A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franz J. Sedelmayer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz J. Sedelmayer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. causa sui (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Videsutaltastet, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially to Putin's Palace. I have done some minor work on the page since you created it. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. —Akrabbim^talk 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for the welcome, and for the improvements to Putin's Palace, including the photo (which all my articles currently lack). As well as the Sergei Vladimirovich Kolesnikov mentioned (another page I wrote), there is an article on a cyclist also called Sergei Kolesnikov. Would you be able to do something clever with a redirect/disambiguation so that searches for Sergei Kolesnikov don't automatically find the cyclist and give the whistleblower a fair chance. This novice would be grateful, as his own attempts have not met much success.

      Sure, I'm glad to help. Based on my limited understanding of the topics, I'm not sure if one page or the other would be much more popular, so I think a disambiguation page would make sense (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). So since you are more familiar with these people, do you think the pages should be moved to Sergey Kolesnikov (cyclist) and Sergei Kolesnikov (businessman), or should it stay at Sergei Vladimirovich Kolesnikov? —Akrabbim^talk 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Many thanks-what you have done works well. The ideal title for the article would probably be Sergei Kolesnikov (whistleblower). I only put in his patronymic name because I had to distinguish him from the cyclist!

      Yeah OK, that makes sense. And just FYI, on talk pages you usually want to leave your signature by placing ~~~~ after your comments. —Akrabbim^talk 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we can remove the npov on Putin's palace?

I was going to do some work on the official response section first, so it isn't just bare quotations. And as I mentioned on the talk page, the whistleblower claims section needs more inline referencing throughout all the paragraphs, so you can see what information comes from where. —Akrabbim^talk 19:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quotations do look a bit bare (though I think that is more a style question than one of neutrality). I just wanted to get the 'other side' up as quickly as possible. As for the claims section, it is essentially a composite of the three accounts in the introductory para (which are consistent, but some have different details). I'm not sure that more refs would be that helpful (most of the claims are in all three anyway). By the way, I've much enjoyed working with you on the page.Videsutaltastet (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statements really need to be individually cited, especially if you are going back and forth between sources. If a paragraph is all from one source, then you can put one citation at the end, but if they are "composites" like you say, each individual claim needs to be noted where it came from. This greatly improves text-source integrity, which helps a lot with respect to the article's verifiability. It would be something reviewers would look for if we ever wanted to make a push for something like a good article rating, and it also would greatly help editors like myself who would be able to improve the article, but have to rely on Google translations of the Russian sources. These kinds of things are even more important on an article like this, because we have to take the WP:BLP concerns into account since we are dealing with information about living people (Kolesnikov, Putin, and everybody else involved). That way we are immune to any libel accusations.

And to make it easier, when I reformatted the references I added ref name tags (like <ref name=snob-110623>), so if you want to cite the same source again you can just put <ref name=snob-110623/> (the same thing, just with a '/' at the end), and you don't have to include the whole citation all over again. All this is good—the article is really coming along. —Akrabbim^talk 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]