User talk:MarkZusab/archive5

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Lea Lacroix (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #355

2020 articles edit

Nice work on the 2020 election articles, don't want to seem like I am trying to infringe on your work, I created Pennsylvania and South Carolina because of my connections to those two states. Nice work on the Marriott strike article as well!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MainlyTwelve: Thanks, I appreciate your help. Thank you for adding the Elections WikiProject tags and expanded many of the articles. Your creation of the Pennsylviania and South Carolina articles looks good. MarkZusab (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mary Knight Benson edit

Hello and thank you for the article Mary Knight Benson. This will certainly assist people who search for her on Wikipedia.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hu Nhu: Of course, I was glad to help you and add it to the page Mary Benson. If you have any other questions or concerns about Wikipedia, feel free to ask. MarkZusab (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Elektron redirects edit

  Space Pioneer Award
Thank you for building the Elektron redirects! Neopeius (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Russell the Sheep moved to draftspace edit

An article you recently created, Russell the Sheep, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Furthermore, please ensure that you do not closely paraphrase sources without attribution, as was done here. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DannyS712: Would you mind telling me how the article could be improved? It contains no unreferenced information and uses several reliable and independent sources. Additionally the "close paraphrasing" without attribution you show is actually quotations within the article under the Reception section. (e.g. The New York Times stated ".......").MarkZusab (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MarkZusab: it is referenced, but it also appears that you may have copied or paraphrased the content form a different source that you didn't cite (Barnes and Noble). Furthermore, the sources don't seem to demonstrate that the book is notable, but rather that it just recieved reviews. I suggest either citing the B&N page or rephrasing the reception section, as well as filling in the plot. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712:I did not use the Barnes and Noble website while creating this article and I'm having a hard time finding any possible sentences that could have been close paraphrased in the article. Additionally, per WP:NBOOK, a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." MarkZusab (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Then I apologize. I shouldn't have moved it, and you are welcome to move it back. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712:Thank you for apologizing and understanding. I was unable to move the page back to the same title, but I moved it to Russell the Sheep (book) and requested a technical move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. MarkZusab (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ways to improve Opinion polling for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries edit

Hello, MarkZusab,

Thanks for creating Opinion polling for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (→talk) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Boleyn: The page does actually have references, listed in the tables under the "poll source" column. This style of citations is used in similar articles with opinion polling results, such as Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Another user has already removed the unreferenced tag. However, if you think that the citation style of using footnotes is better across polling articles, I would be happy to change them. MarkZusab (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah, sorry, MarkZusab. Personally I didn't spot them (probably just stupidity on my part) but other readers may also find it difficult. I don't know what the guidelines are on this way of referencing, but have no big objections. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

2018 Marriott Hotels strike edit

Hi, I noticed that you removed the CSD tag because you rewrote the text. In the future, please don't remove the CSD tag because, at minimum, administrators need to delete the revisions that hold the infringing text. I have added the copyvio tag back so that those revisions can be removed. Thank you. Citrivescence (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #346 edit

18:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #347 edit

17:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wojak edit

i am writing to ask why you undid my repair of a word phrase from "an conservative" to (the correct) "a conservative"? it appears you have introduced an error into Wikipedia, so i will leave it to you to undo your mistake. :^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.162.140 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

74.44.162.140, I apologize as I made that revert in error. I was under the impression that you were changing "a" to "an" and not the other way around. I have changed it back to your addition and one once again am sincerely sorry for my mistake. I will ensure this does not happen again. MarkZusab (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Dermophis donaldtrumpi edit

On 17 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dermophis donaldtrumpi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the man who named a nearly blind amphibian Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dermophis donaldtrumpi), 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.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #348 edit

20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trum listed at Redirects for discussion edit

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trum. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 18:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dnald Trump listed at Redirects for discussion edit

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dnald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Dnald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 18:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nameless edit

I appreciate your catching my error with responsibility, but I really don't like quotation marks around the names of my citations. Is there some reason they are necessary, with a simple name? deisenbe (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Deisenbe: They are not necessary, but were merely added as a side effect of using the visual editor for part of my edit. I have removed them and personally don't see a need for them. This was the first time it was brought to my attention.
According to Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Refname_rules, "Quotation marks are optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9, and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~. That is, all printable ASCII characters except #"'/=>?\". MarkZusab (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'm still working on categories and links to the article. deisenbe (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's another thing I would like you to not do edit

I post citations like this (look at the code):

Lee, Benjamin (January 25, 2019). "'Secrets will eat you up' – inside the shocking Michael Jackson documentary". The Guardian.

Collapsing makes them less legible, therefore less useful, and I cannot see what is gained by collapsing them, except to make the code look prettier. deisenbe (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, as I did not intentionally mean to collapse citations. It was unintentionally done by the Wikipedia:VisualEditor. I will try to ensure that this doesn't occur in the future. MarkZusab (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you be of any assistance with this? edit

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T14396

It's pretty important, at least to me. deisenbe (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re-assessment of Alibaba Group edit

Hey Mark! I was wondering if you can re-assess Alibaba Group on behalf of WikiProject Internet. I had massively reorganized and improve the article, and I was wondering if the article is improved enough so it can advance to B status from its C status. Thank you! - Josephua (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Normal Google Search Brings the Talk Page and not Article Page (Sam Enrico Williams) edit

MarkZusabWhen I do normal google search, it is the talk page that appears and not the article page. Kindly help.Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

DAB banners edit

Hi, it's generally preferable not to create talk pages if all they are going to contain is the {{WP Disambiguation}} banner. You can see the template's documentation for the reason why. There's no need to worry about any pages you've already created. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Uanfala, thank you for notifying me about this and I will avoid doing it in the future. MarkZusab (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #349 edit

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: January 2019 edit

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

Copying drafts edit

Hi could you please explain why you’ve copied this draft directly into main space with no attribution? Praxidicae (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

and here.Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Praxidicae, you can also see my reply below. The topic of the article and many of the references were the same, but it was not directly copied into the mainspace. I realize that it would have been better to move the original draft and then improve it from there, instead of creating a new article. Additionally, I am struggling to see what you are trying to point out with The Chronicles of Kale article. I am unaware of there ever being a draft of the same topic, and could not find one when I looked. Someone once created Draft:Aya Knight on an unnotable author, but that is about a separate topic and doesn't share anything except a list of books in the The Chronicles of Kale series. MarkZusab (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Can you explain the 3 others? As far as Element AI, it is nearly word for word the same in the first iteration. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by "the 3 others"? MarkZusab (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
New Jersey Hills Media Group - created by you December 2018, Draft created by HamishMc (a declared paid editor) a few months prior, Draft:Under a Red Sky created Nov 2018, Under a Red Sky - created by you Jan 2019. Africa Policy Institute by you, since deleted, created December 2018 is word for word the same as Draft:Africa Policy Institute by an udeclared paid editor, Munenejohn in November 2018. Draft:Cristin Claas created in 2018, Cristin Claas by you in Dec 2018, which ironically was also heavily edited by it's original creator. Draft created November 15 2018, your mainspace article Nov 20, 2018. I can keep going, if you'd like. While no one person owns content on Wikipedia, it's a really unbecoming to take someone else's work in progress without notice or attribution and even more concerning given some of this looks like it's for the original creator to avoid ACPERM. This still leaves my original question open. Praxidicae (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
For New Jersey Hills Media Group, Under a Red Sky, Roberto McCausland Dieppa, and Cristin Claas, all of the articles existed previously existed in draft space. I created the articles in the mainspace independently, finding sources and writing the articles from scratch. The draft articles had been either poorly/not referenced, showed unclear notability and or had been denied at AfC. You can see that the articles I had created were referenced, asserted notability, and were significantly more structured that the denied drafts.
For Africa Policy Institute, the original drafts were overly promotional, spam-like, under referenced, and had unclear notability. I created a three-sentence referenced stub as an article, believing that it would serve better than an draft continuously getting denied and spammed at AfC. The full text of the article was specifically "The Africa Policy Institute (API) is a non-governmental pan-African think tank specializing in security, governance, and foreign policy. It is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya and maintains networks across Africa. The current president of the Africa Policy Institute is Peter Kagwanja."
I had no intention to help users avoid WP:ACPERM and I was unaware of the undeclared status of any editors. I had the mindset if an article was fit to be on Wikipedia, it was better for someone to create an article than see it be continuously denied at AfC. While creating an article about the same thing a draft is about and not notifying the creator of the draft was inapt and frowned upon, it is was not done maliciously and I will refrain from doing it in the future. I apologize for any disturbance that my actions may have caused. MarkZusab (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Did you use my work without attribution? edit

Three days ago you created the Element AI page, and it is remarkably similar to a draft I submitted 6 weeks ago. In fact, much of the language is the same, and you even used the same sources for stories that were published in many separate outlets. Did you use my work without attribution? If so, why? Was it inadvertent?

Sorry, I see another editor has already raised this. I'm still curious Phend020 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Element AI a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Element AI. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Phend020, when I created the article, I did use some of the sources referenced in your draft, along with other ones that I found. The topic of the article and many of the references were the same, but it was not directly copied into the mainspace. I did not intentionally mean to copy your work and I realize that it would have been better to move your original draft and then improve it from there, instead of creating a new article. However, you do have a severe conflict of interest with the article due to being employed by the company. MarkZusab (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2019 edit

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019 edit

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

Everything flows (and certainly data does)

Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).

Amazon Echo device using the Amazon Alexa service in voice search showdown with the Google rival on an Android phone

Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.

Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.

There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Early Works: A Collection of Poetry edit

 

The article Early Works: A Collection of Poetry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

(PROD corrected from User: Omaharodeo) Does not meet WP:N. Book was self-published and received no significant coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Geick (2nd nomination).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Closeapple (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note: I have created Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and merged it into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #350 edit

My profile wikipedia edit

Hi Mark,

Thank you for making my wikipedia page...I can help you for editing the page and Ill now sent you my clubs through my carrer

BC Osjecki Sokol 2010-2013 BC Vrijednosnice Osijek 2014 BC Zagreb 2014-2016 BC Hermes Analitica 2016 half season BC Gorica 2017 half season BC Alkar Sinj 2017 half season BC Borovo 2018 half season And now KK Vardar 2018-2019 season

Hope you will see my message and edit the page...

Greeting,Dino Radoš Dino rados 12 (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please add me on facebook or instagram that we can talk about this 😀 Dino rados 12 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dino rados 12: I created the article Dino Radoš on December 15, 2018 after seeing a new editor (you) ask for it to be created at the WP:Teahouse (here). It appears that you are the subject of the article and have a severe conflict of interest with the article. You should read WP:COI and if you want to make changes to the page, post an edit request with reliable sources on the article's talk page. Additionally, the article is not your "profile" or "your page" and no one "owns" a Wikipedia article. I will not engage in any off-Wikipedia contact with you. Please ask at the Teahouse if you have any general Wikipedia questions. MarkZusab (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #351 edit

Nomination of Astral Chain for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Astral Chain 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/Astral Chain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. —teb728 t c 11:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Two Kings (book series) edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Two Kings (book series), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #352 edit

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Moves to draftspace edit

Hello. I appreciate your efforts in moving undersourced articles to draftspace so far. If it helps, scripts like User:Evad37/MoveToDraft will help ease the process. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@JalenFolf: Thank you. I appreciate your advice and will look into using a script in the future. MarkZusab (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Talk to us about talking edit

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

article stubs edit

Though Heidi Blanck is unquestionably notable a sa member of the NAS, it is much more useful to the readers if even the initial article is a little more complete--a fuller biography and especially,the most cited papers so we can see her significance..As friendly advice, consider if you are perhaps going to a little too quickly. DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

DGG, thanks for bringing this up here. I do have plans and several sources for expanding the article, which I plan to do shortly. I will remember that there is NORUSH. MarkZusab (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #353 edit

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32 edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: February 2019 edit

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 2 • February 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019 edit

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

What is a systematic review?

Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.

 
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review

Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?

File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg
2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group

Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.

Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 February 2019 edit

You stated that the biographed person has no right to ask for deletion of his own article. I find this highly questionable as it was himself who wanted to be on Wikipedia on the first place, so why would he not have the right to have his article being deleted again? Please reconsider and if you still do not agree, please let me know what I can do to have this article deleted? Thank you. Reto4455

Wikidata weekly summary #354 edit

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019 edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Meaning of Marxism edit

Thanks for that. Care to tell how you found those reviews? I came up empty on standard, books and scholar googling... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Elmidae: I actually just used Google, searching for variations of the book title and the author's last name, along with adding "review" or "book review" to my search. MarkZusab (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Most peculiar. I'm not even in some Southern Hemisphere search bubble for once... ah well. Cheers :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

A page you started (It Ended Badly: Thirteen of the Worst Breakups in History) has been reviewed! edit

Thanks for creating It Ended Badly: Thirteen of the Worst Breakups in History.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I redirected your article to an existing article on the same book. Per WP:SUBTITLES and WP:CONCISE, subtitles are often omitted. Feel free to expand at It Ended Badly. Cheers!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Animalparty}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

--Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Jan Mencwel for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan Mencwel 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/Jan Mencwel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #355 edit

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)