An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Pseudoscientists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This is a limited reconsideration of one element of the decision, not a call for a reversal of the entire renaming. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job
Well done for standing up for the close of category:Pseudoscientists, given that there was likely to be much sturm und drang from a disgruntled minority with any result, and well done to the group of you for a well-reasoned close that reflects Wikipedia's core values. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, the QPQ you requested has been provided. Can you check to see whether it's valid, and if so, then if you don't spot any other issues, is it ready to get a tick? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should leave a brief message here so... When I tagged the redirect, I had forgotten that there had actually been an article there previously (the reason for which I originally watched the page). I hadn't checked the history, so thanks for fixing the page. Dustin(talk)21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It was part of a mass revert of a user that has just been blocked for disruptively redirecting dozens of pages in a few minute (clearly without evaluating the content of any of them) and then disruptively declining 100 articles for creation submissions in less than an hour (again clearly not evaluating any of them). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Help :-)
Hi Thaddeus,
You commented on my attempt to create an article-- I keep trying to edit it and trying to do what was asked to get it approved but I can't figure out why it keeps getting rejected. I followed the instructions for citations, made sure it wasn't advertorial in nature, and added extra sources. Can you explain to me what I did wrong and why it isn't getting approved? I am really confused and would love to talk to a real person. :-)
Incoronata81 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Incoronata81
This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jack_Woodbridge[reply]
I took another look at the article. (Previously, I was just undoing Bonker's bad faith close, not reviewing the article itself.) While I am not 100% sure Jack Woodbridge is notable, I would probably say he is. You seem to have met all the other requirements - neutral language, inline citations, no obvious copyright violation, etc. - so I moved the article to mainspace. It can now be found at Jack Woodbridge. Congrats! --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for creation: Badlands Unlimited
Hi ThaddeusB,
Thanks for your closer inspection of Bonker's decline on my page. While it has gone through many rounds and has thus far remained un-approved, I do appreciate fair deliberation from editors. It's my first page, and so far has gone back and forth between several editors who are, sadly no longer active from what I can tell. I'm wondering if you could help with feedback on the page? Thus far I haven't really understood the claims of non-notability for Badlands. It's gotten a lot of press from very notable sources (New Yorker, Vogue, October mag, Atalantic, Observer, etc). I browsed a few other independent publishers in the same category (publishers founded in 2010, independent publishers), most of which have received little to any significant press coverage of their activities, with few references to personal blogs. Am I missing something? It is an art publisher, and the industry is insular and small, but I feel with the references I included in the wiki it should justify being notable...I don't know if it's bad form to request your attention to the article, but it's been over a year since I started, with many false starts and waiting and editors dropping out while I was working with them, and I'd really like to git 'er done. I really love this publisher, and all the publications they have made, and my personal knowledge of art publishing indicates to me beyond a doubt that they are of renown and get a lot of props for what they do from many angles. Sorry for the novel ;/
I now have taken a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Badlands Unlimited (before I was just reverting the bad faith close) and I believe the subject is notable. You have a couple problems though. First, the article has very little information about the company itself. Second you have dumped in a huge number of external links. I supposed this was an attempt to establish notability, so to the casual observer it looks like spam. If you do me a couple favors, I will help you out on getting the content up to standard. First, remove the quotebox and try to expand the information about the company. That is, what it does. Second, remove any links to unrelaible sources. Generally speaking, something is reliable if it has editorial control. Things like blogs and publications with tiny readership are generally not reliable because they do not have any editorial control. Third, organize the remaining links by title & switch them from external links to inline citations to support the various publication. Use a {{cite news}} (for new stories), {{cite journal}} (for magazine articles), or {{cite web}} (for online online publications) template and fill in as many of the following paramaters as you can "title=XXX" (artcile title), "work=YYY" (publication name), "date=Jan 1, 2000" (publication date), "url=http://zzz.com/blah/blah.htm" (direct link to article), "author=AAA" (who wrote the story).
If you take those steps for me, I'll help expand/rework the content in such a way that it will be acceptable.
Hey ThaddeusB, I've worked over the external links to get them to the proper format, and added a few lines to the intro. As of yet the article isn't very much longer, but could you let me know if it is in the right direction? Would you suggest that I expand the publications section and list them in a bulletted format, with brief description of each? At the moment it looks a bit incoherent. Is there any information about Badlands that you feel is lacking otherwise? Thanks again!
Yep, you are definitely on the right track. A short article is not a problem - the important part is demonstrating notable through sourcing and remianing neutral (nmot promoting the subject). Teh article is in pretty good shape - it just needs some fine tuning, as you've started to do. I will try to pitch in what I can within the next few days and then publish the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed up the publications section—I did end up using some of the descriptions from their website, as I haven't read all their titles myself, and tried to remove to some extent promotional language. I did leave in some of the reviews by verified sources and notable publications, as I felt it might add some weight to the notability thing. Could you let me know if there's any specifics I should focus on next? Do you think it's ready for another review? Thanks again for your time!!
Matthewyso, Sorry about the slow reply... Unfortunately, the book descriptions read more or less like ads now, and in some cases appear to be copyright violations (descriptions copied and pasted from other sites.) To fix, pretend you know nothing about these books and then rewrite (in your own words) what independent, reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) say about them. If you don't get a chance to do this soon, I will start rewriting the article myself to help you out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, thanks for the response, no worries. I've gone over all the descriptions once again, and have tried to rewrite them in the manner you requested. Sorry to keep asking for updates or feedback from you. If you let me know what else should be done before it is in a state (early or premature as it may be) to be re-submitted for approval, I can focus on doing that.
@Matthewyso: I see another user eventually created an article on the subject in mainspace. I apologize that I never got back to you on your last attempt at making the article yourself back in July 2014. I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confused as to who has reviewed my article
Dear ThaddeusB, I submitted an article Philip Felleman and this morning had a message rejecting it from "Bonkers the Clown" (I kid you not) and then a later one from you, the content or context of which I cannot divine. The first I cannot find, now (possibly due to my lack of experience with Wikipedia authoring). I sense that my article, which was--I admit--about my own father, may violate the no OR rule. Can you confirm? The only aspects of article that are "original," however, are his biographical data. The significant career highlights are all substantiated in the various literature cited, including his own publications. I attempted to attend scrupulously to Wikipedia standards and style. Thanks for helping to clarify the status of the article and its prospects. If Dad's biographical data (parents, education, etc.) MUST have been previously published, the article (which, obviously, I believe he deserves) may have poor chances.
Susan, first let me apologize about the confusion. Yesterday, Bonkers blindly declined about 100 nominations without actually reviewing them. Thus, you can safely ignore what he wrote. He has now been blocked from Wikipedia for his disruption. The reason it said you had a message from me is because I undid his "review" and left you a "welcome to Wikipedia" message. I didn't actually review the article myself, just undid his disruption.
Now, you have received a proper review with some advice. I also went and looked at the article myself. Your reviewer would like you to use inline citations to back the article. That is a reasonable request, but not a big deal. The bigger problem is that your father's work appears to be quite important, but none of the provided sources seem to be about the man himself. For a subject to meet notability standards (think "being noticed" as opposed to "being important"), there must be at least two sources that cover a subject in depth. This is to ensure there is enough material to create a neutral article about the subject. In the case of living people, it is also for their own protection. It may seem far fetched, but before we got strict about this requirement there were multiple instances of people making up lies about others, and we had no idea they were lies because we didn't require proof, so to speak.
The first source (Computers Take Flight: A History of NASA’s Pioneering Digital Fly-by-wire Project) is probably passable. Although it is not about Philip Felleman, it has enough tidbits that collectively I could be persuaded it provides "in depth coverage" of him. Unfortunately, the rest of the sources appear to be passing mentions only. These types of sources are OK for adding details to a biography, but are insufficient to prove notability. If you can find a source that is mostly about Felleman or second source with the level of incidental information that Computers Take Flight has, then I think the article will have a good chance. Otherwise, I am afraid you are right that the article has a poor chance of making it. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Question
Hi Thaddeus
Wiki is a fun and new experience for me. I have submitted an article which was not accepted. It said something about viewing reviewer's comments but I see only the general information. Is that what I need to review or was there something specific about the article I need to address. Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide
--BethanyAnnD (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. What happened is that we had a guy go and decline about 100 reviews without actually checking any of them. I undid the the bad "reviews", which is why the system told you had a message from me. No one has actually reviewed your article yet - you should get a proper review shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it per yuor request. All of his reviews have been either re-reviewed or undone already, however, so let me know when the page can be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you might also be pleased (?) to hear that your creation of this article has inspired me to do a few more, as testified by the template at the bottom of the 2014 article. We already have four GAs, with five sitting at GAN, and three more in preparation....! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always pleased when new high quality content is created. I was aware of the articles and knew at least one had made GA, but didn't know if was up to four already - very nice. I imagine the middle hundred years or so will be fairly hard to write (i.e. may require paper sources). Good luck! --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you take this as a proxy to post? I'm on an iPad which is not conducive to main page updates, otherwise I would do so. Stephen02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! When restoring an ITN item to improve the main page's balance, please be careful to retain any edits performed since its removal. (In this instance, various intervening changes were undone.) In such a circumstance, please copy and paste the blurb instead of reverting to the most recent revision containing it. Thanks! —David Levy21:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I do apologize about that. I noticed people had to refix the blurbs after me. I think I did copy and paste it (certainly intended to), but might have accidentally pasted it into the old revision - either that or I had a brain lapse and simply reverted even though I knew better. Either way, I will be more careful next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2014 Belmont Stakes, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Pony!
Congratulations! For your help with California Chrome, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk)06:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.
Hi again! I removed this image from ITN (and deleted it at Wikipedia and Commons) because it was a copyright violation. (It belongs to Getty Images and most likely was cropped from the version appearing here.) I became suspicious when I noticed that it was uploaded at a low resolution via a new account with no other contributions. In such cases, it generally is best to err on the side of caution, as the likelihood of copyright infringement (even if not yet established conclusively) is great. Thanks! —David Levy21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Next time I will do a little investigation before posting an image. Checking copyright (beyond the tag) is not something that occurred to me as needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Leach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for re-reviewing one of my reviews for the June backlog drive. I would just like to note that in the future, I would appreciate it if you would re-review them in the manner specified at {{AFCDriveQC}}'s documentation so the bot which updates the drive pages can recognize it. Thank you! APerson (talk!) 18:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for reviewing the two DYKs. Much appreciated. Could you at some point take a look at my recently created article Skogssamer. Appreciate it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have a third DYK Elm Conflict currently just a hook approval away from completion. You find it at the articles talk page. I dont know if it is allowed to ask someone to approve it. But I do it anyway :)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of International Institute for Species Exploration
The problem is we have strict requirements for use of non-free images. In this case, it is very likely a free image can easily be found (for example by asking people who previously took a photo to supply theirs), so using a non-free image is not justified. If you disagree, you are welcome to comment on the deletion discussion - the community, not me, will ultimately decide if it is deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been posted on his official web-site. But now the picture is an image of a deceased person, historically significant, so it should be free, right? Lamro (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keye's death certainly doesn't make the image free (copyright won't expire until 75 years after publication). On the other hard, there is certainly not a legal issue with claiming fair use. Wikipedia's policies on fair use images are much stricter than the law, though, and generally speaking if it is reasonably likely a free image is possible (all living persons for sure, and generally prominent figures of the recent past) then fair use is not justified. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthed. One hopes that it's a suitable demonstration to those who clamoured for its instant inclusion that a concerted effort to improve the quality can produce good results in a reasonably short period of time, instead of moaning about it not being posted for three days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys (including Bencherlite below). Recognition, while not essential by any means, is always nice and a is good motivator to do more quality work. Interestingly, my two most appreciated articles (at least it terms of the number of responses they motivated) are both ITN RD nominations, the other being Maria Tallchief last year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copping Bencherlite's barnstar and thanking you for your work on the Casey Kasem article. It's improved substantially since his death; I was following his case while he was alive and noted the article's poor quality, and it's very nice to see how far it's come. Keep it up. Tezero (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rereview
Just to let you know others beg to differ on your fail reason. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Notability. It is clearly ad-like and seeks to promote that brand, having probably been written by the owner. It is likely to never be accepted. If you are prone to accept articles such as this one, I suggest you seriously read up on notability criteria and practise reviewing more carefully. As for Draft:Lifeism, you're correct in that I should've added some comments, but the draft will never be accepted; it is clearly unencyclopaedic. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I changed Victorious 22 to pass, although I would still say an explanation of why the sourcing is insufficient should have been given if that was the reason for decline. (And if it was for promotional language, that shoudl have been the reason.) Of course Lifeism is junk, but there is more to AfC than acting as a filter to new articles - AfC is also about helping people to understand our content guidelines and a link to NOT w/no further explanation doesn't do that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited June 2014 Borno State attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I'm still waiting to hear back from last Wednesday on the updated version of my proposed page "Instant Records, Inc". Could you please tell me if there is anything more I can do to get this page active? I already listed several more sources and specified that it was different from the "Instant Records" New Orleans page. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epwalsh1 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of its tasks were taken over by other bots when I was inactive a couple years ago, so yes it can be marked inactive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't convince Editor to go and add a comment, looks like s/he thinks that the voting is closed. Doesn't looks like I succeded to make him understand that s/he would need to comment it again. Maybe you can.... Hafspajen (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for International Institute for Species Exploration
On 28 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article June 2014 central Nigeria attacks, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
On 28 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article June 2014 Borno State attacks, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
On 29 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article VetUK, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that VetUK, which has annual revenues of more than £10 million as of 2010, initially operated out of the living room of co-founder Iain Booth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/VetUK. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref: Alison Appleton submission
Hi ThaddeusB
I just wanted to say thanks for approving this. I really appreciate it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission 31, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Snook and Reef shark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article April 2014 lunar eclipse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
As you may know, I write for the Signpost, basically Wikipedia's newsletter. I'd like to do a feature on the semifinalists, would you be willing to provide, say, 250 to 500 words saying: (1.) Why did you join the Wikicup? (2.) What you you hope to get out of it? and (3.) Which of your contributions to the Wikicup are your favourites?
Not quite sure how I'll order them - I'll probably make the ed17 decide, as, you know, Conflict of Interest: I am a semifinalist. I'd imagine point order or alphabetical or the like.
Congratulations, ThaddeusB! You're receiving the The Articles for Creation Barnstar because you got more than 175 points during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive in June 2014! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! (t) Josve05a (c)23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, just a friendly reminder that you still need to do three more QPQs for this nomination. It's been over a month since you posted that you would do them soon. Please do them as soon as possible—if it's going to be longer than a week, let us know and keep us apprised of your progress. I'd hate for someone to close the nomination due to inaction when it's this close to being approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.
There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is certainly my attention to continue to contribute when I can. I have a lot on my plate, but I anticipate some of my (real life) extra work winding down soon, so I hope to get back into editing regularly again soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BNA access
Hello, ThaddeusB. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello ThaddeusB. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
The article linked together two related topics. I don't see why we should erase and entire article because it just might offend someone.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkeyOrbits (talk • contribs)
Hey. You reviewed my article about the "Dandy" character from Space Dandy. You said that there has to be "sources talking about the character in a real world fashion"-I don't quite understand what you mean. Do I need to pull from sources that talk specifically about the character's impact and personality as opposed to articles that simply feature the character as part of the show? Exactly how many citations do I need?
Thanks,Kinfoll77 (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is the article needs to focus mainly on real world aspects of a character - if it is just in-world stuff, then the character is not notable enough for an article (which is the case for most characters). Take a look at SpongeBob SquarePants (character), for example, and you'll see there is very little description on character's in-world attributes/history and a lot about how it was developed, its real world impact, and so on. Now, that article is well beyond the minimum required, but should give you an idea about the type of material needed.
As to sources, they don't have to be specifically/exclusively about Dandy, but they do need to have significant material that is specifically about the character and not discussions of plot and such. Two sources with significant discussion is the bare minimum requirement. Sources with small amounts of info are good to fill in the article, but insufficient to prove independent notability of the character. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on GraniteSand, but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement "[GraniteSand] is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
To which GraniteSand replied
Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. ... GraniteSand (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You have written on "GraniteSand's" talk page
I have lifted the broad topic ban. Note, however, that any discussion of the artcile title will be viewed as disruption and grounds for an immediate block until the moratorium expires.
The problem is that this is that you have only said that discussing the article title will be views as disruption, but you have said nothing about discussing the moratorium.
So where has "GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the mroatorium," and agree not to discuss the moratorium?
I assessed the consensus per a request by a third party at WP:Requests for closure. Presumably you've already read my summary... All parties were in agreement - the topic ban had no meaning outside the article title. The two choices thus had little practical difference, but I chose the one I felt was better reflective of consensus... As I wrote on the close: "Any mention of the article title or moratorium on changes to it while the moratorium is in effect will be seen as disruption and a cause for a block." So, I don't really see any issue here. If GraniteSand causes further problems, let me know, or start an ANI thread. Until then, there isn't really anything to discuss. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All parties were in agreement" No they were not, the issue of discussing the moratorium on the article title had not been agreed as GraniteSand has refused to abide by that, and your wording does not stop GraniteSand from discussing the moratorium on the name of the article. If you thought there was a consensus why did you not first see if I agreed that was by asking me before closing an archived discussion because the "Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" general sanctions clearly state that ("Sanctions imposed cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator ")? So how precisely did you asses that there was a consensus, because I took it that as the conversation was archived without agreement, there was no consensus? -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said in "rough agreement". There was a request to assess the consensus. I did. (The discussion being archived does not mean there was no consensus, only that there were no comments for a sufficient period of time.) I'm sorry you disagree with my conclusion, but I really think you are trying to making an issue out of nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17:11:57, 5 December 2014 review of submission by Punkish
Hello, I am one of the co-authors of this article. First, thanks for your review. Could you please tell us specifically which content you believe merits rewrite on account of impinging on someone's else's copyright? If we were to guess, perhaps you are concerned about the text we have quoted from various news articles. If so, would it help if we quote the text verbatim from those articles? As far as I can tell, that would constitute fair use.
The Houston Chronicle tested the air in public parks, playgrounds and neighborhoods bordering some of the state's largest industrial plants and found the air in the Manchester area laden with toxic chemicals. The Chronicle collected air samples over the course of 3 days in Houston, Baytown, Freeport and Port Neches. The test was carried out with equipment used by plant workers to detect hazardous chemicals in the air, and the samples were analyzed for 18 toxic substances by the University of Texas School of Public Health.
whereas the original is:
The Houston Chronicle tested the air in public parks, playgrounds and neighborhoods bordering some of the state's largest industrial plants and found the air in the Manchester area so laden with toxic chemicals that it was dangerous to breathe. The Chronicle collected air samples on three days last summer in four communities in Houston, Baytown, Freeport and Port Neches. The test was carried out with the same equipment used by plant workers to detect hazardous chemicals in the air, and the samples were analyzed for 18 toxic substances by the University of Texas School of Public Health.
as you can see, there is very little difference between the two texts. Wikipedia can only accept original content - we cannot accept writing copied from other places. Please describe the study using your own words, not what the Houston Chroncicle wrote about their own study. (And likewise for the other material in the article.
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
Hi, I am not very good with this Wikipedia process. I made a contribution to the discussion about the approved entry about my father.
"Though I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's approval/deletion process I was surprised to read the comments above. "I do believe there's a slight chance Săhleanu may be notable" is a strange comment about a person that has (verifiably) authored 32 books. As ThaddeusB rightly observed "I'm not sure what to really expect from a non-English-speaking person who was active 50 years ago" to which I would add "in a Communist country isolated from contacts with the Western scientific world". Nevertheless I understand the need for additional independent references to Victor Sahleanu. I did some more research for such sources and I found this recent one http://www.caleaeuropeana.ro/simpozionul-fr-i-rainer-2013-antropologie-si-mediu-dedicat-lui-victor-aurelian-sahleanu/ , which would satisfy, I believe, the criteria to include my father's entry in Wikipedia. The page has versions in three languages, Romanian, English and French."
How do I know if that is enough to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements / the people who asked for deletion? ValentinSahleanu (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An Awesome Wave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matilda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello ThaddeusB, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, The Herald : here I am11:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E.ventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xango. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
.svg)
.jpg)
