User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2019/May
 | This page 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. |
Welcome!
|
AIV
Why would you revert someone's edits as "good faith" and then report them for vandalism? It can't be both! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hi! I was actually about to post on your talk page about this. I reverted it as good faith because I didn't check the edit history and see that the account had made the same change three times already. I saw you reverted one of my reverts as well. I agree that normally it wouldn't be advertising...but that account has been adding a similar section to a whole lot of rail-related pages, as well as removing some content harmful to Thales. Under the circumstances, that looks a lot like advertising (plus COI) to me, thus the revert of that and other edits. Creffett (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, a Thales Group employee (and there's probably a lot of them - they've done work on High Speed 1 and equivalent projects all over the world) is claiming that something cited to a reliable sources is wrong. Situations like that require tact and care, not wading in like a bull in a china shop and reverting left right and centre. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I understand what you're saying, but a Thales Group employee making the changes they did is still COI, and it still doesn't change the fact that that user added advertising to 30+ pages. I freely admit I could have dealt with this better (not hitting AGF without checking contribution history, posting more messages on the talk page of the account in question, maybe letting an admin handle the mass reversion if they decided it was problematic), and I'll try to remember that for next time.
War Raiders being The Viking experience
Please tell me why I am gonna be "blocked" for doing my job I wanna know. I really don't like how wiki guys like you abuse your power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.112.55 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @74.68.112.55: That was a mistake on my part - I meant to select "unsourced," not "vandalism." If you're going to change names on the page like that, please provide a citation.
List of No.1 Hits and link to Spotify
Hi Creffett, Just wondering how you see linking to Spotify as " promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox""? As Spotify is the ONLY source that I know of online to legally listen to music without owning it, I though a link for a reader of the Wiki page to use to hear the music would be useful. Is that promotional? Does that promote Spotify? Yes. But does referencing an artical in the "The Wall Street Journal" promote the "Wall Street Journal" ? The same goes for your charge of Advertising. Because I say the music is on Spotify, are you implying that is Advertising? And finally your charge of "soapbox". This list of songs were the hits in Ireland for a certain year. That is fact. The playlist in Spotify is a factual list of songs that were hits in Ireland for a certain year with a note saying what ones are not available on Spotify. There is no expression of opinions been made here. They are all facts. That is not my understanding of "soapbox".
On reviewing the Editing Guidelines, the only Editing Guideline that can be applied to this link to Spotify is "external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided". WP:ELREG So if you are going to use an Editing Guideline to remove my edit, please use an appropriate one. But in my defense I would say that Spotify is the only legal source I know of that I can use to link to the music.
regards, Gerard. Gkeena (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Gkeena: (cc @Mild Bill Hiccup: since you got the same post) That was a canned message, so not all of it applies (particularly the term "soapbox"). My opinion here is that it's not appropriate to be linking to Spotify playlists, just because linking to the music isn't a "source" per se - it doesn't contribute any facts to the article. There's no notability or verifiability because it's just a playlist somebody put together (which can change at the creator's whim), so it probably would fall under the spirit of the fansite prohibition and WP:YT. As for it being promotional, I would argue that it is inherently promotional since it's linking to content you created. Adding WSJ wouldn't be promotional itself, but it would definitely be promotional if you were the author of the work. If you disagree with my assessment, by all means bring it up at WP:Help Desk or other appropriate forum. creffett (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- For clarification, I don't think all Spotify content is problematic. Links to individual albums or artist pages for example, seems fine to me, same with links to Spotify blog posts and news. If there had been an official album of Irish number one singles of (year), then sure, linking to that would have been fine. It's just user-created playlists that I have an issue with. creffett (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very good explanation, and correct on all counts. Thanks.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- For clarification, I don't think all Spotify content is problematic. Links to individual albums or artist pages for example, seems fine to me, same with links to Spotify blog posts and news. If there had been an official album of Irish number one singles of (year), then sure, linking to that would have been fine. It's just user-created playlists that I have an issue with. creffett (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Why you see Aamir Hussain as a promotion
Hi Creffett, I have added the link in external links of a renowned university where you can see that he is famous and also the link of his comapny which is also famous. arslion 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arslion (talk • contribs)
Why you see George Edosomwan as a promotion
Hi Creffett, Good day! would like to ask if how you see George Edosomwan page as a promotion. although I am paid to do it. I make sure that that is not fall under promotion and the purpose only of creating a page for him is to give awareness about who and what george is because he is a entrepreneur with regards to blockchain world and to give his client an assurance that he is not a scammer thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejr6 (talk • contribs)
- @Georgejr6: That's pretty much the definition of promotion - you're telling people good things about your client to make him look good, and he is paying you to do that. If he qualified as notable, that would be one thing, but your submission did not do anything to establish notability. creffett (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Creffett: Thank you for the information. that is not the intended thing that my clients wants. all he is want is to have a presence in the wikipedia so that if someone wants to know about him. they can already search it through world wide web and wikipedia. because in blockchain industry assurance is rare and traders search for the info of the team relatings to that project did want too invest with. if it is okay may I ask for your input so that if I going to draft again I will have a non bias and suit to the taste of being a contributor thank you again
- @Georgejr6: I really can't help you, he does not seem to be notable and the fact that (according to your user page) he's paying you means that you're inherently writing from a biased perspective and you're trying to promote him. I expect pretty much any article you write on him to be marked as promotional and deleted. If you really want to write an article anyway, you could ask for advice at the help desk, but I expect that they'll say the same thing I have. creffett (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Point Of View
Just wondering, is using a non-neutral POV ever warranted on Wikipedia?
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft: The Rug Republic
Hi!
We were actually about to post on your talk page about this. Our Draft: The Rug Republic was nominated for Speedy deletion by you. We did all the possible check the edits before published it and the account had made the same change three times already. I don't understand how to publish this page, I am first time user of Wikipedia and trying to publish my companies page and I tried the same thing multiple times. If there is something wrong on our page please help us to make the necessary changes accordingly. I assure you that we are not promoting a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view, we are just trying to create a page to publish our companies success stories and growth, which help us to grow and people can easily get to know about us. Please help us!
One more thing I would like to know, why my page nominated for Speedy Deletion? Whether it is content I have mentioned or the images I have used in the content. Please explain and suggest me to make the necessary changes accordingly. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalik.1705 (talk • contribs)
- @Amalik.1705: There's a few different issues going on here. First of all, you said "I assure you that we are not promoting a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view, we are just trying to create a page to publish our companies success stories and growth." Publishing your company's success stories and growth is pretty much the definition of promotional - you're adding details about your company to make it look good. Wikipedia has pretty strong rules about that sort of promotion, and creating or editing your own company's page is a textbook example of a conflict of interest. Second, even if you weren't representing the company in question, the page didn't say anything that made the company seem notable, and that's the standard for Wikipedia. Last, I notice that you're saying "we" a lot, which suggests that your account is being shared. That's also not allowed, per Wikipedia account policy. If there is in fact more than one person editing with this account, that's pretty much a guaranteed block, so I would advise not doing that. If there is just one of you, then disregard that warning.
- Basically, the page was nominated for speedy deletion because it was only promotional and wasn't content that belongs in an encyclopedia. If you do think your company is notable and should have an article, you need to disclose your conflict of interest (I posted a message about that on your talk page) first. Beyond that, there are suggestions here about how to handle edits as someone with a conflict of interest. I can't help with the specific edits since I don't see why the company is notable, but I recommend you look at all of the Wikipedia policies I've linked to get a better idea of what's expected and what would make a good article.
- One last note: remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. creffett (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Creffett: Hi, I got your point, first I would like to say that I am the only user (editor) of this account and I am not sharing this account with anyone. Second, I would like to know that I have edited a new article but it is showing in Draft and there is one more below the Draft is "'From a page move:' This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." what should I do, please help me out? How to send this page for review? 10:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Amalik.1705 (talk)
- @Amalik.1705: I'm not really sure how to help with that, I recommend asking at the help desk. creffett (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Giving warnings
If you are going to warn a user about vandalism, as you did here, you should also revert the edit(s) in question. After I reverted the IP user's edits, I went to the user's talk page to give that user a warning, but found you had left a warning. - Donald Albury 21:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Never mind, I now see that my revert did not work because the IP user 206.78.213.57 had self-reverted, and there was no change to revert. The inserted "hi" I was trying to revert was by a previous user, and I was able to undo that edit. Note, though, that since the user 206.78.213.57 had self-reverted, I would consider that pair of edits a test, and not vandalism. - Donald Albury 21:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: All right, I'll try to remember that in the future. Thanks for letting me know! creffett (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Patrick magee
I assume you talking about link to my web page - I trying to link self to my fathers Page (patrick magee) and my husbands page (john napier designer) but I think I have to have wiki page.?
Other edits on my fathers page are to correct the many errors.
Pls advise Carolinemcgee (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Carolinemcgee: A few issues here:
- You shouldn't be editing your father's or husband's Wikipedia pages, since that's a textbook conflict of interest.
- The links you added were just to your website as a whole instead of a particular page, which a) doesn't tell us what part of the website actually supports that claim, and b) looks a lot like spam (since at first glance a website about Pilates doesn't seem relevant to either of those people).
- Your personal website is not a reliable source.
- I'd recommend reading up on the conflict of interest guidelines in particular before making any more edits, since that's something Wikipedia takes very seriously. creffett (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Patrick magee
So how do you get errors corrected... there are so many fundamental ones? Carolinemcgee (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Carolinemcgee: Disclose your relationship and then make edit requests on the talk pages. Make sure your changes are sourced (and "I'm related to this person and know this" is not a source). creffett (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
Technical news
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
I read the guidelines carefully before posting and tried to follow them
Hi Creffett,
I did read the guidelines, and that's why I preceded what I wrote in my user profile with COI, as directed. In my "article," which isn't really an article, just referencing my user profile, I asked that someone review the material to make sure it fits the guidelines and is not self-promotional.
I created POV in 1988, and it's now in its 32nd season, having won multiple broadcast awards, including an upcoming Peabody Award for a film I programmed in 1991. I leave it to you to decide whether that merits an article.Marcnweiss (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for your anti-vandal work. It is appreciated. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC) |
- @Dreamy Jazz: Thank you! Happy to help out. creffett (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Blip (Company) Draft
Hi Creffett, I would like access to the draft I was working on so I can fix the issues that weren't in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serprise (talk • contribs)
Speedy deletion of Exile Content
Good day, I just wanted to explain the relevance of the entry. The company is the Spanish language arm of Endeavor Content, a subsidiary of Endeavor (formerly William Morris Endeavor). In the world of talent representation, Endeavor is a global leader and part of a conglomerate that represents some of the most important talents in the world. (Gael García, Javier Bardem, Guillermo del Toro for example). There is a changing ecosystem in the industry that has become disrupted by the competitivity of the streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu and Wikipedia is not up to date. I was looking to update several Wikipedia entries to more accurately describe the industry. For Exile Content, in particular, I believe it was relevant because the founders are at the top of the industry and already have entries in Wikipedia. I would like to know what you think. Thank you. Calfaro (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Calfaro: Unfortunately, since the article was deleted, I can't pull it up to see exactly why I thought it was non-notable. I understand what you're saying about the importance of the company, but I'm not sure that what you've described necessarily meets Wikipedia notability standards. I recommend reviewing WP:NCORP for the notability standards - in particular, WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." To stand on its own, the corporation must meet the five major standards for corporate notability:
- significant coverage in
- multiple
- independent,
- reliable
- secondary sources.
- A quick Google search on my part did turn up a couple of articles (in Vanity and Deadline, but I'm hesitant to call them significant coverage since they seemed more like articles about Isaac Lee (who happens to be in charge of the company) than about the company itself. Granted, if the company is the Spanish arm of Endeavor, then I'm probably missing some Spanish-language sources. If you think that you can find sources to meet the notability standards, then by all means go ahead and recreate the page (or request an undeletion, see WP:UDP - since this was a speedy deletion rather than deletion-via-discussion, I believe it's reasonable for you to ask to undelete the article to make improvements). Alternatively, if you don't think there are sources like that out there, you could probably add some more detail about the company to Isaac Lee's page, in accordance with the rules at WP:FAILCORP. Hope this helps! creffett (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Daniel Thomas Hall
Please could you explain why this page was deleted?
I put a significant amount of time and effort into the research of the draft. I am continuing to work on it and validate the information.
I find it very unfair that it has been deleted. Danielwood82 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Danielwood82: From what I can reconstruct of the draft, it was about an entirely non-notable subject (see WP:NBIO), had almost no sources (see WP:RS), was very promotional (long list of non-noteworthy awards and extra roles). Also, given the details in the article (obscure high school "most likely to" awards, thoughts on religion and politics, detailed information on early life) it appeared to be a vanity page written by the subject or someone close to the subject, which usually is promotional enough to merit speedy deletion under WP:G11 (and runs afoul of the rules at WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI). If I'm mistaken about your relationship to the subject I apologize, but even without the conflict of interest it read as blatantly promotional and non-noteworthy. creffett (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Saudi German Hospital Dubai
Hello Creffett, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Saudi German Hospital Dubai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Understood, I tagged it as G11 because I saw that it had been re-created after it was previously deleted under G11 (and I had tagged it last time). Apparently I was a little trigger-happy this time - it's much less promotional than the previous draft. Will try to be more careful about that next time. creffett (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for having another look. It's not that the page isn't promotional or even unduly promotional, but it's not unambiguously promotional. If you still think it should be deleted, you should try miscellany for deletion. The articles for creation process should deal with it one way or the other within a few weeks anyway. Thanks! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)