User talk:Iridescent

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Getting important information

Hi, I feel that people are often putting deletion tags on my articles for no good reason. I also feel that the people who are doing this are just simply wrong about what they are claiming. For example If you look at my Tiffany Sessions article you will see that one user said there was nothing notable about this case, which is just flat out wrong. If you check out one of the YouTube videos linked to her article it says that her disappearance led to the the largest search in Florida's history, I also have a mini pocketbook called Ten unsolved mysteries in which Sessions disappearance is mentioned among the articles which include how did the dinosaurs die out? There are also tons of YouTube videos and internet articles about her as well. So this person who claimed this was just flat out wrong. Also an article I created called Disappearance of Carla Losey you will see that it is up for deletion, If you see that the argument I made against it being deleted I claimed that sources don't have to be national to be notable or creditable do they? (it does has one source that is not just local) Or it doesn't have to make world news to be notable does it? (most people missing cases don't make world news). Please check out my rebuttal I made to the people who want my Disappearance of Carla Losey deleted and let know what you think. Also do people comments to if the article should be kept or not ultimately decide the articles fate? Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you may have confused me with someone else? This is not a subject in which I have either any interest, or any particular knowledge. My sole involvement with this article was a procedural decline of a speedy deletion request on it (at a time when the article looked like this) on the grounds that I didn't feel the article met the strict criteria under which articles can be deleted from Wikipedia without discussion.

Chicxulub

I would note in passing that any book claiming "how did the dinosaurs die out?" is an "unsolved mystery" is not going to be worth the paper on which it's printed when it comes to being a reliable source. The K-T event is probably the single most heavily researched incident in the whole of prehistory, and the only disputes are whether there was a single impact event at Chicxulub or whether there were multiple impacts, and whether the plume(s) and flash directly wiped out the tetrapods almost instantly, whether the plume(s) triggered an impact winter that caused mass extinction over the relatively short term, or whether the shock of the impact opened volcanic vents around the world causing a slower extinction as ash clouds and increased SO₂ levels caused plant life to die back. Nobody other than a few creationist cranks seriously disputes the Chicxulub impact nowadays (hell, once you know what you're looking for if you get up high enough you can see the Chicxulub crater).

If you genuinely feel that the same people are repeatedly tagging material you've written for deletion without good reason, you may have a case for a complaint of harassment. The important thing to take into account is whether their taggings are actually inappropriate; if most of the nominations are resulting in deletion, then that's probably a sign that you're creating inappropriate articles and that these people have notice a problem and are (correctly) checking your other contributions to see if they're also problematic.

Looking at the notifications on your talkpage, it appears that the two people responsible for the recent deletion discussions regarding you are Sitush and TheGracefulSlick, who are two of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, and I think it's unlikely that they both have nothing better to do than harass you for the sake of it. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey there seems to be unanimous consensus thus far that you're creating inappropriate content. Despite the fact that its size and breadth of topics can make it feel like Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, we actually have fairly strict rules on what should and shouldn't be included. Missing person cases are much more common than most people realise (about 250,000 missing person reports are made each year in the UK alone). In most cases, unless there was something unusual about them that led to particularly widespread publicity or a change in the law, missing person cases are rarely going to be notable by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term even if they do receive publicity in the local press, any more than we'd host articles on individual road accidents or grocery-store robberies even if they made the news at the time unless there was something particular to separate them from the norm. Creating articles from scratch is probably the single hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and something with which even many professional academics struggle—don't take it personally if people are finding fault with material you've written. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Anything that has to do with persons is difficult to create good articles for. Inanimate natural objects such as hurricanes, species, volcanoes or the like are usually easier to make articles with that don't get proposed for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd concur with that. When it comes to biographies, unless they meet one of the specific criteria that confers automatic notability in Wikipedia terms (such as competing in the Olympics), then as a rough rule of thumb unless there's at least one chapter specifically about that person in an academically respectable book, you'll struggle to write a Wikipedia article on that person, since you won't be able to refute the "if this person is notable, why has nobody else written about them?" argument (and of course, you'll struggle to write a biography of someone if there isn't an existing biography you can use as a source). For missing persons it will be doubly problematic, as even though not all of them will actually be victims of crime, it's close enough that one could reasonably argue that Wikipedia's specific guidelines for the notability of victims of crime come into play (The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.) which means you need to demonstrate continued coverage of the event. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Far from hounding or whatever other term is currently in vogue, both myself and TSG have been conscious of potential fallout from our nominations and comments. What was said there on my talk page has also been said in at least one of the AfDs where Davidgoodheart actually commented. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is an accurate peek into the WMF's hivemind (a reasonable assumption, given its official source), "Wikihounding" is the current buzzword de nos jours. I have no doubt whatsoever that the reason "sockpuppeting", "vandalism" and "harassment" score so much more highly than "wikihounding" on all the "the WMF is doing enough" metrics is not in fact that there's a huge surge in it, but that the first three are recognizable and well-defined concepts while "Wikihounding" is a non-word which Durova made up a few years ago to describe a phenomenon whose existence doesn't have consensus, let alone that it's actually a serious problem as opposed to a catch-all term for "someone, somewhere did something I didn't like on more than one occasion". ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that "wikihounding" is redundant to "being a jerk", myself. What is and what is not "being a jerk" needs to be hammered out on a case by case basis - not all concepts can be neatly distilled into a mathematical formula. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia, WP:Five pillars was an obscure personal essay, most of the WP:TLA alphabet soup didn't exist or was only used by a couple of insiders, and Wikipedia's most important policy page was the one being held up by Wikipe-tan to the right. Yes, it wasn't a golden age—there were some horrendous systemic problems back then and serious issues with bullying, POV-pushing, and Jimmy Wales and his cronies periodically turning up unbidden to pull their Enemy of the People shit against anyone they deemed not a True Believer—but I can't help but think that with the growth of the bureaucracy some part of Wikipedia's soul has been lost. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No comment on this -- I already offered David advice. But, I'm wondering, does this look suspicious to anyone?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucracy grows as populations grow because too many people cannot directly communicate with each other. Also, to quote one of my colleagues on TV Tropes who follows the rules is right and who doesn't is wrong. And honestly, we all usually want to be right. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

TV Tropes has a different culture, in which people who don't follow the rules tend to be shown the door. The reality of Wikipedia isn't so much "who follows the rules is right and who doesn't is wrong", but "the way the insiders conduct themselves defines the rules for others to follow". If you want a forced but not inaccurate analogy, TV Tropes is an autocracy governed by statute law, but Wikipedia is a feudal society governed by common law. (That people from countries with no common-law tradition or culture of precedents—waves at Germany—tend to find en-wiki's culture very confusing is no coincidence.) ‑ Iridescent 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Germany - it is something that might explain a lot of things I've wondered about over the years. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Civil law traditions in Europe as of 2013.

  Napoleonic Code

  Austro-German law

  Mixed (local + Napoleonic/Austro-German)

  Scandinavian law

  Common law

  Mixed (common law + Roman law)

There's a nice little map at Civil law (legal system) indicating the boundaries in Europe (for the rest of the world, in general if it was ever under British administration it uses common law, otherwise it uses some variation of the Napoleonic Code). Basically, British and Scandinavian law is based on "this is how we've always done it", everything west of the Rhine is based on "this is how we did in in 1810", and everything east of the Rhine (except Romania and Albania) is based on "this is what the government of the day tells you you're allowed to do". ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles are rapidly being deleted, so I must act now before most are gone, so information is needed

Hi, first I would like to say thanks for responding to my message, which is something you always do when other administrators often don't (at least not right away) and that the info that you provided was both funny and helpful, and when I wrote that Sessions' disappearance was mentioned in the same book as the dinosaurs extinction that you drew that picture and added all that extra info, which is something I don't think administrators would do, which I think is very impressive and also humorous. The fact that my articles and others are rapidly being deleted is causing me much grief and frustration and I don't see at all how this could be beneficial to anyone as Wikipedia's purpose is to provide people with information. EVERYONE I have asked who I know personally doesn't think that there was anything wrong with the sources (whether local or not) or articles which I wrote, and that I used and that (with the exception of three articles which I wrote that were terribly sourced, even I can admit that) my articles shouldn't have been deleted. I do know that if my articles keep getting deleted that I may not want to write anymore, which I believe would be a shame as I am a frequent and valuable contributor, and I am sure many editors may feel that same. The information I need from you is under what Wikipedia category do I file a complaint? Davidgoodheart 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

From your deleted contribution list (admin only) the only articles you've ever edited in any capacity which have subsequently been deleted were:

• Death of Aisling Symes (deleted following consensus at a deletion debate)
• Disappearance of Carla Losey (deleted following consensus at a deletion debate)
• Disappearance of Carlease Simms (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)
• Disappearance of David Guerrero (deleted following a more borderline deletion debate)
• Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)
• Disappearance of Linne Dominelli (deleted following unanimous consensus at a deletion debate)

These aren't a case of one rogue admin unilaterally deciding they don't like your contributions; they're each the result of multiple people concluding that they don't comply with Wikipedia policies. If you really feel that the deletions were inappropriate, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, but in my judgement the only one that would have any chance of being restored is David Guerrero.

As I've told you before, although Wikipedia's size can sometimes make it feel that it's a directory of everything, its scope is actually fairly tightly focussed; for something to be included the article needs to demonstrate that the topic in question is considered noteworthy. Missing person cases are very, very common—far more common than most people realise (in the US alone there are 2300 people reported missing each day)—and it's not practical nor desirable for us to list all of them, but only those that were particularly high-profile or had a lasting impact such as a change to the law. To take an analogy, we have articles on individual hurricanes, but we don't have an individual article on every storm or tornado that caused damage, even though such storms would almost always have received significant coverage in the local newspapers.

Wikipedia does welcome you, and I hope you do stay, but if there's a consensus that a particular type of article is inappropriate you need to consider that all the people saying it's inappropriate are likely doing so for a reason, and see if there's something else you could be writing about. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth I suspect they may also be worried about the other articles here. As I type this, only one of them is up for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes, I see the problem; I'll ask at WP:CRIMEPROJ to see if anyone there has any thoughts, since although these aren't technically crime articles it's probably where people with access to sources can be found. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, and I will see what I can do

Hi, what about this article Anna Christian Waters, why was this deleted? I will file a complaint and hopefully it will go good from there. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Same problem as the previous articles - too routine both in terms of coverage and significance. Sources which aren‘t independent from the topic don‘t usually establish notability, plus. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Getting information about a Wikipedia fork or a private wiki

Hi, I need to get some information about making some Wikipedia forks or private wikis. I have read that they can they look very much like a Wikipedia article and I am considering making some as an alternative to the deletion of my articles. I need to know who can edit them and which one would I use if I wanted to make one like the List of people who disappeared mysteriously and would that be possible to do? Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about a true Wikipedia fork—that is, a snapshot of the entire content of Wikipedia which will then diverge from that point onwards—the instructions are at Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. If you want a full Wikipedia copy (all revisions to all pages) it will take multiple terabytes of data so don't try it unless you have a professional RAID server and an internet connection that can handle it; if you just want the current version of all the articles and don't need any other namespace (talkpages, user pages etc) go to meta:Data dump torrents#English Wikipedia and select the current pages‑articles‑multistream.xml.bz2 file (usually the third one down); the compressed file takes up about 14gb and expands to about 60gb. The instructions to install and run MediaWiki (the software on which Wikipedia runs) are at mw:Manual:Installation guide.

I strongly advise against setting up a Wikipedia fork; unless you know what you're doing it's a very time consuming process since you'll also have to register your own website and arrange for servers (hosting a site with 6,910,626 subpages isn't something you can do with a computer in your basement and a phone line). If you just want to create a set of articles that wouldn't be considered appropriate on Wikipedia and want to retain the "anyone can edit" and wikitext formatting aspects of Wikipedia, there are numerous other non-WMF wiki hosting sites. Fandom (better known by its old name of Wikia) is probably the best known, and your best bet if you're unfamiliar with or unconfident about the technical aspects of wiki design as it's aimed at amateurs—their step-by-step instructions for creating a new wiki are here. If you don't like the look of Fandom/Wikia—or don't like the lack of control ("anyone can edit" applies there as well), there are numerous other wiki hosting services available.

If you're intending to do what I think you're planning to do, which is set up a national missing-persons database for the US, then you may want to question whether running it on MediaWiki is actually the best option. There are many advantages to the wiki model when there are large numbers of people involved, but if the articles are unlikely to change once written, then a more traditional website in which people submit the articles to you and you post them would almost certainly be easier to maintain, as there won't be a need to monitor existing pages for vandalism or inaccurate changes.

I'll also add one additional thought that occurs to me if you're planning on going it alone: you're writing about potentially extremely sensitive legal cases, and if you're operating the site yourself you will be personally liable for any potential libel or contempt of court if any actionable allegations are made or repeated on your site. Theoretically you're responsible for material you add to Wikipedia as well, but on Wikipedia it's less likely to be an issue, as there are other people reading your contributions who will hopefully repair or remove anything problematic, and if worst come to worst then provided you were acting in good faith WMF Legal will try to help you out regarding any legal actions. If you're both hosting the site and exercising significant editorial control over the content yourself, then §230 (the quirk of US law that prevents Wikipedia being sued for potentially libelous material it hosts) isn't going to help you. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, is there a way I could let others edit my site, but I would be the main person in charge, so if there are people who are deleting my content because they don't find it notable I could block them? I would make sure not to write any liable, but is there some kind of protection which I could get just in case something did happen? Thank you for your info as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want personal control, then you don't want to be on Fandom/Wikia, as they operate on a similar "anyone can edit and all content is irrevocably released under a free license" principle to Wikipedia. Assuming you don't intend to run the servers yourself and set up your own MediaWiki installation, I already linked above to the WMF's central directory of MediaWiki hosting services, and you may want to see if any of them would suit your needs. One that isn't on that list but which you might also want to consider is MyWikiBiz (http://mywikibiz.com), which is largely moribund but might be interested in hosting something like this. (28bytes, can you poke Greg and ask if this is something MWB would be willing to host? Admins, if an IPv6 or obvious sock pops up to reply to this please turn a blind eye to it.)

I'll repeat the warning I gave above regarding potential legal consequences. If you're writing about live missing person investigations, you're writing about potentially extremely legally sensitive incidents, and it will be very easy for you to inadvertently either write about something that's sub judice, or make a libellous statement. To take an example from your recent edits—which normally I'd immediately redact and revdel, but will leave in situ for a few days as an illustration On reflection, I've removed the material making allegations against named individuals which doesn't have a reliable source, to get it out of Google—this recent creation of yours insinuates that named people were accessories to murder (sourced solely to a few questionable-looking personal websites—the two purported "prime suspects" aren't mentioned in the only two actual reliable sources in the sources section[1][2]), and also mentions without explanation someone's arrest on an unrelated matter over a decade after the event in question—in the two weeks since the page was created, over 1400 people have read these claims. On Wikipedia you're sheltered to some extent by the fact that the WMF is a wealthy global organization with a generally efficient legal department and a strong track record when it comes to refusing to disclose the personal information of its users to the authorities without good reason. If you're being hosted by a smaller provider, they're far more likely to throw you to the wolves if a subpoena arrives, since they won't have either the resources and contacts to face down a law enforcement agency in court, or the WMF's willingness to do so. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you removed contentious material from the Kelly Dae Wilson article, which shows you are a good and smart administrator, which is exactly what you have warned me about being careful not to do twice before. I am thinking one way I could get around this is just not to mention people's names. It will be a while before I even attempt to do this, but rest assured if I do do this I will make sure I do this right. If I don't mention any names, would this mostly protect me? Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Davidgoodheart, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you need to consult legal counsel in your jurisdiction on these types of questions if you are serious about going forward with this, and with that, I disappear into the realm of being an Iri-talk-page-lukrer (which there should be a template for). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, I will do just that when I can. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking one way I could get around this is just not to mention people's names isn't going to work, since unless a missing person has been declared presumed dead by the appropriate authorities (a process that at minimum takes years, and often takes decades*) then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, every one of these articles is a biography of a living person and has to comply with Wikipedia's rules for writing about BLPs. Basically, everything you write needs to be sourced to a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition of the term, which does not include blogs and personal websites except in very limited circumstances. This rule applies everywhere on Wikipedia, but for biographies of living people it's rigorously enforced when it comes to anything potentially contentious, and when you're talking about potential abductions, murders, suicides or just adults who are exercising their legal right to move away and change their identity without disclosing their current whereabouts or status, every statement you make is going to be potentially contentious.
*The only exceptions are those cases where even though no body has been found, it's beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is deceased, such as somebody who was known to be on an aircraft that crashed at sea; otherwise unless you can find a source for the subject being declared dead in absentia or they were born more than 120 years ago, you need to work on the assumption that you're writing about a living person.

I concur with the advice you've been given by TonyBallioni above. While you're on Wikipedia and acting in good faith, you're sheltered to some degree from legal issues, as even though it's you and not the WMF who is responsible in law for anything you write on Wikipedia, people will be reluctant to challenge you while you're under the umbrella of a multinational organization with a professional legal department staffed by specialists in internet law. If you're planning on going it alone, you really need to consult legal counsel in your own jurisdiction about what you can and can't do. Different countries (and different jurisdictions within those countries) have different laws; Wikipedia itself is (intentionally) located in California which probably has the loosest laws on libel, privacy and free speech in the world, but you'd be subject to the laws of where you live (or potentially where the server is located, if you choose to have it hosted by someone else). If you publish something that isn't true, then in some jurisdictions you're looking at being wiped out financially by libel damages; if you publish something that the subject doesn't want published and that it's not in the public interest to publish, then in some jurisdictions you're looking at a civil or even criminal prosecution for breach of privacy; if you publish something that is deemed to have the potential to prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation (which in many countries can be as little as discussing an open case in a publicly visible forum) then in some jurisdictions you can wind up in prison. This isn't to say you shouldn't do it, but you really need professional legal advice before you set anything up; nothing you read on Wikipedia—including what I'm saying here—should be taken as necessarily accurate or as a substitute for consultation with a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case. ‑ Iridescent 08:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think there is a place that I can go to close by to where I live to get some info, and I won't be doing this right away if I even do this. I would like to thank you and TonyBallioni for showing your concern and trying to protect me from potential danger, which shows that you both care about other people's well being. Since my last messages to you even more of my articles have been deleted, which I find upsetting. I have always just made my own articles, and improved other people's articles, and never tried to delete someone else's article, as what good would that do me? I just don't see why other editors can't just do the same. I don't see why they can't just worry about their own articles, and leave other people's articles alone, but not trying to delete them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Complain about rules by all means, try to get rules changed if you feel the current rules are inappropriate by all means, but don't complain about other people for making a good faith effort to ensure that the rules as they currently stand are followed, and don't engage in "if you don't stop enforcing the rules I'm leaving!" attempts at emotional blackmail. Those people who nominate articles for deletion are doing exactly what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do when they come across something that they feel may not comply with Wikipedia policy, but aren't totally sure; they're starting discussions so independent third parties can offer their opinions on whether an article ought to remain on Wikipedia; each of those debates is then closed in turn by an admin who reviews the discussion and the article in question before deciding whether there's consensus for deletion. No article on which you've made any contribution has ever been deleted by any means other than a full deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Aisling Symes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carla Losey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Carlease Simms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of David Guerrero, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Eldor Alfred Pearson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Linne Dominelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Jones (actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Marlene Abigosis are the debates in question) and of the eight AFD debates in question, they have been closed as delete by six separate administrators (Ritchie333, Sandstein, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Randykitty, TonyBallioni, The Bushranger respectively) so it's not as if you've just got on the wrong side of a particular bad-apple admin—there's a broad consensus from virtually everyone who's commented on the matter except for yourself that unless a particular case is notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word, a missing person case falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event which is a core Wikipedia policy with both ethical and legal considerations, not something which can just be disregarded if you don't agree with it.

Don't try to shoot the messengers like you have at TheGracefulSlick and User:Dane's talkpages today; looking over the deletion debates, there's a clear consensus that what you're doing doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of David Guerrero is the only one of the debates where there anyone other than you seriously disputing that the articles violate policy). In a case like this, the only thing you could do is convince the community to amend the wording of the policy (the place to do that would be Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons but please don't try since there will be no support for it), or convincing sufficient people that the coverage of the disappearance has sufficient significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time that it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal acts; in this case the onus is on those wanting the article kept to demonstrate that there's significant ongoing coverage to the extent that the topic is notable in Wikipedia terms. By "significant, ongoing coverage" we mean such things as books published by academic publishers about the case, lengthy features in newspapers, television programmes dedicated to the topic, and so on; coverage in blogs and personal websites is not appropriate either as a source for Wikipedia articles, or for demonstrating notability.

We're not ganging up on you or singling you out; it seems that early in your Wikipedia career you were either given wrong advice or got the wrong impression when it comes to what's appropriate for Wikipedia, when we actually have quite strict rules about which topics get covered. To take an example, here are multiple non-trivial sources for an incident in which a police officer was bitten by a dog [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]; although it's undoubtedly sourceable, undoubtedly there has been sufficient written about it to create a Wikipedia article, and it undoubtedly satisfies the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject test, any 2010 Wood Green dog attack article would be certain to be deleted as there's nothing to indicate that it had ongoing coverage. When it comes to missing person articles, where you're writing about very sensitive cases (if you were in an abusive relationship, fled your home and changed your identity to avoid the abuser tracking you down, would you want a complete stranger writing a biography of you on the fifth most viewed website in the world?) and potentially making criminal allegations against living people (which could potentially make us liable as well as yourself, if we were aware that you'd posted something potentially libellous and we didn't take action to remove it), other Wikipedia editors and admins are going to be particularly sure to try to ensure that whatever content is hosted here complies with Wikipedia policy, US law and basic ethics. ‑ Iridescent 13:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Since I've been pinged: if you look at Iri's list of closers something that should be noted is that of the 6 admins noted, you basically have 6 different personalities and individuals with different backgrounds and views on the project, which should be taken as a sign that there's not any supervoting going on and that there really is a general consensus against keeping these articles.
  I have no real opinion here other than thinking you need to seek professional legal counsel where you live (and possibly admitted to the bar of California) if you want to make discussing missing persons cases online your hobby. While what you've been told about the umbrella of the WMF providing some protection is true (in that it's likely to scare some people off from a law suit), if you basically make it the main thing you do on Wikipedia or another site without seeking advice, sooner or later you will make a a mistake and someone IRL will notice.
  In terms of notability: you need to present sourcing in the AfD and be able to explain why it meets our requirements for inclusion. Simply saying it does and not responding to a rebuttal of that by another participant isn't going to keep the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To add to Tony's (correct) comments, you've unintentionally picked what's one of the most difficult topics that it's possible to write about. Biographies of living people are almost certainly the single most difficult topic area on which to write, owing to the legal and ethical considerations, but at least in the case of most biographies the bulk of the article will be easily-sourced and relatively uncontroversial material about the subject's career and achievements. It's the "personal life" section that causes issues, since it's inherently subjective and you need to strike a balance between how the subject chooses to present themselves, how those associated with the subject present their relationship with them, and how third parties view the subject. (Taylor Swift is my current go-to example of a well-structured biography of a controversial public figure—note that every sentence in the Public image section is attributed to its source to make it clear that Wikipedia is repeating other peoples' comments rather than speaking in its own voice, and to allow readers to instantly check whose opinions are being repeated and the context in which those statements were made.)

When it comes to missing persons and victims of crime, in almost all cases their lives up to that point weren't in the public eye, so what you're effectively doing is writing a "personal life" section based solely on the opinions of third parties without any input from the article subject when it comes to fact-checking or correcting bias, which is very, very difficult to do and is something with which even professional writers struggle. Take the case of Madeleine McCann as an example; despite probably being the most deeply researched missing person case since the Lindbergh baby, numerous professional journalists have got into serious trouble over misreporting of the facts. Had you repeated, even in the best of faith, some of the comments made in the Express or on Sky News, then you would not only be liable for significant damages, but would potentially be liable for punitive damages given how widely you'd be rebroadcasting libellous material (Wikipedia reaches a larger and broader audience than the Daily Express or Sky, and you don't have the professional libel attorneys a multinational media company retains) as well as potentially putting your job at risk if you're editing from a work computer or deemed to be acting in such a way as to bring your employer into disrepute. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote regarding communication

Hello,

Just a possibly important sidenote about your otherwise helpful comment at User_talk:Cullen328#Contesting_the_speedy.

You wrote: given that the article was pure spam.

Did you realise that you were accusing me or spamming? Apart from who I am (as a pretty long-time contributor, apart from founding a Wikipedia) I am your fellow average editor, too, and you definitely should consider my feelings and intentions before you start using highly degradatory offensive language against me. "Spam" implies malevolence, intentional harrassment and negligence of the guidelines, all of them highly insulting to me. I believe there is no need to get into a debate how an "advertisement" can be differentiated from "informative article" (in which we seem to strongly disagree) but you definitely should consider that independent parties (usually) cannot spam since they have no reason to, and that spam implies repetition, too. As I have mentioned I have no relation whatsoever to the brand or company, and the article was written to take note the various informations I have been gathering about the brand since lots of people believe it's an american brand, and the company behind tries to keep it hidden well that they are indeed chinese, and lots of online vendors sell their stuff without mentioning that it's all chinese. I believe this is an useful information, therefore I have created the article. You are free to disagree with its significance, with its notability, and lots of criteria defining an article to be kept or up for deletion but using offensive terms on the intentions of a contributor is really ugly. It doesn't help if it happened to be unintentional, since it's been an offense. You should phrase your opinion more carefully, I am not that easily driven away, but as Wikimedia stats show: most of the people are. Respect your fellow editors, there are less and less of them.

Thanks. --grin ✎ 08:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It is to be noted that on Wikipedia, WP:SPAM has a different and distinct definition, elaborated up on in that link. In my opinion, rather than accusing administrators of bad faith or wrongdoing, your time would be better spent creating content that is notable and reliably independently sourced via third-party citations, or making corrections on Wikipedia articles, or otherwise contributing to the project. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This was the article in question; I'll leave it for any other passing admin to decide whether "pure spam" was an appropriate descriptor or not. When an article doesn't include a single source and consists of a total of seven sentences, four of which are They advertise environment awareness regarding their use of recycled and environment friendly packaging and ink use, as well as the importance of quality assurance and continuous development. [Company] mainly known for its chargers, charger cables, power banks and other related mobile accessories. They specialise in chargers and cables for high power rated mobile phones. Following the success of the initial offerings they started to offer products of home robotics and computing., it's unlikely to be appropriate for Wikipedia, and someone who's "a pretty long-time contributor, apart from founding a Wikipedia" has no excuse for either not being aware of or ignoring core Wikipedia policies like Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

sing it loud, sing it strong. for pete's sake. or should i say, for the old lady who doesn't like spam's sake.Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know you could make sake from spam. I thought it was always made from rice. EEng 11:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party, I have seen the deleted article and "pure unadulterated spam" sounds like a perfectly apt description to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Metropolitan Railway northwest extremeties, 1903.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Metropolitan Railway northwest extremeties, 1903.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, bot, for providing the notification your operator couldn't be arsed to provide when he nominated this for deletion. Seriously, someone needs to do something about these self-appointed Cleanser of the Wiki deletionists (although I did like the accusation that I was violating WP:NOTWEBHOST—my dastardly plan to use Wikipedia to store my stash of maps of the railway network of the Aylesbury Vale in 1903 is uncovered). ‑ Iridescent 00:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Although this has drawn my attention to the typo in the file name, so thanks for that at least… ‑ Iridescent 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ChetEmerson spam CSD

This is another in a recent series of spambots that have been posting with a two-step spam link method (link on user page to a blog or some such, then blog is nothing more than a link to a São Paulo fuel company. It looks like in this case the blog host has already deleted the secondary link. Please see User:GeraldoWilfred3 and User:AnastasiaNeuman which were similarly created and then deleted by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs). There were others but they've fallen off my watchlist. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right, deleted in that case. If you spot them in future, you need to put an explanation either in the edit summary or as a hidden-text comment in the page; "Hi, my name is foo, here are my hobbies and here's a link to my blog" is a very typical first edit by a legitimate new editor, so tagging them without explanation is just going to annoy whoever happens to be patrolling the CSD queue. ‑ Iridescent 12:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like they all include the unusual string DE GÁS Em São Paulo so we could probably set up an edit filter to catch that. (MusikAnimal, how difficult would it be to set up a filter to discreetly flag every page creation or edit adding that string? We probably don't want a filter to actually prevent creation, as that would tip the spammer off and they'd just make a change to the wording.) ‑ Iridescent 12:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

your feedback on maps

Hi. I was surprised to see that reason you gave for not wanting wikimedia maps. It goes against many principles traditionally shared by the community. In that light, i'd like to get your personal opinion on MP4 video and audio usage, as that has been blocked for a long time by the community for ideological reasons, even though there were multiple gray area practical solutions proposed there. Do you think that that could be revisited and have a potential different outcome ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the ban on uploading mp3/mp4 files is and always has been utterly ridiculous, and agree 100% with the decade-old definitions of Ogg Vorbia and Ogg Theora given here. The insistence on using .ogg media files and open-source maps isn't principles traditionally shared by the community, it's principles shared by a tiny but extremely vocal clique at de-wiki who turn up en masse at Commons and en-wiki to hijack any discussion on the topic—I'd be willing to bet that if you held a neutral survey of readers on whether they'd prefer files be in mp4 or .ogg format there would be close to 100% support.

When it comes to mapping, per my comment at VPT, Wikimedia Maps isn't a viable alternative to Google and is unlikely ever to be. Apple has billion-dollar budgets, some of the finest programmers in the world, and approximately 700 million iphone users acting as their de facto error-checkers and beta testers, and Apple Maps is still a piece of shit; we have a handful of devs working on mapping as a hobby, and also lack the datasets of landmarks and businesses, the links to transportation APIs, the bulk databases of photographic imagery and the route-planning algorithms, all of which are necessary for an online mapping service to be useful to readers. Defaulting to Wikimedia Maps is a case of deliberately directing readers to a ropey beta of what's undisputedly a less informative service purely because a few hardline Free Culture extremists insist that we can't possibly be seen to be directing traffic to Evil Capitalists. This goes against the basic principle that Wikipedia's purpose is to serve its readers, not to serve its writers. (The WMF could test this one very easily without having to mess about with surveys or A/B tests—just give the links to Google Maps, Bing Maps, Wikimedia Maps and OpenStreetMap equal prominence and see which one the readers click on.) ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Care to place any bets on which would get less, Bing or Wikimedia? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia would get more initially precisely because it's unfamiliar to readers so people would take a look, but I'd be willing to bet few if any would ever use it a second time. Bing has a small but loyal pool of regulars—while they don't have as much detail of businesses etc as Google, their maps themselves are probably easier to read than Google's, and they don't use Google's (and Wikimedia maps's!) weird and non-standard "50 shades of yellow" colour scheme for roads. ‑ Iridescent 09:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I‘d concur with the sentiment that Wikimedia Maps needs serious work done before it‘s as useful as Google or Bing maps. I am just one reader among many, but the topographical background puts Google and Bing above OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia Maps.JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thanks :) Randomlike (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of TickX

Hi there Iridescent! I just wanted to ask about the deletion of TickX - would it be possible to rewrite the problem areas from a neutral point of view? I tried not to come across as biased but evidently failed. I wanted to create the article so that it could be differentiated from Tickex, a similar but since closed ticketing search engine. Thanks for all your help! Kalmgirl (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As this was quite a marginal call, I've restored the page in question. Basically, you need to demonstrate why independent third parties consider it significant, not just say what the company does and who is involved in it. A Wikipedia page on a company should really cover criticism of the company, if any exists, as well (if nobody's ever been critical, this is generally—although not always—a warning flag that the company hasn't received enough significant coverage to be considered notable by Wikipedia's particular definition of the term). I can tell you straight away that as it stands the article contains an obvious piece of PR lying in claiming that this app identifies the cheapest place to buy tickets; what this app does is compare online ticketing companies, and (except in a few very limited instances when an event has proven less popular than projected and the touts are unloading surplus tickets at below cost) buying tickets from online agencies is always going to be more expensive than buying direct from the venue. The implication (although it's not explicitly stated) in Steve Pearce noticed that the events market was fragmented and needed a single destination for event goers to discover what events are happening, where tickets are being sold and where is the cheapest that this is a unique service and the first of its kind also needs to go; SeatChoice has been doing this for pretty much as long as I can remember. Also paging User:DGG, who generally has a better sense than me of whether articles on companies will be appropriate for Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! I see what you mean, and I've removed/ reworded the items you have pinpointed. I believe it's significance stems from their appearance on Dragon's Den and that it provides a wider range of events than places like SeatChoice - as well as the similarly named company Tickex. If anything still seems unfit for Wikipedia, please let me know so we can work through it. I'm still new to writing for Wikipedia and trying to learn the ropes! Thanks, Kalmgirl (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Kalmgirl I do not consider that there was a similarly named company to be a reason for notability. It may be a reason why the firm would like to have an article, of course.

and, fwiw, I don't see the references for Tickex as showing notability even while it existed. But it is very easy to add a line to differentiate it, assuming we keep that article.

Iridescent, if SearChoice is the leading company in the field, perhaps it's the one on which we should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: on a bit of Google searching, I can find a reliable source for | (who's a reasonably big deal in the tech industry) describing TickX as "the Uber of events", so it's possible that this company has received enough coverage to patch together an article—however, it's not a field in which I have any particular knowledge or interest so I'm not the best placed to do it. Certainly, a skim over Category:Comparison shopping websites suggests we're hosting plenty of articles on companies with less of an impact than this. ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Conso International Corporation

Please, no... Did you really examine the sources I had given there? One of them was a whole section of a magazine piece on the company. And no, I had not been paid to write any of it. One of my personal hobbies is making tassels as gifts, and I kept coming across "Conso" as a kind of decorative trim. There was no Wikipedia article, so I looked into whether or not there should be one. It looked to me like there should be, and so I wrote it. And I referenced the piece. And then it was deleted under G11, "Promotional", following your lead.

Iridescent, I wrote it because the company appeared notable, and I included references that I thought demonstrated this. I have disclosed my paid edits, and this was not one of them. I have been told by other editors that they are looking forward to me being banned for paid editing. I am having some difficulty controlling my emotions over such things. I've been having more and more difficulty ever since my first fully-disclosed paid edit was deleted a few months ago. I have been editing for eight years, and have disclosed my very few paid edits, and the aftermath of that is spilling far beyond anything related to those edits. I wish... Oh, it doesn't matter what I wish for anymore. But I wish you could see me for what I am here. This was not a paid piece, and it had the right kinds of sources in it, it really did. I can't demonstrate that now because it has been deleted as promotional. Which it wasn't. But it was actually deleted because it was a paid edit. Which it wasn't. But you thought it should be deleted because it was not notable. Which I thought I had demonstrated it was. I am having a hard time keeping up with the all of it. It feels like I am being shunted down a series of corridors that are increasingly narrow and that end in a wall which I had taken specific steps to never encounter. Actually, it feels more like an increasingly narrow path with a steep drop on both sides that ends in a wall— and like there are crowds cheering to see if I trip. Like some kind of modern coliseum. In the end, my username gets killed/ banned for things I did not do. And it feels like there is nothing I can do to stop it anymore... I feel physically sick to my stomach, even. But even admitting that to you means someone else will claim I am behaving like a martyr. What if I really am feeling sick? (...If what I have said here is true, wouldn't you?). KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)