This is an archive of past discussions with User:Drm310. 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.
Hello! This is a wikimedia account run by volunteers for Red Hen Press. I'm unsure how to address this concern, as 1. this is the first I've heard of it (sorry about that!), and 2. This is a volunteer-based situation. My intention is to fill in missing factual information about authors, as seems necessary. How do you recommend I address this? There is no user page for this account yet. Thank you for your help!
Rhpwikichicken (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Rhpwikichicken, 7.30.19
@Rhpwikichicken: I'm afraid to inform you that sharing an account was always a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. It was wrong of your predecessor(s) to have ever passed access to this account on to others. Only one person - the same person - may use an account for its entire lifetime. Everyone who edits Wikipedia must operate their own individual account.
I have no choice but to report this to administrators; your account may be blocked from editing as a result. If it does, create a new account that only you have access to. If the administrator simply instructs you to change your password, then do so.
Regardless of the outcome, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest before making any more edits:
We highly discourage editors with a conflict of interest from directly editing topics relating to their organizations. It is better that you request edits on the article talk pages instead. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm En HaRry@Drm310:Drm310
Dear Sir,
Please note that the above information’s are used from the company website Bismillah Group, Bismillah Towels Group LTD. and I’m the authorized person on behalf of the company to edit any update relating to the company Bismillah Group , Bismillah Towels Group LTD.
For avoiding direct infringement, I would like to use the information’s providing the relevant links in the footnote. Please let me know whether it would be fine or not.
Thanks and Regards
En HaRry 13:20, 5 August, 2019. (GMT+6)
@HaRry2MaC: If you are working on behalf of the company to edit the article(s) about them in Wikipedia, there are a number of things you need to know.
If they are paying you for your work, either directly or an agency that employs you, then you must follow Wikipedia's mandatory and non-negotiable paid editing disclosure policy. You must state what articles you are being paid to edit, and who it paying you.
Because you are representing the company's interests, you have a conflict of interest (COI). While COI editing is not prohibited, it is highly discouraged because of the inherent difficulty you will have adhering to the required neutral point of view.
The company has no right of ownership or editorial control over the article(s) about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what a company wants to say about itself, and no interest whatsoever in how it wants to be portrayed. Disagreements over content should be discussed on the article talk page.
The text you posted was copied directly from the company website. You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia, even if you are the copyright holder or have the copyright holder's permission. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Article content must be cited to sources that are both reliable and independent of the article subject. This means Wikipedia heavily favours mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Primary sources like a company website can verify basic facts and figures, but not interpretations of those facts. Company-authored materials like press releases, social media posts and other self-published sources will not be accepted as sources.
After making the appropriate disclosures of your relationship to this company, you should not edit the articles directly. Rather, you should suggest changes on the article talk page with the {{request edit}} template. This will get the attention of other uninvolved editors to review your changes and offer revisions.
I keep going to editor's talk pages to post a note about creating autobiographies only to find you've already done it! Thank you for your work communicating with new editors and letting them know about Wikipedia's standards of notability. It's appreciated. LizRead!Talk!01:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for spending time to review my page.
I have been editing the page since long time and have reduced its content by 90%. Please review it and publish my page, also suggest if still need changes.
If required please message me on "srp.patil@hotmail.com".
Regards,
Srp1220
@Srp1220: I will not discuss the article in private over email. Whatever you need can be discussed publicly on talk pages.
You've already received replies to your posting on the Teahouse, so there's not much more I can add. All the references you provided are for the software developer or its community of users. This isn't good enough. You need to show that this product has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the software developer.
You identified that you are an employee of the software developer, so that makes you must follow Wikipedia's mandatory and non-negotiable paid editing disclosure policy. Do not make any further edits until you have made the required disclosures. Also review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as they very much apply to you. Wikipedia is not a space to advertise or promote... we have no interest in what your company wants to say about your product(s). --Drm310🍁 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mahendrasalvi: No, I am sorry but blogs are by definition self-published sources and therefore unreliable. Another editor has already reverted your additions.
Reliable sources are defined as sources that have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news, peer-reviewed academic and respected trade publications. Blogs, social media and other self-published sources will not be considered reliable. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick question about talk page notices
Howdy! I've noticed you placing warnings on talk pages to the effect of "Your user page doesn't meet guidelines, here's the list of things a user page shouldn't be" and "this is your talk page, not a place to draft, etc." I was wondering if those are templated warnings, and if so, what the templates are - I've looked for templates for those notices but haven't found any. Cheers! creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Creffpublic. I haven't had the motivation to learn how to make templates out of them, so for now I just keep them stashed away in subpages:
@Violeta At TheBlockchainHub: I think you have misunderstood the notice I left on your talk page. You have not done anything wrong, and there are no sanctions being applied to your particular draft article.
The notice I left was preemptory general information. It is to inform you that as of 2018, the Wikipedia editing community had to implement special measures regarding all blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. This was done in response to a rash of blatant promotional contributions, claims of ownership over article content, use of unreliable "trade press" sources, and conflicts of interest.
It is now our practice to inform editors about the existence of these measures whenever we notice they write about these topics. It is hoped that by doing so, we educate editors and prevent the types of problems that had been seen from reoccurring.
Your draft article has not been submitted for review. When you have finished editing it and feel ready to submit it for review, you can do so using the Submit button near the top of the draft article. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearstream is the German and Luxembourg CSD, Euroclear is the Belgian CSD and OeKB CSD is the Austrian CSD. The Central Securities Depository Regulation (reference 1 in my article) says that every CSD in a country has to apply for a certification. After the approvement of each Authority (in Austria it is the Financial Market Authority (FMA)), the company can act as the CSD of the country. The scope of OeKB CSD in my article is similar to the scope of Clearstram and Euroclear. Are this articles marked with disclosure? Therefore, this is no advertisement, the article describes only the tasks of the Austrian CSD, not more and not less.
So please have a look at it again - if you want to change something, I am open for any discussion, but please do not mark it for disclosure.
@JelenaIlicVienna: Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy took effect in June 2014. As of then, any contributor who is creating or editing articles in exchange for compensation must disclose this information. Since you appear to be associated with this organization, compliance with this policy is mandatory if you intend to write about it.
Hello Drm,
Thanks for you advice concerning my edits, have been rolled back as you can see.
You suggested me to read about conflicts terms, which I have already (it's written on my page etc.). It is something I do as an update (if you read the old version, it used to stop at 2016, and even before, on many aspects and was much more promotional for no reason). You are right in that I didn't know about such rules.
If i got it right I need to ask someone from the list you sent me to make a draft of my version, for you can't, right?
I would be glad to work this page along with you and explain the changes if need be. My objective is clearly to update this page in an objective way, I won't sell here.
Thanks!
--Bricegrenon (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)do not hesitate to reach me
@Bricegrenon: Our usual advice is to leave a message with your suggested revisions on the article talk page (Talk:AT Internet) using the {{request edit}} template. The template will make an entry in a queue of requested edits for uninvolved editors to review and comment on. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Drm310: As you can see on the talk page, previous messages have been posted without any follow. I will sure follow the best process and discuss of possible improvements. Do I need to ask an admin for the french one then? Are you out to work on it or not? I definitely need a helping hand. Cheers! --Bricegrenon (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bricegrenon: I can ask one or two users that I've talked with on fr-wiki to see if there's a similar way to solicit third-party reviews of suggested content. It's unfortunate that the previous talk page entries went unnoticed or unreplied. French isn't my first language, but I think I can get by with my intermediate knowledge plus a bit of help from Google Translate! --Drm310🍁 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I had proposed a page for David Jensen (a different person than currently in Wikipedia). I had relied fairly heavily on his UN bio, supplemented by other sources. While the UN has a very liberal policy on use of its material, especially in such circumstances, I now understand that such an approach violates Wikipedia's copyright policy. I would like to edit/amend/cure the prior entry.
Your note indicates that "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below." The page was deleted by Richie333 the same day you sent me the message, and Richie333 is no longer a user. How should I proceed?
It looks like you deleted my page "Safe Climate Campaign." I am with the organization; however, they don't pay me, I work for Center for Auto Safety in communications. Both groups are 503c non-profit advocacy organizations. I made a Wikipedia page so that people could learn more about our work and what we do. We're small enough that I don't think people will find us otherwise. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make this page stay up. Again, we're a non-profit--nobody is making money off of this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiebped (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Katiebped: Actually the administrator DGG deleted the page. I am not an administrator and I have no ability to delete articles.
Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. Organizations must must Wikipedia's notability guidelines to be considered worthy of inclusion. These apply equally to for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations).
We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed; there is a strict policy against using Wikipedia for publicity. Primary sources like an organization's website are of limited value. Blogs, social media and other self-published sources are disqualified outright, as well as someone's unpublished personal knowledge or experiences. We only care about what third-party writers, who have no vested interest in the topic, have chosen to publish about it.
We highly discourage people who are involved with a topic to create an article about it, due to the inherent conflict of interest. Since you are involved with the subject of your writing, you will find it difficult to write from the required neutral point of view and use information taken only from unaffiliated sources.
Lastly, Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure policy says that interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Your concerns
I tried to edit out the material you found objectionable, but your system didn't accept that either. I'm done. If you don't like what remains, dump it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careystevens (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shahryar (singer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance, G11 already declined once, so there is a non-spammy version to revert to. Thank you. SoWhy07:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Respectfully, I disagree. I don't believe that any version of this page at any point in its edit history is salvageable to meet WP:BAND. I guess I'll take it to AfD and let the chips fall where they may. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:3O
Howdy hello! I'm glad you sought out a third opinion, its a great way to solve disputes. Just wanted to make let you know that your request wasn't formatted right, but that I've gone ahead and cleaned it up for ya. In general, you should only add a link to the page, and a brief, one sentence summary of the dispute. You should also not sign your name, only the date, so that reviewers can be neutral in taking up cases. Smooth sailing, Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓07:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CaptainEek. It's been a while since I've used it, and I guess I didn't read the instructions thoroughly enough. I appreciate you fixing that up for me. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Did not write my own article
Hi Drm310,
I received a message from you in which you assumed that I created an article about myself. Just want to let you that I did not create the article; it was created long before I became active on Wikipedia. I DID add a footnote, I believe, but that is all. Thank you. Richard.A.Egan (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Richard.A.Egan: Yes, I do see that another user created the article about you. The canned message I left ({{welcomeauto}}) is certainly not a perfect, one-size-fits-all message - I only left it because it was a quick and east way to convey the message.
We highly discourage that you edit an article about yourself at all, due to the fact that it is a conflict of interest to do so. We only care about what reliable, independent sources have written about you. Of course, you would be justified in removing any content that was blatantly defamatory. But otherwise, Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject of an article wants to say about himself/herself or how they want to be portrayed.
I know I am working at CAM but my purpose CAM article appear before rejected for good does not reflect on my working experience.
I know, I am working at CAM but my purpose CAM Article appear before rejected for good does not reflect on my working experience at all and I just wanted to CAM to get first wiki article which many Journalist didn't make it about CAM International Market to become wiki articles in the past years and many small businesses or restaurants don't have wiki articles and Kroger and Kmart and many companies have wiki articles.
CAM deserves one because they are so popular with the Asian community in Ohio and mostly the Cincinnati area and CAM Cincinnati have competition with Jungle Jims which have wiki articles in Cincinnati and CAM Columbus compete for other Asian stores in Columbus.
I made Wikipedia articles in the past such as Coney Island in Cincinnati roller coaster and Miami Manatees article 10 years ago which it successful with my old account before Wikipedia begins strict policy by approving the articles which I didn't know until now.
If Journalist makes CAM Articles on the wiki that would great me and my work business which might unlikely the journalist don't know what's CAM is anyway and some of know Jungle Jims and make the article about Jungle Jim's couple of years ago and I try best I could to make CAM first wiki appearance as the article before admins delete it before I have chance to complete it and if they approve my article and many editors have chance to revised and add some details about CAM International market that would be good because I am not good at grammar but I can revised it to make it better but I can't do my articles by myself in occasion times.
But Oh well and Thanks for the opportunity for me a chance to make a comeback to make an article such as CAM International Market which rejected and I would come back to try it again with my work article with my own words with the source does not reflect on my working experience and my work don't have many sources on online except some Newspaper, their website, google map, and social media if Journalist account won't make a CAM International Market article other than me in the future.
Think About It and I might create CAM articles somewhere else but many people don't care about looking for indie wiki fandom but most important people look for it's Wikipedia for stores and restaurant details.
Sincerely,
Joey P
A CAM International Market Employee
--Culinaryjoey (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Business and organizations have a specific set of notability criteria. If no (or too few) reliable sources have written about the CAM International Market, then it simply isn't notable enough to deserve an article. That means most small businesses will never be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia isn't a place where things or people become notable - it is a place to report on people or things that are already notable. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@AlexZrazhevsky: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns.
Not every company that exists can have a Wikipedia article. Only companies that have met Wikipedia's notability criteria will be considered worthy of inclusion. To meet these criteria, a company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company's representatives wish to say about it; only what third-party writers have chosen to publish about it.
Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines highly discourage users from writing about topics where they have a personal or professional interest. You will find it difficult to write about your own company from an objective point of view, and use only third-party sources. If you still want to try, you should use the WP:Article wizard to create a draft article for other editors to review. You should disclose any connection you have to this company on your userpage as a sign of good faith. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to thank you for adding the translated page template on the Draft page about Didier Gazagnadou.
Je continue en français puisque vous me le proposiez gentiment.
Juste une remarque : vous me parliez de version ("It would be ideal if you knew which version of the page on French Wikipedia you used, but it's not necessary."), mais je pense que je n'ai pas compris de quoi il s'agissait. J'ai traduit en fait la version actuelle de la page, sans pour autant traduire mot à mot.
Encore un grand merci, en tous cas.
Etoiledeneige (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Etoiledeneige: Merci pour votre message! Je peux clarifier. Chaque page de Wikipédia a une histoire complète avec tous les changements apportés (fr-wiki, le lien "Voir l'historique"; en-wiki, "View History"). Chaque édition a un numéro d'identification unique, avec la date, l'heure et le nom d'utilisateur de l'auteur de la modification. Le modèle {{Translated page}} accepte un paramètre facultatif avec le numéro d'identification de la version de page que vous avez copiée.
Par exemple, la version la plus récente de fr:Didier Gazagnadou a été écrite le 20 août 2019. Si je clique sur la date de la version la plus récente de l'historique, l'URL indique le numéro d'identification 161970768. Alors, le modèle est écrit comme ceci:
Cela est utile si vous fournissez ces informations, car elles indiquent aux autres utilisateurs quelle version de la page d'origine a été copiée pour la traduction. Mais comme je disais, ce n'est pas nécessaire.
Un deuxième grand merci pour votre réponse et pour avoir modifié vous-même mes erreurs sur les références. En effet, cette règle (MOS:REFPUNCT) me semblait curieuse mais c'est bel et bien cela qu'il faut faire...!
Merci vraiment.
Etoiledeneige (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
OhShape
Hello Drm310,
I've seen my OhShape page has been deleted as it has been considered spam. I will be totally open about it, I'm one of the developers of the game, but I honestly think it wasn't a spammy page. I tried to explain objectively how the game works and noted its release date. I didn't use any marketing language and I didn't even post links to the stores that sell the game, I just added links to specialized media and the official website. I will happily remove any links if necessary or change the gameplay description (if you consider that a detailed description of this is spam).
@Eldan K: The draft article has been deleted, and since I am not an administrator, I cannot see deleted content. Therefore I cannot comment on specifics, since I don't remember what the draft article contained. All I know is that the deleting administator, MER-C, agreed with my nomination that the draft was exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose articles are about notable topics - that is, of sufficient interest to the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this interest and determine if the topic is worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia:Notability (video games) has more refined criteria particular to video games: "A video game release is appropriate for a stand-alone article if it has been the subject of significant commentary in multiple published sources which are independent of the video game developer. Avoid creating new articles about re-releases or expansions if they will be short or redundant, and cover smaller releases at the article about the series or original game.".
As the developer, you have an inherent conflict of interest (COI). This impairs your ability to write objectively about this topic, and raises concern that you are trying to use Wikipedia for publicity, which is prohibited. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person or entity wants to say about themselves or their work. We only care about what third-party writers, with no vested interest in the topic, have chosen to publish about it. That is why we discourage writers from attempting to write articles - at all - about topics where they have a personal or professional connection. It's not prohibited outright, but you will find yourself subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.
Hello, I'm not certain how to use Wikipedia and am very interested in learning. I was attempting to create a Wikipedia page for My Artist brand and would like to know what I did wrong before my page is deleted. Would you be willing to point me in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KILLERROBZILLA (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@KILLERROBZILLA: I'm afraid you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge about notable topics. A topic is deemed to be notable if it has attracted significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We use evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this interest.
Readers expect to find neutrally written articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. I'm afraid that your objective to "create a page for your artist brand" is in conflict with these goals. Wikipedia is not social media and can't be used as a place for you to tell the world about yourself. We have no interest in what a person or entity wishes to say about themselves or how they want to be portrayed. We care only about what third-party writers, with no vested interest in the subject, have chosen to publish about them.
If you have not already had a significant amount of coverage in reliable, independent sources, then you simply are not notable enough for inclusion. Even if you have (or do eventually), you should not be the one to write about it. It is a conflict of interest to write about a topic where you have a personal or professional connection, because of the inherent difficulty in writing from the required neutral point of view and only relying on independent sources for article content.
It's also important to know that if an article about you is ever accepted, you will no right of ownership or control over its content. Anyone can edit any article at any time, and its contents can and will change substantially over time. As long as edits are done in good faith and sourced reliably, the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about you will be told, and the conflict of interest guideline limits your ability to edit out any negative material from an article about yourself.
The links below are a further explanation of the points I have summarized above:
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
Confused about Speedy Deletion recommendation for Thomas D Kirsch
I am confused as to why the details for Dr. Kirsch have been removed.
I, Alice O'Donnell, am the author of the content on behalf of Thomas D Kirsch. Have I posted it to the wrong place?
I had carefully checked the listings of several senior professionals in this field (listed below) before assembling Dr. Kirsch's information. The object of this exercise is to increase the number of experts in disaster medicine and preparedness within the Wiki community. Please advise on how I can have this remedied and have Dr. Kirsch's information remain on Wiki. All advice graciously received
Your account name is named after Dr. Kirsch but you are not him. Per Wikipedia's username policy, do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your own real name. Please submit a request to change your username, otherwise your account could be blocked for impersonation.
If you are Dr. Kirsch's colleague or friend, you have an inherent conflict of interest in writing about him, so these connections should be disclosed. If you are being paid for editing Wikipedia on behalf of him, disclosure of who is paying you is mandatory per Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy.
The content on your user page was deleted because that is not the purpose of your user page. A user page is a place to write about yourself, keeping in mind Wikipedia's user page guidelines for acceptable content. Article works in progress should be placed in your user sandbox or the draft article space.
Having said that, your draft article at Draft:Thomas D Kirsch, MD, MPH,FACEP was deleted because the content was deemed too promotional and needs to be fundamentally rewritten to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. I am not an administrator and I cannot see content that has been deleted, so I am unable to comment on specifics of what you submitted.
Wikipedia only accepts articles about academics who pass its inclusion criteria, detailed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I would caution comparing your article to other existing articles. The existence of similar articles doesn't guarantee acceptance - each article must stand on its own merits. There may be issues with the articles you're comparing it to - with almost 6 million articles, Wikipedia volunteers cannot possibly monitor them all for quality.
Writing original articles on Wikipedia is one of the hardest tasks one can attempt. I would read through Help:Your first article to learn about the process and the expectations of editors. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is another important and relevant document here too, as biographies of people who are still alive must be done with great care and attention.
I know that's a lot of information to toss at you, but if you can power through it, your resulting writing will have a much higher chance of success. Good luck. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
I received a notification asserting that my proposed new article for Wikipedia with the subject Army University Press (AUP) may be disqualified due to a conflict of interest. This is very curious since I basically followed the format from several already existing similar articles including the Army War College, the Command and General Staff College, the Combined Arms Center, and the National Defense University, all of which are similar U.S. government entities the articles of which were written as informational instruments outlining to the public the role and function of each organization by someone on the staff of each institution. Therefore, I am therefore confused as to how the proposed article differs in origin form each one of these other already existing articles. Additionally, I also note that there are dozens if not hundreds of similarly written articles describing government institutions from around the world, as for example the Indian Military Review, which seems actually more parochial and promotional than the one I submitted. So I am not sure why my particular article is unique from the literally hundreds of other such government institutions, the articles of which were no doubt written by members of each institution, and how this one submitted represents a conflict of interest and the others do not. Would be very interested in getting clarification as to how an article about a government organization is submitted without a clear conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.darley (talk • contribs)
William.darley (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)William.darley, the short version: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While there are other articles on Wikipedia with similar topics, and some of them may have even been written by members of the organization (though it's a rather bad faith assumption to suggest that they were no doubt written by members of each institution without evidence), that does not change the fact that you appear to have a conflict of interest in what you're writing about. If you do have a conflict of interest, that doesn't entirely disqualify the article, but you should carefully read the conflict of interest policies linked on your page and disclose that COI. If you don't have a conflict of interest, then we apologize for the assumption - I'm not Drm310, but I assume the thought process was that your editing looks similar to other COI editing in the past. Either way, I'd encourage you to also have a look at WP:42 - all of the coverage I see in your articles is from sources associated with their respective subjects. creffett (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@William.darley: There's not a lot I have to add to creffett's comments. With nearly 6 million articles and an entirely volunteer community of editors, not every article will meet Wikipedia's standards, and these problems might not get noticed for some time. That's why using another similar article as a basis for your own can be a double-edged sword... if there are problems in your example(s), you might end up repeating them. I will be checking each of the ones you mentioned for issues, and if there is evidence that COI - or undisclosed paid editing - has taken place, it will be dealt with appropriately.
One item that was in the welcome notice I left - which I will mention again - is Wikipedia's mandatory disclosure of paid editing policy, as I believe this is applicable to you. If you are editing on behalf of your own organization or a client organization, you are required to disclose this information for each article. Preferably you should do it on your userpage (User:William.darley) with one of the variations of the {{paid}} template. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
could you tell me why the ICAS Wiki page is semi protected (at least from me)?
You wrote me about the copyright material and a COI.
I didn't wanted to put on copryright protected material and as far as I know I solved teh COI when I wrote on my own page that I'm involved with this organsiation.
But as I tell everybody better to have correct information from an involved person than having incorrect/incomplete information from anybody else.
Since ICAS is not selling anything you don't have to be afraid of advertising of involved people. The only thing ICAS does is giving authors a platform where they can share Information and articles about aeronautics.
Please tell me waht di I have to do to put the correct material online.
Thanks Bo1958 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bo1958: The page was protected by Diannaa on December 11 for one month, for the following reason: "excessive violations of the copyright policy". During this time it is editable by only autoconfirmed or confirmed users.
Of course we don't want incorrect information in an article. However you must realize that information in an article is taken from reliable sources that are outside of and unaffiliated with the organization, as Wikipedia doesn't care about what an organization wants to say about itself. Primary sources like an organization's website are OK for basic facts and figures (for example, number of people in the organization, date of establishment, key personnel), but anything beyond that must be verifiable by independent sources. If a major addition or change to an article cannot be verified by a reliable, independent source, then it is better that the article not have the information at all.
The proper way for an editor with a conflict of interest is to suggest changes on the article talk page with the {{Request edit}} template. State the changes you propose ("add [x]", or "change [x] to [y]") and cite the sources that verify the change(s). --Drm310🍁 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Corinna Löckenhoff
Hi,
Someone created a wikipedia site about me without my knowledge on Nov 22. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff I'm just a random academic, not a public figure, and don't really need a wikipedia page. The problem is, the page is wrong. It's misrepresenting my affiliations, it's misrepresenting my work, it has typos and looks highly unprofessional. I'm currently up for promotion and when I noticed the faulty page I tried to fix it immediately so nobody who is supposed to review me gets the wrong impression.
None of the changes I made are controversial in any way - they just make sure that my affiliations are correct, my work is described correctly, and readers are pointed to original sources describing my work (instead of excerpts from news articles that are glossing over key details). I provided cites for all the info.
When I finally got it fixed (took me a couple of hours since I don't speak "Wikipedia") I realized that soon thereafter you undid my edits and I also got blocked for allegedly not being who I am. I finally managed to get myself unblocked, but the person who unblocked me (called Nosebagbear) said I could not just confirm my earlier edits but had to talk to whoever blocked my edits so it would not look like there was an editing war going on.
Could you please to one of the following (1) completely delete the page (I really don't need one, my departmental website is all the professional representation I need) (2) turn it to a stub that reads "Corinna Löckenhoff is an associate professor of Human Development at Cornell University and Gerontology in Medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America.[1]" it should have my Orcid ID at the bottom along with a link to my google scholar site. (3) let my original edits stand
@Loeckenhoff: Hello Professor Löckenhoff. Sorry for the delayed response - I've had some health issues recently.
The reason I reverted your changes is for a couple of reasons: it deleted sourced information from the article, added material linked to primary sources, and was done by an account that was - at the time - appearing to impersonate you. I see that you have now confirmed your identity, which is good.
Even now that your identity has been confirmed, I would advise that you suggest changes on the article talk page for others to review instead of editing the article directly. I see you have already done so, which is great. I have added the {{request edit}} template at the start of your post, which will place it in a queue to attract the attention of uninvolved editors. They can assist you with making any changes while still conforming to Wikipedia's core editing policies. I am confident that the process of discussion and compromise on the article talk page for any content you want to add or change will arrive at the desired consensus.
If I may continue for a bit, I'd like to point out a few general principles. The notability criteria decides whether a topic is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. There are more refined criteria for academics at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Admittedly, my experience in evaluating the notability of academics is limited, so a more experienced editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia might be better suited for that task.
The subject of an article has no right of ownership or editorial control over the existence or content of the article. Of course, we strive for accuracy, fairness and neutrality, especially when it must conform to the policy on biographies of living persons. That's why we suggest the article talk page as a place for you to discuss changes.
My ability to contribute to Wikipedia will be limited in the short term, so I won't be joining the discussion at Talk:Corinna Löckenhoff. I hope that your concerns are promptly addressed to your satisfaction, and the resulting consensus will result in an outcome that satisfies all parties. Best of luck. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and hope you're feeling better
If it's ok, I'm going ahead and change my affiliations in the header right now because that's a major issue to incorrectly attribute my primary employer that I'm not comfortable to let stand.
I'll wait for the wikipedia community to take care of the rest (in the secret hopes that someone just reduces the whole thing to a stub so I don't have to keep watching it in case someone adds more incorrect material).
regards
Loeckenhoff (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I see you've made a small change - totally reasonable. If there are other changes to improve the content, I would engage with the editors on the talk page. There's been a response already. However, now it looks as if the article in its entirety is up for a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Drm310: Thanks. I'm in touch with the editors on the talk page and we're discussing whether deletion or reduction to stub is the better long-term solution. I'm thinking a stub might be best since it since a stub would hopefully discourage creation of another more elaborate post with more incorrect information in the future. Deletion is fine too. Thanks for your help.
