User talk:MJL/Archive 15

Questions for the MJL Wikipedia

• Draft:Special Theory of Ether (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where can I ask questions for the MJL Wikipedia? It's about the Special Theory of Ether side. This is not true "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." because articles about Special Theory of Ether they come from international recognized scientific journals. Three of them are listed in the Web of Science database, it is "Results in Physics", "Moscow University Physics Bulletin", "Open Physics".Andrus31 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrus31: You found the right place!
In my comment, I tried to explain (though, I probably wasn't clear) that while the sources reliable they are not independent of the subject and thus primary. Wikipedia requires a bit more to establish notability and establish verifiability.
Hope that helps! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, in the case of scientific articles, it does not matter who the author is. The magazine is important. This is because each journal is independent and it is responsible for the correctness of the publication (articles are reviewed). So independent sources are as many as there are different magazines, and not how many authors of these articles.

This independence of magazines gives notability and verifiability.

I do not understand what it means "the sources they are not independent of the subject and thus primary". Each of the scientific journals is independent and independent of the topics they publish. Scientific articles are in principle "primary".

There are many topics on wikipedia that have only one (!) source. How can I recognize if such a source is "not independent", "notability" and "verifiability". In the case of the theme Special Theory of Ether, I gave several independent sources, i.e. independent scientific journals and a scientific monograph (book).Andrus31 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrus31: It does matter who wrote the source, though. In this case, it is critical you find a reliable source that is not written by someone named "Szostek." The articles Help:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources should both be able to help you in achieving this goal if your article's subject is notable. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Scientific journals are considered "reliable source" . The Special Theory of Ether is an encyclopedic fact because it is made public by independent sources, that is various scientific journals. This is an undeniable fact.

The Special Theory of Ether page has been made in a very neat and substantive way. It does not contain any obscene content only information from scientific journals. I am convinced that Wikipedia should depend on such reliable informations and not alienating (discourage) of people who do such a good job. I wish you all the best. Andrus31 (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrus31: Have you considered sending this to WikiJournal of Science? They might be able to review this more carefully than the folks here could. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not send. I did not know the "WikiJournal of Science" page. I have prepared the STE website so that interested people have access to information on this subject. This is how I understand the role of an encyclopedia. The evaluation of articles takes place before publication by specialist magazines. Even specialists in a given field are not able to check everything and are based only on encyclopedic knowledge. Because there are too many different topics. Andrus31 (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrus31: Huh.. well generally on Wikipedia really technical information like this needs to be reviewed by folks who know more about it. That is especially true for more innovative concepts like that found in your article. I'm a little out of my depth here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WV Restorations

Hello, how are you, are doing some articles need restoring Bernard Youens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

articles to restore Bernard Yoeuns and Lynne Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Both  Done Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Are these third party sources for Thomas Clements enough? If not, why?

• Draft:Thomas Clements (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Singer, Angela. "Thomas plots his journey through life in new book". Dunmow Broadcast. Retrieved 24 January 2018.

Singer, Angela. "Why you should not ask: Is Jack's autism better now?". Dunmow Broadcast. Retrieved 27 December 2018.

Casanova, Manuel (8 July 2019). Autism Updated: Symptoms, Treatments and Controversies: Empowering parents and autistic individuals through knowledge. pp. 425–427. ISBN 9781079144109.

Barkley, Cat (26 December 2018). "Chronicles of brotherly love". Bishop’s Stortford Independent. Retrieved 1 January 2019.

Lehmann, Claire (5 January 2018). "The Empathy Gap in Tech: Interview with a Software Engineer - Quillette". Quillette. Retrieved 24 January 2018.

Lehmann, Claire (22 January 2018). "The Autistic Buddha—An Interview - Quillette". Quillette. Retrieved 24 January 2018. Ylevental (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ylevental: Thank you for reaching out to me! As the article was previously deleted after a discussion, I felt that the too much of it relied on the subject's own writings to substantiate its claims (5 of the sources are like this). The more critical problem, however, was that there are statements made in the article not substantiated by any source at all. Statements such as He is critical of the Neurodiversity movement and has advocated Buddhist principles as a way to cope with the challenges of Autism. should be referenced to meet WP:V.
This specific article has been recreated and deleted in various forms several times, so in order to pass AFC, it'll need to comply with all of our policies with less room for discretion.
I hope that helps! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Trying hard not to make this look like Wikihounding and probably failing, but the editor has a WP:COI with the subject (friends on Twitter, mutual connection through Manuel Casanova, etc.) and probably should leave this article to someone else. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits to DealerRater Page

Hi MJL, Thank you for taking the time to review my article "DealerRater." It seems it was deleted due to advertising-like material. I believe the page was written in an unbiased and objective point of view. As a newspaper writer and journalist, I was trained to write about subjects without taking sides. Be that as it may, I would be happy to edit down the article however you see fit and remove any "advertising" language. Sadly, I am unsure what parts of the article you were referring to. This was my first article, but before I publish anything else, I'd like to ensure I am doing all correct. I read the rules and regs and really thought I followed all. Thank you and I look forward in hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurwith2 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hurwith2: Huh, I am rather surprised to see Deb deleted it. I certainly didn't think it was that bad (I believe I said it was worth merging with another article), but since I am not an admin I no longer have access to the article. We'll have to wait to hear from her I guess. My apologies for the inconvenience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you commented that "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." That certainly sounds like it's talking about a promotional article that needs to go back to scratch. After that, another editor nominated it for speedy deletion. However, I agree it's borderline. I don't mind restoring it, but Hurwith2 would need to work on it very quickly, otherwise there is nothing to stop someone else deleting it for the same reason. Deb (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Ah, I have the memory of a goldfish lol. If Hurwith2 takes my advice and plays WP:TWA, I'll help them clean it up a little to avoid that scenario. Thank you for all the work you do!! Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deb, I completed The Wikipedia Adventure! Very helpful info. I would love try again at creating a page. Think I can send you an updated copy before trying to upload? Happy to progress however you see fit. Thank you so much for all the help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurwith2 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hurwith2 and Deb: Looks like Hurwith2 finished the adventure and is ready to have another go at making the article! Hurwith2: You forgot to sign your post lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

Okay, I will restore it, but Hurwith2, you must understand you need to work on it PDQ to ensure it doesn't disappear again. Deb (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I will work on it right now Deb. - Hurwith2 —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb @MJL I went ahead and updated the page. I know you can see changes, but I changed some sources, added new sources, removed content, removed any PR sources, removed any dealerrater sources and edited content to reflect the objective point of view. I believe this follows all rules, but I await your decision. Thank you both for all your help. Best - Hurwith2,

@Hurwith2: You're still not signing your posts using ~~~~lol, but I've re-submitted the draft for you after some minor cleanup. I'll have to let another reviewer handle it from there. Good work! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:, Thank you so much Hurwith2 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Cod Island) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cod Island.

User:Barkeep49 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Good content here.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Barkeep49}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

🎉🎊🐟🏝WanderingWanda (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Case study

• WP:AN#Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

I see there is opposition to a non-admin closing this discussion. But that aside, I would still like to hear your reading of consensus here. I wonder if it lines up with my own tentative interpretation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Well, I'm glad you asked! I'm seeing in the comments on the thread that there is a clear consensus to overturn the original decision. From there, I'd review the original discussion and say that there was no consensus for the original proposal (pre-or-post reopening). There were some larger concerns that never were fully addressed, (1) One commenter suggested a list that would spell out all the exemptions per MOS:TIES - this would solve a lot of issues on both sides were it ever agreed to (this was not sufficiently discussed), (2) the counterarguments, while few in number, were rather compelling, (3) more than a few z !voters essentially said to use Z except when... it's for categories that relate to a country which uses S (so... the opposite of what's being proposed). I generally found most of the Z !voters to over rely on the fact that z is "the international convention" while kind of ignoring the complaints of the early Australian/New Zealand folks.
  The situation tbh calls for an RFC on what specific rules should in force for exempting an individual category from the general Z convention. [Now just imagine that in better words] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Something like that could be drafted by a group of stakeholders like we did for WP:MOSMAC3's RFC. Ground rules could be set that way, and the parameters for what questions should be asked of the community made much clearer. For example, should we have an exemption for any category that explicitly mentions Australia? How about the subcat of such a category? (stuff like that)
It'd be time consuming to draft that RFC, but it'd yield better (more clear) consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

SPI tags

Hi MLJ. Thanks for reviewing the investigation into a possible sock of Qualitee123. In any investigation involving other users I think it is best practice to let the users know so they can defend themselves. As per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases tagging at the stage of raising a request is a suggested action. There's nothing in this case that may be detrimental, e.g. aggravate behaviour. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Generally, I have been told to leave tagging to the clerks and admins over at SPI. If your intention is to give users a proper notice, Template:Uw-socksuspect or Template:Socksuspectnotice would work a lot better imo. Tagging seems to be more for the benefit of other editors than the accused editor in question (ie. different intended audiences). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible close

Thanks for graciously accepting the replies about the offer to close.[1].

But I was very surprised to see the offer made in the first place. After those extensive discussions you had earlier in the year with several admins, it did make me wonder whether anything that had been said there had been heard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I figured the offer could not hurt as much as straight up closing would. Until you or Swarm pretty much give me a greenlight to ever start closing things again, I have no plans to do so. Since I received your and others' warnings, I've written 2 list and 5 start-class articles^[2] per your suggestion. That is to say little about WP:AFC and the anti-spam work I tend to do.. I try to be more careful to only participate in areas I know I fully understand, so that's why I asked here. I hope that alleviates the concerns? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, credits for asking rather than piling in. I was just surprised that you needed to ask.

But yes, it's all v difft to a few months ago, when you were thinking of throwing in the towel and some admins were getting ready to push if you wouldn't jump. You're a million miles from that place, and my initial comment here didn't acknowledge that. Sorry.

And nice work too on Guðrún Björnsdóttir. You mentioned somewhere that you had given up on content creation, and I am delighted to see that you didn't stick to that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: No need to apologize! I knew where you were coming from. Also, I pretty much spent a day on Guðrún Björnsdóttir, so I'd hope it had turned out alright (lol). Thank you for your kind words, though! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

<FourYorkshiremen>

YM1 — One Day, lad? One Day? For whole article?.

YM2 — Tha had it easy lad. When I were lad, we spent whole day on one sentence.

YM3 — On one sentence? Luxury, lad.

silence

YM3 — Ay, lad I spent whole day on one word.

YM4 — On one word? Tha's spoiled rotten, tha big softie. I spent whole day on one comma.

</FourYorkshiremen>

Wait until you get to GA. It can easily taken a week to unravel it. Like this nightmare, when a GA reviewer lost the plot.

And then there's FA/FL. That's where you can spend a week over the references (yes, plural) for one comma.

But I tell you what, ignore the Yorkshiremen and go and try it. There is huge satisfaction in getting an article you have created to pass a review.

To get you stated, I just went to create Template:Did you know nominations/Guðrún Björnsdóttir but I am delighted to see that you have already done it. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think I'll get the Four Yorkshiremen thing when I'm older Thank you! My goal is to get Cod Island to GA-class eventually. I just like the idea of this random uninhabited island off the coast of Canada just having a detailed article about it. Then I'll probably translate it into Scots, Azerbaijani, and Simple English. It'll be so cool! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: surely all that needs to be said about Cod Island is that "It's another pointless place in Canuckistan which will freeze the tits off you for 9 months of the year, and have you eaten alive by bugs on the three days every decade when it's actually warm enough to unzip your survival suit".

Now if you can get a GA for that wording .... .

But since you appear not to be a properly devout member of the Church of Python, it may be necessary to submit you to a different ceremony. NPOV doesn't extend as far as tolerating the continued life of people who are agnostic about Python. Repent! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You probably won't be a fan of my AFD record –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Devout pythonites everywhere will weep at your heressy, but rejoice at your defeat. (Blessed be the name of the Python).

With a lot of luck, it might yet be possible to spare you from the brazen bull. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an excellent target for a GA; sort of stuff we shall strive for the improvement of. And, if ye know Azerbaijani, I predict a ~71.23% chance of being part of a WMF-paid vacation to the country ...... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I'm working on my Azerbaijani and have 194 edits to Azwiki at this point. I also may have applied for a job at WMF already but have not heard back. So... we'll have to see about that vacation lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)