User talk:Devonian Wombat/Archive 1

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Devonian Wombat! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you! Bearian (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brendan Edwards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Hale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kyron Hayden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page News Corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Need your help

Your !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Goenka (2nd nomination) isn't currently visible because my earlier comment had an invisible comment which wasn't closed properly (I know its stupid of me). Could you please remove the <!--Typle below this line> right above the relist temp. If I do it then, your comment will be subst by my signature. - hako9 (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

hako9, I'm afraid I just attempted to do it only to find I probably shouldn't remove it either, if I do that I am shown as the person who relisted the discussion instead of the person who actually did the relist. I have gone ahead and temporarily removed my !vote, so hopefully Spartaz can remove the line without problems. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the !vote temporarily. I am going ahead and removing the invisible comment anyway with the disclosure that I wasn't the one who relisted (as evidenced by the edit history). Shouldn't be a big deal. You can reinstate your !vote now. - hako9 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your extensive contribution to Wikipedia and always being a great user to see in my watchlist. - Jon698 talk 19:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

this edit summary certainly seems to hold a sense that my edit was done in malice or bad faith. That is not the case and I resent the implication. Was wanting to try and mimic the format used at List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements. That's all. Rusted AutoParts 04:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-14.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Hospitals

@Devonian Wombat: Thank your for your edits on Canadian hospitals. We have a WikiProject Hospitals, in case you are interested in joining or just using the resources we have made available. We are using a metrics based approach to improving Wikipedia content on hospitals. -- Talk to G Moore 14:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Adopt Me! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adopt Me! 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/Adopt Me! 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. MaxandRubyPeppaBlueyCuriousGeorgeFan2.0 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Devonian Wombat, thank you for reviewing the article Earl Ankrah which I submitted. However, when i do a google search I do not see the page up. is there any reason why it is so? kindly help out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagefour (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Pagefour, that sort of stuff isn't really my forte, but I can say from personal experience it takes a while for Google to index the article and show it where Wikipedia articles are normally shown. The Teahouse is better for these types of questions, the folks over there know more than me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Roblox § Should Roblox Studio be in bold?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roblox § Should Roblox Studio be in bold?. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Half Barnstar!

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded for your willingness to work towards an article we can both be proud of after our initial argument upon me getting involved.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from Marseille, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Highest median rules

Dear Devonian Wombat, you rejected my submission of Highest median voting rules on the ground that it does not look like an encyclopedic article, but I do not understand what it is so. I believe the topic is highly relevant as it covers a class of voting rules that is absent from wikipedia, generalizing from the Majority judgment, which is only the rule represented on wikipedia within this class (although it is said not to have the best properties among this class). Could you provide me more specific insights to improve the article, so its submission can be accepted? Anon86461 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Anon86461, Specifically, the article engages in promotional language with this quote: "In addition to faithfully reflecting the voter's opinion, highest median rules satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives and do not fall within the scope of Arrow's impossibility theorem.[1]" That's a pretty promotional statement, rewording it to something like "Proponents of highest median rules state that it faithfully reflects the voter's opinion, and that they satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives and do not fall within the scope of Arrow's impossibility theorem" along with adding a negative view of Highest median voting in order to meet WP:NPOV, there are also large chunks of the article which are uncited, and the "definitions and notations" section reads somewhat confusingly, I quite frankly didn't understand what it was trying to say. I was admittedly a bit harsh, so clean up a couple of the problems and you should be good to go. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed response. I have applied your suggestions and I reckon that the article has improved a lot. I hope it will now be accepted. Anon86461 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Life and Liberty Party

There is a clear consensus on the talk page to include the Life and Liberty Party on the talk page of the 2020 US Presidential Election third party candidates page, your reversion goes against that consensus. Please refrain from doing so again.XavierGreen (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen, no, there is currently a 3-2 tally in your favour, given Tartan previously stated his support for the notability criteria. Please, next time you want to make a change actually have a proper discussion instead of using a backally agreement to make changes. Since there was no discussion and even the discussion you had did not actually arrive at a consensus, you cannot legitimately make those changes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:Devonian Wombat reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: Declined). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:37:14, 13 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Garrettdcole

• Garrettdcole (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Crystalline Coatings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, thank you for taking the time to review the draft crystalline coatings page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystalline_Coatings). I made the necessary corrections to the embedded and external links as you pointed out. I also apologize for this coming across as an advertisement, that was not my aim at all. I did my best to support all stated technical capabilities with links to published articles. This technology has been vetted in the literature with publications in Science, Nature, Nature Physics, Nature Photonics (x2), and so on... If you can make a pass and revise the points that you find most problematic that would be much appreciated. There is a very detailed write up here that I was aiming to summarize (and update with new and more recent citations). Or please highlight specific sections and send back to me to correct. I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, but many moons ago I added contact to the VCSEL and semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) entries without issue.

I would claim that this is a a timely topic, there have not been much new in the way of optical coatings technologies developed for the last 30-40 years, this is the first new manufacturing method then in a generation...

Garrettdcole (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian and DLC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting attention

Hi,

It seems you came across and edited article Regensburg lecture. I would like to bring to your attention that the earlier edits to the article by ip 89.211.117.211 seemed doubtful to me. I reported on Wikipedia:Editor assistance and subsequently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents too but strangely enough no body seems to have bothered. And I don't know what needs to be further action.

Since you have visited article and you are an experienced editor you may be knowing processes better so bringing the same to your attention. Bookku (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku:, well generally the first thing to do is to raise the issue on the IP's talk page, they seem like they're trying to help and letting them know that you have an issue with what they're doing is probably the best thing to do right now. If they don't reply, then maybe you could go to AN/I again, but I would personally recommend simply fixing the content you disagree with, and only going to AN/I if the IP reverts you and refuses to talk. Since they haven't edited since September, I'd say you probably won't have to worry about them reverting you though. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Solar System invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to Earth. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the backup

for what it's worth. Next week is going to be brutal.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Trouting myself

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Hi! When closing AFDs as redirect, please (a) consider removing backlinks to the article (b) tag files as non-used unfree images when applicable (c) reassess the page as redirect-class on its talk page. Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Request on 20:41:29, 16 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Bengals93

• Bengals93 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Athens College of Ministry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon!

I wanted to reach out because I recently submitted a draft page titled "Athens College of Ministry" that you declined. You cited that there were not secondary sources to acknowledge the titled subject, Athens College of Ministry. I wanted to see if I could receive assistance with this in getting this page published as it seems that there is plenty of material in the local Athens area that has mentioned the Athens College of Ministry. I will include a few sources that I found just from a simple google search. I'll be happy to answer any questions and look forward to hopefully receiving assistance with this (I'm a first time editor). Thank you!

Mentions of Athens College of Ministry that I found (this list is not exhaustive): https://www.chea.org/athens-college-ministry https://marketersmedia.com/athens-college-of-ministry-stays-true-to-calling-in-face-of-challenges/396402 http://www.oconeecountyobservations.org/2019/12/oconee-commissioners-approve-request-by.html https://patch.com/georgia/oconee/life-church-athens-allowed-withdraw-application-permit https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/athens-college-of-ministry,271288541/ https://flagpole.com/news/in-the-loop/2017/01/17/a-bible-college-wants-to-build-its-campus-on-an-old-oconee-county-golf-course/ https://www.livinghopeathens.org/discipleship https://www.smithplanninggroup.com/athens-college-of-ministry https://www.guidestar.org/profile/27-1288541 http://www.oconeeenterprise.com/news/article_3b837b48-6cf7-11e5-baf7-5b52d24a0146.html http://www.oconeeenterprise.com/news/article_997422be-0bb5-11ea-bf10-33860fd83bd4.html

-Alex, username Bengals93

Bengals93 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bengals93, good job on finding sources, add them into the article and you should have no trouble getting it accepted. Good Luck! Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

MICHAEL REEVES DRAFT

I want to acknowledge that you approved my Michael Reeves article draft and approved it then got it created. But shortly after, another editor by the name of Delta fiver reverted your approval and made the article a draft again. I just wanna know of the hierarchy in the Articles for creation reviewers and how approved articles get reverted by others. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nintendoswitchfan: Any editor who is autoconfirmed can move an article to draftspace per WP:BOLD, though if it is unjustified they could get in trouble. Quite frankly I think Delta fiver is wrong. I would encourage you to simply move it to article space yourself, or submit it for review again, since from what I can see Delta fiver was incorrect in their assertions that the article did not prove notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I see how opinions can differ a lot. Delta Fiver said he had the same experience with me with his Fedmyster article and said I just have to keep adding more information of notability. You could discuss with him in his talk page if you feel that he should not have reverted the article's approval. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

13_Cameras should definitely not have been accepted.

In it's current state, I could AFD it, and is only saved from CSD A7 due to the fact there's no A7 for movies. Kindly move it back. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: No, reviews in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times clearly indicate notability. I have cleaned up the article somewhat, adding some more information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Cite format

This edit italicized sources which should not be italicized. They were fine. This is happening in many of your edits. Please fix this. -- Valjean (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: No, per Template:Cite web#Publisher, whether we use "work", "publisher" or "website" is entirely up to editing discretion, and CITEVAR says we should stick with what it was originally, which was work. Therefore, without a talk page discussion I feel that is what should be upheld. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Sources like PBS, NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, etc. should not be italicized. Save that for newspapers and magazines. The end result is the most important thing. When in doubt, look at the article for the source and see how it's done there. -- Valjean (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Point me to a policy that says we should follow article italicisation in references and I will relent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. The source title is italicized or not italicized in their article because we have manual of style guidelines for such things. They are not done haphazardly. So when in doubt, it's just easy to figure it out by looking at the article. -- Valjean (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I found this:

Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof:

• Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers, journals, magazines, epic poems, plays, television programs or series, radio shows, comics and comic strips. Medium of publication or presentation is not a factor; a video feature only released on video tape, disc or the Internet is considered a "film" for these purposes, and so on. (See WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for details.)

Source: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles

-- Valjean (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean:, still, I'm not seeing anything that says we use the "publisher" format for online versions of TV and Radio stations. Hell, even the template itself I linked above is confusing at a second glance, it says simultaneously: "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)" and "Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher." Honestly, I feel like this is not a situation where either of us is "right", its just a matter of whether you think italicised or normal text looks better in references. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There are several different parameters one can choose that produce the same result, and I'm not always sure which is the proper one to use, so I just make sure that the end result is right, because that is not a matter of personal preference we can make about what "looks right" to us.

Our opinions and preferences are irrelevant, because experts have already made those style rules, and we should follow them. These things are not left to chance. Grammar, spelling, and typographical style rules have been decided long before we were born. -- Valjean (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and I doubt that either of us will convince the other. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bill Russell illustrator draft

Hello Devonian Wombat,

Thank you for reviewing my draft, Draft:Bill Russell (illustrator). I am a first time editor trying to put together a page about Bill Russell, an illustrator in the San Francisco Bay Area. You declined my submission because the article "reads more like an advertisement." I felt I included numerous non-biased sources and my tone was neutral (perhaps I am wrong, more than happy to learn where I went awry), so I am guessing what you flagged was the external links section listing some of Russell's personal websites. I was trying to be thorough since I saw similar sections on other illustrator's pages, but in reading about what Wiki considers spam, the help pages list external links as a big no-no. I wanted to know if that section was indeed the issue, or does the whole article need restructuring? Thank you, I am enjoying learning about the community here! --Flewisss (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Flewisss:, The external links section is actually fine, what I had issue with was the use of Peacock terms, such as "renowned fingerstyle solo guitarist", "Of particular note", etc, and the fact that the article has far too many quotes talking about Bill Russell. There are also way too many Primary sources in the article, Russell's websites are cited something like 25 times, way too many. If you removed some of those primary sources and cleaned up the prose to remove a few quotes, replacing them with prose written by you, I would say the article would be ready for article space. Good luck! Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that feedback. I understand what you are getting at, I'll make sure to rewrite any weighted language/quotes, and I will remove some of the personal site references. --Flewisss (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ready for another review

Hi Devonian Wombat,

You reviewed my submission, Draft:T. O'Conor Sloane III, a couple of months ago and declined it for the following reasons:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

I appreciate your review and really got a kick out of the reference to "peacock terms," a term with which I was not familiar. The declination, although initially disappointing, was the best thing that could have happened to my proposed Wiki article! It spurred me into doing vast, possibly even unhealthy amounts of research and rewriting and the draft is dramatically improved in my view - including enough references to tickle the fancy of even the most ruthless of editors haunting the late night Wiki space.

I was wondering if you might take another look? Having recovered from that first gut punch, I am ready for another go round.

Thanks in advance,

Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Ilikewiki2020

I Appreciate You, Devonian Wombat!

Thank you and many warm cheers, Devonian Wombat!

Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Ilikewiki2020

Thanks, keep up the good work! Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You came out of nowhere and did all the dirty work on Super Paper Mario. Thank you for that! Le Panini [🥪] 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Mistake regarding headline

There’s been a mistake regarding the headline of my article. It should be ‘Ivan Peresvetov’ instead of ‘Ivan Semyonovich Peresvetov’. I’m sorry if I made it confusing – I’m new to Wikipedia and this was my first article ever created. How do I resolve this matter? Can you change it (if you were the one to review and accept it)? Or must I make a new entry for ‘Ivan Peresvetov’ that redirects to the current article? The best would be if the headline could be amended, since ‘Ivan Peresvetov’ is what the historical figure is most known as in English language literature. See your post on my talk page for more info about the article in question. Vnezemnoi (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Vnezemnoi (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vnezemnoi:, It's no problem, it can just be moved to the more common name using the regular move function, which anyone can use. I've gone ahead and done it for you, if you need any further explanation, the how-to-guide on moving article should provide it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Great, thanks very much! Vnezemnoi (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My first article - my first decline

Thank you for reviewing my first article - draft:Skateboard GB

Being my first article I wasn't expecting it to pass first time! Appreciating your comments, I've removed all primary sources and found some more references. I'm also doing some more reading around how to edit on Wikipedia so hopefully we'll get closer. I can see a lot of news websites refer to 'skateboarding' with quotes from Skateboard GB's CEO, but they do not explicitly state 'Skateboard GB' so I appreciate this may not be possible for publication until more sources become available. The official Team GB website, for example, refers to the Skateboard GB website, but does not provide much further context. So whilst there is a clear relationship and plenty of circumstantial evidence that Skateboard GB is the governing body, I'm guessing this is not in itself sufficient for a Wikipedia article?

(This is also my first talk so I hope I've done it correctly?)

@MasterSkater:, nice work on finding more sources, I've reviewed the article again and found it to be notable. Its close, but several of the sources provide significant coverage of Skateboard GB in particular. Your comment is fine, but remember to add four tildes on the end of it (there should be a button that does it for you). Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Jupiter

Hello, would you be able to add citations to uncited sentences like in the Moons section. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry:, I've added some references, though I had to cite Space.com instead of a scholarly work for one of them, is that fine? Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess for general information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh and could you find a cite for the first part of "Physical characteristics"? Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I added some "citation needed" tags. If you could fill them out then I think we're done/ Thanks for your help. LittleJerry (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just two more tags left, in "Atmosphere" and "Observation". LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry:, unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find references for those two, the first one I just couldn’t find any good sources for, while the flood of Astrology books and articles made searching for a source for the retrograde motion also impossible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your scepticism concerning the shrinking of Jupiter of only 1 mm/yr by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. You can read the book by Patrick Irwin. On page 4 of its second edition (2009) it is clearly given 1 mm/yr and not 2 cm/year. From where is coming this last wrong figure, I don't know.

His value of 1 mm is corroborated by the paper by Liming Li et al. of 2018 giving an experimental flux of internal heat of 7.485 W/m^2 as measured on place by the Cassini probe. This correct reference to this paper is already given as n° 12, attesting the new figure, in the box, for the Bond albedo of 0.503 !

You can easy calculate yourself the effect and can get the observed figure of 1 mm/yr related to 7.5 W/m^2 with the derivative with respect to t of the formula giving the total gravitational energy of Jupiter (see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2%80%93Helmholtz_mechanism) :

U = (3/10)G M^2/R = 1.03 10^36 J,

i.e. dU/dt = -(3/10)G M^2/R^2 dR/dt = -1.46 10^28 dR/dt.

Introducing dR/dt = -1 mm/yr = -0.001 m/yr = -3.17 10^-11 m/s, you get dU/dt = 4.64 10^17 W.

Dividing by the whole area of Jupiter 6.14 10^16 m^2 you get 7.55 W/m^2.

Are you now convinced ?

If you introduce 2 cm/yr instead of 1 mm/yr, you'll get 150 W/m^2, clearly a much too high figure.

Please, I ask you to restore my paragraph !

Thank you in advance and with my kind regards,

Christophe1946Christophe1946 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)--Christophe1946 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Christophe1946 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)--Christophe1946 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Christophe1946: My problem isn't with the raw data, it's with how the section is structured, the referencing within it, and how it is worded. Currently, that paragraph is worded in a highly original research-ey way, Wikipedia articles should not contain lines like "This value of 2 cm/year seems much too high" and an entire paragraph to support that, they should just simply say, "Jupiter is shrinking by 1mm/yr" with one or two supporting references.

We also should not be providing advanced mathematical calculations in general-interest articles such as this one per WP:ONEDOWN, and this is especially the case here because your section talks about concepts that the reader would not have been introduced to earlier. Also, the references are somewhat malformed, information such as quotes and page numbers should be inside not outside of the reference. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Devonian Wombat,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini ^[🥪] 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Participation requested on GA Election Talkpage

I'm tagging some random editors from the edit log to participate in a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020%E2%80%9321_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia#Community_Consensus_on_Infobox

Thanks! -Kai445 (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmm Papi (January 18)

Hi, Devonian Wombat. An AfD discussion for Mmm Papi and other songs has started. Please feel free to comment if you are interested. Thank you very much, HĐ (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Royale High

Hello, I forgot to thank you for you comment on the Royale High draft page. I did notice you contributed to the Roblox page several times. I'll go straight to the point, since I am leaving I was wondering if you could write on Roblox#Popular games, about it, with some reliable sources coming from the draft page (ex. Forbes). Of course if you don't want to (because I am certainly not forcing you), it's 100% fine. Have a nice day. --RoyaleHighFan (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the section, the lead you wrote was actually pretty much perfect for it, so I copied it and attributed it to you. Hope you don't mind. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roblox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royalty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Marriage Agencies

Thank you for checking through the draft of the Marriage Agencies page which I have been working on. On the 31st of October 2020 you decline its publication citing: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. I have done my best to keep the page neutral and encyclopedic, and with 20 citations I believed there was good backing for what had been written. What would be highly beneficial is if you could please give some pointers so that I can easily fit the page to the correct style. Thank you again for your cooperation and assistance in helping me expand information available here on Wikipedia. JonnyDee19 (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The Love Club (song)

Hello, Devonian Wombat. An AFD discussion has started for The Love Club (song). Please comment if you are interested. Thank you very much, HĐ (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Fancy saving Antarctica?

Another FA with a climate section I'm tackling, but a geology section that is Chinese to me :). Do you have time and appetite to repeat our effort at Earth? The article is not yet at FAR, so no time pressure. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey

Hello Wombat! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.

The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?

Panini^🥪 15:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Pokémon Brick Bronze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pokémon Brick Bronze 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/Pokémon Brick Bronze 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.

Darubrub (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great Job Thecoolviewer800 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a question.

This is the article I submitted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yaga_(game) . You rejected it with the following message: “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources [...]”. I am fine with that, so I went to look at other videogame pages on wikipedia. Now, if you could kindly explain to me how this following article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Murder:_Hunt_for_the_Puppeteer respects the rules and mine doesn’t, then please do. I’m genuinely confused, as that article has even less sources than mine, and has been approved. I hope this doesn’t come off as rude, I just want to understand what I did wrong, by comparing my article with others on the subject. How did that article get approved? JohnHawan89 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@JohnHawan89:, It is not just a question of "number" of references, it's how reliable they are. In the case of the latter article, it has a link to metacritic, which lists reviews in several publications considered reliable according to WP:VG/RS. That likely wouldn't be enough for it to be accepted at AfC today, but back in 2012 when it was created standards were lower. For your article, you should change the references from bare url's to proper references using Template:Cite web, and maybe check out WP:VG/RS as well. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)