User talk:SwisterTwister

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

SwisterTwister is strongly considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Please sign your messages with four tildes ('''~~~~''') and please be as specific and concise as possible. If I reviewed your Articles for Creation submission, please read the message(s) at the draft page clearly before adding a message here. As this has happened multiple times, please ensure your message is only posted here once (not doubled).

PLEASE ADD YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM and generally, I will reply here so please watch this page for a response. Unless it's an AfC page, where I'll usually comment there and you will get a notification for that. If I have taken time reviewing your draft, please be patient and I will get to it as I am quite busy with other tasks but am certainly willing to look at it and will not need reminding.

New users: If you want to learn the basics of Wikipedia, my page for new users here contains useful information. Information such as citing sources, submitting images and changing & deleting username. If that page hasn't answered your question(s), contact me here.

Talk page watchers are welcome to answer if I am unavailable at the time.

• User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 1 (2008-May 2012)
• User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 2 (May 2012-November 2015)
• User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 3 (November 2015-March 2016)
• User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 4 (April 2016 - present)

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #15

Listen Money Matters

I got a note that you reviewed and approved Listen Money Matters, but another user is now attempting to delete it without discussion. Would you be willing to take a look? BlackHerbertoftheNorthpublic (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Icelake

Hi, would you mind getting involved? One editor keeps reverting this article to a redirect about a different CPU. This article is a stub about a cpu like so many other articles about cpu's and deserves to have a stand alone article. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 03:04:32, 22 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RonaldPerryGill

• RonaldPerryGill (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maine Blues Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it seems that some of the articles referring to my entry are behind a newspaper firewall where a subsctiption is needed to view or read them. How can this be dealt with?RonaldPerryGill (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

RonaldPerryGill (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Impostor

That wasn't me. That was an impostor User:Linguist1111, who was forging my signature. Linguist 111^talk 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Brie Bella (wrestler)

You might want to check what pages link to before patrolling them-like Brie Bella (wrestler)-which Brie Bella links to the same person but is a redirect. Same with Nikki Bella (wrestler) which is the same as Nikki Bella. Wgolf (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisting at the same time as participating in AfD discussions

Hi SwisterTwister. I recommend against relisting at the same time as participating in AfD discussions as you did here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Freeman and here for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case.

Relisting could "cas[t] a perceived lack of neutrality over your relisting actions". This is a quote from the DRV closer of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25#Ashton Kutcher on Twitter:

Although it was not discussed in great detail in the DRV, the issue of multiple relisting of the AfD was mentioned by a number of editors, and this concern was not substantially addressed. WP:RELIST gives two reasons why a discussion should be relisted: A. insufficient discussion or B. insufficient participation based on policy. Based on my inspection of the AfD, neither of these two criteria were met. This was further exacerbated by the first two closers—relisting admins are described as closers by WP:RELIST—participating in the later discussion, casting a perceived lack of neutrality over their relisting actions.

There was a recent discussion about relisting and participating at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?. The RfC closer noted:

Consensus is against including anything in the guideline about relisting and !voting at this time. That said, there is also general agreement that in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so.

As Izno (talk · contribs) noted in the RfC:

For "!vote, then relist", the bad actor scenario here is that someone objects to the apparent consensus in a discussion (at whatever date; don't forget that some things are relisted more than once) and then decides that the consensus is not in his favor, and so prevents an uninvolved person (admin or no) from making the decision to relist by relisting it himself. This is clearly something that we should want to prevent from occurring.

For "Relist, then !vote", I think this is just a point of semantics to distinguish between the two. Whether the !vote appears above or below the relist, you still look INVOLVED to have relisted it yourself. Though perhaps I'm taking the case of "these actions are occurring near in time to each other".

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case, you wrote, "Relisting considering this could be closed as Keep (including if I vote as such) but I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention." I think this is one circumstance in which relisting at the same time as participating in the AfD discussion is inadvisable. You've relisted the discussion even though you admit it could be closed as keep and then you added a "delete" vote. WP:RELIST says a discussion can be relisted for two reasons: insufficient participation or insufficient participation based on policy. However, at the time of your relist there were four participants and arguments based on policy for supporting retention. A relist and vote could look like the "bad actor scenario" Izno mentioned in the RfC.

At Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 28#Can we formally ban relisters from subsequently !voting, Jenks24 (talk · contribs) wrote:

I'm not sure. Relisting and then voting straight after is obviously poor form, as is relisting a discussion where you're already a participant. But something I occasionally do is relist a discussion and then when it reaches the backlog again, rather than just relist indefinitely, I'll add a vote so that we try and reach a consensus. I'm interested in whether people think that is wrong, or has the perception of impropriety. Obviously if there's a consensus here to institute a blanket rule against relisters voting then I will abide by it.

I'm not categorically against relisting and participating in an AfD. For example, I'm fine with the case Jenks24 mentioned in which Jenks24 relists a discussion and when it reaches the backlog again a week later, adds a vote to try to reach a consensus. But I do think relisting and voting immediately afterwards is poor form.

I think it'd be good to practice not to relist and around the same time participate in AfD discussions. Would you consider this? Cunard (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I could Cunard but, in case you haven't noticed, I'm conscious to not click "Edit" multiple times. I can also assure you I simply relisted because, with these cases, it was best to. I can also assure you that I was completely neutral when voting and I simply thought I would take care of two things at the exact same time.... SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I can also assure you that I was completely neutral when voting – it is not possible to be "completely neutral when voting" once you've supported deletion or retention.

I can also assure you I simply relisted because, with these cases, it was best to. – it is possible that an uninvolved editor would relist those discussions. However, a relist and vote happening at around the same time could give the appearance of impropriety. If you want to participate in a discussion by supporting retention or deletion, it is best to let an uninvolved editor to decide whether to relist. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

At best WP:IAR and WP:BOLD could apply and, at best, as I'm a frequent participant at AfD, I know quite well that anyone can relist (why wait until someone comes along and perhaps simply closes before a vote (which could be mine) come along), and several have commented afterwards. So what are the troubles of simply relisting and voting? Why click "Edit" twice and risk "edit conflict". What I meant by "neutral" is that I was not intent with outstandingly vote one path or another thus there was no "compromise". SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So what are the troubles of simply relisting and voting? – relisting and voting is problematic because it could give the appearance of impropriety. For example, in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case you said that it could be closed as keep, "but I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention". You were uncomfortable with the "keep" consensus in the discussion, so you relisted the discussion and voted "delete".

As Protonk (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?: "Someone relisting a discussion going the 'wrong' way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it."

Why click "Edit" twice and risk "edit conflict". – I think it's problematic to relist and vote in the same edit. I also think it's problematic to relist in one edit and vote in a second edit within seconds or minutes of the relist. I find both situations equally problematic.

Cunard (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I kindly suggest we both drop this and continue with our own path and tasks as I was completely open to closing as Keep but the AfD was not explicitly clear regardless so if I had closed as Keep, it would've been fingered as closing too early thus the Relist. My vote afterwards was not at all affecting the AfD, whether or not what you may think. I will not continue to entertain this thread as I know what my beneficial intentions are and were. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD? to solicit thoughts from the community. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Few articles need major edits

Hello, here is a list of articles that may need some major cleanup:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Telecoms_Limited
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbonn_Mobiles
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asklaila
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_and_Keshavan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportskeeda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahari_Music
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebelkart

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_It%27s_Not_Forever
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek_Veer_Ki_Ardaas...Veera

Thank you. AM (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for your kind reviews. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick DuBose

I noticed you tagged this article for CSD. While the tagging apears to be correct, I hesitated to delete it because you did not inform the creator. Using the correct scripts for patrollng pages will do this automatically. If you were using Page Curation, please report this as a bug, or let me know on my talk age. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Aboobacker

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have tagged this article for deletion as it should have been. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Traditional Thai Wedding

Looks like the speedy tag for Traditional Thai Wedding, though it would no longer be qualified for the tag you put up, if you want you could do a new one. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 07:05:27, 24 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Springedits2015

• Springedits2015 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:FiveFilms4freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i'd like to challenge your last review of my fiveFilms4freedom draft. If it's not your field, i'm not sure it should be so easy to dismiss a review on notability. While I am happy to make further amends, i would say this draft is in line with those accepted for other LGBT film festivals. So I'd please ask that you look at the review again with that in mind.

Springedits2015 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Springedits2015 I can assure you that although it may not be my field, I'm still knowledgeable to see if it's acceptable or not as a notable article. I would still add any additional news sources as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked proposed new article

Hi!: I disagree with your decision of not including the short biography of Jose Alix Alix, physician, specialist in lung diseases, head of the lung diseases service in the Fundacion Jimenez Diaz (FJD), Clinica de Nuestra Señora de la Concepción, Madrid, one of the top ranking hospitals all over Spain, the references provides show he was a pioneer of Thoracic Surgery in Spain (Archivos de Bronconeumología, 2002, the official publication of the Spanish Society for Lung Diseases), any Web Map services will show you the avenue with his name in San Fernando de Henares/ Coslada (Madrid, Spain), Entrez PubMed could retrieve references of some of his publications, he was awarded some top range Spanish decorations, you can consult this in his obituary note in the Madrid newspaper ABC of sept 1989, of free and open access; when he died, he was dedicated an obituary note by the Madrid newspaper 'El Pais', I guess this is more than enough, you can find persons with the same surname, and being his relatives, as Alberto Garcia-Alix, photographer, having an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, or known, Jose Igancio Gaminde-Alix, Senator for the PNV, Baske Nationalist Party, the Jose Alix-Alix offspring, Josemari Alix-Trueba, even when belonging to a now illegal group was also notorious, the surname Trueba is connected to the movie maker having received a Hollywood Oscar, and persons having a similar position in Spanish medicine, as Hernan Cortes-Funes, former head of Oncology service of 12 de Octubre Hospital in Madrid, who has a large biography in Spanish Wikipedia. The fact that the international projection of Jose Alix-Alix is not that wide as that of Hernan Cortes-Funes may be connected to the basic fact that Jose Alix was born, and retired earlier, when medicine, specially Spanish medicine, was not so global as it is today. If you think this reasoning is enough, as I've shown, you can change your decision, it's up to you. Thanks, have a good year, best regards, + Salut--Jgrosay~enwiki (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Archived

Done! KgosarMyth (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks. Prof TPMS (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk page distress call

I decided instead to block the IP in question, which should have the same effect. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

13:25:43, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Hillaoph

• Hillaoph (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Finnish American Chamber of Commerce - New York (FACC NY) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I am wondering why my Wikipedia article keeps getting declined although I have provided independent sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Finnish_American_Chamber_of_Commerce_-_New_York_%28FACC_NY%29

The articles I have on the reference list are all from independent large media outlets from Finland. Kauppalehti is the biggest financial newspaper in Finland and MTV3 is the main news channel of Finland. In addition, the Consulate General of Finland in New York has no relations to FACC NY so the article it has written should also count as independent.

There is another very similar organization in America called AmCham Finland who have gotten their page published without any references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmCham_Finland

And an identical organization SACC New York (the Swedish version of FACC NY) has gotten a page published with only references to its website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACC_New_York

Why is that?

Kindly, Hilla

Sleek Kitchens

Hi SwisterTwister! I see that you nominated my page for deletion - Sleek Kitchens. As per the discussion on the deletion page, I did modify many of the references to include content from mainstream media platforms. Additionally, as you can see on the articles for deletion page, the page was not nominated for deletion based on content, but on quality of references, which are clearly improved. I am wondering, could you please point to any specific reason as to why the page was deleted in spite of me making the necessary changes? Thanks!Sportonion555 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sportion555 Because it was still questionable for notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi!

Metro man 27 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear torpedo

Hi @SwisterTwister: Thanks for the NAC of the AfD for The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes. The outcome of the AfD is clear enough. I wonder though whether we correctly designate this as a Deletion or as a Keep? SInce both the fundamentals of the article prior to AfD and the article history were both Kept (under a new name), I would have labeled it as Keep. However, that's just me guessing. This difficulty probably arises because I pushed through the new name for the article, Nuclear torpedo, before the AfD closed, so maybe I pre-empted things in a way I shouldn't have. (I tried to point to that at the top of the AfD information.) In any case, the AfD tag is still on the renamed Nuclear torpedo page, so I thought you wouldn't mind me asking if this is really a Keep or Delete designation, and also letting you know about the remaining tag. Thanks again for helping close the AfD. Sorry if I am being weird - the closure is really correct in its practical outcome and this is just a nitpicky labeling question. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

Please can you explain why you (NAC) closed thisWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rise and Fall of Nuclear Torpedoes as a delete when there were four keep votes and no deletes? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

Xxanthippe I closed it as Deleted as the article was obviously deleted or rather moved to Nuclear torpedo instead it seems thus I saw no need for an open AfD for an apparently red-linked article. I have also removed it from the latter article unless you would like to renominate or somehow talk about that article separately. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. An explanation would have helped. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC).

Hey, remember that AfD applies to the content of an article, not the title. Just because an article is renamed does not mean that someone should have to start a new AfD for it. As such, the close reasoning is rather misleading, it should ideally have been something like "moved to Nuclear torpedo without redirect and rewritten". Though, to be honest, it doesn't really matter at this point. ansh666 05:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: I don't know if the reason for closure is easy to adjust. While the closure has a reasonable practical outcome I am fairly confident that the label as Delete is technically incorrect. When you have a moment, and if it's not too much trouble technically, would you mind relabeling the close as Keep with the explanation along the lines of "consensus, after article was renamed without redirect to Nuclear torpedo, and partially rewritten". If this isn't easy to do, please just mention that here, so that I know you actively considered this request and also know how things work going forward. Many appreciative thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bhagnari Language

Okay so you patrolled Bhagnari Language, though it needs some cleanup I think, I'm not even sure what this is or if it is a real language though to be honest! Wgolf (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Lorquin Entomological Society

Thank you for reviewing my article and making suggestions. I have not made enough Wiki contributions, and none in several years, to be fluent with inserting citations and editing.

I have made changes, could you please suggest other edits or changes that would improve my content.

I have two images uploaded, but they might have been uploaded to inappropriate locations and I do not know how to include them in my test or page. Any suggestions would be most welcome

Brhebert (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

how to add image

I want to use this image http://webitcongress.com/files/images/articles/medium/e799cabd74ed3a1b6892f0a1d0dabf95.jpeg to the wiki article. Please suggest how to use. Thanks.

Unus32 (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Unus32 If you can freely license it, see WP:UPLOAD. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I will follow the instructions to update the image. Can you please look at the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ronaldo_Mouchawar. I have made the changes now in the coding. I am new to Wiki Please help. Your suggestion is highly appreciated.

Unus32 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

09:41:35, 26 April 2016 review of submission by Collinmueller

• Collinmueller (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thunder (Content Management System) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for taking the time to review the article on Thunder. This is my first Wikipedia article, so I would like to get some guidance on which sources are considered 'good' sources and how many do I have to cite. In my first version of the article I cited the 'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung' with their online outlet faz.net, which is among Germany's largest serious newspapers and completely independent of the Thunder project, that the page is about. The second source is meedia.de, which is a large Germany media industry news service. They also don't have anything to do with the project. The third major source is the blog of Dries Buytaert, who is an 'online rock star'. He is almost as big as Linus Torvalds (Linux). Thunder is built on top of his open-source project Drupal, which is used by a significant share of websites.

Many media outlets around the globe have reported about Thunder. So how many other sources should I cite? And how should they differ from the ones I have already cited?

Thank you very much for your help. Regards, Collin Collinmueller (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)collinmueller

P.S.: Thunder is a not-for-profit open-source project that aims at fostering the worldwide collaboration among publishers. Nobody is earning money with Thunder.

13:16:03, 26 April 2016 review of submission by Cohu

• Cohu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The International Integrated Development World Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear SwisterTwister,

My article is not accepted because the references are considered as not independant from the subject. I do not understand how a reference can be independant from the subject. Since they have to be related to each other. Also, I checked the other wikipedia page in the same context, as the Nobel Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize and most of its references are related to its main website. I kindly ask you to review, and help me by indicating how I could improve this page.

Thanks in advance for your support

Kind regards, Constance

Reviewing

I know I've already asked you about this, but I feel like I need to ask again. Are you even looking at the page before you mark it as reviewed? The rate you mark them as such is absurd. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Compassionate727 Of course I'm looking, I'm simply a fast typist and reader, I should also note that I use multiple tabs including with both a phone and laptop, and I'm accustomed to what the article contains, if it's notable and acceptable, and tagging when needed. Although some may think I'm not paying attention, I can assure you I certainly am. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to pile on, but I came here to say exactly this. For the fourth time in recent memory—recent enough to remember your name—I've come across something you'd marked reviewed that was very clearly not. The latest instance of no-op patrolling is Red Messaging Mass Notification and Emergency Notification‎‎, a poorly-written advertisement. A few day ago, you marked an incarnation of Lara Technologies as patrolled—even though it was clear promotionalism with no indication of notability. It had been deleted twice in substantially the same form, yet you didn't even tag it for notability. This kind of patrolling is counterproductive and disruptive, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.  Rebbing  20:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing FWIW, I have mentioned to other people that I notice it but I wait and watchlist to see if any improvements are made, because then people finger me as being "hasty"....Again, I assure I wathch the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your watchlist won't tell you when changes haven't been made, and, with the countless pages you curate—you actually did one of mine this afternoon—I find it difficult to believe that you're going to manually follow up with each one. Moreover, new pages patrol is not the "adopt and wait" queue; I'm the third editor who took the time to object to this behavior today. (Please re-read the red-boxed warning on WP:NPP.) If you want to wait on a page to see if it will develop—I agree, an appropriate outcome when further editing may flush out notability—then please leave it in the queue. It can wait there just as well as it can in your watchlist. Also, if your concern actually is about hasty deletion, there's nothing stopping you from categorizing articles and tagging their talk pages for relevant wikiprojects.  Rebbing  20:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing Simply to note, I can assure you I follow all of my watchlisted pages. In fact, I regularly watch them to where I see them every minute or so. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe you. But you miss my point: your watchlist only shows what's changed, not what's stayed the same. If you patrol and watch a problematic article, and nothing happens to resolve the problem, your watchlist isn't going to tell you that a problem hasn't been fixed. You are defeating the entire purpose of new pages patrol. I also have to wonder: if you're looking at your watchist every minute, are you sure you're taking this seriously enough? "It is critical that editors don't patrol sloppily nor treat it as a game or contest."  Rebbing  21:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing Even if the watchlist will not show the "stayed changes", I regularly go through the entire list anyway. Also, I can assure you I'm one of the most serious NPPers around. That's why I've continued this a long time. I can assure you it's not a "game", it's instead that I know what can and cannot be accepted. Even if you disagree with some of my patrols, I still take it seriously and, to be honest, I'm not a fan of such overchallenging articles, as it's not easy to see if the user will improve it soon or not....thus I watchlist it. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing and SwisterTwister: Another thing I notice is that you've missed several copyvios that you would've noticed had you taken more time to actually look at the page. And this is much more serious than failing CSD A7—not to say that failing A7 isn't serious. However, CSD G12 is up there with G3 vandalism, G10 attack pages, and G11 spam as articles which must be removed immediately in order to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. You seem to be taking WP:don't bite the newcomers to an absurd extreme. Why do you think they created CSD? Because most pages like that won't be improved: the editor is simply promoting themselves or their product or just being a troll.

And one final thought: if everyone is upset with you for doing your job inadequately, maybe it's because you are? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. At this point, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are editing in good faith. I bring up my concerns about your basic behaviors in regards to this very important endeavor, and you respond by hiding this entire conversation instead of addressing any of it. When I go back through your archives, I see you've been receiving numerous complaints about this for more than five years, and who knows how other ones there are that you simply blanked like this. I don't even know what to say. I'm not the kind of person who typically makes accusations—I prefer to assume good faith and then have a calm, sensible discussion about things. But it's hard to do that when you appear to be actively resisting everyone's efforts to communicate with you on the matter, simply claiming that you "are watching the pages"—which requires so much more effort to do than to simply actually tag the problems in the first place that I don't believe you're actually doing it. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be plain and simple, Compassionate727, if you are going to remove my archiving of messages by restoring them, please stop and leave my talk page. FWIW, I explained above to Rebbing but I am not going to respond to someone who boldly removes archiving. Any further attempts to remove archivng will be taken as hounding. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that reverting your deletion of this discussion was inappropriate. While some editors prefer to archive their talk pages—I've kept all the unpleasant and downright rude comments I've received out of a sense of honesty—it's your prerogative to remove threads from your own talk page for any reason (or no reason), and other editors have to respect that. I'd also like to clarify that, while I strongly object to your patrolling, I've got nothing against you personally, I appreciated your politeness in replying to me, and I have no doubt about your dedication to Wikipedia.  Rebbing  18:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up but, there seems to be a real ongoing issue here, maybe the flag should be removed until the understanding of the reviewing process is resolved. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I believe this is actually about SwisterTwister's new pages patrol activity: it appears that, rather than actually patrolling new articles, he simply marks them as patrolled and adds them to his watchlist for future perusal, thus short-circuiting the curation process. The NPP guide explicitly recommends against this: "If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later."  Rebbing  19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

With nearly five hundred patrols in the last 24 hours, it's clear SwisterTwister is treating this as a game (see the comment above about patrolling from multiple consoles simultaneously), and it's beyond belief that he's meaningfully following up with each one of these articles in a timely fashion. It's equally clear he's not swayed by our protests. If you and I are correct in our concerns, this is a serious matter. Perhaps you'd care to bring this up—respectfully—at the new pages patrol noticeboard?  Rebbing  18:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Sorry, I'm not familiar with that noticeboard at all, at the moment it would be beyond me to author an issue there. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: You have not addressed my concerns—specifically the one about copyvios—nor have you really satisfied anyone else. You claim to not tag pages because you are watching to see if the user improves them. However, the user isn't going to know that it needs improvement if you don't tell them there's a problem, which is part of the reason maintenance templates exist in the first place. In my experience, the vast majority of people will make all intended edits to an article quickly, and will apply a {{new page}} tag otherwise, so waiting on them to edit is pointless, so they usually don't have intention to if they haven't edited in 10 minutes. Especially those stubs for football players which people mass produce. There's no point in waiting on someone to improve those, no one has any intention of doing so.

You're claim that I am interfering with your "archiving" is exaggerated when you hadn't added it to an archive. You were simply eliminating all trace of the conversation except for the history itself. I understand it is the right of a user to remove notifications they've read, but I'm quite certain that isn't an excuse to ignore someone's attempts to interact with you. I had at least assumed it was clear that I expected a reply to my last message.

I apologize for being so accusatory. I recognize that that only inflames discussions. Nevertheless, you so far have been very dismissive about people's concerns about your handling of this, and so I am attempting to make it crystal clear that I have some very big ones.

Does any of this make any sense to you, or do I need to go into even more detail? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I began working on that comment after SwisterTwister's last reply directly to me, and that it doesn't address any of Rebbing's and Mlpearc's comments. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing I kindly wish for the heads of this thread to end thus my removing of it but I will say that about three fourths (3/4) is actually acceptable material and it's only remaining piece that require serious needs such as tagging and deleting. You can see for yourself (between the articles for villages, sports, trains, etc.) so it's no serious trouble that I reviewed "500". I will explain again about " watching" them, I read my watchlist multiple times a day, and you nktice I'm heavily present at AfD. If I may not immediately, say, nominate an article for AfD, that's because I'm currently voting at the dparsely voted AfDs so there will be comfort room for attention if I nominate. Again I assure NPP is not a game for me and I take it quite seriously. Sincerely, SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one seeing the logistical feasibility of checking every page on your watchlist after the fact. Come on! After one week, you're checking for problems on 3,500 pages that you should've already done all that for. You also seem to be under the impression that NPP exists only for the purpose of deleting problem ones. It isn't. This is not AfC. If a page doesn't qualify for deletion, you are supposed to tag it for problems, which you haven't been doing. And before replying to that by saying that you're watching them, read my first two sentences again. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rebbing: As I just came here to ask about this behavior (again), we are at least four editors in one day now. This definitely calls for some kind of formal resolution. Maybe it's time to take this to WP:ANI? Kolbasz (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kolbasz Rebbing, AFAIK, had read my comments and "hoped to not be obstruvively anymore" and yet here comes this comment again. I have no plans to end my beneficial work at NPP and I certainly am not going to respond to Compassionate727 after the heated moments yesterday. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: By not being obtrusive, I wasn't talking about this: I meant I hoped replying to one of your AfC responses wasn't offensive. (I had your talk page on my watchlist following my remarks above, and I couldn't resist.) I'd like to say, before this goes wherever it's going to go, that I personally appreciate your contributions. I'm obviously familiar with you from AfD—I see you in nearly every discussion—but I've also noticed your article-space contributions, and, this week, I've had a chance to peek at your admirable AfC work as well. So please don't think I've got a problem with you, because I don't.  Rebbing  21:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kolbasz: I think ANI would be appropriate at this point. Earlier, I'd suggested raising this at NPPN, but that noticeboard doesn't offer binding decisions, and this issue has already been discussed by several editors without resolution. If we're correct, we need to have this addressed; if we're mistaken, it'd be good for SwisterTwister to have an answer to the editors who keep raising these issues here. Are you going to make the complaint?  Rebbing  21:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI brought me here, and going through your patrol log, I've found Nuclear (band), which you marked as patrolled, even though it was obvious that it was an A7 and relied on only one source, which happened to be a primary source. I have to question your practise in patrolling new pages. Dschslava (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New barnstar

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Just to let you know I really appreciated your efforts as a new page patroller. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

03:37:40, 27 April 2016 review of submission by T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics )

• T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ATP Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi SwisterTwister,

Thank you for your effort on reviewing a draft I created on Draft:ATP Electronics , and I appreciate your suggestions that it needs more in-depth news sources overall.

As I am still quite new to Wikipedia, and still digesting the notability rules of creating an article, would you be so kind to point out which existing references I've used for Draft:ATP Electronics is considered a notable source in your opinion ? Are there other suggestions for referencing a notable source ?

This would help in terms of editing the article and adding more in-depth sources before I submit my review again.

Thank you T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you SwisterTwister for reviewing my article T.L Cheng ( ATP Electronics ) (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Deleting

Re your message: Done and I blocked the IP for 24 hours, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration

File:Monir Portrait-exh ph021.jpg You are invited...
	Women artists of Middle East / North Africa worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red and Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum May 2016 #wikiwomeninred #guggathon

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Draft:Alpha Lambda Mu

I can get additional third party references, but articles directly *about* the group (rather than simply mentioning them) in the New York Times, the Guardian and the Huffington Post seem to meet the standard.Naraht (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

19:41:14, 27 April 2016 review of submission by Pollyart123

• Pollyart123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Raymond Watson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Swister Twister, I have added two numbered references / sources, I have many more to add, but wondered if you could have a look at the two added and tell me if they are done correctly and meet the requirements. Thank-you for your help and feedback. Polly

Kohen Gadol

This was a redirect to High Priest of Israel. The editor who recreated it seems to be promoting himself in the article, which in any case I suspect is fringe at best. See also the new editor's talk page. I'll look into the fringe aspect more tomorrow when I'm on my pic. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

And what I didn't see then was his addition to Davidic line, "The first public confirmed ancestor of King David being Aaron Jacob Levy, a descendant on his mothers side, revealed to the public in April of 2016."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sidney Hall

Thank you very much for accepting the draft for Sidney Hall (film). It looks like the redirect to Shawn Christensen has already been removed! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to accept Draft:Sidney Hall (film) now? I'd really appreciate it. :) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

02:17:16, 28 April 2016 review of submission by Evaki1972

• Evaki1972 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RL Leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Instead of just deleting my page, can you actually offer some advice on how to write it or fix it. It's not promotional. I don't work for the company. This is a company that works with the CIA, FBI, Dept of Defense and National Counterterrorism Center to ensure American's safety. Not sure how that is not a relevant subject matter, but Selena Gomez and Offspring Entertainment are. I have used both NY Times (which is as good as it gets for a press reference) as reference, and official government documents as reference. Are official government documents from the Clinton administration and the 911 Commission not real enough for you? It said on wikipedia's rules that you are supposed to use real references in addition to external links. So how are my references not adequate? Yet the references on other approved pages that are very similar that I have in fact submitted to other articles, ok'd? I was told draft space is where people are nice and help you develop your article by giving you feedback. I have spent over 3 weeks writing this article and researching it and it's founders. And I just get a note saying it's deleted because it's promotional. Please advise on how you would fix this article...Evaki1972 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Evaki1972: I'm not SwisterTwister, but I'm going to interject here anyway. First, your draft hasn't been deleted; I'm not sure why you think it has, but it's clearly still there, the deletion log says it's never been deleted, and SwisterTwister doesn't have the power to delete it.

SwisterTwister told you what was wrong with your draft: it reads like promotional copy: it's mealy-mouthed, full of "weasel words" like "disrupt" and "methodology," vague statements like "Since its formation, the company has worked alongside numerous government agencies and social organizations to solve and analyze problems and issues of national concern" or "Over the last decade, RL Leaders has worked with various offices of the United States government," and marketing baloney like "Chief Executive Officer, John Rogers, professional life has centered on politics and policy." (As an aside, that sentence needs to be axed, but, if you kept it, it should read: "Chief Executive Officer John Rogers' professional life . . . .") Volunteers like SwisterTwister will give you pointers, but they aren't here to teach you how to write. Writing's hard—believe me, I know; I struggle with it too, but that's no excuse.

If you want my advice—and you may not at this point, but I am trying to help you here, so you'd be wise to take it: Cut your draft by three quarters. Discard everything that isn't essential to your point. Remove every phrase that isn't specific. Less is more. Then take what's left and make it more pointed. I read the article, and I still have no idea what RL Leaders is. (And don't tell me here; tell me in your article.)

Two specific things that stood out to me: don't capitalize things that aren't proper nouns. "National security" and "Government" aren't capitalized. And remove those navboxes at the bottom of your draft: They're only appropriate when your article is listed in them, which it isn't. Best.  Rebbing  03:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Joanne Joanne

Hi! Thanks for your welcome message. I wonder if you could tell me what, specifically, you believe needs improving about the referencing on Joanne Joanne? I think literally every claim in it can be attributed to the three references? TryANewChord (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

TryANewChord Yes, but for solidity, it could still use any additional available amount of news sources. Sincerely, SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the usage guideline for the tag says - from Template:Refimprove

This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation.

TryANewChord (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Jarunee Sooksawat

Okay so yeah you put the BLP prod on Jarunee Sooksawat, something of interest is that the creator also made Jarunee Suksawat, name is nearly identical. (Which the IMDB page has only 2 films for someone with that name also). Have to wonder if this is the same person or what. Wgolf (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same person, different romanization. See my comment on User:Wgolf's talk. I don't think IMDB is authoritative for older Thai cinema, the sources say in the late 70s and early 80s she was in literally hundreds of films. They were churning out action films and she was the main heroine at the time. That said, the article creator is not listening and is heading for a block if they keep doing cut-and-paste article creations! Fences&Windows 22:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Souhila Ben Lachhab

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my article on Souhila Ben Lachhab. I know you left me a comment stating that her notability is still questionable as of yet. But, I was wondering if you could give me a reason as to what makes her not notable enough? Is it the references in particular? Immes19 —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

copy of delted article

Please email my copy of the article deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lydia_O._Arefeva&action=edit&redlink=1 Moscowamerican (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sada Riyakata (April 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Sadariyakata/sandbox/Sada Riyakata and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! SwisterTwister, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you SwisterTwister for reviewing my article. moscowamerican.

Speedy deletion declined

I have declined the speedy deletion on Felix Mlusu. Mlusu's position as head of a major Malawian corporation, supported by a report in a major Malawian times of his retirement (I'm pretty sure no newspaper will note when I retire!) are sufficient claims of notability to escape speedy deletion. Take to AFD if you feel the need. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why my draft wasn't good enough because I think it shows the significance. Summit09 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

15:38:41, 28 April 2016 review of submission by 71.167.26.151

• 71.167.26.151 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Julie Goldman (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In order to comply with the rules of WP:CREATIVE and to show her work has "won significant critical attention" I have added references to her multiple awards and accomplishments in the documentary world from the last year.

In the last 5 months Julie Goldman has had 2 films she produced shortlisted for the documentary feature Academy Award, "Best of Enemies" and "3 1/2 Minutes Ten Bullets" , she has had two feature documentaries she produced win at Sundance 2016, "Weiner" and "Life, Animated" , and she has won the 2016 Amazon Studios Sundance Institute Producer’s Award .

This is in addition to her two decades of decorated work as a documentary producer. I believe these new references that have been added to her page prove that her work indeed has "won significant critical attention" and I hope it can be approved. Thank you for taking the time to review this page!

Request on 16:14:14, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Andyht

• Andyht (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Roots_(company)

Andyht (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please come to IRC (yet again)

@SwisterTwister: as the heading says, please come to IRC. Please? Thanks, Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

Akros oikogeneiakon

You think there are sources at the greek version, man? CAUSE THERE ARE NOT. Gmentis (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion on deletion

Hi, I know you are quite active on AFD and am looking for a second opinion on Taneli Tikka. I don't want to formally propose this for deletion if there is no chance. I'm not quite sure what to make of this BLP. It obviously reads like a resume and has information that should definitely be removed (like the fact that he has two cats). I really don't think he is notable. There are over 50 references, but I really don't see anything that deep. It has been substantially updated by a paid editor (which is disclosed on the talk page). Thanks. Mb66w (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 00:26:59, 29 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Candice Scott

• Candice Scott (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ruben Payan, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I was reading your comments regarding the rejection of Ruben Payan and don't understand what 'solid independent notability' means? Can you elaborate? I also didn't understand what you meant about incorporating the references - do you mean into the body? Thank you in advance for your assistance, it is much appreciated.

Candice Scott (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Candice Scott (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary school AfD close

Hi SwisterTwister. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colégio Anglo Drummond (I was about to return to follow up on my previous comments there) as speedy keep, with the rationale that "secondary schools are always kept as notable". While it's true that the majority of such schools are indeed kept, as summarised by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, they are not always kept. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30#Good Shepherd English School. I find it problematic that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is being used to close AfDs before a full discussion has been allowed to take place. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry At best though, the general consensus at several AfDs, now and the past, always seem to say to keep secondary schools. With the only other cases being that they be moved to the local school group or the community itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but consensus is supposed to be open to change, and that can't happen if AfDs are closed early on the basis of past consensus. It's circular reasoning. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Having reviewed Wikipedia:Speedy keep, I don't think that outcome is justified in this case, so have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 29#Colégio Anglo Drummond. Please do comment if you feel that it is appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• For the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colégio Anglo Drummond, I, in exercise of my administrative discretion and pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, have vacated your closure and relisted the debate. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Köksal Ersayın Anatolian High School was also closed in the same way, although the consensus there seems clearer and it was much closer to running for seven days so I don't want to create unnecessary work for anyone by listing that for review as well. Pinging Stifle in case your view differs. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

thank you for the reviews.. (you can delete this section after you reddit)

Gpluz (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SwisterTwister,

I am very new at Wikipedia, I noticed that you reviewed my Greenbrook Elementary School page. What can I do to improve it? I was planning to add a lot more information and pictures, the principle of the school was helping me find more sources. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

fernandezm81337Fernandezm81337 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)