Open main menu


I do intend to take you up on your offer with Rosa. I want to address the issues you have presented before looking at any other issues. I was planning to do that tonight, but I am experiencing an outage (2 inches of rain last night and more now). I will try and get that done tomorrow morning. NoahTalk 02:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Noah, thanks for stopping by and I'm glad you've decided to pursue further improvements to Rosa. You've crafted a solid base for the article – it just needs some polishing and a bit of fleshing out in spots. Like you, I won't be online much today, but the rest of the week should offer up more opportunities for helping you take care of the issues I spotted. I'm confident that with two of us working on it, it won't take very long at all to get it into position for another FAC. Just let me know where you think my attention would be best focused, and which areas you'd prefer me to stay far away from, if any. See you in the mainspace! – Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am working on implementing your suggestions now. Let me know if the Mexico section is any better. I am working on the US part now. NoahTalk 02:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
All I have left to do is add in information on the 34 YO man's death. Feel free to look over the whole article if you would like. I hope I have adequately addressed all the other suggestions you put forth. NoahTalk 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hurricane Noah Thanks for the follow-up. I'll take a look tomorrow morning and let you know where I think we stand. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hello? Is everything okay? It has been 10 days. NoahTalk 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: My apologies. I'm sure you've already gathered that I haven't had much (or really any) time to devote to editing over the last couple weeks. As I don't foresee that changing for at least another couple weeks, you may be best off going on ahead without me. I won't stand in the way of another FAC attempt when you feel the article's ready. Again, I'm sorry I fell flat here. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

SIAs are lists, not dabsEdit

Please note that set index articles are list articles, not non-article disambiguation pages. I've undone the changes to the tropical storms SIA page's categorization as dabs rather than lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: I'm aware of the difference between SIAs and dabs, but not of any guidelines that regulate SIA classification within individual WikiProjects. Nearly all the pages populating Category:Set indices on storms are assessed as Disambig-Class, so my changes only standardized a handful of non-conforming pages. With those changes reverted, Category:List-Class Tropical cyclone articles now contains about a dozen tropical cyclone indices out of nearly 700. That does not seem like an ideal solution. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not ideal. It would be ideal if they were all properly categorized. Some being correctly categorized and some not -> all being incorrectly categorized is not an improvement, though. If the WikiProject doesn't have a plan to coordinate the fixes, incrementally fixing the miscategorized ones is the way to go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating categorization with assessment scale classification. This has no bearing at all on reader navigation, but is instead purely internal. As far as I can tell, the dabs and indices are all categorized correctly. My interest, for the moment, is in maintaining the Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality hierarchy for WikiProject quality tracking statistics and directories. You're right in that many Dab-Class pages would be more accurately reclassified as SIA-Class in the long-run, but I'm disheartened at your eagerness to revert and admonish me instead of offering to help with any of these incremental fixes. A Category:List-Class Tropical cyclone articles that's evenly split between SIAs and actual content lists is an extremely unhelpful product. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keven McDonaldEdit

Hello Mr. Colton,

I'm Keven McDonald. Below is a message I just left on the talk page of SVTCobra:


I'm Keven McDonald (yes, it's actually me). I want to thank you for the positive feedback you gave me on my talk page. A few days ago I set about correcting and updating a wiki page about me that was created by someone else. My goal was to tighten up some of the slightly inaccurate historical information, make some updates to the information box and most importantly fix some of the poor grammar, syntax and sentence structure. Finally, I wanted to add my photo to breathe some life into the page. What an adventure!

With respect to the picture, that issue is being resolved. Penn is claiming copyright and I've sent the form given to me by JGHowes along to the Athletic Department for their review. One of your colleagues called my reaction to the photo issue as "belligerent". To that I will admit to being annoyed at not being able to put my picture on a page about me. I've since come to better understand Wiki's position relative to copyright and, as mentioned, it's being resolved.

As for the other editions, even though everything I updated about myself is completely factually correct I've received feedback from some of your colleagues saying the editions were "unconstructive", "self interested" and "self promotional". In the information box I updated my education level and included some athletic awards omitted on the original page. In the body of the page I also included an update to my education (law school) and the fact that I currently operate my own business. With respect to my own business, I have seen inumerable wiki pages where the subject's business or current place of work was included so I didn't think this was an issue. I find it ironic that if an anonymous writer includes these things it's fine but if the subject includes accurate occupational information it's "self interested". One thing should be mentioned here, in one of my edits I did link back to my website. That was wrong. I should have taken a deeper dive into Wiki's rules before doing that. The link was removed.

Anyway, I want to thank you again for the positive and constructive feedback. Please pass this along to any of your colleagues who you feel should read what I've said here.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmacjdwiki (talkcontribs)

(by talk reader) @Kmacjdwiki: I can appreciate that this process has been frustrating. Sadly, we find ourselves in this situation quite often. First, I'd like to point out that although an article might be about you, you are exactly the wrong person to edit it because of your conflict of interest. Because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, many people (and businesses) seek to edit/control the article where they have some equity and we (the volunteer editors) are under what feels like continuous assault from these people. This is probably why Wikipedians tend to be insular and prefer to only deal with other long-term well-accomplished volunteer editors rather than the self-interested drive-by editors. We want the objective best result for the encyclopedia not the specific parochial interests of involved parties tainted by money. Second, over the past decade we've developed a lot of sitewide rules that may seem both obscure and silly to outsiders like you. Again, we deal with tens of thousands of biographies and our solutions might not be to your liking. Finally, my advice to you is to simply forget this article exists. It will only be a sore point for you as you are both powerless to negotiate our bureaucracy and you are dis-empowered from preventing outright vandalism let alone honest disagreements. Honestly, those that have had the most success were journalists able to use their platform to write about Wikipedia's system of business and perhaps attract favorable coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Kmacjdwiki, Chris has done an excellent job summarizing the many delicate considerations surrounding biographical articles, especially where they have drawn the attention of their subjects, and I endorse every bit of his subsequent advice.

There are, of course, exceptions, but you'll find that most long-term Wikipedia editors are only interested in ensuring adherence to our central content policies. That said, there's absolutely room to improve the manner in which we as experienced users approach overwhelmed novices who may be inadvertently infringing upon those aforementioned rules. That last point is part of the reason why I opened a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding your article; with the promise of uninvolved editors stepping in to offer their guidance, you'd be much less likely to unwittingly cross the three-revert threshold, for instance, and find yourself blocked. For my part, I'd been away from Wikipedia for some time until just this week, and am in the process of reacquainting myself with changes to policy and protocol in my absence. This being the case, it seemed more appropriate to hand the issue off and avoid the risk of giving you outdated or simply bad advice. What has always been true, though, is that contributors are allowed and even encouraged to preserve their anonymity. It may be your impression that pseudonyms are damaging to accountability, and you may be right, but you must assume until proven otherwise that all parties are acting in good faith, regardless of how the letters in their username are arranged. Some of the most divisive figures in this website's history have been very open with their real-world identities, while only two of the top-10 most prolific "featured article" authors edit under their (apparent!) real names. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Julian, I must say, I think Chris troutman's message is exactly one of the things we need to improve when dealing with novices. Rather than an excellent summary, I found it to be undiplomatic gatekeeping and quite frankly insulting to Kmacjdwiki, calling him a "self-interested drive-by editor ... tainted by money". Stating he is "powerless" and "dis-empowered". And what the heck was that bit about journalists getting favorable coverage when they use their platform to criticize Wikipedia??? --SVTCobra (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra I can appreciate your view of the above comment, but while Chris troutman's (I'm sure you're tired of being pinged by now, but I hate discussing someone personally without giving them a chance to respond) post was characteristically terse, it was, as I read it, straightforward and objective on the whole. I viewed it as an attempt to be straightforward with Kmacjdwiki. I understood Chris's "powerless" and "dis-empowered" comments to be criticisms of Wikipedia's internal affairs; if that's the case, I agree with him that the system is unfair and almost oppressive to individuals who find their biographical information misrepresented here. In short, I believe the comment struck a cynical tone and not a patronizing one. But I may be wrong – and I assumed there must have been a story behind the journalist remark. Regardless, I thank you for holding me accountable and making sure nothing is taken for granted. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Keven McDonald here. I've recently received yet another notice. I've been instructed by "SportGuy789" to refrain from further editing the site about me until I join the Conflict of Interest discussion. Although I did leave a brief comment on what appears to be the COI board, "SportsGuy" indicated the conversation was better held here.

Honestly, I don't know what's left to discuss. I made a few simple edits to a site about me. The updates to the information box were few and factual including only a few athletic awards omitted by the author. The corrections to the spelling, grammar, syntax and poorly constructed sentences have made the page more readable without interfering with the intent of the original author. The updates to the text of the page included only two things; the fact that I've earned a JD and that I now operate my own business. NONE of this should be a problem. Even the photo issue is now being handled in the manner prescribed by JGHowes. So, again, please tell me what's left to discuss?

What would be helpful to me is if, in addition to the notices, warnings, rules, admonitions and red flags I've received would be if someone would tell me PRECISELY what has to take place in order that my editions and updates be allowed. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL HERE!!

What I don't need is more of Mr. Troutman's obnoxious, condescending and thoroughly insulting comments about how "dis-empowered" I and other "self interested drive by editors" are. What I need now is to be told how and when my edits will be added to the page.

Thank you. I hope this adds to the discussion.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

@Kmacjdwiki: Post what you want changed about the article to that article's talk page. Then go to WP:RB and offer a reward (which can be free) for those edits to be completed. An un-involved third-party editor can handle it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
All – I will clarify the exact issues with the edits on the Keven McDonald talk page , but not right now. It's a plethora of things and will take a while to put together, which is why I haven't yet done so. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keven McDonald here. Can someone help me understand what "plethora of things" SportsGuy789 is referring to? Here is the "plethora" he refers to:

1. In the information box I updated the fact I went to law school and some athletic awards, broken down by school or organization, not mentioned by the original author.

2. In the body of the text I also included law school and the fact I now operate my own business. I included the name of my business which I've seen done on any number of Wiki pages. It's come to my attention that the fact that the business name is in all caps could be a red flag. I don't quite get why the size of the letters is relevant but I did it to be consistent with the way the business name appears on my business cards, stationery and website. Again, I find it hard to believe a business name in all caps is a problem or makes me a "self interested drive by editor".

3. Corrected some inaccuracies about my career. The original author made a reference to the fact that I never played a game in the NBA. That is not true. Although my NBA career was brief I did play in several games before being released. I should also note here that several years ago when this page was first brought to my attention I noticed the author incorrectly had my place of birth listed as South Orange, New Jersey. In fact I was born in Newark, New Jersey. I corrected that a long time ago.

4. Fixed some bad spelling, syntax, grammar and poorly written sentences. The page reads much better and none of the author's intent was altered.

5. Attempted to upload a photo. That situation is being handled the way I was told to handle it by one of your colleagues.

So, what "plethora" is he talking about?

Also, Troutman makes the suggestion above that I go out and find a complete stranger, offer them a reward (bribe), perhaps even a free reward (although I'm not familiar with the concept of a "free reward") to make the same edits that I've already made and this would make everything ok. Perhaps that makes sense in a far away universe of which I am unfamiliar but it makes absolutely no sense to me standing here on planet earth. If I, the subject of the page, is considered suspect for making harmless corrections about my own accomplishments how do the edits become more legitimate when made by a complete stranger? The fact that I was born in Newark, not South Orange would remain the same. The fact that I earned a JD would remain the same. The fact that I received the additional athletic awards would remain the same. The fact that I now operate my own business would remain the same. The fact that many of the sentences now make sense would remain the same. The fact that I played in a few NBA games would remain the same. Besides, how would Mr. Troutman be able to distinguish an "un-involved third-party editor" (his words) from a "dis-empowered" "drive by editor" (also his words).

Or perhaps I'm overreacting. Maybe Mr. Troutman was making an attempt at humor that I failed to appreciate. If so, it wasn't funny.

I hope this adds to the discussion.

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

Let's try to keep discussion of content over at Talk:Keven McDonald. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kmacjdwiki: I would not say you're overreacting. You're understandably frustrated and receiving differently framed instructions from multiple people. I'll try to shed light on a few of the key points:
  • Wikipedia is a collaborative work-in-progress, and no one person is expected to craft a finished product. We all attempt to improve upon previous changes. If you feel we're being too critical, know that any necessary corrections will eventually be made by someone else. This isn't hypothetical – one user has helpfully begun to add citations and refine the article's formatting.
  • As you've been correctly informed, extensively editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged – all but forbidden. This is codified in our autobiography guidelines and borne out by the real-world concept of conflict of interest. I know it sounds crass, but it doesn't particularly matter that you think the edits constitute unambiguous improvements. Where conflicts of interest exist, all changes to content should be proposed at the appropriate venue (in this case, the article talk page) and implemented by uninvolved editors. Regardless of how uncontroversial your changes may seem, it's nearly impossible to remain impartial. Just think of how you're equating an encyclopedia entry with your personal business cards.
  • All information on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources of academic rigor. This is especially true of amendments to existing content. Again, to be completely objective, references must be supplied even if you're only adding that which you know to be true. See our document, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
A specific question about the veracity of some information has been raised at Talk:Keven McDonald, which is where I'll direct all future discussion about the article's substance. If you have any additional questions, concerns, or gripes about Wikipedia's editing environment in general, I'll happily continue to address them here to the best of my abilities. Otherwise, there's very little for you to do in relation to the article itself. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Juliancolton,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.


Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.


The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.


Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Juliancolton".