User talk:Dreamy Jazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
As edited by MediaWiki message delivery talk | contributions on 11 11 2019
1.35.0-wmf.5 (c5c79e5)
This is Dreamy Jazz's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Dreamy Jazz.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4

More info please[edit]

in re: Draft:WiGroup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

You asked that my recent (and first) contribution be 'speedy deleted'.

When I see the reason/s, they include: 'should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed'

I certainly included a huge range of references that 'the creator of the the subject being discussed' had nothing to do with. Please can you give a more comprehensive answer as to why it is not fit for Wikipedia?

The company was ahead of its time in its industry and has achieved some really notable things.


Uhleka (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Uhleka, the reason the draft was speedy deleted as noted in User talk:Uhleka#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:WiGroup was because the draft was written promotionally. Wikipedia does not allow promotion, as articles have to be neutral, so if you intend to rewrite your draft for WiGroup you will need to write it neutrally (i.e. stick to the facts in the reliable sources). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to do this and the article seems to have gone "If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:WiGroup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window."

There is no option to "edit" it - or am I missing something?

Uhleka (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Uhleka, that information which was in the first message is out of date, as the draft has since been deleted. You will need to start the draft again by creating the page. To do this, just go to Draft:WiGroup and make your first edit in the edit box on the page. After you create the page, the edit tab will appear. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for your last message, and I appreciate the time you are taking; I am well aware you volunteer your time.

It's still unclear to me how to get my first draft back. I took over an hour to write it, and add the 11 references. It would be incredibly helpful to regain the draft, and format it to be more neutral and see if I can get it to a place that Wikipedia is happy with it.

I did try and go into the draft again, type in some words, and try edit it - but to no avail. It's really not clear to me at all how to retrieve this document.

If you can help I'd appreciate it.

Uhleka (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Uhleka, because it is deleted, the content of the deleted draft can only be viewed by administrators. I suggest that you ask the deleting administrator Jimfbleak to get the content of the deleted draft. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at an image you uploaded[edit]

Hello. I've been flitting about touching this and that and came upon File:2dayfm 90s logo.gif in the context of Category:Images_which_should_be_in_PNG_format; in the history, you are noted as the uploader. I went looking for an original image which could be sampled to PNG, but did not find one in a quick search. Do you have access to an original source of the image, or is the uploaded copy a faithful copy of the original image? The Source in the metadata is mentioned as "Mumbrella"; I'm wondering what that refers to. Thanks for the info. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ceyockey, hello. Back in December 2017 I had thought that a SVG converter made realistic SVGs, but what the website actually did was just wrap the image in a SVG element (thus not an true SVG). I reverted my changes, but because the previous files were deleted, I just reuploaded the images I had converted (because I had downloaded the images to convert them). I should have requested undeletion at WP:RFUD, but I had not realised that this process existed. The original uploader is Daylen according to the log for that image. It might be worth, seeing as I was never the original uploader on these files, to delete my versions and restore the original uploaders versions (as long as they are the same). I say this as I would say that proper attribution would be achieved. I presume that the original files would still be undeletable. I will make a list of the images that I reuploaded. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The list of images is below. There is not too many, and the first image in the list has had a new version uploaded by a different user. If any admin wants to deal with my mistake, feel free to (and take this as an acceptance for all the files below to be G7d as long as the original version is then uploaded). I will also add this to WP:RFUD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Images which should have their original versions undeleted and my reuploading deleted

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Dreamy Jazz,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 723 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.


Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

King of Rewiews[edit]

Trophy.png Great reviewer of Wikipedia
This one of the greatest reviewer on Wikipedia knows all the rules and makes sure everyone follows that rule. Olajoshua (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Olajoshua thanks for the message. Good to hear you think I am doing a good job. If you have any questions, I can do my best to answer them. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Tony Okpanachi[edit]

Hi, Please, i write this message on behalf of my account User:PLEGCentre , it got deleted, and I understand the reason being that it appears to be sound like a company name but please how about the Article I created about Tony Okpanchi, I actually have no affiliation with him or his organization, it only that Tony he has helped make contribution to small business and has helped them grow in Nigeria, so I think he deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Please, how will I make an article about him that will be accepted by Wikipedia? and as for my account PLEGCentre that was deleted, please should I use this new account User:Olajoshua to create, cause sometimes it says there is already a duplicate of Tony Okpanachi which is also waiting to be reviewed.

Thanks! Olajoshua (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Olajoshua, both Draft:Tony Okpanachi and Draft:Anthony Okpanachi were declined for being duplicate submissions. If you want to continue making a draft for Tony Okpanchi, I recommend that you pick one of the drafts to edit further (and later submit for review). To ensure that the draft will be accepted, you will need to ensure that you write neutrally, using information from reliable sources which are independent from Tony Okpanchi. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-45[edit]

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Johann Bessler[edit]

in re: User talk:Ken Behrendt (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your input "Dreamy Jazz". But, I have found the editorial comments made so far concerning my added information on Johann Bessler's wheels to be particularly offensive. The assertion is that I have a "conflict of interest" and only added my material to the Johann Bessler article to promote my recent book. Well, I can happily inform you and others that I do not need Wikipedia to do that because my book is selling quite wheel, thank you, without it being mentioned in Wikipedia! My goal was to try to elevate the Johann Bessler article from leaving a researcher seeking information on Bessler with the erroneous impression that his "self-moving" wheels were all hoaxed because that opinion is some sort of "scientific consensus". LOL! Nothing could be further from the truth. Also, it's been stated that "without proof that the source [I] made is reliable, it shouldn't be used." My "proof" is that the instructions which Bessler left in his 1719 book for future reverse enginners of his wheels and which are described in detail in my book, when used to construct computer wheel models as I did, lead to simulations that show the design works.

So, I will in the coming days attempt to, once again, restore my one paragraph of additional information to the article on Johann Bessler, but, this time, I will make NO reference to my book. That should eliminate the erroneous charge of "conflict of interest". But, I fully expect that paragraph to be deemed unacceptable for some other reason and again deleted. You see, the real problem, imo, is that everyone automatically assumes that Bessler's wheels were "perpetual motion machines" and as such were physically impossible and must have been hoaxed and, of course, Wikipedia does not want to look like it is promoting pseudoscience and hoaxes. The reality of his wheels, however, is that they were NOT perpetual motion machines in any way although they could run for extremely long time periods while continously outputting mechanical energy NOR were they hoaxes. Bessler just managed to stumble upon a simple, yet quite unique mechanical arrangement of weighted levers, cords, and springs which managed to keep the center of gravity of the weighted levers on the descending side of the wheel despite its rotation. That design appears in the youtube video to which the first external link in my added material directs readers.

Ken Behrendt November 8th, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Behrendt (talkcontribs) 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt, I would recommend that you talk on the talk page first. If you do make edits without talking, its likely to be reverted without the edit being supported by sources which are independent, reliable, and not self-published (unless the author is considered an expert in their field by others). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of[edit] is a daughter venture of Principal Financial Group

News Sources/ References:








These are news/reliable references too. Why is it deleted? I have prepared new content for this after you delete it. Kindly respond.

Regards weakdealer Weakdealer 08:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weakdealer (talkcontribs)

Weakdealer the draft is not, and has never been, deleted. Nor can I mark it for deletion, as there is no reason for the draft to be deleted. Because the draft still exists, you can edit and improve the draft. When you feel it is ready you can resubmit the draft for review. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Mhairi Threlfall[edit]

With the page:

Thank you for reviewing, I do appreciate it. I'm just trying to understand about Mhairi "not been elected yet", or being notable in another way. At the moment she has been elected to the Bristol City Council, and has very similar qualification as Mark Wright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talkcontribs) 22:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Craig.francis, as this person's articles for deletion discussion 2 years ago says she fails our notability guidelines for politicians as she is a only a local councillor. If she is elected as a MP, she will meet the first bullet point in that notability guideline and thus be presumed to be notable. Because of this, until she is elected, you need to show that she meets the general notability guideline so that the article can be accepted. This means finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently this is not met, as most of the sources cover the city council significantly and those which focus on her are not independent.
Mark Wright was redirected to Bristol South (UK Parliament constituency) in 2010 and the article was only recreated after a long discussion (you can see it at Talk:Mark Wright (politician)#Comment on notability), which from what I can see didn't even support the article being recreated. Also, you shouldn't say that an article should exist because an article which is similar exists. This is because anyone can create the article, and so its existence is not a reason to keep another article (More information can be found in an essay on this). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, thanks for the followup. I wasn't aware of the original deletion discussion for Mhairi (thanks for that). This is the first page I've created (starting as a draft only), where I read the notability guidelines for politicians, and while I wasn't sure Mhairi should have a page, she is a member of a "sub-national" office (Bristol City Council), where I used Mark Wright as an example to myself that this qualification matched (I assumed it had been properly approved). I had also found other examples, like Louise Bloom (I wasn't too sure on that, as it implies she is somewhere in "Who's Who 2008"), but I only mention that to explain why I think (thought?) that Mhairi should have a page as well. Am I wrong to assume that "sub-national" does not apply here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talkcontribs)
Craig.francis you are correct to assume that sub-national does not apply here, as in the UK members of parliament hold sub-national positions. Local/city councillors are below MPs and so are below sub-national. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Local politicians says that City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Eastville, Bristol is not a internationally famous metropolitan area and thus her position as a councillor is does not make her notable enough. If she is elected as the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, then she will be notable enough for Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, thanks again for your feedback. I've just found the Candidates and elections page, which does a good job of explaining why there shouldn't be single page for every candidate (too many would be created, most of which would need to be deleted afterwards). But it also confirms my view that information on the candidates should be somewhere (good and bad), so voters (such as myself) can make an informed choice. The suggestion is to make a page for all candidates of a party (e.g. "Green Party candidates, British Columbia legislative election, 2005"), but that would be a page of 650 candidates per national party (far too long). So I'm wondering, should I create a page for the candidates in this constituency, or add it as a separate section on the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke page, or put it somewhere else? I should note that Mhairi is the only 2019 candidate without any information about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talkcontribs)
Craig.francis I would note that the page you found, although it is possible it reflects community consensus, has been marked as "inactive" and so is considered "no longer relevant". In fact, this was a failed proposal because discussion on its suitability never gave a yes or no answer (you can see the page being marked as such in this edit in the edit history of the page in 2007). I would be wary using it to say that she should have a section on a separate page or on the constituency page, as this does not necessarily reflect community consensus. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, sorry, I didn't notice the message at the top. So I'm getting a bit lost now; are you saying there is no place for information on election candidates? I find that a bit odd, as my first thought when trying to find out about my candidates is to use Wikipedia - their own literature tends to be a bit biased, and misses some fairly important (negative) details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talkcontribs)
Craig.francis as far as I am aware no pages exist which give more than just a few bits of information on each candidate. There are pages which list candidates for elections, for example Candidates of the 2019 Australian federal election and List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the 2019 Indian general election, but these only contain small amounts of information on each candidate (usually only their party and whether they got elected). Their article gives more information on said person. I would say that for there to be enough reliable and independent sources to source a good amount of information for a living person that is balanced and gives a good overview for each candidate, then there should be enough sources to merit their own article per the general notability guideline. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

other possible criteria[edit]

I've been arguing for 12 years now that Wikipedia should cover the candidate of major parties for elections at a level of national importance. ; I was thinking in terms of my own country , the US, and I meant the candidates of the 2 major parties (after they win the primaries), and the House of Representatives, Senate, and the governors of each state, possibly also the mayors of the most politically important 5 or 10 cities. (The last two years has confirmed my view of the importance of the governors--governor campaigns are covered quite intensely). I was justifying this on the basic unfairness of covering the incumbents as contrasted to the challengers--except for the challengers who have not held major political office are or otherwise notable. There is generally a good deal of news for both parties during the election campaign, but the incumbent/prior office holder has had a great deal more in the past. Sometimes in discussing what counts as a reliable source for notability , the local sources that cover the actual campaign are discounted.

I know the UK is structured differently in many ways, so I don't want to conclude anything about the relevance of this to the specifics for this individual., for I am insufficiently informed about the importance of the offices being discussed. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DGG, to give you a bit of background, she is the candidate for usually the 2nd largest party in the UK (The Labour Party). She is a candidate for the role of a MP, which equates in terms of responsibility to a member of the United States House of Representatives. They are the first stage for bills in the UK, but have more control over the process than in the US.
On a seperate note, she may now be notable enough under GNG, as very recently the news has covered her for different reasons than just she is the candidate. She has attacked the poppy appeal, with The Telegraph reporting yesterday that Mhairi Threlfall said that people should not wear a poppy to cheer on the “continued legalised mass murder”. I will look into how many sources there are now for her, but there have been a couple of useful ones in the past few days. To start there is The Green Party candidate giving their support for her (and removing their candidate) in the Bristol Post published today and the one above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I have only been able to find two sources which cover her significantly [3], [4]. The Bristol Post one I mentioned above talks about the candidate who resigned as its main focus, but does talk about her reaction to it. I have been unable to read the Telegraph source I mentioned above, as most of it is behind a paywall, however, from the title they don't cover her as the main point in the article (instead labour denying anti-Semitism and the poppy appeal). The Sun and Daily Mail have articles on her for the comments she made about the poppy appeal, but they are considered unreliable and so are banned on Wikipedia (personally I wouldn't use the sources anyway). Furthermore, from what I have read this comment was cherry picked by The Sun and Daily Mail (she said this in a Facebook post around 5 years ago, and only now that she is going for an election is this brought up when she is a remainer and these newspapers are highly supportive of leaving the EU. It is possible that they picked the right moment that benefits them to drop this information). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-46[edit]

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)