User talk:47.222.203.135/Archive 3

Much appreciated, thanks 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering whether previous IPs of yours began with 74 and 75? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, I have to say. I mean, look, it says 47 right on the tin. So I'm the opposite of 74 more or less. But I like the picture on your talkpage, so probably we'll get along fine :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely remember getting along swimmingly with another IP contributor who had static IP addresses for a period of time. They even coached me through a less-than-ideal situation here - was that yourself? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi samtar, as you know us anons only have a memory that goes back until the start of our most-recent-editing history. So although it is possible that I knew you in a previous wiki-life, that seems a distant past now....  :-)

I see you are an admin, congrats. And I have run into you in my current incarnation, I noticed that you (properly) declined to implement G3 of an incorrect (but good faith) deletion-attempt of a draftspace that I am now somewhat-tangentially working on. So thanks for that, and I'm sure that in your previous capacity you dealt honourably with whatever Less Than Ideal situation you might be referencing. No matter, live in the now is my motto, and there is still plenty to do here on wikipedia, even for those of us with technologically-constrained wiki-memories :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I managed to track down what I believe was your previous incarnation (Yngvadottir is on the right track), but you're right - let's live in the now :-) thank you for your kind words. As for the G3, not a problem - the draft's subject in question has had a rocky history here, and the unfortunate drama it's deletion caused is regrettable. I'm glad you're working with the editor, and I look forward to seeing a new improved article soon! Feel free to drop by any time -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There are three beginner-wikipedians actually (that have survived the wiki-trauma thus far), and in the process of digging for sources we have generated a few new articles and expanded others. So it is as usual, three steps forward, coerced into happening by two steps backward. A very strange wiki-ecosystem we live in, methinks.... 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All I can say is, WP:CCC, if you will read the AfD's which I linked to in my afc_comment, Justlettersandnumbers, you will see the problem was lack of sources. That was then. This is now. I've found the sources, with help from some of the COI-encumbered folks and other AfD participants.

The reason for the big section on Communists for Kerry, is that Atbashian was the co-founder, and was the primary person in charge of the group's website (which lasted beyond the election cycle until 2006 at least). Similarly, Atbashian was the sole founder of The People's Cube website, and has run it for over a decade now. As a short story writer, and as a poetry translator, Atbashian has a couple of namedrops, where his work was published. But he is WP:N because of his political activism, through the groups he co-founded, and the artwork and political satire he has done via those groups/websites. They are why Atbashian is 'Notable' in the wikipedia sense.

As for your other complaint, I disagree that the quotes are soapboxing, they are just there to help you WP:V what the WP:SOURCES said, but apparently you are not the only one who dislikes the aesthetics. Another person mistakenly thought they were copyvio!  :-)    I've been working on separating the |quote= and the |translator1= portions into a details-section, but I got hung up on some wikimarkup errors. I have some userspace samples which work fine, but have not been able to make the non-example reflists function error-free. I will remove that stuff for now, and then resubmit. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I got the impression from somewhere that you are experienced in finding third-party references for articles about businesses. I've had a bit of a problem with Frost & Sullivan regarding its awards program, and it seems to me that what the article really needs, particularly there, is outsider references, but I'm both poorly equipped to find them and swamped with tasks. See the talk page for specifics. If you could help, I'd be grateful. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I have filled up the article-talkpage per request  :-)

I will circle back and see if I can incorporate the refs I found, but yes, this is one of those cases where you have to really fight to get through all the PR-reprints and find the stuff that is about Frost & Sullivan. enWiki currently cites a bunch of the awards as WP:NOTEWORTHY but I'm not sure that is a good thing to be doing,[1] after looking into it briefly, see my article-talkpage comments. The firm almost certainly passes WP:GOLDENRULE but since they were only "publicly traded" (per Thomson Gale source) sometime during the 1970s or 1980s, we will need somebody to dig through old newspaper archives to get the details, is my guess. The reports sold by the firm, as opposed to the awards, do seem to be treated as legit by the WP:RS that I've seen, similar to Gartner albeit less famous. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to go mess with f&s when I have a moment in a few hours. I also see from your talkpage that you take photographs in San Francisco, if you are willing to watch television, there is an article on Wayne Freedman that needs a portrait. And some refs apparently according to my wiki-friend Snit333 from draftspace, whom I also need to get cracking on, since I'm falling behind :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This section is for divvying up the workload. If you have no work, don't stay idle waiting around for me, just pick something that needs doing from Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian#URLs_from_TPC.2C_CFK.2C_and_GOOG and then WP:BEBOLD improving it. The worst that can happen is we'll duplicate each other, which is fine of course, redundant analysis tends to help minimize mistakes. But in the interests of WP:TIAD which applies to the WP:Articles for deletion/Communists for Kerry discussion-thread, I will attempt to give pointers and hints to my fellow wikipedians, especially those who are relative beginners hereabouts. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Is working on Draft:People's Cube at the moment. I have analyzed the sources being used there, and put them into rough "quality" groups at the following old revision of that talkpage:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian&oldid=760257768

That includes the following subsections, among others:

• Despite the publisher, sources which are PROBABLY not useful
• Very probably not useful:
• Not useful
• Despite the publisher, sources which are definitively NOT useful for these articles

Please take out your wiki-axe, and in the Draft:People's Cube prose, completely remove any sentence which is backed up *only* by the refs from those subsections. This is not necessarily a permanent removal, and can always be undone later using the 'view history' tab, but those sources are NOT considered WP:RS and thus the sentences they 'back up' are in fact not very likely to belong in wikipedia. So the first step is to, remove the offending sentences, entirely, and then reconsider whether they ought to be added back in (preferably with better more-WP:RS sourcing backing them up now) on an individual basis. I expect that this will reduce the size of the article by 60% or so, which is a good thing because right now it is a WP:COATRACK for all sorts of stuff. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My wiki axe is dripping blood! Powderday (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it had to be done. Thank you 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just finished a major "thinning" of the TPC draft. I must say it lost a lot of content... true and valuable content for people who want to learn something about satire and media in the current political climate ... but alas... Powderday (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It may have been true, but if it is not sourced to WP:RS then is fails to be WP:NOTEWORTHY enough for wikipedia articles. Plenty of blogs have perfectly true factoids ("I just had pancakes for breakfast with my sister and mother") which are nonetheless NOT encyclopedic. WP:NOTFACEBOOK applies. And in the case of your Draft:People's Cube, the applicable policy is WP:COATRACK, there was all kinds of stuff in there which was not *about* the coverage of TPC by relible sources, but was instead about what TPC said about itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF and see also "I had pancakes for breakfast" for some of the sentences that got axed). Wikipedia is about verifiability, in reliable sources (newspapers/books/television/academia/etc), not about what may *merely* be true and correct and factual. In other words, wikipedia depends on newspapers/books/television/academia/etc to tell us what is worth summarizing. This can be problematic, see WP:Systematic_bias, but it is the current wiki-policy, and it *does* work pretty well, in the long run. Lots of wiki-axe-work, though, in the short run. As for your second point, that some of what you removed was VALUABLE, and that it would HELP the readership, I agree, but it was in the wrong article. Draft:People's Cube has to be about specifically TPC, and what WP:SOURCES have said about TPC. Readers that wish to learn about satire, politics, media, and various subtopics related thereto, have dozens and dozens of articles. If you want to help improve those articles and their subsidiary WP:SPINOFF articles, that is well and good. But if you want to add stuff into the TPC article, it has to be on-topic stuff, and sourced. That is why TPC was deleted, it was too full of non-RS-coatrack, for anybody to be able to even see sources like Neil deGrass Tyson buried in the muck. Which is a great source, by the way, it will help prove WP:Notability is met.

Some minor remarks:

A statement such as ' TPC articles appear regularly on Frontpage": how can you "substantiate" this claim without linking to some articles? Powderday (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You cannot, until and unless WP:SOURCES notice and publish that factoid. Linking to them yourself, is what is known as WP:OR. Linking to a URL where an independent journalist or an independent academic researcher, wrote "articles from TPC often appear on Frontpage" is the only legit way to get that into mainspace. Even though it is true, it is not yet WP:NOTEWORTHY unless some WP:RS author makes it noteworthy-in-the-wikipedia-sense... by noting it, and publishing their note. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I left the Fareed zakaria thing, because I'm still not sure (see my question in the talk page of the TPC draft) whether this can be just discarded as being not notable, but feel free to give your opinion. Powderday (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I has to come out. It is WP:SYNTH, until and unless somebody that is an independent WP:SOURCE puts two and two together. The only WP:SOURCES which do exist, and describe the incident, do not ever mention TPC. Thus, on wikipedia, those sources can be used to expand Fareed Zakaria where the WP:WIKIVOICE will say that "on January 2nd a piece published by an unspecified 'fake news website' falsely claimed Zakaria was a racist sexist bigot which led to his children being threatened at their home via telephone." Wikipedia will not say WHICH domain-name the alleged fake news website happened to be, since the sources do not say. And frankly, TPC is lucky that the sources do not say, it was a stupid thing to do. By contrast, the parody-piece about the pluto crisis, was quite hilarious. Anyways, I expect that sooner or later, thanks to the Streisand effect, some publisher that is WP:RS will connect TPC to Zakaria, at which point *that* source which actually explicitly *makes* the connection, can be added to the Draft:People's Cube body-prose. But not until then. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your clarification. However, if you look carefully at the youtube video of Zakaria live on cnn, you can see the TPC website in the background (a blurred out version, but nonetheless clearly recognizable if you know the website). Is this a legitimate connection or not? thanks for your input, Powderday (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well. Which was clever of me, but is very 100% definitely WP:OR, and thus no good for wikipedia mainspace purposes. And of course, even a not-very-clever person can put the obvious search keywords into the internet, and quickly find out that TPC is claiming responsibility for the trolling, and almost certainly the originator of the hit-piece. But again, that googling is still WP:OR for wikipedia purposes, and not good enough for wikipedia mainspace. Because, even though it is true that TPC wrote the fake news story, it cannot be easily verified as being true through a WP:REFB footnote which links the average-not-necessarily-very-clever reader to a WP:SOURCE which explicitly says quote "TPC wrote the fake news story about Zakaria" unquote. Make sense? Even if it is not, necessarily, ideal from some philosophical standpoint? It is a pragmatic wiki-policy, designed to minimize arguing and bickering. See WP:PROVEIT, for instance.

Fundamentally, the biggest problem with the now-deleted wikipedia article about The People's Cube is that is was an enormous article which relied almost entirely on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:ABOUTSELF for the content. That is not, I will note, actually a good reason for deleting the article -- see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. But such a massive WP:COATRACK did in fact obscure perfectly legit refs, like The Pluto Files, which has multiple *pages* analyzing the work of Oleg and TPC. Those good refs were lost in the noise of all the non-wikipedia-policy-compliant-stuff. That does not mean we cannot recreate the TPC article, and/or create the Draft:Oleg Atbashian article in mainspace, it just means we have to write them properly. See WP:TNT, which is what you and I are in the middle of doing. Once we have sufficient sources, actual WP:RS ones, then the rewrites *will* meet wikipedia policies, and NOT be subject to future deletion-attempts. Well at least, not policy-motivated ones, and any non-policy-motivated ones tend to be squashed by admins quickly, whether good-faith or otherwise. WP:GOLDENRULE is the key, but no cutting corners. Zakaria-refs do not count, toward demonstrating Draft:People's Cube satisfies WP:GNG, sorry. They do count somewhat towards demonstrating that the Fareed Zakaria article passes WP:GNG... but since he is the *author* of the pieces and the publishers are his *bosses* they are of limited help even *there* with respect to proving WP:N for him as a topic. Not that his article needs such help, he has plenty of 'independent' refs (mostly his fellow journalists!) discussing him-qua-him. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I could not find enough references to the "canadian" source, as of yet (some older links are dead). I'll look again at some other time, so I deleted it. Powderday (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Which 'canada' source are you talking about? The Vancouver / canada.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20120118145225/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=47798a07-e084-4ef3-8140-f832d4a18d10 "A game that no one ever loses makes a perfect statement about our times" from 2008-01-16... did you figure out who the author of the piece was? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Powderday, it looks like the canada.com newspaper which publishes in the city of Vancouver is called The Province, not The Vancouver, if that helps any. And in the archive.org byline, is says simply "[for] The Vancouver Province" up at the top, but near the bottom there is a byline which says "criminologist John Martin of the University College of the Fraser Valley (ucfv.ca)" so that must be the author. Copyright is "CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc" but the URL of canada.com is presently owned by the Postmedia News subsidiary of Postmedia Network Inc. Unfortunately the name 'John Martin' is extremely common, though I don't see any Canadian criminologist in the disambiguation page, there *was* a John Martin (Canadian broadcaster) who died in 2006, a couple years before this editorial was published. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmh, can not find anything about the "syndicated journalist" thing. The email adress linked to the "the province" article apparently does not refer to the broadcaster who died in 2006. Maybe we best let this one slide for the while.Powderday (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what we need to move that canada.com URL, from the opinion piece non-RS group, and over into the counts-as-RS-because-it-is-by-a-journalist-in-their-regular-opinion-column group (and thus help TPC achieve wiki-notability), is to find some evidence that Martin *is* in fact a regular columnist in the employ of The Vancouver Province aka The Province, not just a one-off letter to the editor writer. Might be a staffer page, an editorial board page, and similar type of contact-us material. I am looking, but archive.org is painfully slow today, at least for me. If you have time to help search for refs, I can give you some assignments, like I'm doing with Snit333 below. Up to you of course, if you prefer to keep labouring away on Draft:People's Cube then you are welcome to do so. Also, when you are wielding your wiki-axe, or your wiki-scalpel, it is often useful to put what you have removed onto the Draft_talk:People's Cube page, in a new subsection (I usually call it 'citation needed' or similar) which will allow future wikipedians to see that the article *did* once say that "FrontpageMag often re-published TPC stories" but that a ^{[better source needed]} was required. Maybe some future wikipedian will see that talkpage note, and dig up a citation, were we ourselves failed. Sometimes we fail because only a future wikipedian can succeed: there may not be an WP:RS in January 2017 which says such a thing, but by January 2027 quite possibly their will be such an RS. Make sense? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will gladly help but the frightening three dimensional space called "reality" is sucking me in for the coming 12 hours or so. I'll check back tomorrow on this page and will gladly work on an "assignment". Thank you for your efforts, Powderday (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I will divvy up some refs into three small piles, after Snit333 and myself get finished with what we can get through. Or if I fail to do so, just pick one of the ones marked (in a hidden html comment on the Draft_talk:Oleg Atbashian page once you click 'edit' there) as being "not assigned". It looks like Snit333 is getting some good work done, whereas I have only gotten through ThePlutoFiles and a second FoxNews ref myself, so I best play ketchup. W ketchup, that is  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn this stuff is addicting. Did some unsigned links, rest is for tomorrow. Powderday (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The following is a public service announcement of the Wikipedia Abuser's Association.

Friend, are you WP:ADDICTED? Here's how to find out!

Having trouble staying away from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?

If this sounds like YOU, friend, perhaps it is time to take our WP:QUIZ .

Don't delay! Becoming a WP:WIKIHOLIC may be the last off-wiki thing you ever do!

The preceding was a public service announcement of the Wikipedia Abuser's Association.

Thank you for your attention, and happy editing ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here to help. - message in section - you definitely SHOULD be commenting Snit333 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Our most pressing concern is trying to analyze which of the 'probably or possible useful' barelinks are ACTUALLY going to be useful. To be useful, the particular source must have the following attributes: 1) complete independence from Oleg/CFK/TPC which means not published by nor written by anyone affiliated with Oleg/CFK/TPC, 2) published in WP:RS such at The Atlantic magazine or WaPo newspaper or BBC television or Museum of Modern Art art reviews or Harvard University academia papers or whatnot, 3) specifically and explicitly about Oleg/CFK/TPC by name, at least one of their names but preferably all three, 4) and VERY preferably goes into some depth multiple sentences or multiple paragraphs and ideally has Oleg/CFK/TPC in the title of the piece. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you please check the following pieces, and convert them from bare URLs into a full Template:cite_web thing including the |quote= param. Definitely do NOT just paste the entire prose of the news-item into the |quote= parameter, just excerpt the key portions which are specifically ABOUT either Oleg or TPC or CFK.

• New Repub, http://web.archive.org/web/20050212031017/http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=tjsWvZIeCFWyba7Vsn1Huh%3D%3D
• MTV, http://web.archive.org/web/20041209102506/http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1490667
• WashMonthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004823.php

You can see how I've done it, with the piece by Jane Roh, and the one by Alicia Colon, and the one by David Fahrenthold, over here: Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian#URLs_from_TPC.2C_CFK.2C_and_GOOG, near the top of the best-to-worst section. As you finish analyzing each piece, please dump your results into a 'new section' (again via button at the top) of Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian, titled something obvious like The Atlantic, 3 paragraphs on Oleg in the best case, or for something not useful instead say The Atlantic, no good never mentions Oleg/TPC/CFK. Any questions for *me* please dump them here, you can also use more-friendly WP:TEAHOUSE and often-faster WP:IRC wikipedia-en-help channel if I don't respond promptly. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your hard work Snit333, if you have time to work on additional links, here is a new batch for you:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20050309084918/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200408u/cd2004-08-31
• http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/100-000-march-in-manhattan-against-bush-1-551163

After that it gets steeper, deadlinks mostly, and digging through books.google.com to find new stuff which eluded us thus far. Let me know if you have any issues or questions or whatever. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Scotsman and Atlantic links were completed Jan 17. I notice the discussion regarding John Martin and the Canadian link The Province and spent some time last night tracking down the author of the article, John Martin. (BTW: He's alive and well) I have his current email but not sure exactly what, if anything, I should do beyond this point.Snit333 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For starters, please don't give out Martin's email (or other identifying details like street address or telephone or whatnot) here on wikipedia, per WP:OUTING strictly interpreted -- theoretically Martin might be a wikipedian, too, I suppose, and probably he doesn't want his email address getting spam whether he is or isn't. Direct contact with authors is rarely helpful, but we MAY just need it at some point, so file it away for the moment. I have been fighting with the Time.com picture-caption-thing that Atbashian provided, and have gotten close to where it needs to be. It is a good ref, albeit a brief one in terms of depth, because it shows that even in 2005 the CFK work from the 2004 election was still having repercussions.

As for ongoing assignments (voluntary of course! per WP:VOLUNTEERS), the Scotsman was the last easy job, I have no other low-hanging fruit to assign you Snit333. You are thus henceforth a free agent -- our main job is diving into the pile of deadrefs, and seeing if we can find a live/moved/archived/backup copy of some type, at present. I will be working them simultaneously, but it is okay if we duplicate each other's steps -- one of us may find something the other missed.

Like you, I have looked into the canada.com ref somewhat, and although I am reasonably sure that the *publisher* is no help to us, because Martin was published in the "editorial" section (which ironically means 'no editorial control asserted by the publisher'), in this case the *author* may be of some use to us. Because of the fact that Martin is/was an associate professor, at a recognized university (UCFV was upgraded from universityCollege level to the more prestigious university-level by the Canadian government in 2008 shortly before Martin published his editorial with The Province), *and* because Martin is in Canada which qualifies as international interest despite being part of North America, it helps a slight bit. And of course, there is plenty of depth to what Martin wrote, and because his occupation is education, he may qualify as having some expertise with respect to ThePeoplesCube-the-toy-metaphor is a good satire of the modern educational system in the western hemisphere. But it is a bit tenuous, and we need to hammer out exactly what specific sentences, the Martin piece for canada.com is providing, that are not already provided by more WP:RS-compliant sources elsewhere.

Snit333, if you want to take a crack as composing some sentences for Draft:Oleg Atbashian, that might help... but I don't know whether you will find that easier or harder than hunting for deadlink-alternatives. I will try and bring the reflist up to speed, and then see where we are at overall with the middle-of-the-pile effort. In addition to the deadlinks, there are also several publications-of-Atbashian-things, maybe you want to put together a bibliography of work that has made it into publication or re-publication by WP:RS entities, like the Tyson ref re-published by W.W. Norton? That is not helpful to WP:GOLDENRULE usually, in the strict sense of wiki-policy, but it does tend to help sway people on the fence I've found. But concentrate only on stuff that was picked up and published by 'Reliable' bluelinked publishers, and not blogposts and other anonymous/pseudonymous efforts, since that is more crucial material. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

47.222, A final note on the Canadian link to John Martin's article: Prof. Martin had a regular weekly column in The Province I'll keep his email and other info in my personal files in case they are needed. Will be checking some middle-of-the-pile items later tonight and post results. --Snit333 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• 47.222 Here's a link to the 3rd Ed. Copyright Law... Open the book and search "Oleg" - page 51 shows the reference you wanted. Snit333 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Snit333, answered over there, but appreciate you pinging me over here. Drop a note here on my usertalk anytime you want to joggle my elbow about something, or it looks like I've dropped the ball and forgotten to loop back to something. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• 47.222 I see you've mopped up the over-abundance of reference verbiage at Draft:Oleg - looks good. Let me know if there's something I can help with in my "spare" time. :-) --Snit333 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snit333, good to hear from you. It was not my wiki-axe, but our 2nd reviewer. Some of their removals were plausibly improvements, others were likely mistakes (e.g. deletion of Michael J. Casey, Tony Marrero, and Marc Caputo sources which had some WP:NOTEWORTHY details not found elsewhere), but that is how enwiki works: people make bold changes, other people disagree, discussion ensues. I learned long ago that enwiki is a two-steps-forward-one-step-backward kind of dance, so I'm pretty patient by necessity. Concentrate on one thing at a time, and stay cool no matter what, is the best mindset. The article-history retains all the refs & notes that were deleted, so it will be fine to add them back later, if consensus they are helpful improvement can be achieved.

(Same story for the quote-params, of course, deletion of which was a clear mis-reading of policy in my view... but one thing at a time, as I say.) There are a lot of deletion-oriented folks on enwiki, it is a form of quality control gauntlet; it CAN be taken overboard, but it can also be easily reversed, once agreement is achieved. In any case, I will see whether Winged_Blades_of_Godric is willing to continue to help out getting this draft mainspace-ready personally, or would prefer we re-submit to await another reviewer. WingedBlades, do you have some time to keep helping with this draft? If not, that is okay, but if so that would be appreciated 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be taking a look soon.And yeah, maybe I was wrong about some of the source removal--I will be seeing certainly.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay great, thank you. I will leave the article in 'unsubmit mode' until we figure out where it stands. If you get tired of helping work on the Atbashian-article just let me know, and I can resubmit or recruit some additional eyeballs at teahouse or whatever. And of course, if you have specific suggestions for what ought to be fixed, please tell me and I'll try to take a stab at improving things. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)