This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doric Loon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I hope the irony of your "was a not feature commonly used 'good authors'" edit gives you as good a chuckle as it gave me. Have a nap and some coffee, then try again. Cheers! --Kent Dominic·(talk)01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@2db: Hi, thanks for those. I didn't know RationalWiki, and have bookmarked it as a source to trawl, because there has obviously been a lot of work done there gathering useful references. However, I clicked on through and read the article on Richard Carrier, and I have to say it is not written in a scholarly tone: Carrier is "a horrible person", etc. Not knowing the man, I have no opinion on that, but if one of my students wrote it in a paper, I would have them on toast for breakfast. So that doesn't inspire confidence that RationalWiki follows either good scholarly principles or good Humanist principles. Just my first impression - you are welcome to convince me otherwise. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
One of many ways which distinguishes RW from encyclopedias (e.g. Wikipedia) is that we openly avoid any pretentions to neutrality on controversial subjects. When one side of an issue has the scientific consensus to back it up, and the other clearly doesn't, part of our mission is placing the two side by side and calling it like we sees it. ["RationalWiki". rationalwiki.org.]
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Doric Loon:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
I saw you edited the article about her nunnery, and agree she sounds like an intriguing person making an impact on the world. Google provides little of what Wikipedia judges to be notable. Do you have any other sources? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Good stuff! So much the better for finding The Times - though I don't think The Mail is banned for everything, is it? Has she published much - on Dante, perhaps? I googled "the hermit of the english cemetery florence" and came up with a few items, including this article, which I remember reading a couple of years ago. Go ahead and draft a biography if you wish, and I'll chip in to improve it here and there. Linking is my favourite task. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Has she published much"! I should check before I ask! Ok this is presumably self-reported, but can be checked:
Julia was born in Britain but got her degrees from California public universities, including a doctorate at Berkeley. She is a specialist on the manuscripts of Julian of Norwich, regarded as one of the most important female Christian mystics, published more than a dozen books, including “Equally in God’s image: women in the Middle Ages”, and is a Dante enthusiast, publishing on Brunetto Latino, Dante’s teacher. Once a married woman with sons (and grandchildren now living in the US) she completed her own father’s work on Elizabeth Barrett Browning and published “Aurora Leigh and Other Poems”. She taught at Quincy and Princeton Universities, and later at the University of Colorado at Boulder where she was Director of Medieval Studies. Then Julia took an early retirement to enter an Anglican convent… [1]
You wrote that Gotham City is a blog because ""Media" is a plural noun, so it can't be "a media". The only English-language source cited calls it a "judicial blog"". You also added that "The article seems to use the word "media" wrongly. The cited source calls it this a "judicial blog"".
Several press articles however describe Gotham City as an investigative news website. In english:
- Sahara reporters describes Gotham City as "an investigative news website sourcing information through a judicial watch".
- Swissinfo describes Gotham City as "a Swiss investigative news site that specialises in court cases and economic crime".
- Sifted (which is related to the Financial Times) describes Gotham City as "an online platform and paid newsletter that operates in Lausanne, the home of Switzerland's Supreme Court. It's exclusively focused on cases of corruption, fraud and money laundering, mostly covering Switzerland and France — with an aim "to increase transparency in the court rulings of one of the world's most important conduits of financial crime," according to founder François Pilet. "Although the court decisions we are reporting about are legally accessible to the media, they are often hard to access. In most cases, we are required to visit the courts in person to read them in full." It publishes some of these on its site. Despite its small team, Gotham City's output is impressive — and in monitoring all white-collar crime cases submitted to Switzerland's three federal courts, as well as key government financial and criminal offices, it has emerged as a key resource for those interested in global economic crimes".
- Finews describes Gotham City as a "Swiss investigative website".
Would it be possible to reverse back the title of the article so that Gotham City is described as a media?
All the best,
Coline
Hi Coline (@Cemmel:), I am certainly not going to insist on the word "blog" if you think that was an error. But "media" is the plural of "medium", so you can't call it "a media". To call it "a news outlet" sounds fine to me. When we talk about "the media" that is a collective word referring to many news outlets.
I have just noticed that you say on your userpage that you work for Gotham City. It would be important for you to declare your conflict of interest on Draft talk:Gotham City (blog) using the "connected contributor" template. You will see I have used that template myself on Talk:Medieval Chronicle Society. (You will find templates by clicking on the jigsaw-shaped icon at the top of the edit box.)
The fact that you are connected does not debar you from contributing, but it does mean you have to be doubly scrupulous about maintaining a neutral point of view and digging up satisfactory reliable sources. However, if you are a professional journalist, I am sure you won't have any trouble there. Please do continue to improve this draft and resubmit when it is ready. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Why was Gas Station Carnivals declined? There are several other Ligotti stories that have articles but aren’t particularly noteworthy. There are dozens & dozens of articles on Stephen King’s short stories even though they aren’t necessarily his important work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:cf01:6aad:6d65:a55d:d623:62a6 (talk • contribs)
@2603:8000:cf01:6aad:6d65:a55d:d623:62a6: I already gave the reason. If you have a more specific question, I will try to help you. As a reviewer, I am only looking at the current article. If other similar articles with the same weaknesses have been accepted, I suspect it is only a matter of time before they are deleted again, unless they can be made stronger than this. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the state of this when you accepted it, I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Moses. Please do not take that in any way personally. I had to dig deep to find out that it had been accepted at all. The AFC artefacts had been, somehow, replaced and it looked like a creating editor self moved it. Now they are allowed to do that, but it always alerts me to article quality.
When a draft I've accepted goes to AfD I take the moral high ground. If I comment I remain steadfastly neutral, and opften I do not comment at all
@Timtrent: Certainly not taking that personally. By "moral high ground" you mean "I acted in good faith, I'm open to being told I got it wrong"? That seems very wise. I certainly don't feel strongly enough about this one to go in there defending my decision. But I have commented at AfD because Curb Safe Charmer asked me to. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That, with precision, is what I mean. Sometimes I will say "AFC guidance is to accept a draft when we believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. The outcome of this discussion will tell me if I was correct." FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me21:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Request on 09:39:48, 29 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by NinaSeitle
Thanks for your feedback, I have already added the important information from the Draft:Hoffmann Mineral to the Neuburg siliceous earth Article. Unfortunately this has been nominated for deletion. Can you please help me to stop this process?
@NinaSeitle: Well I don't want to get too involved in this page, but just because my wife's name's Nina, I'll give you a couple of tips. First of all, there is a tag at the top complaining that the article is an orphan. That means that if you click on "what links here" on the left margin, you will find only talk pages and function pages - no other article has a link to this one. You can fix that. Go to pages like Neuburg an der Donau or diatomaceous earth and see if there is a sensible way that you can edit them to mention your subject and link back to the page you are working on. Then see if you can get a couple more sources. I think it would be very helpful if some big handbook on minerology can be found which mentions this topic - there must be one in your closest university library. You might also do a search of archives of local newspapers to see if there are any stories about the operations being in the news, maybe concerning environmental protection? And pay attention to that one section where a tag has been added to say that it is completely uncited. You do need a quote for that. You could also ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. Good luck. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Timtrent: yes, somebody else suggested that too. OK, I'll try it. I presume it is not too hard, but if you want to point me in the direction of whatever templates are required, I'd be very grateful. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Look at the head of my own talk page.
<!-- Start of archiving code -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} <!-- template put on the top of archive pages by the bot -->
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 37
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Timtrent/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<!-- End of archiving code -->
I would reset counter to 1 for you. Also change to be YOUR user accouint for the archive pages The params are self explanatory. It only touches fully signed threads
Then
<!-- Start of archiving box with list of archives -->
{{archives|search=yes|bot= Lowercase sigmabot III|age=7|auto=short}}
<!-- End of archiving box with list of archives -->
@Timtrent: Thanks for the tips. I've tried that (and stolen two other ideas from your page at the same time). I shall await the archive eagerly! :-) --Doric Loon (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
It's like waiting for a bus. It doesn't happen for ages. Then, just when you go into a café because it's not coming, it passes the stop which you are no longer waiting at FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me15:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Mister Loon, would you please consider adding sources to Jans der Enikel? I find the article interesting and have no deletionist intentions here, but think that it would improve the article's quality and verifiability. One or more of the works in the "Further reading" section could be upgraded to "source" status by citing it directly, I suspect. (Inline citations preferred, of course.) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ΟΥΤΙΣ: "Mister Loon" is brilliant! You are of course right: as Jans is a major medieval writer, the article would easily survive an AfD, but at present it has no inline citations. I could of course add those, but as you will understand from the CoI section of my userpage, I am slightly hesitant - I have probably published more on Jans than anybody else alive, and the danger is I would be citing my own scholarship. However, if you advise me to do it anyway, I will do so, as soon as the AfC drive is over. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
From your resumé and Wikipedia experience, I would trust you to be aware of the pitfalls of citing one's own works and act with modesty, neutrality and without unwarranted self-importance. One caveat: From your statements I deduce that the "Further reading" section should rather be renamed "Sources", which is an important difference. That would in principle be enough to delete the "Unsourced" template. But inline citations would be a nice cherry on top. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ΟΥΤΙΣ: So I've done that. Please look in and tell me honestly if I am foregrounding my own research too strongly. It is difficult to maintain perspective on that. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done, thanks for your work. I worked the article into a more modern citation style with shortened footnotes and machine-readable citation templates: Try to mouse-over an inline-ref and then mouse-over the displayed ref. It's much more comfortable for the reader this way, in my opinion. Regarding your self-citations: Since the majority of cited authors still are not you, I don't see much of a problem here. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
One note for a still needed edit: You are quoting two different Perger additions: 1967 and 1969. These should have their own entries in the "Sources" list: One date, one source, or it is ambigous. Would you still do that? I would have to research the serparate source info on Worldcat or Google Scholar and you already have the sources at hand, I assume.--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ΟΥΤΙΣ: That's really good. Thanks. I have done a tidy-up, mainly because the references are not all books, and articles need to be laid out differently. The problem with Perger is that it is a single work but the date is a year range, 1967-69. I have tried to fix that, but for some reason I now get an "&" in the middle of the reference. Can you see what is wrong there? --Doric Loon (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I just remembered that I had a similar case recently. You see, I'm a programmer and think that a publishing daterange is a logical monstrosity if you strive for an unambiguous, unique publication date (which is neccessary for a machine-readable citation on WP). In such a case you can construct a technically unique point in time with template {{SfnRef}}, overriding the "date" field in the citation for the reference only, but the source citation may keep its displayed daterange (which you say is correct here). I chose the later date for the reference. I think this came out quite well. Thanks for the fruitful bibliographical cooperation. You might even consider applying for "Good article" status now, in my opinion. :)
One final note: I'm quite certain that the relevant style manual for citations says that dateranges should always be displayed in full (1967-1969, not 1967-69) to avoid any misunderstanding.--ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ΟΥΤΙΣ: I'm not sure I understood all of that, but the important thing is you seem to have it looking right now. I agree that the date range is suboptimal, but the article is over 50 years old, and back then they had different priorities, I suppose. I'll think about the GA question, though. Thanks for getting involved here. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, ΟΥΤΙΣ, well why not. I'm on holiday at the moment, but I will think about that. I'm sure I have a few ideas, though I don't have the complete bibliography right on my laptop the way I did with Jans. I'll get to it sometime soon. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Rafał Brzoska
Hi — a couple of days ago you marked Draft:Rafał Brzoska as being under review. Are you still working on it? Just asking because it would be great to knock it on the head one way or another, before the backlog drive ends. (If I don't hear back, I may later today unmark it and review it myself, hope thats okay.) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the wikilinks to Graeme Dunphy from the Medieval Chronicle Society article? I see that you yourself are (or purport to be) Graeme Dunphy (citation needed), but within the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia these links appear to be entirely valid. GrindtXX (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that the page I've been trying to publish for months has been declined once again. Every time I did what was asked and I made all the changes I could, now I can't do anything else. Unfortunately these are the only sources we have, indeed we had many more but I was told to eliminate them because they were too many. I understand that it is not about quantity but quality, but I can assure you that all magazines and sites mentioned are extremely reliable. In fact, in italy the page was approved immediately and we just need a translation.
I will keep trying and I hope one day it will finally be approved,
Thank you!! unsigned comment by Alessia Stocco 14:40, 6 August 2021
@Alessia Stocco:Well, you know, Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide adverts for companies. Every company would like to have a Wikipedia article, but we have to protect the platform against abuse by just anyone who wants attention. So we set very high standards of notability for companies. And it might just be that this company doesn't meet this standard, in which case it doesn't really matter how much work you do on it.
However, there is a bit you could do to make the sources you have work for you. For example, your footnote 5 just says: "Giant calenders on top of the world". 24 February 2016. So what is that? Is it a news media article? Who wrote it? What is the medium? If I can't see that without clicking on the external link, I'm going to ignore it. Make all your references give proper citation style and then we will be able to see if any of it is good. That really would help you. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I followed your advice and I added the site of origin of each source in order to make consultation easier and more effective. However my intention is not to use Wikipedia to provide adverts for the company because for this purpose we use other tools. Thank you very much for your attention!
Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!
The Articles for Creation Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
The article Sermon on the Mound you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sermon on the Mound for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Abitur
You recently made an edit to Abitur with the edit summary "Of course it focusses on Germany: Abitur is a German word. There are other articles on "A-levels" etc." Actually, "abitur" is originally a Latin word, meaning roughly "I am going away". See wikt:abitur. JIP | Talk23:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@JIP: Hi, thanks for engaging. Actually, in Latin abitur is a third person passive, so it means that "it has been dispatched", but the German word is contracted from abiturus, which is a future participle and means "someone who is about to leave". But German made it into the name of an exam, and as such it is not Latin. It rightly refers to the German exam, not to other countries except in the few minor cases when other countries borrowed the word from German. So my point stands: the article Abitur should be about the German exams. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Request on 20:54:06, 1 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Verna Meia
Dear Doric Loon, I made revisons on the draft. Can you please check again. I tried to consider all the input you gave.
Best, VM
@Verna Meia: congratulations! You have done a power of work on this article since I last saw it. It still needs some things done to it, but I think I would prefer to leave that to Wiki-colleagues who specialize in the subject area. As an AfC reviewer, all I am concerned with is the question: would it survive a motion to delet, and I am now confident it would. Therefore I have no hesitation about accepting your submission. Well done. Please don't stop here, I am sure you have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Verna Meia: I meant to say, if you want to continue to improve this article, you could start by adding more categories at the bottom, and by going to pages on related subjects and linking back. For example, you say that Coldplay won an award. If you think it appropriate, you could go to Coldplay and mention the award there, if it is not already mentioned, and link back from there to your new article. That way other people who are interested in the topic will find it, and hopefully will help you to improve it. Doric Loon (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar
Thank you and the community for reviewing my article submission. I was excited when I finally got a page out of the sandbox Zimbabwe Library Association. I will work towards improving the quality of the page and also work harder to avoid breaking any community rules. DeLilGwashoper (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Sermon on the Mound
On 19 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sermon on the Mound, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Margaret Thatcher had to wait while a series of parish ministers objected before she could give her "Sermon on the Mound"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sermon on the Mound. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sermon on the Mound), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You are welcome! I hope you don't mind that the award comes from the cabal of the outcast. Feel free to check "my" articles anytime (recents on my user page, others in the archives), - I'm German, and translation artistry will improve them, I'm sure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposed article on the "Aqua Sport Sea Skimmer"
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I have been unsuccessful in getting the article approved after many attempts. So - I have now simplified it for basic content only... Could you take one last look at the article and see if it is worthy -
if not - please delete the draft
Regards,
Terri
also - since you said you mentioned "I want to know what came of the Navy contract" , Here is content that I was planning to use - but then deleted for simplification. I am still following up with gathering "FOIA" (Freedom of Information) for the NAVY contract.
Deleted Draft words:
The United States Government took an interest in the Sea Skimmer/Aqua Skimmer. September 27, 1962; In a Palm Beach Post newspaper interview with John Tetyak, company spokesman, "The Navy has been using 5 models for Testing and Evaluation, He (John Tetyak) declined to say how many boats the Navy wanted, but said it would be a sizeable order... will require a large increase in the number of employees... The boats are being altered to meet specifications set up by the Navy"[11]
It is believed that the Navy ordered 100 additional units that were assembled in the Florida facility.(FOIA confirmation of the quantity ordered is pending). December 14, 1962, in the Pensacola News Journal; Aqua Skimmer, Inc announced an R&D contract with the Navy “for all the boats now being produced in conformity to Naval Specifications at the firm's local warehouse, to be delivered to an undisclosed area in the Caribbean for further evaluation by all branches of the armed services.”[12] [13]
@Terrisays:, I feel for you, because this draft has now been declined six times, and I don't think it would get through now either. The problem is that it is so short that it looks like a "stub", but there is no immediate expectation of it becoming much longer. BUT DON'T GIVE UP! The core material is good. One of the things I find with Wikipedia is that when you are up against a brick wall, the solution is often to try a different route, and then maybe later on your original idea will become possible. What I would suggest is that you take what you have done, and make it into an interesting new paragraph in the "History" section of the article Personal watercraft. We can then make a redirect point to it from Aqua Sport Sea Skimmer (I can show you how if you need me to). That way the material is online and available. And then, if you later find more material that will allow it to become an article in its own right, we can move it out. The main thing is not to become despondent and give up on Wikipedia, because I sense that you are a person who could have a lot of fun here, and do a lot of good, and starting new articles is not always the most important thing. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Doric Loon - I do not know how to delete this draft article - can you help me get it entirely deleted? I will try next year.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrisays (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hello, Doric Loon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Burg Blessem, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your edit to this article. Given your expertise, what's you opinion of the piece as a whole? Perhaps you might like to contribute more? (An achar, and I know you're dying to know but are too polite to ask, is an expert in ritual, usually weddings and funerals but also other things, especially exorcisms. So I'm an exorcist. A sva ... never mind, but there was once a real-life achar sva, and he came to a sticky but exciting end). Achar Sva (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Achar Sva: Thanks for your kind words. I did do a degree in Biblical Studies, many years ago, but I don't have anything much to hand on this question, and I won't have much time for researching anything before March. But I will be hanging around and will stick my oar in when I can. Best, --Doric Loon (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
