Open main menu


Orphaned non-free image File:Deadline Hollywood home page screenshot.pngEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Deadline Hollywood home page screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretribulation rapture declinedEdit

Thanks for reviewing my submission. When I began my topic I had in mind that I would post a contrasting view to the Post-tribulation rapture wiki. It seemed clearly to be arguing for a post-tribulation point of view. I thought I would present a contrasting view. I have read through it a couple of times and fail to see how the article I submitted is any less neutral than this seems. It actually seemed quite slanted to its own point of view. I made a number of wording edits to minimize the sound of partiality. It is not easy to present a point of view and sound 100% nueutral. I know the Post-trib article is not completely neutral. Could you give me an example from my article, whether general or specific, of how I might approach presenting it with more neutrality. I'd like to give it one more go.- Thanks, E.Enberg Eenberg1 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eenberg1, thanks for working on Draft:Pretribulation rapture. The main issue with the draft is that it resembles a thesis and not an encyclopedia article. I recommend you take some time to read through two of Wikipedia core content policies, verifiability and no original research, as well as the Manual of Style guideline on tone.
  • Please make sure that all content is supported by a reliable source: peer-reviewed academic journals and books backed by reputable publishers are preferred, while blogs and self-published sources (e.g. and individual ministries) are discouraged. There is a lot of content in the draft that is not backed by citations. If you aren't able to find reliable sources for a statement, it would be best to exclude the statement from the article.
  • Interpretations of primary sources (e.g. verses from the Bible) must be supported by a reliable secondary source, since original research is not allowed. Excerpts from the Bible must be properly quoted (i.e. quotation marks should be used for direct quotes) and introduced with correct grammar.
  • Don't use the phrase "we read", which is unencyclopedic. It's best to state things in a third-person voice, i.e. "This document states...".
Personally, I don't think the Post-tribulation rapture article is a very good model, since it is littered with {{Original research inline}} tags. Rapture § Pre-tribulational Premillennialism is a much better starting point, and could serve as an outline for your draft. You may also want to ask WikiProject Christianity for assistance on their noticeboard. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 21:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science - MissouriEdit

@Newslinger: Hello, I am curious if you could review the following page for me and see if you can help me to figure out the appropriate next steps to get this page to be ready for another review and hopefully approval. I have been working on it and believe that it has some good content and has several sources. However, it appears that the reviewers do not agree. I feel like I am stuck and would appreciate any help that you can provide. Thanks in advance. Asclsmo (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Asclsmo, please refer to the notability guideline for organizations, which states that your draft needs significant coverage from multiple (i.e. at least 2) independent reliable sources to be eligible for publication. Directory listings and passing mentions are non-significant, and don't count. Primary sources and sources that are closely affiliated with ASCLS-MO are non-independent, and don't count. Blogs, self-published sources, and social media posts are unreliable, and are strongly discouraged. WP:ORGDEPTH gives detailed examples of the types of sources that would be acceptable. Once you think the draft is ready to be published, you can resubmit it for review and it will be placed into the queue. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up NNDB links! Appreciate it. Marquardtika (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Marquardtika! If you know of any other questionable sources that are being inappropriately linked to or cited on a large scale, please bring them up on the reliable sources noticeboard, and WikiProject Reliability will take care of them. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! Marquardtika (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Newslinger,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion/Work you might be interested inEdit

Given your stewardship of RSP you might be interested in this related project being undertaken by an NPP, if you weren't already aware. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Barkeep49! I've posted my thoughts at the discussion, and I've also invited editors on other Wikipedia talk pages to express their opinions. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

CoinDesk as a sourceEdit

Hi Newslinger, hope you're well. I wanted your advice on CoinDesk as a source. I see the discussion here, but no strong consensus. I bring this up now because an editor is going about removing all references to CoinDesk from articles. This has left a big void in coverage of articles. None of these articles rely on CoinDesk to establish notability (e.g. CryptoKitties, Vitalik Buterin, Andreessen Horowitz, etc.) but many claims are now left without a source. It goes without saying that extreme care should be taken to make sure the CoinDesk articles are not opinion or puff pieces, but I do not think a blanket removal of all CoinDesk sources is warranted, especially because it feels a lot of content is now 'orphaned' for no good reason. What is your best suggestion here? --Molochmeditates (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Molochmeditates, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. The CoinDesk RfC concluded that CoinDesk (RSP entry) shouldn't be used to establish notability (i.e. it doesn't count as one of the sources required for a "keep" !vote in Articles for deletion under the WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:BIO guidelines). However, since there was no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a questionable source, that RfC doesn't support a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references, especially if it would leave statements unsourced.
I recommend creating a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard with a list of affected articles (each accompanied by links to the diffs where the CoinDesk references were removed). The community will then decide whether these CoinDesk references should be present in the articles. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance. I've created an RfC for this per your suggestion. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Your initial comment in the discussion looks comprehensive, but there's a small problem: the discussion is referred to as an "RfC" without having the {{rfc}} tag. I recommend doing one of two things:
  • If you want to designate the discussion as a request for comment, you'll need to insert the {{rfc}} tag immediately after the section heading and select at least one RfC category. You'll also want to shorten your initial comment into a brief and neutral RfC statement. Arguments and extended content belong in a "Survey" or "Discussion" section below the RfC statement.
  • Otherwise, if you don't want to designate the discussion as an RfC, just remove the "RfC" from the section title and the "Note" in your initial comment.
— Newslinger talk 06:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger thank you very much for your patience with the process (as you can tell, this is my first RfC). I've added the RfC tag per your suggestion, and a short neutral question. Rest of the post is under a Survey section. If you think the information can be organized better, I would appreciate if you can provide any further suggestions (or of course feel free to edit the original). --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Molochmeditates, thanks for applying the change. There's one more thing: although you started the RfC, you're still eligible to express your opinion in the survey. Usually, editors who want to take a stance on the RfC use a bold !vote (similar to the Articles for deletion format) somewhere in the survey to clarify their position to the eventual discussion closer. If you have a strong "Yes" or "No" position on the issue, you would probably want to do this.
You've done a good job following the RfC format. After 30 days, the RfC will be ready for closure, and the results will determine how CoinDesk citations should be treated in articles. — Newslinger talk 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've presented my case, but there may not be many supporters. Crypto articles are a knee-jerk reaction - "let's remove all crypto press!" but the main point is, this means removing a lot of criticisms as well. CoinDesk simultaneously writes both puff pieces and hit pieces. I would like to, as an editor, be able to cite the criticisms at least. You won't find a lot of this material in a Bloomberg. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that many crypto publications are not independent enough to be trusted by more editors. As cryptocurrencies mature, I expect more usable sources to emerge (including trade publications that don't have prominent conflicts of interest). Wikipedia tends to lag behind trade press in many subjects, but the gap is less noticeable for topics that are not as new as crypto. Remember that there is no deadline to work on an article, and you can always add appropriate information when the sources become available. — Newslinger talk 20:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with you. I think there are better ways to control for quality though, like extended confirms. The 24 hour revert ban is good too. May be those tools should be used more especially in the interim. --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Axios RFCEdit

Hi I may have committed some heinous wikicrime on the Axios RFC because I boldly edited the section in question by adding 2 extra sources that weren't mentioned. I don't know if I should have made a counter proposition first. If this was the case please don't hesitate to revert my edit on the page but if this is done I would like to add an option 4 which I added to the discussion below the survey. I will change my !vote to Option 4 to make this clearer. My apologies. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Domdeparis, your suggested phrasing would make a great addition to the options in Talk:Axios (website) § RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing. Feel free to add it back, but if you do, please ping all of the editors who participated in the RfC to let them know that the RfC statement has changed. Also, since we're already halfway through the 30-day RfC period, please note that your proposal may be at a disadvantage because it will receive less attention. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:27:44, 6 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsc222Edit

Jsc222 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have resubmitted with new disclosure that the artist's son Roger Ehrich (retired professor) has provided funds in the interest of the time needed to get this article about his father's history and oral history as an important regional artist in several museums and archives posted on Wikipedia. Sorry for such a late resubmission I have been busy. Thank you, Jsc222 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jsc222, and thanks for working on the William Ernst Ehrich article. I've accepted your draft, and the article has been published. Please don't worry about needing to finish an article by a particular time, since there is no deadline for submitting a draft. If you'd like to improve the William Ernst Ehrich article further, please consider adding links from the article to related articles and vice versa. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 03:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
One more thing: are you saying that Roger Ehrich compensated you for writing this article? If that's the case, please read through Wikipedia's policy on paid editing and be sure to disclose the arrangement on your user page and on the article's talk page. The instructions for disclosure are at WP:DISCLOSE. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jsc222, I've added the paid editing disclosure to Talk:William Ernst Ehrich. If I had misinterpreted your comment, and you were not paid to edit the William Ernst Ehrich article, then please remove the disclosure from that page. Otherwise, please take some time to read through WP:DISCLOSE and also consider adding a disclosure to your user page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Close an RfC?Edit

Hey Newslinger,

Regarding this RfC: a week since the last comment, consensus fairly clear - would you like to close it? François Robere (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi François Robere, in light of the active ArbCom case, I would prefer to be extra cautious with this closure. Since the topic is highly contentious, it would be best to wait for the standard 30-day RfC period to elapse, and then submit a request for closure that explicitly asks for an administrator. One of my previous closures was challenged for being in a contentious area, despite the clear consensus in the discussion, because these closures are sometimes considered inappropriate for non-admins. I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Helps? No. But thanks for the reply. :-) François Robere (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Newslinger".