User talk:Utopes/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Utopes/Archive 2,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Utopes,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Utopes/Archive 2,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
My WikiBirthday...
I've been around for a while now, but still not a bunch of progress on dedicated projects. That's my resolution for year two. Is the WikiBirthday system broken? Utopes (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Articles for creation: Smartfrog Limited (September 24)
Hi @Utopes, You have recently reviewed the 'Smartfrog Ltd.' entry i submitted and you offered some help regarding the content and structure of the article. Do you have any tips or tangible advice for certain sections that could help me rewrite the article besides the comments you already made? Can i ask you to point out some of the facts/sentences/references i should rather leave out or that need to be paraphrased or changed? Thank you for your time and help Toasty3 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @Toasty3:, I'm glad you took the time to reach out to me! This goes to show that you are looking to improve your article, and I can completely respect that. With that, I'm going to go more in depth into why I declined your article, and tips and advice on how to improve it.
Smartfrog Limited, based on what , seems to show notability. It looks like a decent topic, and I'm sure that this article could eventually make its way into mainspace. However, more work is going to be required to get it to the level that we are looking for. For starters, the content provided is not very encyclopedic. The article focuses more on the "exciting features" of the subject, rather than coming from a neutral point of view. Examples of this type of writing would be using the acronym of "IoT" (Internet of Things) to describe itself. While it may seem completely normal and unbiased to someone who is familiar with the subject, it reads like advertising to those who came to Wikipedia to view an encyclopedia. If you do plan on referring to IoT, make sure that you properly define it, or just remove the lingo entirely in place of a better descriptor. More examples of unencyclopedic content would be describing the business model. (I do understand that IoT is not limited to this company, but its a very uncommon jargon to the typical reader of Wikipedia). Another example of unencyclopedic content is talking about the company's business model. In full disclosure, the whole section for "products and services" seems to use sales-oriented language, and the section feels like PR for the company, however it isn't easy to pinpoint the exact location of the problem, but only certain striking details that catch my attention. To complete this long paragraph, the point is to focus on writing in an objective and neutral point of view. It's hard to label a couple words as having a PoV problem, so I would advise a rewrite of the products and services section. The lead section is great, the history is okay, but the products and services were the main reason I turned it down. It feels like I was given a pamphlet that wanted me to invest in this company, which is not a feeling we want readers to have. I wish I could describe this part better for you.
Piece by piece for the rest
For this section, I'm going to breakdown the sentences one-by-one, with my comments directly after. The lead of the article is just fine, so I don't want to touch it.
Smartfrog was founded in Berlin, Germany and Dublin, Ireland in 2014 and launched its first product in 2015. What product?
In October 2016 the company acquired Charles Fraenkl as CEO, who has worked previously as CEO for other tech companies such as ClickandBuy, AOL Germany and E-Plus. Delete this line. Irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry on this topic. While it is unbiased, it isn't important and seems like you're trying to vouch for the competency of the CEO, and another example of advertising.
The international business magazine Forbes listed Smartfrog as one of the ten most-funded IoT startups worldwide, and as one of six “start-ups to watch” in 2017. Just fine, claim to notability is great.
In October 2018 Smartfrog acquired a controlling interest in the American Iot company Canary. Just fine, but maybe another sentence here?
In 2019 Smartfrog has more than 100 employees from 23 different countries. Irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry on this topic. Once again, while true and an unbiased opinion, the act of including this tries to paint Smartfrog in a positive light, regardless of COT.
Smartfrog launched its first product globally in October 2015. Repeat, delete
It offers a universal Iot (Internet of Things) platform, software solutions and dedicated hardware for home and business security. Either simplify or cut; really feels like advertising, if not a biased article.
Smartfrog has a SaaS (Software as a Service) business model and generates over 90% of sales directly through its own online shop. Already covered, you should rewrite this whole section.
Smartfrog offers its services both as Freemium and paid subscriptions including an optional dedicated device as enabler Not important. Talk more about the success of the first product.
Awards are just fine.
So all-in-all, you're really just missing the mark on the Product and Services subsection, and some bits in the History that need clarification. Read WP:PUFFERY, WP:BROCHURE WP:NPOV for some good tips on how to improve your articles in the future. Shoot me a message when you can get these problems resolved. Remember, don't write like a PR person for a company, write in an unbiased style that only includes the encyclopedic information.
I'm a bit tired atm, but this pretty much is my thoughts. Once again, thanks for reaching out! I know that some of these may seem like tough rulings, and there may be gray space within the rules in your opinion, such as what counts as "encyclopedic content". So with that in mind, feel free to reach out to somebody else to take double the advice your got here. However, this will surely take up their time as well, so be courteous if you choose to do so.
Oh wow I've rambled on for far too long. Welcome to Wikipedia! Utopes (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
- From the editors: Where do we go from here?
- Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup
- Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads
- News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green
- Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
Technical news
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Arbitration
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Miscellaneous
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Nomination of Dry Bones (character) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dry Bones (character) 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/Dry Bones (character) 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. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
attack page?
why did u warn me, i didnt do anything wrong. I was simply listing famous hangings in Russia.
Baozon90 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Baozon, thanks for getting back to me! When you created your article, you stated that "Vladimir Romanov serial killer was hanged", with this being the whole content of the article. This, by itself, is wholly negative, and not presented in a neutral point of view. As it was written, it disparages Vladimir Romanov, regardless of whether he was a good person or not (he was not). The key point to this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is perfectly fine to write about hangings in Russia, and I would suggest that if you would like to develop an article on this subject, you do it in the draft space. However, we cannot have pages that only serve to be negative about a person or a group of people, even if it could have been fixed in the future.
- If you think I am mistaken in my judgement, you may contest my speedy deletion, which will give you time to work on the article and improve it, so that it presents all information in a neutral point of view. Clicking on the link at Hanging in Russia to contest should restore your progress.
- Alternatively, here is a link to your article in draft space, at Draft:Hanging in Russia. Through this process, your article will be in a location where you can continue to work on your article for 6 months before publishing it for the world to see. Regardless, thanks for reaching out to me! Utopes (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Now that you have made your purpose clear for the article, even though this purpose was not presented as an article, I am fine with removing the CSD template. However, I am moving your article to draft space so that it can be properly tweaked so that readers aren't given the wrong message. With that being said, I would be happy to discuss with you how you can submit drafts on your talk page. Utopes (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Request on 10:29:27, 28 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by FabioNogarotto
Hello, I'm confused about the reasons of refusal.
I find other pages of similar musicians, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Cavallone that have even less sources or bibliography. I tried to follow such schema, providing even more details, to have my page accepted.
Could you please help me identify areas of improvement needed? Thank you!
FabioNogarotto (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @FabioNogarotto:, thanks for reaching out to me! I wanted to let you know that your sources are just fine, and were not the reason for your declination. While reliable sources are very necessary for a Wikipedia article, they are not the only criteria. It appears that your subject of Draft:Oronzo Persano isn't notable enough for Wikipedia's standards when compared to these criteria. For the example that you provided, Paolo Cavallone does meet these criteria. Here is an exerpt from the passage:
- Cavallone’s compositions, published by Rai Com, have been broadcast by Radio Rai, Radio New Zealand, Radio Capodistria, University Radio UFRGS (Brazil), and other radio stations. Cavallone’s works have been released on CDs by Albany Records, Tactus, GuitArt, Domani Musica, and Suono Sonda. Among the commissions received: Siemens Foundation (2011), Dilijan Music Series of Los Angeles (2006), Società Barattelli of L’Aquila (2007).
- Based on the information given, Cavallone has a wide area of influence, and he qualifies for these criteria that I mentioned earlier. When compared to Persano, all that is listed for prizes is the ""Il Sallentino" prize, 2011". Sadly, just receiving this prize alone with no other solid claims to notability does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Any other claim to notability, such as "Persano's musical compositions are played across Europe and all over the world.", are not supported. We can't have a Wikipedia article for every musician, so we need to have a standard that individuals must surpass to be fit for an article. Now, if notability can be established, then I would be happy to approve your article. The sources present are great for verification, but the notability of the subject is still in question. If that issue can be worked out, we'll be golden and this article should be published to mainspace. As long as that much is clear, good luck with your search! Utopes (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Afc: Johnathan Brownlee has been accepted
Many thanks, Utopes, for your review and actions on this article, and I appreciate your welcome to the community!
I saw that another editor, One15969, put the COI tag back in; so I requested on their talk page that they undo that change, but they have not responded to my latest message.
(I reviewed the "Learn how and when to remove this template message" and I think possibly this reviewer doesn't understand that "Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently.")
Since this editor said they agree there is no bias and would not complain if another editor removes the tag, would you mind undoing their addition of the COI tag that you had already removed?
Thank you again, Utopes, for your help with this article! It was my first, and I've learned so much since then!
For your reference, here is my conversation with One15969:
Johnathan Brownlee COI Removal Request
Hello, One15969, I see that the COI has been added back to this recently reviewed and approved article, and I have a question about having it removed again. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community, but it was my understanding that the COI flag is intended to ensure that the article is thoroughly reviewed for a neutral point of view, which it was by the reviewer, Utopes. Is it possible for you to review the article as well, and to remove the flag, if you determine that it complies with the Wikimedia content policies? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi MBAWilbins - That's not my understanding of the tag, although you did the correct thing and submitted it through AfC. As it says at WP:COI, "Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." The COI tag is not there to show that there is a bias (there isn't in my opinion), but simply that a major contributor to the article has a COI. This is one of the reasons that COI editing is strongly discouraged. If another editor, without COI, removes the tag, I won't complain about it, but my interpretation of COI is that it should stay. Feel free to ask other editors, or an admin, or even post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE. Onel5969 TT me 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, One15969, When I was advised on the earliest drafts by the first editor, AngusWoof, his comment was that the COI tag was on "until a neutral editor has scrubbed the article". Utopes is a neutral editor with no COI who checked all of the citations and wrote, "Checked every source, and the article appears to be neutral, as claims are referenced. Removing COI tag." Because of that, could you please go back in and undo your addition of the tag? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
MBAWilbins (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hey MBAWilbins, and thanks for reaching out to me! Hopefully you understand, but I believe that leaving the COI tag on is the best decision for this matter, and for the best interest of any potential readers. My full rationale is on Onel5969's talk page. Be sure to reach out to either of us if you have any further questions. (Or the Teahouse for a quicker response). Utopes (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Request on 16:07:07, 1 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wduprey33
Hi there,
Thanks so much for taking the time to review my submission (BerniePortal)--I would love any advice you have on how to make it sound more neutral to get accepted--this was my 3rd attempt and I'm stumped!
Whitney
Wduprey33 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Wduprey33:! Sorry that it took me ages to get back to you, I just knew that my response would take some time to compose, so I wanted to be free for a substantial period of time so that I could look over everything for you. Okay, so neutrality. That's really the biggest problem with this article; it reads like an advertisement. By this, I mean that the article presents its topic with unnecessary puffery than what should be in an encyclopedia article. Let's start off with the lead section.
"BerniePortal is an all-in-one cloud-based SaaS HRIS platform that allows small and mid-sized business owners to optimize HR and improve employee experiences."
Alright. The wording here seems promotional. I've bolded the exact phrases that really catch my eye for this. These all present this topic in a positive connotation, and "all-in-one" especially highlights this fact. In the beginning of the article, we just want to describe what BerniePortal is. It's a cloud-based SaaS HRIS platform that is designed for small and mid-sized business to improve employee experiences. While "optimizing human resources" is a feature of the platform, that is not the purpose of the platform. I do believe that it is included in a vain that the phrase would be included for marketing motives. I'm welcome to be wrong, but I read this as a collection of marketing power-words that would convince readers of Wikipedia to try the product. "Allows" implies that optimizing human resources and improving employee experience is only possible through BerniePortal, and by using the platform, these features are "allowed" to the readers. I will admit, I'm being overly critical of the lead sentence. This is the type of scrutiny that would be put onto a featured article, and this doesn't need to be perfect. But even then, take a look at the article for Facebook. That article does not use the term "allow" to describe what Facebook allows it's users. The only occurences of the term "allows" refers to what different features add to the whole package. But enough of that. Simply altering / removing the bolded words and phrases should make the lead acceptable. I'm only going into detail here to show why I picked the phrases that I did, but keep in mind that I myself am not an English professional either.
- (Editing note: I get that the article uses the word "allow" in the Society section to describe what Facebook allows people to do. But that's the point of a Society section.)
In full disclosure, the body paragraphs are all pretty clean. It mostly sticks to the facts, and this is a great part to list the features of the platform.
"Distributed through broker partners across the country, BerniePortal provides solutions for applicant tracking, onboarding, online benefits, PTO tracking, time & attendance, integrations, compliance, performance management, and 1094-C/1095-C reporting."
Who are the brokers mentioned? If there are many, are there examples that could be added? I'm only asking this to verify material in the article. If it can't be proven, then it shouldn't be listed, as this seems like an attempt to show the vast extent to which BerniePortal is distributed, when such claims are not referenced at this time. Additionally, there should not be any external links in the body of the article. Bluntly, the use of external links in this passage feels overdone, in an attempt to get readers to learn more about the platform from a first party source, which is not an appropriate source. I would recommend removing every external link, besides one at the end. Once again, this is a neutral article about the platform, not a means of promoting the platform to readers with links to learn more. A good article should educate the reader without needing to leave Wikipedia.
"Alex is an industry-recognized expert on HR technology, the benefits industry, small business operations and software development and staunchly believes that good software takes at least 10 years to create."
The source provided for this section does not show that Alex is an "industry-recognized expert". The information about his beliefs about good software is off-topic for BerniePortal. I would recommend cutting this sentence.
"The company’s mission is to be the world’s most trusted advisor when it comes to helping people plan for their healthcare." The mission statement should not be included in the body, if at all. While I can't stop anybody from keeping it here, this great essay talks about why it is best to avoid mission statements entirely. They are not usually encyclopedic, they don't add too much to the article, and they are not easily verifiable with third-party sources. So I would cut this sentence as well.
Well, that's my review! Sorry if it seems like I'm being overly critical; I was asked to go back through to find areas that needed improvement, so I did, and tried to elaborate each piece as frankly as possible. Regardless, good luck with your editing! Let me know if there's anything confusing that you need me or anybody else at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your help! I'll edit and then resubmit to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.2.5.237 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Utopes,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
AfC review request
Can you please review Draft:SSS Defence? I am asking since I am about to leave on a wikibreak. Thanks.— Vaibhavafro 💬 03:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Vaibhavafro: No problem! In fact, the review is now complete! Make sure you take a look at the changes that I left for you. I leave it up to you to add categories to the article. Have a nice break! Utopes (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Request on 02:17:07, 14 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by StarFremwell
- StarFremwell (talk · contribs)
What did you mean by "The first sentence also glorifies its subject, so I sense a conflict of interest present." I am new here and I have not been told this by Admins on Wikia Fandom. I would like some assistance.
StarFremwell (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @StarFremwell:, and welcome! I take it that you have edited on Fandom, which is a great introduction to editing! The main difference between content on Wikipedia and Fandom is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore, all of the articles must portray there subject in a neutral, fair, and unbiased manner. The subject of the article, the Castle of the Stars book, is described as a lavishly illustrated alternate history graphic novel series of fantasy and adventure. Who says the book is lavishly illustrated? While something like this may get away on Fandom, this is not a neutral interpretation of the subject. Additionally, the end of the sentence is boosted out of proportion. I would rewrite the sentence like this:
- "Castle in the Stars is a graphic novel series by Alex Alice."
- Hopefully you can see how this is more encyclopedic, and sticks strictly with the facts. Also, because I should mention it now, the rest of the article is a plot summary, which by itself is not very encyclopedic. Plot summaries would be fine if there was additional content present in the article, such as a Reception or an Impact section. With that being said, I do understand it is tough to transition from editing on Fandom to Wikipedia. (Our quality standards for publishing an article are generally harder to pass than for most Fandoms.) However, I believe that this article can be improved to meet the quality standards on Wikipedia. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Requesting for reconsideration
Hello Utopes greetings from Zimbabwe ,my name is Georgia the original contributor of this daft Diego Tryno ,Thank you for reviewing it ,i appreciate it, it has been long since i submitted it. I'm just a bit not sure about the reason for its rejection because all references on the article are from newspapers ,magazines and a book ,which to me qualifies to be independent. You also said He Does not meet the criteria for the notability of musicians.I made this article using criteria 1 and 12 ofSinger which from the references i saw him as qualified ,did you manage to go through all the references and external links? Maybe its the way i added the references that is not clear? because 10 newspaper and magazines articles about a person seems like enough for a person to qualify on Wikipedia since its encyclopedia to combine all that information in 1.I look forward to work with you until i do what's proper for this article.Cheers Georgiamarlins (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Georgiamarlins:, thank you for reaching out to me! The reason for rejection was not because of the lack of sources, but because there were not enough sources that demonstrated notability. You were correct in using the notability criteria for musicians when looking over the article. I see that you believe that your subject qualifies for criteria 1 and 12 for the notability of musicians? I will quote it here for reference:
- 1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."
- 12. "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."
- I do not believe that the sources provided are reliable and independent. Reliable, independent sources should be trustworthy locations for information that are not affiliated with the subject. To demonstrate what I mean, I will look at each source and comment on them.
- 1. A search engine, appears to be made up of user contributions. Cannot be reliable.
- 2. User generated content on a wiki. Cannot be reliable.
- 3. A YouTube video. I could also create a video about Diego Tryno, but it might not be very accurate. YouTube videos are usually not reliable sources of information.
- 4. The best source so far. I would use this in the article, but it doesn't appear to be enough. Talks about Tryno's songs rather than Tryno himself. There is a biographical paragraph near the very end, but this is a passing mention.
- 5. The subject's blog. Not independent.
- 6. Not about the subject, but about Ti Gonzi.
- 7. Radio station home-page. Works with the musicians. Cannot be reliable, and also doesn't cover the subject.
- 8. Radio station's website. Cannot be reliable. No information about the subject.
- 9. Corporate website. No information about the subject.
- 10. Corporate website. No information about the subject.
- 11. See WP:IMDb.
- 12. Gossip article, not reliable.
- 13. Interview with the subject, not independent.
- 14. Interview, not independent.
- 15. Gossip, not reliable.
- To put it simply, the necessary content is there. Source 4 is great, and is both reliable and independent. Because of this, I'm sure that this article can be promoted in the future. However, this one source didn't cover the subject in particular, but rather his work. That would boost the chance of an article being written about the song rather than the singer. But, I'm going off on a tangent. To stay back on task, you also suggested Criteria 12 for the notability for musicians. I don't believe that the subject meets Criteria 12 either because Tryno himself wasn't the featured subject of a broadcast segment, but rather his music was.
- Sorry if I came across as harsh; this reply took me about an hour to write. I do believe that the article can and will be promoted through dedication, and I would be happy to assist you through this process. However, I am going to ask a different reviewer to look at the article this time because I already had voted on it the first time. It will allow for more opinions to be raised over this article. With that being said, thanks once again for reaching out to me! Hopefully you gained some insight through this. Utopes (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes: greetings from Zimbabwe once again,Thank you very much for clarification ,i have much clarity on what to look for in sources now.To my knowledge
- Source 1 Search Zimbabwe Search Zimbabwe used to be a engine which combines information from all Zimbabwean sites ,so i had confidence in it but looks like it could be manipulated so thank you for that.However i added new sources to the draft and i hope they could make a difference,please look into them and i feel an urge to explain few other sources below
- Source 2 Pindula is Zimbabwean most reliable source of information because they do their own researches before accepting contributions from users, and its one site that no one could go with fake information because its easy to get the subject blocked from ever being added to the site because they work to provide authentic information for Zimbabweans and not every celebrity in Zimbabwe has a Pindula page,so you could see i had very much confidence in it.
- Source 3, advice accepted ,i don't know why i forgot we can't use youtube links
- Source 12 ,ZimmagazineThis is a multiple award winning magazine which is very notable in Zimbabwe and if we connect those points with pindula and the Zambezi magazine book that i also referenced you will see that the information is the same which makes it authentic Zimmagazine is mainly available on print and it only posts online articles of what is seen as important information.Explaining this may sound like im trying hard to favor this reference but i suppose since Wikipedia is a global thing we might have different perspectives on what is reliable or not because of our locations.
- Source 15 ,Lounge263 magazine , When i looked for references i only tried to look for them from magazines that has won awards before because there are many magazines online that posted about Diego Tryno but i doubted their reliability ,so i'm trying to say this magazine is almost the same with Zimmagazine ,they are reliable in Zimbabwe. We only have 4 Magazines considered to be reliable ,thus Zimmagazine ,focus Magazine ,Lounge263 Magazine and Harare Magazine so that gives me confidence that the information is not gossip but authentic.
- All that i mentioned above you can prove them by just google search about Zimbabwean authentic sources od information so that you can confirm everything im saying .
- The following are other links that proves that this guy have had a lot of coverage from Reliable sources ,i originally added them to external links but some are new
- 1 bulawayo24 This another news article from a very big newspaper which i just saw today ,so i added it to the sources.
- 2Oyos news This another big news site which i found today so i added it to the sources as well.
- 3 Blow Naija This is a nigerian magazine ,it hosted an interview with him ,which shows that he is popular to deserve a wikipedia page ,not promoting.
- 4 Lounge Magazine illuminat article This another article by Lounge magazine which i didn=t use its information because to me its a bit sensitive so i added it to external links so that another contributor could use it
- Most Zimbabweans Wikipedia articles don't have much sources as i tried to give in this article ,and i believe its because publications are a very few in Zimbabwe ,so i wil give the examples of articles here so that you could see for yourself . Alick Macheso Mr Aleck Macheso article only has 1 reference.Carol_Mujokoro Apart from her Itunes links which are not sources ,she has only 2 authentic references .Roki He has 2 references. Kikky_Badass Her sources are mainly interviews and mentions . My point being Zimbabweans may not have many sources but they get their articles and i believe if you look into it ,you will see that Diego is also worthy .
- All being said Sir ,i wish you could look into my new sources and changes i made to the article and also reconsider Pindula and the magazines because i do have much confidence in them. If you could kindly tell me the next step after reviewing my new sources i will be very grateful and if it happens that the article is approved ,maybe you could put a template that says more sources should be added to the article.My main aim is to contribute to Wikipedia representing Zimbabwean celebrities that doesn't have wikipedia pages. I surely hope i didn't use any tone that was disrespectful in any way and thank you for reading this long presentation of mine ,looking forward to keep in touch with you.Cheers! Georgiamarlins (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Georgiamarlins:, I wanted to start off by applauding you for the great work you have done with the references. The new references you added are much more suitable than the previous references! Additionally, thank you for letting me know about how the magazine was not just writing about gossip, but is a reliable source. The only issue that I find with this topic is notability, but I feel like have this discussion has proven the notability of the subject, so I will be cleaning up the article for publication. (WP:SINGER criteria 1) However, I would still like to ping @Theroadislong:, another editor who looked at this article, to check over my work to make sure that notability is established. I personally feel that it has been proven that there are reliable, independent sources that show significant coverage of the subject. Thank you for the work you have put into improvement Georgiamarlins! Have a great day, Utopes (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes:, greetings once again from Zimbabwe , i appreciate your time and your devotion to helping other contributors and i appreciate your reconsideration, in that same spirit i hope i will learn more from you because after this article ,i'm submitting a new one ,i have decided to have 1 article at a time ,so i appreciate your availability to help. The Editor Theroadislong mentioned to me the last time we talked that he will wait for another editor to make a decision and it was probably because he was not sure about the references as well and since that time you are the editor who made interest in the article again ,so i do hope he will reply but if he doesn't just know he had put the article in the hands of other editors .That being said have a awesome weekend .Cheers. Georgiamarlins (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes:, my greetings from Zimbabwe. I have noticed that we waited for the reply of the reviewer Theroadislong for 5 days now and he hasn't responded. I presented my case to him when he asked me to explain how the subject meets singer and after our discussion he said he will wait for another reviewer to look at it,in my own interpretation it might have meant that you as the other reviewer ,you have the last say on this article ,here is my discussion with him and his last response https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&direction=next&oldid=922543345 .So what i'm saying is maybe he didn't reply or respond because he doesn't want to be part of it anymore.
- I also found a new reference from a foreign newspaper and i added it to the article ,here is the new reference StorifyNews ,i believe this article also proves his notability because the first parts of the article was about him.I'm sorry if i appear to be impatient, its just my excitement ,to have my first article up and to finally say i contributed something on Wikipedia.Happy Friday to you. Georgiamarlins (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey there! I don't know all the details about Theroadislong's non-response. However, there was ample time for him to take action, so I'm fine with skipping that step. Still, the draft is still not resubmitted at Article for Creation, so there isn't anything I can do until then. Have a great weekend! Utopes (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes:, greetings from South Africa , firstly i want to apologize,this must be the longest discussion you must have had on your talk page and i do apologize ,i'm still learning so it's pretty hard for me to do everything at once ,without taking much time ,for instance i didn't know that i have to resubmit the article first for you to take action on it ,my apologies Sir.I have resubmitted the article and it's now pending review.I really thank you for your patience,its a rare quality that most reviewers don't have,and you have made me a better editor as well.Happy Monday to you!Georgiamarlins (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Sir @Utopes:,greetings from Zimbabwe,i was just checking if you still remember me but i also noticed you haven't been active as well ,i hope all is well,just a bit worried now i hope you are fine. Happy new month ,stay blessed.Georgiamarlins (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Georgiamarlins: Hello again! I had been on Thanksgiving vacation for the last several days, so I did not have a chance to edit Wikipedia. I have now cleaned up the article in preparation to approve of it. Cheers, and have a great holiday season! Utopes (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Sir @Utopes:,greetings from Zimbabwe,i was just checking if you still remember me but i also noticed you haven't been active as well ,i hope all is well,just a bit worried now i hope you are fine. Happy new month ,stay blessed.Georgiamarlins (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes:, greetings from South Africa , firstly i want to apologize,this must be the longest discussion you must have had on your talk page and i do apologize ,i'm still learning so it's pretty hard for me to do everything at once ,without taking much time ,for instance i didn't know that i have to resubmit the article first for you to take action on it ,my apologies Sir.I have resubmitted the article and it's now pending review.I really thank you for your patience,its a rare quality that most reviewers don't have,and you have made me a better editor as well.Happy Monday to you!Georgiamarlins (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey there! I don't know all the details about Theroadislong's non-response. However, there was ample time for him to take action, so I'm fine with skipping that step. Still, the draft is still not resubmitted at Article for Creation, so there isn't anything I can do until then. Have a great weekend! Utopes (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Sir @Utopes:, greetings once more from Zimbabwe ,its kinda a relief seeing you back active ,hope you had a nice holiday.I saw what you did to the article , i must confess i feel like a amateur like never before ,the way you arranged everything and got rid of some things only takes a bit of experience which i'm still lacking. I came across an article about the subject in today's newguard paper ,i had to rush online to see if i can find a link and here is what i got http://newsguard.co.zw/2019/12/02/manicaland-artiste-defies-odds/ , i added it to the article under early life but i feel like maybe i could have positioned it better,please do look into it.Good to have you back ,Happy holidays.Cheers! Georgiamarlins (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Sir @Utopes: Greetings from Zimbabwe ,just in case my previous response passed you by any chance ,i have resubmitted the article and i have added extra sources and fixed a lot .Its now waiting your review.Please notify me if there is still more i can do ,i will keep adding new information when i find any.Hopefully you will spare few minutes of your time to look into it .Thank you and happy holidays!Georgiamarlins (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello once again @Georgiamarlins:, and thank you. I am very sorry that you had to wait for me this whole time to review your article. I have been very busy this month, so I decided to take a break from Wikipedia so that I could get situations sorted out in my life away from the computer. In the end, I left you hanging here waiting for me, so you have my deepest apologies. However, I finally was able to return, and I made sure that your article would be the first for me to review. In the end, I decided to pass it into mainspace, just in time for the holidays! Thank you for sticking with this article for as long as you did; it speaks volumes to your dedication, and I'm thrilled to have worked with you. I'll admit, I was skeptical in the beginning that you might have a connection with the subject, but together we established this subject's notability, and I will defend it if it is at risk ever in the future. Have a great holiday season, and have a happy New Year! Utopes (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Sir @Utopes: Greetings from Zimbabwe ,just in case my previous response passed you by any chance ,i have resubmitted the article and i have added extra sources and fixed a lot .Its now waiting your review.Please notify me if there is still more i can do ,i will keep adding new information when i find any.Hopefully you will spare few minutes of your time to look into it .Thank you and happy holidays!Georgiamarlins (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Utopes:, greetings once again from Zimbabwe , i appreciate your time and your devotion to helping other contributors and i appreciate your reconsideration, in that same spirit i hope i will learn more from you because after this article ,i'm submitting a new one ,i have decided to have 1 article at a time ,so i appreciate your availability to help. The Editor Theroadislong mentioned to me the last time we talked that he will wait for another editor to make a decision and it was probably because he was not sure about the references as well and since that time you are the editor who made interest in the article again ,so i do hope he will reply but if he doesn't just know he had put the article in the hands of other editors .That being said have a awesome weekend .Cheers. Georgiamarlins (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Georgiamarlins:, I wanted to start off by applauding you for the great work you have done with the references. The new references you added are much more suitable than the previous references! Additionally, thank you for letting me know about how the magazine was not just writing about gossip, but is a reliable source. The only issue that I find with this topic is notability, but I feel like have this discussion has proven the notability of the subject, so I will be cleaning up the article for publication. (WP:SINGER criteria 1) However, I would still like to ping @Theroadislong:, another editor who looked at this article, to check over my work to make sure that notability is established. I personally feel that it has been proven that there are reliable, independent sources that show significant coverage of the subject. Thank you for the work you have put into improvement Georgiamarlins! Have a great day, Utopes (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- All being said Sir ,i wish you could look into my new sources and changes i made to the article and also reconsider Pindula and the magazines because i do have much confidence in them. If you could kindly tell me the next step after reviewing my new sources i will be very grateful and if it happens that the article is approved ,maybe you could put a template that says more sources should be added to the article.My main aim is to contribute to Wikipedia representing Zimbabwean celebrities that doesn't have wikipedia pages. I surely hope i didn't use any tone that was disrespectful in any way and thank you for reading this long presentation of mine ,looking forward to keep in touch with you.Cheers! Georgiamarlins (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
World Water Congress
Hi @Utopes,
Thank you for reviewing the "World Water Congress" article, which I resubmitted last July and it has been waiting for approval for 4 months or so.
It's difficult for me to understand why it has not been accepted to be honest. It was stated "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources... Independent sources are required". As you can imagine, this comes as very surprising and strange to me, particularly since we waited 4 months or so, and I've carefully reviewed all sources, even added 3 independent and big organisation ones (UNESCO Free Flow, OECD and FAO) to the last published article that was brought down after 6 months of not being updated, and worked towards a more neutral, less bias article.
These were the last sources used:
This said, can you let me know if you can reconsider and approve my article per your good judgement? I'll welcome this very much!
Thanks in advance, I appreciate your help, and have a good weekend,
IDeregibus (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)IgnacioIDeregibus (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC) (~~Ignacio~~)
- Hey there @IDeregibus:, thanks for reaching out! I went ahead and took a closer look at the sources in the meantime, because I feel like I could have made the wrong decision here. I wanted to point out now that you are correct; there are suitable references present. However, most of the references in this article are not independent sources. References 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not reliable sources, as they were not written by unbiased authors. However, after looking into the publishers, I can confirm that references 1, 6, and 7 are all recaps of the events, which are written by suitable, reliable sources. Thank you for reaching out to me, or else I never would have taken a second look. I will be moving the first-party sources to the external links section. Utopes (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for this detailed answer and having a closer look. However, I'm very confused. If there are suitable references present and it was accepted previously and then brought down due to lack of activity within 6 months, why can't you just put back again and I'll update it with the references you mentioned are fine (1, 6 and 7)? You also mentioned you would be moving the first-party sources to the external links sections, but I can't find the article online nor this section. Where is it? Please kindly reconsider to put back again the article as it was published originally. I'll update it with the new references you accepted. Thank you and I highly appreciate your help and good guidance Utopes. Cheers, ~~Ignacio~~ IDeregibus (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)IDeregibusIDeregibus (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @IDeregibus:, your article is located here in the draftspace at Draft:World Water Congress. Listing the article at Articles for Creation is not my responsibility as a reviewer. I wanted to give you time to look at what I had to say, my opinion on the references, and make any final evaluations before resubmitting it to Articles for Creation. Your article was deleted the first time because it was a draft article that had not been edited in six months. It has never been approved. I did move the first-party sources to the external links; however, be aware that there are far too many external links at this point, so I will leave the decision to you if you would like to delete some that are not relevant. Thank you for understanding, Utopes (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for this detailed answer and having a closer look. However, I'm very confused. If there are suitable references present and it was accepted previously and then brought down due to lack of activity within 6 months, why can't you just put back again and I'll update it with the references you mentioned are fine (1, 6 and 7)? You also mentioned you would be moving the first-party sources to the external links sections, but I can't find the article online nor this section. Where is it? Please kindly reconsider to put back again the article as it was published originally. I'll update it with the new references you accepted. Thank you and I highly appreciate your help and good guidance Utopes. Cheers, ~~Ignacio~~ IDeregibus (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)IDeregibusIDeregibus (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |