains for now and then try out the Articles for Creation program. Also, make sure you sign your posts with ~~~~ (4 tildes) . Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brunanessif: I have rewritten the article, which is now at Draft:The Co-Captains and has a citation to Music Industry Quarterly. The best sources to go for are nationally prominent ones such as Billboard and Rolling Stone, which have covered just about every important band of note - I used these (amongst others) when writing FDT. When you've expanded the article as far as you think you can take it, press the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button, and an independent reviewer will look at it. If the review passes, the article will be put back in mainspace. Ritchie333 09:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:@Ritchie333: Thank you! Brunanessif (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC) @Ritchie333: Hi Ritchie! I have edited the draft and submitted for review. Also, happy birthday!Brunanessif (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Thanks Chris - got a surprise treat this evening, apparently. :-/ Ritchie333 09:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Many happy returns and so on and so forth et cetera! Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Birthday!? Have a good one! -- There'sNoTime 09:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The surprse will be that everyone's forgotten :p  :) Happy bidet! — fortunavelut luna 10:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The surprise will be this if you're not careful :-P Ritchie333 16:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday Ritchie. Have a good one! how old are you Patient Zero 11:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember, I lost count after 21 :-P Ritchie333 11:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

:-D Patient Zero 11:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello Richie333,

You recently deleted a page titled, 'MGC pharmaceuticals Limited' under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I have read your, 'Plain and simple guide to A7' and I've done research elsewhere, can you please provide some further guidelines for how I can reinstate the page? I attended a medical cannabis symposium recently and I have identified that there would be significant benefit in having listings for others to contribute as companies gain traction in this emerging industry.

I have explained to other admin users that there is no COI or affiliation to MGC Pharmaceuticals, my intention is to not portray the company in a promotional way. I intend on composing more pages for other companies and I would be very grateful for any suggestions you may have in terms of edits/additions.

I look forward to hearing from you,

(Darryltdavies (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

@Darryltdavies: Thanks for reading the Plain and simple guides! The problem with articles about medical organisations is that the requirements for sourcing are much higher than other types of articles, for the simple reason that people may read medical advice in Misplaced Pages and assume it is true. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for further information. This is particularly true for cannabis as a lot of claims have been thrown about, ranging from "it's harmless" to "it causes severe psychosis" and absolutely everything in between. So, I would suggest a better course of action is to write about the organisation's research in an existing article instead - Cannabis in Australia#Medicinal use. You will need to have excellent sources as explained above to make edits stick and avoid being reverted, but I think that is the most appropriate way to get the information you want into Misplaced Pages. Ritchie333 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Richie333,

I appreciate your feedback, I take the point that the requirements for sourcing are much higher for medical organisations. I however still wish to pursue publishing pages individually for some of the key orgainsations operating in the industry. My original inspiration came from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Canopy_Growth_Corporation In line with this content, there will be no claims made to advise patients but rather just a high-level overview of what each organisation is doing in the industry. If I link my page my further reliable sources, can I submit a review again?

Many thanks, (Darryltdavies (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC))

@Darryltdavies: The best thing to do I think is start off with a draft. Go to Misplaced Pages:Drafts, and under the section "Creating and editing drafts", you'll be given an option to create a draft instead. Alternatively, to save time, I can undelete the original article as a draft and set it up so it's ready for editing, which may be easier. You can then write the draft without any threat of deletion, and submit it to an experienced editor to review it. If the review passes, the draft will be automatically moved into mainspace, otherwise you'll be given suggestions on how to improve it.

In general, I find it's easier to write about the overall topic rather than any specific organisation, as the latter tend to be viewed suspiciously as paid editing pieces, irrespective if they actually are or not. Ritchie333 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lightyear

Hello Richie333, thank you for deleting the startup company info on the page Lightyear. Is it possible you could revert it back to when it was a redirect (to Light-year) with its previous history? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is recreate the page again with the redirect - I've done this. Actually there's a bit of a mea culpa there, as the CSD criteria are only applicable if every revision of the page qualifies - which obviously the old redirect state doesn't. I've restored the history for that too. Ritchie333 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Flynn Intel Group

Was that not extraordinarily speedy, not merely speedy. Seems that inadequate time passage and flawed consensus are apparent. Wikipietime (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipietime: At a cursory glance, Flynn Intel Group Inc looked like an advert with no immediately obvious way I could rescue it. However, I'm happy to assume good faith that other people can, so it's now restored. Sorry about that - as you were. Ritchie333 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for the speedy restoration. It's in the news because of its relationship to Trump-Russia activities and Flynn's activities thereabouts and the questioning Flynn is undergoing. Allegedly. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, it's in the news in the US. Over this side of the pond, it's been buried by all the election, Brexit and Grenfell shenanigans. Ritchie333 13:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Revdel

Thanks for the Revdel on Trafalgar. There's 2 more revs needing to be nuked: 788202120 and 788202124, and one by Granger that can be restored as he had removed the copyvio in that rev. Thanks! Crow 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: I was surprised, as the principal contributor to Trafalgar Square and the editor who got it back up to GA, to find a whole bunch of editors descend on it while I was asleep. Anywhere, things should be sorted now. On a different subject, have you ever thought about filing a Request for adminship, then you can make these changes yourself. Copyvio checks are probably one of the most backlogged (if not the most backlogged) parts of the project. Ritchie333 09:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Isbn

You should know that i asked and encouraged other editors to do the automated part of the isbn fixes and i also helped by suggesting improvements to the bot codes. Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My problem isn't really with the mainspace edits (I think they're low value to the reader, but that's not a reason to sanction an editor, and rightly so) but rather the way you seem to attract large amounts of drama wherever you go, be it on ANI, Arbcom or any number of discussion pages, and seem to just make the situation worse. Now I don't think it's any great secret that I've managed to upset a few people over not liking the sockpuppetry policy much and thinking people get blocked too easily, but that doesn't give me carte blanche to go around unblocking people or arguing endlessly on WP:SPI why I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Sometimes you've just got to pick your battles. Ritchie333 10:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about new entries

Hi Richie,

I recently created a page for a local startup software company, RipTide, based on an article in the local paper about it's new technology. I am not an employee or investor in the company. I do know the founder because she is an active contributor in the startup community and I'm on the board of the non-profit that works to foster the startup eco-space.

In keeping with the Wiki guidelines of "just the facts - no fluff, no advertising" I only included the raw basic facts in the initial wiki article. It was quickly flagged for deletion on the basis that there was nothing significant about the company. OK, no problem. I edited the article to add that they were developing a new predictive analysis technology (which was documented with more detail in the cited newspaper article). Then you deleted it claiming it included advertising.

So, what's you advice? Obviously, RipTide is noteworthy as a software company trying to do new technology. Obviously, they have a legitimate cited source. How much detail should I have put in the article to prevent deletion?

Also, is there a place to create pages and work on them with admin feedback to develop a good article as opposed to simply deleting it?

cheers,

-Paul Nielsen Founder, Tejon Technologies Author, SQL Server 2008 Bible (Wiley) x12 Microsoft Data Platform MVP (2004-2016) Board Member, Peak Startup PaulNielsenSQL (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaulNielsenSQL: The basic problem is that all Misplaced Pages articles need to be potentially be improved by anyone in the world, and without the concrete sourcing in prominent national coverage, it's not possible to do that, and that's why we generally delete non-obvious articles unless there's good evidence that somebody will work with it. The corollary to that is that admins will restore pages on reasonable request (which is required by policy).

For now, I've restored the article to Draft:RipTide as a draft page that can be worked on in isolation without any threat of deletion. When you have expanded the article to a suitable size, you can click on the blue "Submit your draft for review" button, and an independent reviewer will have a look to see if its suitable for mainspace. Ritchie333 16:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Miltiades Varvounis

Hi Ritchie333. You removed the speedy deletion request on the page for Miltiades Varvounis on the basis of him possibly meeting the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC, but this individual is distinctly not an academic. What was the logic here? Chamboz (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically, see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes - the threshold for getting past CSD is very low and you don't need much to clear it. All the decline means is that I didn't want to delete the article there and then - if you want to challenge the notability, file a discussion at AfD. He's an historian, and by the looks of quite a serious one, which I guess brings to mind some sort of elderly chap with suspicious hair who happens to be chair of some well known university department. Ritchie333 21:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chamboz: I've now deleted it as a copyright violation. It wasn't a straight cut and paste from one site, but rather it was taken from about 5-6 different ones and glued together. The recent addition of very POV content this morning made me notice. Ritchie333 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

rationale

im wondering what your rationale here is: you said "the S" 68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I must have hit the return button on my phone which submits the edit before I'd finished writing it, it should have been in full "decline A7, the Spanish Progressive Rock Encyclopedia is potentially a reliable source, try PROD / AfD". Ritchie333 21:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted Transaction Processing Performance Council. You broke the references on 10-20 articles depending on that term being defined. How is that not ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=Transaction+Processing+Performance+Council&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.64.69 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is mentioned in a Misplaced Pages article, it doesn't mean it should have a standalone one - for example, the Faversham Society is name-dropped in Faversham but has no article. The Council's article in the state it was tagged as A7 seemed to be little more then a self-referenced list without any obvious independent source coverage. If you can think of a suitable article to redirect TPPC to, let me know and I can sort that out. Ritchie333 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, I've had a look through some of the linked articles, and to be perfectly honest I'm struggling to see any actual citation to a reliable source that explains why TPPC is important to mention in any article. Let me ask Light2021, who placed the A7 tag in the first place. I realise that we don't normally speedy delete articles that have been hanging around for years, and it doesn't seem to make sense when just reading the article prose around it, but it honestly looks like this one just fell below the radar. Ritchie333 14:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Ritchie333 you are right we do not delete article old in nature. But someday we have to take things if we get to know them. I did not find anywhere its notability or remarkable in nature. Misplaced Pages has become a spam host for many companies from last few years. I am sure there would be so many, I would love to know few more. thanks Ritchie333. Let me know If i can be any help. Light2021 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OTD July 4

I put Kylie (album) back into the staging area, as we normally only show 5 items and I figured we can save it for next year (the album's 30th anniversary). —howcheng {chat} 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay - it was the only album of any significance that I think would be deserving to appear in OTD, and I thought it would be good to have a GA in there (though it's quite an old one). I have popped a few album articles into OTD simply because they're an easy source to tap into good content and can be useful as a quick fix for an article plagued with maintenance tags being linked from the main page. Ritchie333 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for GoodRelations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GoodRelations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. . Please do not reply here, as I am not watching your talk page. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Deletion reviews are for articles that have been deleted by a full deletion debate at Articles for deletion - I've restored the article to Draft:GoodRelations as per best practice, where you can work on the draft without any threat of deletion and submit it to an experienced reviewer when you are happy with it.

The principal problem with the article is it wasn't obvious from a cursory description what GoodRelations is or what it does, and I had to go and examine the book sources carefully to understand it was a software engineering framework. In general, it's best to describe an article's subject in simple terms for the layman reader, so it is easy to understand what you are trying to write about. Ritchie333 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for your reply. I would like to note that the article already did address what GoodRelations is. The lede stated that it is a linked online data ontology, and the plentiful references confirmed this. As for accessibility for laypeople, I agree that this is what we should aspire for the article to reach, but it was only minutes old and was marked as a WP:STUB, so was clearly not yet at that standard. I'm sure you meant well, but I would be grateful if you could be a little more patient in future, and spare your fellow editors some wikistress. I may not work at exactly your standard or your pace, but I am doing my best to make constructive contributions in the time I can spare, and a deletion like that one can feel a bit like a slap in the face :( Anyway, thanks again for restoring; at least that means my effort wasn't (completely) wasted! Hope to cross paths again in better circumstances :) zazpot (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Okay, I appreciate that it is possible to write an article on this topic, and I've expanded the article a bit using the book sources. I'm still not entirely convinced it would survive a full deletion debate, or at least a "keep" result (it could be merged with something else), we've now got a reasonable stub. I realise that perfection is not required, but experience tells me that a technical article whose first sentence was a pile of bare references, most of which appeared to be wikis or other self-published sources, you can see how I might have accidentally mistaken it for a typical paid editing piece. Again, sorry about that. I can't speak for other admins, but I will generally restore any article on request, which is why there's a note on my talk page. I got involved in Misplaced Pages editing, and subsequently adminship, because I was fed up with friends and colleagues having their edits reverted or their pages deleted, and wanted to do something about it. Ritchie333 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I very much appreciate the effort you have put into improving the stub, and thanks too for trying to more generally avoid Wikipedians' labour going to waste. All best, zazpot (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Edris Azizi

It was worth a shot. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why, what's happened now? Ritchie333 19:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Great to see...

That the Monopoly board FL is going to on the Main Page on July 10th!

Alas not on the Monopoly board (though next to a station that is!) but as mentioned previously, I'm working on getting the St Pancras railway station article up as near to GA as I can... some fresh eyes would be appreciated if you have a spare few minutes - especially on getting the references out of the lede. Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop vandalism on my talk page

I'm so tired (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)