This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gronk Oz. 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, @Khudaeidadkhan: Firstly, thank you for supplying those sources. As you probably know, Wikipedia articles live or die by the sources that support them. In this case, I am unsure. There seems to be coverage in several major news sources. However, I have some reservations about them and I have asked for another opinion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Where_to_go_for_Notability_advice? I suggest you follow the discussion there, and if there are questions you might be able to contribute to them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Khudaeidadkhan: some good answers came back on the Teahouse, including from a Wikipedia Administrator. I'm sorry to tell you that most of them agreed that these sources do not show that Haris Baloch is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of the word). In particular, there are two problems with them:
All of the articles say the same thing, in almost the same words. This usually happens when newspapers are just repeating a press release or where a story is syndicated. They do not appear to be independent of one another, and probably not independent of the subject.
Those articles don't really say anything about what he or his company have achieved: they are just puff pieces. As one respondent said: "These guys have persuaded newspapers to describe them as 'entrepreneurs', who 'come up with solutions'. But there's no evidence that they've ever done anything useful."
My view is that it's probably too soon in their careers - Wikipedia documents what has happened after the fact; it doesn't promote businesses that are still getting established. So AFTER they have made significant achievements, which have been written about independently by reliable sources, it would be better received.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi Gronk Oz! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Where to go for Notability advice?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
I edited a while ago in 2015 and it was a positive experience. My new year's resolution was to add to the global commons of knowledge. Unfortnately, between 2015 and 2021 there have arisen a new form of delete trolls who edit and critique without doing their own due diligence. I respectfully find it to be a form of bullying meant to drive out new contributors. If your intention is to make this a welcoming space, support new contributors, look at the sources, do your own due diligence -- build, don't tear down. Also, if you called out the sourcing from the State Department archives on Heather Conley which came from open source, non-copyright material -- I guess I will have to escalate this pursuit. I hope this community isn't as toxic as my initial experience has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@XhainXpert: Can I assume your comments relate to the article on Heather Conley, rather than Hassan Ali Kasi where you posted it? I have added a heading to that effect; let me know if that is not correct.
I fully appreciate your desire to help, and I am sorry that this experience so far has been negative. Now that I check, I see that other people (nothing to do with me) deleted the article because parts of it were just copied from a copyright source. Wikipedia has a legal obligation not to violate copyright that belongs to anybody else. In this case, you plagiarized https://www.gmfus.org/news/heather-conley-named-next-gmf-president. Wikipedia has no choice - they cannot continue to host the offending material.
But all is not lost. Find some good sources, and summarize the essence of what they say in your own words. The public domain material CAN be used (but the page I linked above is not PD)..--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Gronk Oz Thank you for your response. However, the individual who deleted the article in its entirety did so without seeing that most of the content was, in fact, from the State Department archives which are, indeed PD. I will do so again but the concept of proportionality and spirit of congenial community, are certainly reflected in Wikipedia's terms of service. I will edit again. My hope is that those who edit that post do so constructively, adding to the body of open source knowledge rather than disproportionately deleting articles in their entirety. I would appreciate you citing where it says the entire article must be removed since you have helpfully supported the decision.
Thanks. I am giving up on it. Quite deflating after putting in more than an hour on my first page in five years only to have it deleted on -- what I think even you would recognise are -- grounds subject to interpretation even under the most charitable reading.
@XhainXpert: That is up to you, of course. I think it would be a pity, because it could be fixed, and Wikipedia would be better for having an article about her.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
WOW! Thanks for all the great edits. I am learning a lot from watching you work!!!
@XhainXpert: My pleasure. It isn't easy to find sources for her. And what happened to the Department of State one that was there before (the one that was Public Domain) - if I remember rightly it had a lot of material about her career history, but now it has gone... --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
P.S. In talk page discussions like this, please try to remember to start a new paragraph, and sign off your comments using "~~~~". It really helps to follow along the conversation.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Big Pharma messed up supercar deliveries, and your Lamborghini had accidentally been delivered to me. Now I am just wondering where the Ferrari is that I requested..
On 1 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grant Robert Sutherland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Grant Sutherland is the geneticist who identified fragile X syndrome, the most common inherited genetic form of intellectual impairment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grant Robert Sutherland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grant Robert Sutherland), 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.
On 1 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeffrey Rosenfeld, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld led the team developing a wireless device that promises to give limited vision to the totally blind? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeffrey Rosenfeld. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jeffrey Rosenfeld), 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.
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Rp2006 (talk·contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
Roxy the dog (talk·contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
Hello. Where is there a request by the author--a public figure--to not publish the year (not actual date) of birth? This seems to be the tail wagging the dog, as it does not reveal personal details not already available.TrainTracking1 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @TrainTracking1: I don't think she meets the standard in "public figure" and there do not seem to be "a multitude of reliable published sources" that give that same birth year. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has special rules concerning articles about living people, including "unsourced or poorly sourced [material about living persons]...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."(WP:BLP) I do not know what Spartacus Educational's review and editorial processes are, but it hasn't made it onto Wikipedia's list of Perennial Sources. Some other sources give her YoB as 1959 or 1960 ([1] and the black-listed peoplepill.com which I can't link). As for your general concern about the tail wagging the dog, the exact interpretation of the BLP privacy policy is is a perennial topic of discussion. There was a discussion specifically about the Year of Birth in the BLP noticeboard here.
I am happy to continue the discussion if you want, but it would be best to take it to the Talk page of the article (Talk:Nina Burleigh) so that other editors can get involved if they want.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. Given her numerous books, especially about the former president, and her recent pieces in the Times, as well as essays for NBC and others, puts her in a fairly high profile. I can see the point for more reliable sources on YoB. In addition, though, since there are a number of sources that do post the 1959 or 1960 date, that does indicate a certain level of public recognition. You're right in that it probably should be a TALK: issue. My interest is also about the note of a request by the person to not have the date listed. I'd not come across that in Wiki before where instructions are given by the subject. TrainTracking1 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@TrainTracking1: WP's general policy on respecting the privacy of living people is at WP:BLPPRIVACY and it's worth reading, although parts are open to different interpretations (such as whether it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public). There does come a point where the information is so widely published that Wikipedia respecting their privacy becomes irrelevant. If you browse through the lengthy(!) BLP Noticeboard discussion linked above, you will see that even among very senior editors there are strongly different views about where that balance should be. Considering all that, if you want to say that Burleigh has passed that point, and put the year back, then I won't object as long as it can be referenced to a reliable source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding all those refs to the article :D I'll withdraw shortly, but just wanted to say that I appreciate when people add refs brought up in afds to the article (it's much rarer than one would expect). Hope you're having a good week. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!12:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Moxy: Wow, that is heavy going but remarkably helpful. I have been around for a while but have had very little involvement with the bureaucracy of WP (fortunately!) - at least until recently. Understanding how they all relate is helpful. Thanks! --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [2] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Hello Captain388, and thanks for getting in touch. The main thing the article needs is to be built up from more references. Good references - books that have been written about the company, detailed magazine articles discussing it, etc. Unfortunately the only two articles I can find in English just discuss them using recyclable packaging - very little about the company itself. Foreign-language sources can be used, but I don't speak any other languages so I can't help there.
The other thing that needs quick attention is the list of External links. Most of these absolutely do not belong in External links; they probably should be used as the References in the body of the article. Read through what each of those sources says about the company, then summarize it in your own words in the articles itself, and add the appropriate reference.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Your ANI post
I merged your ANI post with one two entries above it; since it was substantively about the same matter. Hope you don't mind. --Jayron3213:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jayron32: - yes, thank you. I am embarrassed: I did look before I posted, but obviously I did not look carefully enough. I will endeavour to do better next time.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to have my typos corrected, but did you not notice the under construction template? There was no need to drop the empty section template while I'm still composing the article! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzair Zaheer Khan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Hi, I noticed that you had made a page under what appears to be a typo. I've moved to the location above. Hope that's okay! Skynxnex (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to John Laurie (engineer). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because As per talk page discussion. Best wishes..
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Hi my friend, I can sense your frustration, and I fully understand. It's been a rollercoaster. For my mistakes, I just wanted to apologise again. Even with the best of intentions, and care, we can sometimes make dumb mistakes, as I did. Best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@BoyTheKingCanDance: thanks for being so understanding, and I apologize for being so grumpy. But it's all sorted now, and I think I might have to delete the article anyway because Notability is proving difficult.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
"Rosetie: I am also struggling to undertand what you are asking for"
I'm pretty sure that your struggle was and is the purpose. Note in particular the contrast between the OP's gibberish request/question and the fluency of their other text. Not to mention that a response to the gibberish is the OP's sole interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hoary: I expect you are right. The continued repetition of the same nonsense phrases is a bit of a give-away. Nevertheless, I can't help trying to give people the benefit of the doubt... --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
