User talk:RoySmith/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK nomination of Dorothy Olsen

Hello! Your submission of Dorothy Olsen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing citations

Good day you have removed my citation of Mikko phylogeny archive on the Elopiformes page, I have no problem with that as it has been stated 'Mikko phylogeny archive' is not an authoritative or credible source. What I have a problem with is your lack of thoroughness and carelessness because you did remove two other peer reviewed, authoritative and credible sources in that deletion. Those citations were Fishes of the World a book and Family-group names of fossil fishes a paper. This was done not only the Elopiformes page but numerous other pages where I cited those publications. Can you please clarify and or suggest a permanent fix for removing those two other citations but leaving the edits to which they are based on. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Videsh, I see what happened. Those entries were removed as part of a semi-automated cleanup which was run as part of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. Unfortunately, it looks like I wasn't as careful as I should have been, and removed too much. What should have happened was to just unlink "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive", without removing the whole entry. I've gone ahead and fixed the problem at Elopiformes. If you see any others, please feel free to restore them, or let me know the page titles, and I'll fix them myself. My apologies for the error. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, thanks very much for understanding. But it was a lot of pages I cited Mikko Haaramo, and your semi-automatic cleanup did deletions to some but not all those cited pages. So it is gonna take a lot of time manually to go through those pages individually to check. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC) the×

Let me work on this a bit. I think I see a way to fix this without having to look at each one manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a little progress. It looks like this is the set of pages I potentially broke. At least that should narrow down what we need to verify. Take a look at the list and tell me if this looks correct. If so, then I'll start working on a good way to fix things. Again, my apologies for the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Videsh Ramsahai: the easy cases will be when this is still the last edit to the page. In those cases, I'll just be able to revert my edit. If there's been additional edits since then, it'll require some manual work, but leave that to me, just take a look at the list and tell me if you think I've found the right pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. Turkmenidae diff
  2. Analectis diff
  3. Poduromorpha diff
  4. Symphypleona diff
  5. Entomobryoidea diff
  6. Jeholodentidae diff
  7. Coniopterygidae diff
  8. Dilaridae diff
  9. Nevrorthidae diff
  10. Ichthyodectidae diff
  11. Cooyoo diff
  12. Dinichthyloidea diff
  13. Coccosteina diff
  14. Brachythoraci diff
  15. Palaeonisciformes diff
  16. Edestus diff
  17. Ninjemys diff
  18. Aglaspidida diff
  19. Ptyctodontida diff
  20. Corydalidae diff
  21. Titanichthys diff
  22. Fishfly diff
  23. Trionychia diff
  24. Procolophonomorpha diff
  25. Meiolania diff
  26. Procolophonia diff
  27. Trematosauria diff
  28. Trematosauroidea diff
  29. Bothriolepis diff
  30. Docodonta diff
  31. Nepomorpha diff
  32. Arthrodira diff
  33. Lepidaspis diff
  34. Snakefly diff
  35. Megaloptera diff
  36. Chrysopidae diff
  37. Coelacanthidae diff
  38. Beardfish diff
  39. Diapsid diff
  40. Arowana diff
  41. Elopiformes diff
  42. Hiodontiformes diff
  43. Opisthocomidae diff
  44. Semionotiformes diff
  45. Amiiformes diff
  46. Pangolin diff
  47. Esociformes diff
  48. Percopsiformes diff
  49. Palaeanodonta diff
  50. Sicyophorus diff
  51. Thoracopteridae diff
  52. Peltopleuridae diff
  53. Peltopleuriformes diff
  54. Ctenothrissiformes diff
  55. Crossognathiformes diff
  56. Tarrasiiformes diff
  57. Ptycholepiformes diff
  58. Pholidopleuriformes diff
  59. Perleidiformes diff
  60. Saurichthyiformes diff
  61. Atractosteus diff
  62. Metasuchia diff
  63. Capitosauria diff
  64. Brachyopomorpha diff
  65. Archaeopriapulida diff
  66. Ancalagon (animal) diff
  67. Ascalaphinae diff
  68. Pholidosauridae diff
  69. Mastodonsauroidea diff
  70. Neelipleona diff
  71. Piveteauia diff
  72. Whiteia diff
  73. Pachycormiformes diff
RoySmith, this looks about right, as you said there are some older ones I think. I will start to change some of them. But to clarify, am I removing the brackets from "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" so as not to link to that wikipage, or am I removing the "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" citation altogether.Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to say what the right thing is. For sure, you want to remove the brackets from Mikko's Phylogeny Archive, to keep it from being a redlink. Beyond that, you're the subject matter expert, so it's really up to your best judgement. If leaving the citation in still makes sense without the link, then by all means, leave it in. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-34

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • There will be no Tech News issue next week. The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 2 September 2019.

Problems

  • Advanced item Some abuse filters stopped working because of a code change. Only variables for the current action will work. Variables defined inside a branch may not work outside of that branch. You can read more to see how to fix the filters.
  • Only six accounts can be created from one IP address per day. Between 12 August and August 15 this was two accounts per day. This was because of a security issue. It is now six accounts per day again. [1]

Changes later this week

  • Only a limited number of accounts can be created from one IP address. An IP address can be whitelisted so that it can create as many accounts as needed. This is useful at events where many new persons learn to edit. IP addresses that are whitelisted for this reason will also not show CAPTCHAs when you create accounts. This will happen on Wednesday. [2]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 August. It will be on all wikis from 22 August (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • There is an RFC about creating a new global user group with the right to edit abuse filters. This will be used to fix broken filters and make sure all filters will still work when software changes happen. You can read more and comment.
  • Special:Contributions/newbies will no longer be working. This is because of performance reasons. It showed edits by new accounts. You can see this in the recent changes feed instead. [3]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Aboug Draft:Reiki Symbols

Hi Roysmith, thank you for your comments on my new article. I am aware that there is an article called 'Reiki', it talks about what it is and its background specifically, so I still think my article is different since I talk about the symbols of Reiki which are a different topic and also really important that is why I did not want to blend it with the Reiki article. I am going to check the URL you told me, but can I still make it a new article? I worked really hard on it and I would still like to make it a new article since that is how I think it should be, please let me know asap.

Thank you in advance. JCAGH (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:Content forking. Also, as you read Reiki, you'll notice that state up front that it is a WP:FRINGE topic, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Your article presents this as if it's valid medicine. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:The Kentucky Housewife

Sorry I didn't see this sooner - I don't do this very often or log in often - I'm responding to these comments copy/pasted below. . . . (I'm new at this and probably am answering this the wrong way - please excuse). I originally wrote one entry on Lettice Bryan but a rewiewer said that two entries were probably needed. So I created the 2nd entry on The Kentucky Housewife. Please publish one or the other or both because this cookbook is a significant contribution by a woman. Women are often overlooked in history because their contributions are political history.-- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: My guidelines for author vs. book for an author of a single book: 1.The only reason for two articles is if the author is well-known for other than the book, and the book is also quite important and might well be known independently. (This is most likely to be the case for people writing on current affairs; it will not be the case when the book isa memoir or autobiography)) 2.For an author who has published a single significant book and is unlikely to publish more (usually but not always because of no longer being alive) , I think the article should be on the book. More people are likely to be aware of it. A(a cookbookl like this is a good example--the primary interest is because people are innerested in cookbooks) 3.For a living author who will probably publish more if the book is a success (and if it isn't there probably shouldn't be a WP article) 4.The reasons for not having 2 articles is that the contents would mainly duplicate, and whichever the reader is interested in, they will be best served by having the information together. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: @DGG and Jimfbleak: I've cleared what looks like the remaining copyright violations. This is probably ready to go back into mainspace, but see also my comments at Draft:The Kentucky Housewife regarding whether we need one or two articles. Would appreciate your opinions on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Iluvwipdia: Hi, and thanks for your note. I've moved it to my talk page, which is where questions like this should go. I feel your frustration about conflicting reviews. That is unfortunately, a part of wikipedia; we're all moving in the same general direction, but different editors have somewhat different ideas of exactly how things should go. Looking at what DGG and Jimfbleak have written, and my own opinion, I think what you need to do at this point is twofold. 1) Go over Draft:The Kentucky Housewife and eliminate the copyright violations. There are some things where editors have room to disagree (i.e. whether to have one or two articles to cover this topic). Copyright violations, however, are what we call a bright line rule; this needs to get fixed before the article can go into mainspace. 2) Merge the material from Draft:Lettice Bryan into Draft:The Kentucky Housewife, and then submit the later for review. I'm watching that page, so I'll see the review request and act on it quickly. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay - I think I fixed everything. I've clicked the "resubmit" button but not sure if anything is happening. Thanks for your help and clarifications. Iluvwipdia (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond on the draft itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I give up. I think the content of the article is important, and I don't mind trying another re-write, but I can't figure out the complicated wikipedia editorial system in the limited free time I have to actually do it. A frankly, in academic texts, what you describe would not present a copyright issue since the material is clearly cited. When I go to the draft page, the text has disappeared and I don't have hours to read all the various instructions on various sites to figure out how to re-do it. I'll have to just stick to my paying job. Iluvwipdia (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox (Chesley Brown International)

I am new to Wikipedia, so perhaps this is the wrong vehicle to use. However, I recently submitted an article about a company I have been researching (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1) who were active nationally during the OKC and Olympic Park bombings between 1995-96. My article was deleted, due to "advertising". I have reviewed the the description of "advertising" on the Wikipedia description, and I do not believe this article goes against the spirit of the rules. I was hoping you could explain further the reason for deletion so that my submissions may be improved in the future.

Additionally I would like to understand why the article was DELETED instead of sent back for edits? It seems I don't have a great handle on the process, but in general, when articles are submitted to other platforms, an editor reviews and requests edits, rather than deleting the whole thing all together.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outfoxedkc (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the article, I'm assuming this is a paid commission to write an article about the company. I see this is your first contribution to wikipedia. May I suggest that you read WP:YFA to understand what we're about, WP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies, and WP:NCORP to understand what we're looking for in the way of coverage for companies. You might also want to look at WP:Requested articles to get some ideas for topics to write about. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing those links. Thank you for clarifying as well -- I can understand that perception. I am not, however, a representative of the company, nor do I perform any work on their behalf. I am a security and technology researcher in the midwest. Its been frustrating that I have to use 10+ year old archive links as reference whenever I write about these guys. During this last round of work I noticed that many of the links I've used historically are getting so old they're no longer being indexed online, which was my motivation for posting this. I have read through the links your shared, and aside from removing a minor source, I'm still not sure what specifically needs to be fixed here. Outfoxedkc (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what a security and technology researcher does, but I assume you run some sort of consulting service, where you advise your clients on which security firms to hire. Your interest in having a wikipedia article about this company seems to be to provide a ready reference for you to use as part of that consulting business. That's a conflict of interest. I'm hesitant to answer your question about "what specifically needs to be fixed", because there is no good answer. Anything specific that I point out might lead you to believe that if you just fixed those things, the article would become acceptable, and that's not the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Was the reason for deletion because of an assumed Conflict of Interest? I do not sell any services, I am a student. I don't even work in the security industry -- my research is part of my thesis. It seems striking that one of the largest security companies in North America isn't listed anywhere on Wikipedia. I thought the whole mission of Wikipedia was to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." If the only reason for deleting the article is because its been assumed i have a conflict of interest, how may I remediate that perception? If that's not the issue, then I'd be happy to make any updates to the article that are necessary. Please understand, I am new to the platform and I'm doing the best I can to jump through the right hoops, but a little guidance would be most appreciated.

Outfoxedkc (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem determined to argue about this, so I've undeleted the page and listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 20 where other editors and admins can review my action. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I've come across as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand where I went wrong on this and how to fix it. Thank you for pushing that out to other admins. I have made updates to the article in order to make it more neutral, as you requested. I'm just not sure how to fix the perceived conflict of interest issue you've raised. Outfoxedkc (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomi Thomas AfD

Hi, RoySmith, I disagree with you closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomi Thomas. Indeed there were flurry of "Keeps" but with zero or faulty policy reason to keep. I've thoroughly explained why the article is based on unreliable sources completely and no one reliably disputed that. I am baffled with your closure as just "Keep" and I hope, you'll reread it and decide to either delete or reopen it. Thanks – Ammarpad (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The biggest point of contention seemed to be whether Pulse Nigeria was a WP:RS. You obviously feel they are not. Other editors felt they are. Judging the reliability of sources is part of what editors at AfD are supposed to do. Given the number of people who felt this should be kept, it would take really strong arguments to convince me otherwise, and I'm just not seeing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
But that was not the only reason, and they only disagree, no one explained why it's not (unreliable). Straight "Keep" means it's obvious to even a passing observer that the discussion "found consensus" for keep. I did not see that. So if you wouldn't mind I'll bring this to DRV. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 23, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 09:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I was about to do that. Thank you for beating me to it. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Catahoula bulldog close

Hi, Roy - the consensus for the AfD is quite clear - there is no legitimate breed as a Catahoula bulldog - it is fictitious and should be redirected to the actual recognized breed Catahoula Leopard dog. The few arguments for KEEP were based on anecdotal information cited to unreliable sources, not factual verifiable information cited to RS. How on earth did you determine that AfD to be "no consensus"??

@Atsme: I think I explained all that in my close. The question is not whether this is a recognized breed, but whether being a recognized breed is a requirement for having an article. And, about that, there was no agreement. My job as closer is to summarize the thoughts of the editors who participated in the discussion. If they didn't come to any agreement, then there's no option other than to close the discussion as No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I just noticed that it was you who listed this at WP:AN/RFC, with the request, Need an admin to review and close. So, I guess what you really meant was, Need an admin who agrees with me to review and close. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did request an admin closure and shame on you for that hurtful and unwarranted comment. The dog topic is a problem topic area because of the misunderstandings about what constitutes a RS and what WP:V actually means when a source is questionable. As you probably noticed, one of of the Keep ivoters was a sock, the other was blocked for 30+ hrs for disruption and aspersions, and I was forced to file at ANI because of the name calling, aspersions, misinformation and misunderstandings involving advocates and socks. And now you've gone and said what you said. 😢 Perhaps I'm wasting my time here, but I'm an eternal optimist, so I'm asking that you please look at the Redirect/Delete votes again before I request a review. The AfD was more about the fact that the - ...cited sources are neither reliable nor do they establish notability. The Catahoula bulldog is a fictitious breed - no question there - but the reason for my nominating the article for AfD is that (a) there are no RS to satisfy GNG requirements, and (b) the included material is noncompliant with WP:V and WP:OR. The KEEP arguments do not establish notability or verifiability because there are no RS being cited - you should have seen that when you reviewed the Redirect/delete comments. The book, The Bully Breeds, is as close as the citations got to a RS but it still did not make the cut - that source is actually a questionable source based on context and does not establish notability. The book is about 6 Bulldog breeds but the Catahoula bulldog is not one of the 6. It barely got passing mention in a short 2 paragraphs which included the following info (pg 78): ...which as the name implies originate from crosses between Bulldogs (in this case American Bulldogs) and (Louisiana) Catahoula Leopard Dogs. It goes on to describe a little more anecdotal information, all of which is unverifiable. The author did not cite any RS or notable breed registries for verification or reliable/verifiable corroboration that the dog even exists. It might have been crossed to a Labrador Retriever for all we know. The material is neither encyclopedic nor verifiable as it is derived from anecdotal information - and V is one of our core content policies. Worse yet, the author is not a breed expert - he is ...a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. I searched high and low for verifiable information in RS, and there are none. Further, Kennel Club Books has not been in business since 2012 - the article also needs to be updated. Please go back and re-read the many Redirect and/or Delete iVotes - some of which are by reputable WP:WikiProject Dog members who are quite knowledgeable about breeds, breed types, dog types, etc. Their arguments are very strong. I will await your reply but please ping me. Atsme Talk 📧 17:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Please ask for a review. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
checkY Done. Atsme Talk 📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Joe Zenas

I am updating Joe Zenas page and it was deleted. Could you advise why it was deleted, so I can update the content accordingly? Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKellam910 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out what page you're talking about. Can you provide a link, please? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Zenas; it's all explained there. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case

I see you deleted Draft:DNA Evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case for copyright infringement. I encouraged Samsongebre (talk · contribs) to create the article in Talk:O. J. Simpson murder case#Expansion of DNA evidence section. The entire article is not a copyright infringement, I do not think. Perhaps you could let him remove the offending sections and replace them with original prose. He is a new user and worked very hard on it. Please consider WP:BITE. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello I created this and am sorry if any information in it was copyrighted. I will immediately remove that portion from the article if I can have the chance to do so.Samsongebre (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The draft I deleted contained multiple paragraphs from various sources (as detailed in my log message). This really is a bright-line issue. We can't have copyright infringement anywhere, even in drafts. That's why I deleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:55:33, 26 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TomMackay11


Hi, I hope this message finds you well.

I am seeing further clarification on how to Plevo featured on Wikipedia. You recently did not approve my request due to not reliable sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plevo

Is there something I need to fix in the editing of the document to be approved?


TomMackay11 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you also asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse and got some excellent answers there. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dorothy Olsen

On 26 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Olsen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dorothy Olsen was one of only 12 American women certified for night flight in World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Olsen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dorothy Olsen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66:, I noticed that User:The Rambling Man changed "12" to "twelve" in the article text (diff). Do we want to make the same change in the hook? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've changed it back to the way you originally had it. According to MOS:NUMERAL that was not a required change, and was stylistic. No need to change the hook. Thanks for asking. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope, see "cats and dogs" in MOSNUM. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
And yes, we do need to make the same change in the hook. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I can't find any reference to "cats and dogs" in WP:MOSNUM. Can you be more specific? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the example was deleted. It was around the comparable numbers in a single clause. Never mind. At least we tidied the article up nicely while it was in the main page! Cheers, The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I'm curious, how long does a given DYK entry usually stay on the front page? I had thought it was a day, but this looks like it cycled through a lot quicker. Not that I'm counting or anything :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I was a day until a few days ago, is 12 hours now, but discussion is about back to a day already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh man, I got gypped :-( On the plus side, I was pleasantly surprised how fast this got processed. Previous submissions of mine were in the queue for months. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

August 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (+editathons before and after)

August 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

Featuring this month a review of the recent Wikimania 2019 conference in Sweden!

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 17:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons at Interference Archive and The Met

Also check out these editing events, before and after our WikiWednesday Salon:

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Request on 13:28:53, 23 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Marina Vashchenko

Dear RoySmith,


Thank you for reviewing the article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ngx-bootstrap


I have checked the WP:NCORP and would like to ask for your assistance to identify things that can help with my article.


I’d like to mention a few things that, in my opinion, show the notability of the modules described in the article:


1. Based on the statistics on GitHub, the widgets are used by 39,038 people and starred by 4,838: https://github.com/valor-software/ngx-bootstrap

2. The specifics of usage has been widely discussed on Stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ngx-bootstrap

3. I posted a couple of articles about implementing ngx-bootstrap by third-party people:

https://stevenschwenke.de/whatToUseNgbootstrapNgxbootstrapManuallyAddingBootstrap

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/steps-to-add-bootstrap-4/

https://www.techiediaries.com/angular-bootstrap-ui/

4. The creators of ngx-bootstrap have been invited by ngHouston for a public speech regarding the usage of modules with the latest Angular renderer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhCgzs8jR8

5. The widgets are published on npmjs.com (a highly used source of JavaScript development tools)

6. Ngx-bootstrap is open-source software so the possibility of receiving income is minimal. The aim of mentioning already popular widgets in Wikipedia is having them described in additional authoritative source.


Having checked similar articles from the Category:Free software programmed in JavaScript like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakanda_(software) and considering the preceding facts, the article matches the “has been noticed by people outside of the organization” criteria from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)


In order for the article not to look like an ad, I suggest the following:

Removing the developer of the widgets (Valor Software) from the article body. Instead of https://valor-software.com/ngx-bootstrap/ link as a website in the infobox, place link to the GitHub repository.

Do you think this will help?


Thank you,

Marina Vashchenko Marina Vashchenko (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I see the only things you've written so far are articles about Valor and its products. I assume you have some connection to the company. Please read WP:COI and make the appropriate disclosures on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thank you for the advice. I do have a connection with the company, but still tried to keep neutral manner while preparing the articles and added external references from the start. I have just added a public declaration on my user page. Please advise what should be my further steps.
I looked at the sources you mentioned above (stevenschwenke.de, c-sharpcorner.com, techiediaries.com). They all look like blogs, and thus probably aren't reliable sources. The best I can do is refer you back to WP:NCORP, specifically the "How to apply the criteria" section. I should caution you, however, that in my experience, software packages like these are very rarely considered notable. Certainly, Angular is notable, but accessory packages like this rarely are. You could add those sources and resubmit the draft to see what somebody else thinks, but I don't want to unduly raise your expectations that this will be accepted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Yash

Hi RoySmith. I see you declined the speedy deletion request I made on Draft:Yash. I believe this article is a blatant hoax. The original version of the article before I removed the (highly inappropriate) sources is: [4]. All of the claims in the article are unsourced. The "sources" include articles on the NYTimes and India Today that don't mention the subject of the article, a link to the Indian Parliament that is a 404, a link to "naidunia news peper" that doesn't mention the subject, and a slew of user-generacted content sites that are copies of the same, fake information. This looks to be a deliberate attempt to make the subject appear notable using faked sources. All of the claims are fake: there is no Indian Member of Parliament called "Munna Gawli". There is no Indian tech company called yashtec and Yash is not a founder or a CEO. Yash Gawli did not contribute to the Stranger Things soundtrack. As far as I can tell, every claim is false. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is to bring it to WP:MfD. For a speedy deletion, it needs to be pretty obvious. Everything you say above may be true, but it wasn't obvious that it was true. Maybe that just means it was a well-written hoax? In any case, MfD is a better place to hash that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank for told me that This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Yash, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

i checked this page Draft:Yash this is same person but information i incorrect so please resolved the issue about this topic i just was about to asking when this will review and when can i resubmit for submission sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek worson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:Photobel

Roy, thank you for your tips;

I've changed 'cleaning earth' in 'ceramic'. 'Cleaning earth' was a bad translation of 'poetsaarde' (dutch word) but the word 'ceramic' is better to understand. The dutch version of wikipedia page of Laurent Gillis is my work. But I will improve it and make it more useful to our english-language readers. Thank you, Grtz Photobel --Photobel (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Roy, Thank you for your comment. Maybe you can find less about (Laurys) Laurent Gillis online but there are more sources you can find in books about this artist but mostly in dutch language. (see also: bibliography) There is also an offical site of the Belgian Governement referring to Laurys Gillis : see: Onroerenderfgoed (heritage in Flanders, Belgium) [[5]] I put this under 'references' and also other references I can find about Laurent (Laurys , Laurentius, Lawrence) Gillis If you not satisfied, can you give me tips for a newbie as me how I can improve the problem? Thank you so much, grtz Photobel --Photobel (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Photobel, thanks for your note. Note, I've moved your draft to Draft:Laurys Gillis, which is the correct title. You should take a look at WP:ARTIST to get an idea of what we're looking for in the way of sourcing for an artist. For an artist that worked in the 18th century, obviously sources are going to be harder to find than for modern artists that live in the internet-infested modern world. Everybody understands that, but we're still looking for sources that talk about the artist as a person, describe his career, his influence on the art world, etc.
Looking at your "Major Works" section, the important things are the two works, Madonna and Child, and St. Johannes Nepomucenus. I'd concentrate on finding sources that talk about those works. Actually, looking at your Bibliography, I see you've already found some sources for them. Perhaps all that needs to happen is to turn them into references, per WP:CITE. Also, I note that some of these are not in English. That's perfectly fine, but please see my essay, WP:LANGCITE, for some suggestions on how you might make those more useful to our english-language readers.
Please don't be discouraged by my initial declining of your draft. In fact, I encourage you to keep working on it. It's an interesting topic, and I'm sure with just some work to improve the sourcing, this will make a fine addition to the encyclopedia. I'll leave some other comments on the draft itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:Laurys Gillis

Roy, thank you for your tips; I've changed 'cleaning earth' in the word 'ceramic'. 'Cleaning earth' was indeed a bad translation of 'poetsaarde' (dutch word) but the word 'ceramic' is better to understand. The dutch version of wikipedia page of Laurent Gillis is my work. But I will improve it and make it more useful to our english-language readers. -Ive also changed the references. Thank you, Grtz Photobel --Photobel (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if you wrote the Dutch version, you still need to provide the correct attribution. I've gone ahead and placed a {{Translated page}} template on Draft talk:Laurys Gillis, which takes care of that.

Nationally known critics

Hi, in a recentish discussion at WikiProject Film it was confirmed that the NFIlm criteria when it refers to nationally known critics has always meant reviews in a national publication as those reviwers have a national audience, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Closing of Milk N Cooks AfD

While the consensus of the AfD was a delete, I am not clear on what you meant in the closing summary "obligatory local coverage". I have never heard of local newspapers being obligated to cover anything, so I am not clear on what you meant. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your closing statement in the AfD, to make it a little more clear, rather than respond here. Banana Republic (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory coverage is when a newspaper covers all events of a certain type or in a certain location. This appears to be the case with The Daily Herald and Illinois Times, as several people made that assessment. That doesn't mean they're not WP:RS, but certainly their coverage carries less weight than if a national paper, which picks and chooses what to write about, gave them coverage. For example, my local community paper recently wrote about our clean-up day. Flowers got planted. Garbage got picked up. Artwork got hung on fences. That's obligatory local coverage. There's no way the paper wasn't going to give it front-page billing, because that's what they do. But, that didn't make the event notable from a wikipedia point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still not following you. The example you cite of "obligatory local coverage" as being Flowers got planted. Garbage got picked up. Artwork got hung on fences is not notable under the WP:NOTNEWS because that's routine. Regarding the article in question, while the coverage in the Illinois Times was indeed routine (a discussion of their performance in a local festival), the coverage that Milk N Cooks received in the Daily Herald was a full featured Q&A, which is not really the routine news coverage that WP:NOTNEWS covers. Banana Republic (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
My job when I'm closing an AfD is to read what the participants wrote and distill that. Most people judged The Daily Herald coverage to not support notability. I have to go with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would you say if the Daily Herald coverage supported notability then two references supporting notability would have made the article a keep? Banana Republic (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I really can't answer questions like that because there's no hard and fast number. WP:GNG talks about multiple sources, but I don't know of any generally accepted definition of multiple. In WP:THREE, I say, Three good sources is enough to convince anybody. Is two enough? Beats me. Maybe. Sometimes. Depending on how good they are. And who you ask. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting essay. Any plans to transfer it to the Wikipedia namespace from your user namespace? Banana Republic (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. I like it being a personal statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Then I'm thinking of plagiarizing it and starting something in the Wikipedia namespace. I think you have something that could be the foundation of a good essay to expand on the word multiple within the phrase multiple sources are generally expected that is used in WP:GNG. Obviously, your essay, as currently written, cannot be in the Wikipedia namespace verbatim because you use the word "I" in the essay.
Would you object if I did that? Banana Republic (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Why would I mind? Anybody is free to write whatever essay they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Since you did not object, I created a new WP:THREE, and referenced your essay as WP:Roy Smith's Three. Banana Republic (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to the WP:THREE shortcut. Why did you change that? Write your own essay, sure. Hijack the existing shortcut, no way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I would think that WP shortcuts should point to essays within the WP namespace. Remember, you don't own the shortcut. Banana Republic (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There's 100's of existing incoming links to that shortcut. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
None of those links would be in the article namespace. Since the shortcut points to an essay in your namespace, the vast majority are likely your usage of the shortcut in old discussions. I am not convinced that you can create a shortcut and then claim ownership of it by using it in hundreds of discussions. Banana Republic (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of the incoming links are by editors other than myself. Like I said, you're perfectly welcome to write your own essay. Create your own shortcut to it. Socialize its existence and if other people like it, they'll refer to it. But don't hijack an existing shortcut that's been in use for over a year and has hundreds of existing links. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I opened up a dispute resolution case for this because I don't think you are in the right. Banana Republic (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've closed the DRN thread because it is a request to change a redirect, and those are discussed at Redirects for Discussion. Since the redirect WP:THREE is commonly used in deletion discussions, a request to change it is likely to be annoying and unpopular, but it is your privilege, User:Banana Republic, to make that request. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carteret County News-Times

Hi Roy. Just a note that I was reviewing Carteret County News-Times, determined it did not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and decided to add information about the newspaper to Carteret County, North Carolina#Media. I would have supported a redirect before the AfD closed. Do you have any objections to restoring the article's history under a redirect to Carteret County, North Carolina#The Carteret County News-Times? Cunard (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Cunard (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

About Draft:Julia Pępiak new comment

OK. Translate from |pl| Julia Pępiak. https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Pępiak&stable=1 New source too from: Righteous Among the Nations Honored by Yad Vashem by 1 January 2019 POLAND https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous-linked/statistics/poland.pdf Name Pepiak, Julia No. 8180, Year 1999. Thanks! Cyzbig (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Photoflood

I just noticed that you reviewed changes that I made to Draft:Photoflood, even though I didn't request them. (Thanks!) I was not the original author, but do believe that this is needed. One problem I have now in finding references, is that the values will be different for US (120V lamps) and Europe (220V, 230V, or 240V bulbs). I could try to find references for one or the other, or I suppose even both. Being in the US, my choice is US. (That is, the table values will be different.) Any thoughts? Thanks, Gah4 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Request on 13:40:37, 3 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Esolizg


Hi, In this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BANCO_ECON%C3%93MICO", there was changed the first paragraph but you said "Nothing has changed", could you tell me please what word or sentence or paragraph is wrong??

Esolizg (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You changed a couple of words. The entire article is written from an overtly promotional point of view, touting everything positive about the bank. Making a few minor wording changes isn't going to fix that. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:Rachel Jones (director)

Hi RoySmith

I don't understand the reasoning of "not enough content to warrant an article of its own", nor the suggestion to include it in the article of one of her films (she has at least two film articles on enwiki). A film director's filmography should not be included that way, and assuming she is notable (she is, more below) a short article would be a stub, wouldn't it? In this case, there is a biography section, a filmography section, and external links; and there are literally thousands of filmmaker articles with quite a bit less than that (like this, this, this, and many more).

Regarding notability: According to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, notability guidelines include:

  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

It should be noted that Jones' film Advocate has had not only critical acclaim and won awards, but it has created a nation-wide storm in Israel, causing the government to try and change how it awards prizes and/or funding for films, with attempts at legislative and extra-legislative control, including Mifal HaPayis cancelling its support of the international film festival DocAviv, and dozens of major creators in Israel protesting this act. Involved are major groups like Im Tirtzu, Minister of Culture Miri Regev, a long list of the nation's leading writers and creators, basically all the professional associations in the Israeli film industry (documentary filmmakers, directors union, etc), and the issue has been at the top of the headlines for quite a while. Sapir Award judges resigned in protest of governmental attempts to curb free speech. I could go on.

Sorry that these are in Hebrew, I will try to find some in English later, but Google will give you an idea how significant this is, clearly making the work significant (first listed guideline) and also in line with the significance listed in the second guideline:

According to Haaretz, Israel's premier newspaper: "The film has become a symbol (monument)", and the film certainly garnered significant critical attention (second guideline) - possibly record-breaking, at least in recent years.

Let me know if you want a list of reviews by major reviewers and publications.

In addition: Other works by Rachel Leah Jones are notable and have garnered critical and political attention, including

Meanwhile, I am adding an Awards section to the draft, hope that will help. But I do think this article stands on its own merit.

Cheers! TMagen (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In my estimation, the one notable thing she did was that film. But, I'll leave it to other reviewers to comment on further. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your help with my submission as I navigate and learn. I appreciate your hard work! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_25&oldid=999561553"