Jump to content

User talk:Espresso Addict: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 586: Line 586:
Please help me understand why this article keeps getting deleted. It is a real non-profit organization that plays a large part in the lives of many young people as well as adults around the world. It was deleted a few years back and I am trying to get it re-established properly. What do I need to do to keep it alive? [[User:Adamvlaw|Adamvlaw]] ([[User talk:Adamvlaw|talk]]) 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Please help me understand why this article keeps getting deleted. It is a real non-profit organization that plays a large part in the lives of many young people as well as adults around the world. It was deleted a few years back and I am trying to get it re-established properly. What do I need to do to keep it alive? [[User:Adamvlaw|Adamvlaw]] ([[User talk:Adamvlaw|talk]]) 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:Hello {{u|Adamvlaw}} -- First find some sources, preferably at least three, that are reliable and independent of the organisation and that cover it in reasonable depth. National newspaper or magazine articles are ideal but material based on press releases can't be used. Then write the article based entirely on what they say, rather than what the organisation says about itself. You are better with a concise introduction rather than attempting to document everything the organisation does. [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations]] has some detailed advice. Good luck! [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:Hello {{u|Adamvlaw}} -- First find some sources, preferably at least three, that are reliable and independent of the organisation and that cover it in reasonable depth. National newspaper or magazine articles are ideal but material based on press releases can't be used. Then write the article based entirely on what they say, rather than what the organisation says about itself. You are better with a concise introduction rather than attempting to document everything the organisation does. [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations]] has some detailed advice. Good luck! [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you. That should not be a problem. Can I still access the article in order to make those edits before requesting publication again? [[User:Adamvlaw|Adamvlaw]] ([[User talk:Adamvlaw|talk]]) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:11, 31 October 2022

Not very active at present -- still pain typing three months after injuring my thumb playing the piano, on top of ongoing laptop woes. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]


Astle Hall and Removal

Hello I have read the COI you attached and I have seen where I have gone wrong. At first I thought you were a bit annoying but I saw you've been on Wikipedia for a long time so you know what your talking about,my hat is off to you so I respect what you have said . Please could you help me in removing the page I feel quite bad for what I have done the information you found was quite interesting. If you are continuing with the page I could provide you with information about the original house during ww2 and the house's use after the war and before it was fully knocked down. Regards Tom TomCaunce3 (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TomCaunce3: Hi Tom -- Thanks for responding. I used to live in Cheshire (near Nantwich) in a listed building so I wrote a lot of articles back then about local listed buildings, and still have the books even though I'm now in Scotland.
History of the original Astle Hall would be interesting, but it's important to understand that Wikipedia only includes information that has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources, rather than things you might have learned by archival research or talking to locals -- so what would be most useful is local history books or newspaper articles that talk about the history. I've looked through all my local history books for the county and not found anything, but my set is focused on the Crewe & Nantwich area. You could try going to your local library -- Nantwich library had a great local history section. I'll try some academic library searches in a minute.
I don't honestly know what would make a building like the modern one sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Private residential buildings dating from the 1990s are not usually the focus of non-trivial reliable independent coverage, so unless it won some kind of an architectural award there is unlikely to be the kind of coverage that Wikipedia counts.
A photo of the listed lodge would also be great, if you could take one. There's a photo on Geograph[1] but I think it's the wrong lodge. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for responding. You are right about that picture on Geograph looks nothing like the actual lodge and I will try and take a picture of the lodge (when the owners aren't looking!). Can't believe you left the best county in the country to move to Scotland! Only joking!! I think I have heard that there is a book about the original hall and it's 18th and 19th century occupants somewhere so I'll look and ask around for it. If there is a book and I do find it would you like me to email pictures of important pages or maybe you to borrow it so you can type up. Cheers TomCaunce3 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TomCaunce3: Hi there -- A book about the original hall would be very helpful. I've sometimes worked from scanned/photographed pages in the past so if you find something good that isn't available online anywhere, that might be a way to go. Just drop me a note on this page if you find something as things like pings often fail to go through. (Cheshire's a lovely county, particularly your side of it, but you don't get deer in the garden and eagles and hen harriers flying past the window.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have have found the book! and have scanned the pages. How would you like me to send them to you? TomCaunce3 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TomCaunce3: Thanks! I've e-mailed you. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eberle

Thank you for reviewing Sarah Eberle. The articles is a stub, as she is notable and had no WP page. The stub is listing why she is notable, which is why the highlights of her career are given. Editors are in a cleft stick. Either then stubs get tagged as non-notable new articles or we add notability and get tagged as promotional. The article is written with volunteered time as a beginning on which other editors can build. Anna (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletation request

Article name - Muhammad Ali Mirza Article violent wikipedia rule please delete article Reason of deleting request - (1) promotion of a wabsite that name - ahlesunnatpak.com (2) promotion of YouTube channel - Muhammad Ali Mirza (3) nothing given important for people

Please delete promotion in wikipedia Jaki0786 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaki0786 -- I've checked Muhammad Ali Mirza and it does not seem to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. As you have an account you can nominate it for deletion yourself, if you wish. The instructions are at WP:Articles for Deletion. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He use personal website as a references. That is allowed? Jaki0786 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple references, several of which appear reliable and independent of the subject. Once that threshold has been met, it is acceptable to use a personal website or blog to source personal opinions or uncontroversial facts, such as marital status or place of birth. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astle Hall

I've emailed you the useful page from the book about the hall and estate. 90.252.200.234 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nature Med cover (Oct 2007).gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nature Med cover (Oct 2007).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deleting a page

Hi, can you expand upon the reasoning for the removal of the controlled opposition page on May 4, 2022? Was it unsourced, or did the sources have clear bias? Who was attacked in it?

Thanks! 2600:1700:2DB0:25D0:79DA:A182:FBC:B2DD (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor -- As I wrote in the deletion rationale, "Might be a valid article but completely unsourced negative speculation including living people". The content was a disorganised jumble in which multiple living people were attacked. There were no sources whatsoever. There's reason not to start a new article based on reliable sources, if you want. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

  • New library partners
    • SAGE Journals
    • Elsevier ScienceDirect
    • University of Chicago Press
    • Information Processing Society of Japan
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ridge Article

Hey @Espresso Addict, I recidened the AfD for Mary Ridge. If there is anything I can do to be useful with improving the article please just let me know. I didn't realize Mary Ridge was as important as they are so I hope I didn't step on any toes or anything with the nomination. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! It's hard with people whose contributions fall before the internet; I think there's a period where online coverage of newspapers is particularly poor into which Ridge might fall. I'll see what I can do to improve the article after dinner, but it looks like the folk at Women in Red have got there before me! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to leave such a disappointing response

I'm really happy that you have encourage the author to come back and edit again. This essay on article creation may be useful to them. There are many such essays. This one includes a process to follow. It looks to me as if they have written a draft and found references to fit. Are you able to guide them to find references first and then to story board the draft finally writing it to summarise references? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Re: Draft:Nicholas Sansbury Smith] Thanks for responding, Timtrent. I'm genuinely not understanding why the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not deemed a decent source; afaik it is entirely respectable; I used to own a print copy of the 2nd edition. If encyclopedias are out by virtue of being tertiary sources, then half my recent content largely pending off Groves and ODNB, courtesy of Wikipedia Library (before the Oxford subs sadly expired), also seem suspect. Publishers Weekly is a trade magazine, and not the greatest of sources, but it does publish book reviews, and I thought the Books wikiproject was ok with them.
I'm also genuinely sad that Wikipedia now seems incompatible with contributors like von Ruff, who, as the co-founder of the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, undoubtedly knows more about contemporary science fiction than most people. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am simply very unsure about that source. Our RS team should be of some help. The other sources I am afraid I am totally sure about. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hello Espresso Addict I hope you're doing well. In my opinion disambiguation is not needed, Aisha Sharma (actress) to Aisha Sharma. I tried doing redirect removal and doing G6 make way for move, but I ended up getting stuck. Can you assist me. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else has already fixed it, C1K98V. By the way, even though I declined deletion as A7, I don't think the subject's notability is proven, so if you know of any more sources that would be useful. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was having the same question, is the notability proven, or should I put a notablity tag, and meanwhile try to find/add some reliable source, as I don't see plethora of works done by her. So, eventually the article will end up in Afd. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Espresso Addict. 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.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

  • New instant-access collections:
    • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
    • Project MUSE
    • Taylor & Francis
    • ASHA
    • Loeb
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September music

September songs

Thank you for accepting a broad array of musical lists! - music to explore - the new Casals Forum for chamber music is just wonderful. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined U5 Vediekadutt

You declined my nomination for deletion with Declining U5, appears to be somewhat promotional attempt at article, possible autobiography. Reason why I marked User:Vediekadutt as U5 is because it is a copy of Draft:Vedieka Dutt. Having a copy of a promotional article as a user page seemed inappropriate. With that additional information, should the user page be deleted? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rsjaffe -- I'd noticed the existence of the draft. Afaik, there's no ruling that a user can't retain a copy of a draft in userspace as well as draftspace, and as G13 essentially auto-deletes draftspace drafts, backing one up in userspace is far from pointless. Even if the subject is not notable now, it is possible she will become so in the next few years. The draft doesn't seem to me at least sufficiently unsalvageable that it could be deleted G11, though admins differ greatly on their interpretation of G11. It would probably be appropriate to move it to a subpage, which will make it less prominent and leave room for the editor to acknowledge any connection with the subject (they might just be a fan). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That move addresses my concern. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article creations

Thankyou for your efforts to propose things in this area. I certainly don't see any point in having a list of people by articles created if the names are hidden anyway. Humans rarely produce quality new articles on a massive scale. I do think we would benefit from a bot in areas like geography where data could be compiled to produce decent new articles and improve consistency, but I detest the generic cookie cutter prose you typically get on such articles, look at Swedish and Cebuano wiki, horrible. I have also proposed nuking any remaining short stubs I created a long time ago but it was rejected. It was wishful thinking at the time but the reality is that most people don't edit rural localities in non anglosphere countries on English Wikipedia. I think the main issue is more initial article quality rather than quantity produced, we should indeed strongly discourage editors from mass creating short stubs. People who produce a lot of new decent articles, we should encourage that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Blofeld -- Sorry, didn't mean to drag you into the discussion like that, when I was just mentioning your inspiring destubbing contest. I agree a focus on quality would be helpful, but in my experience most people think their own articles are stellar quality, while other editors' articles are undersourced stubs of dubious notability -- your self-awareness is unusual. "[M]ost people don't edit rural localities in non anglosphere countries on English Wikipedia" -- It is not even limited to outside the Anglosphere; there's not a lot of editing of Scottish rural settlements, not helped by the fact that there isn't (afaik) any official legal recognition of Scottish settlements. The Anglophone bias is very hard to counter, and I feel guilty that my lack of language skills does not allow me to help. Are the articles developed on other wikis? Should we be petitioning the Foundation for targeted paid translation drives?
These days I try only to create decent start-class articles and upwards; I develop everything in my user sandboxes and don't move to mainspace until I've got at least 2500 or so characters counted by the DYK tool and at least 2 or 3 decent sources. Unfortunately it's also slow as treacle! I envy editors who can reliably churn out one a day or more of decent-quality material, and we should certainly not be preventing them from going about their essential work. Recently I've also been trying to repair the damage of my early years' enthusiasm using the new WL resources, but it's a slow painful embarrassing task. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hello, Espresso Addict. 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.

JarrahTree 02:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JarrahTree -- I don't generally get involved in user conduct issues and haven't ever worked at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Just the name doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently deceptive in intent to merit an immediate block (in particular a redlinked editor is hardly going to be seriously mistaken for a regular), unless there's something I'm missing about their edits? Could you raise the issue with the editor at their talk page, and see how they respond? AGFing a bit, it's a common enough name, and possibly they just share it? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dont worry about it, I understand your reaching out approach, for a variety of reasons I wanted others opinions - it isma username creation problem from the way that I look at it, probably unknowingly, and that can be sourced between an edit on a dyk today - but hey you have explained yourself, I see it very differently, lets leave it at that. Thanks very much for replying on the matter. JarrahTree 03:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Regarding Draft:Mostafanejad and Draft:Morsal Mostafanejad: I urge you to reconsider G11 as they're autobiographies created by a non-notable with three accounts, all of which are now blocked. I nominated the pages as they read like resumes and because the references are all unrelated except for a social media page and a link to a Google search. Uhai (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhai: Sorry, for good or ill, autobiographies are not forbidden, and notability is not an issue in draftspace. I don't imagine the AfC reviewer will waste much time on the version that's been submitted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Walsh Jenkins

Hello, Espresso Addict,

While I'm not thrilled that you de-PROD'd this article I'm heartened to know that there are experienced editors keeping watch over the week's list of PROD'd articles. PRODs get so much less attention than articles at AFD discussions and, unless they are incomplete or patently false, we generally accept whatever deletion rationales the editors have supplied, even if some of them are a little weak. So, a little bummed that this article will be staying around but also thankful that folks like you are double-checking claims and de-PRODding articles that you believe truly meet our notability standards. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz -- I'm trying to steer clear of prods as I find them too depressing; I don't know whether anyone is actually checking them systematically. This one for some reason ended up being listed at the Academics & Educators delsort. The Women in American Theatre book seems to be a classic text. Looks like a Women in Red creation; I'll ask at their talk page and see if anyone can help it out. They're pretty good at digging up sources. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk)
I'm sorry if you find certain areas of the project depressing. I find now that working with stale drafts, PRODs and AFDs, my time on Wikipedia is spent deleting content that others (or the guidelines) find not worth keeping. If I see a promising draft, I'll submit it to AFC but that is a rare find in the hundreds of self-promotional articles I see daily. A lot of new young editors think Wikipedia is just another platform to have a social media profile. I considered myself an inclusionist but after looking at dozens, if not hundreds, of drafts that are basically bad advertising, well, it can turn anyone into a deletionist. There is a lot of garbage on the project. But working on AFDs can be painful and it can be a challenge to carry out consensus to Delete an article that some editors have put their hearts and souls into just because it only has 2 good references not 3 or more.
I've heard there is a Wikipedia mirror site out there that has articles deleted from Wikipedia and one day I want to track it down and browse through some of the content that was once here and is now gone.
I hope there is someone who can improve the Linda Walsh Jenkins...that's the goal right, to have better articles, not just get rid of the low quality ones. But it would be a massive change in orientation to have the folks who spend all of their time tagging bad articles to spend their time improving them instead. And there are a few editors at AFDs who do spend time improving articles to preserve them. I do admire their ability to find references on the most unlikeliest of topics, they are really helping out the project in a big way. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz: Well, I've had a bit of a go at Walsh Jenkins, though it's far from my expertise. See what you think. I believe notability is just about demonstrated, probably on both WP:PROF and AUTHOR fronts (and notice another editor has removed the notability tag), but if you want to test it at AfD, go for it! Sometimes it's very hard to tell whether it's a bad article on a notable topic or a paid scrape-everything-up on a non-notable topic. Improving always takes longer than deleting; I tend to only bother if the subject interests me or if the topic is a woman, as my mite for the Women in Red cause. The coverage in the Wikipedia Library these days is excellent, though the search facility is a bit spotty.
"But working on AFDs can be painful and it can be a challenge to carry out consensus to Delete an article that some editors have put their hearts and souls into just because it only has 2 good references not 3 or more." You could always just type "Keep, two good sources is enough" and move on! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Work management software

I agree to the deletion. We have not left a copy. Can I have the data before deletion? Mocha c jp (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mocha c jp: I have moved it to your userspace for you; you can access it temporarily at User:Mocha c jp/Work management software so that you can archive it offline and work on it -- I will redelete it later, and it might well be tagged for deletion before I get around to it, so don't just leave it lying around there! Good luck! Espresso Addict (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick response. Mocha c jp (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mary Ridge

On 13 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Ridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mary Ridge blew up the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the crew on her last? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mary Ridge), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's so great to see this article go from AfD to DYK! Thank you @Espresso Addict for all the time and effort you put into this article. Seeing this sort of thing really makes my day. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dr_vulpes -- in my experience quite a few articles that end up at AfD or prod are actually salvageable if one knows where to find the sources, and Penny Richards is an expert in that. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hook update
Your hook reached 7,490 views (624.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD specialists

About the perceived divide between content creators and AFD denizens: I wonder if something like Nettrom's SuggestBot could be adapted to suggest a couple of open AFD to editors. Or perhaps something like the Wikipedia:Feedback request service? I don't think that WP:AALERTS (which you have to go visit intentionally) is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WhatamIdoing -- It's a thought that could certainly be proposed. However, I fear the problem is that editors who try to create/nurture content and see the 'pedia as replete with redlinks don't really mix with those who make their wikiliving from demolishing sources for lack of sigcov/independence/secondaryness/databaseness/reliability/... For me, at least, visiting AfD is an excruciating thing, that I only do when I'm in a really good mood. I can just about tolerate the PROF-based ones because the regulars broadly tend to agree, & I sometimes try to tolerate the women ones as my service to WiR -- a few nasty arguments, though, and I get the strong urge to take a wikibreak rather than having one of those dreaded allcaps moments. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that if there were a way to direct content creators to AFD, then there would be more mixing. I don't think you can realistically expect the AFD folks to become content creators, so if the two sides are going to meet, it's going to be at AFD. I also think it would be helpful if it were a lot of people being sent to a very small number of AFDs. This is because one AFD on a subject that you are familiar with might be more tolerable than invitations to 20 on subjects you know nothing about. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women has 62 discussions at the moment. Could we find 64 editors to invite just once each week? Or even once a month? (Maybe we start by issuing invitations only if the discussion is re-listed/has limited activity.) Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Women in Red lists three times that many editors, so it seems plausible, if we could get everyone involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing: I wish the AfD regulars would try to contribute content; it gives a perspective on the difficulties of doing so under the rules that can't be attained from just participating in AfD. But I agree one can't make anyone do anything here.
I definitely agree a targeted weekly/monthly invitation to something you know about might not be perceived as a nuisance, while 20 invitations to subjects you don't know/care about would tend to be annoying. I assume you don't mean send multiple editors to the same small set of AfDs? It would have to be automated/randomised, otherwise there would be complaints of bias. Sending editors to an AfD that's been relisted for low participation is often suggested; however the low participation is often for a reason (often needs someone to read sources in say Arabic/Russian).
Women's a difficult one because few people outside the hardcore WiR folk are interested in everything that falls under women as a topic; I look at the academics & writers but not at the businesswomen, actresses, sportswomen & beauty queens. (Similarly the geographic focus lists such as England; I'm interested in British television but not British sport.) Afaik, WiR has thousands of members but only a dozen or so regulars who are active. Could a bot find intersections, eg say women & authors?
Is it possible to have a feedback/learning algorithm, along the lines of "was this AfD of interest? If not, are you interested in related topics A,B,C...N?"
This is definitely an idea to try to develop further. I don't think it would need an ok from the RfC? One could just develop one and try it out. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: You'd need specific expertise to have a useful opinion on, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gholam Hossein Sarmadnia or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Hwaseop, to pick two languishing AfDs from the Academics & educators delsort. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to be a bit more specific to individual interests is why I was thinking of SuggestBot. That script looks at the articles you've edited and makes a guess about other articles you might be interested in.
Otherwise, you could sign up for the delsort list you love the most, and we could ask User:Naypta to add this to Yapperbot's lists. The bot is already doing RFCs and GANs, and AFDs are similar in structure, so I don't think it would be impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G11 declines

Hi! I noticed you declined two of my G11s. Unsure if you noticed that User:Pembea/sandbox is just links to that person's linkedin and crunchbase pages (look closely at the first crunchbase URL, and compare to the editor's username), which feels kind of WP:NOTCV, and User:Niranjanpansari/sandbox was indef blocked for being a sockpuppet of a user named the same thing as the company it's about.

If you did notice those things and still disagree, then feel free to ignore me and have a good evening :) 3mi1y (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@3mi1y: The rules for user space are pretty lax. Generally patrolling user space drafts for anything except copyvio, BLP violations, crude vandalism or "buy cheap cannabis here!!![url]" and the like is not a very productive use of time. Autobiographies are permitted, if not recommended, and Niranjanpansari looks to have been soft-blocked for impersonation of a well-known figure, not for sock puppetry. G5 might apply I suppose? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the block log on that one disagrees with the template on the user page. *shrug* 3mi1y (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-SA 4.0

Hi— I happened upon this edit, which on the surface seems to be perfectly fine. However, per WP:PDCOPY, CC BY-SA 4.0 is actually not a compatible license. We use CC BY-SA 3.0, and you cannot “downgrade” to an earlier version of the license (you can, however, go from 3.0 to 4.0). There was a proposal to migrate to 4.0 a couple years ago, but people were concerned about how 4.0 would interact with Wikidata’s CC0 license. HouseBlastertalk 01:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HouseBlaster -- Obviously I didn't realise that; I've deleted it. The text was copied from a wiki anyway, so it had no reliable source. Pinging Taking Out The Trash, who correctly tagged it, for reference. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries—thanks for your prompt response! Grumbles about how we have yet to migrate to CC BY-SA 4.0. HouseBlastertalk 02:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine thanks for letting me know; I've been finding my usual speedy queues empty of late and have been trying to branch into copyvios, but plainly need to do more research on all those fiddly nitty gritty details! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal Barony of Cromar - Deletion request and your deprodding of that

Hi Espresso Addict. I notice you deprodded my deletion of this article. I believe you are expected to explain why you a deletion request is deprodded? As it is you seem to have simply added a very simple slightly tangential question which is less searching than a notice which has been on the article for some time asking for a reliable seccondary source indicating a barony existed in the form suggested. Perhaps it is normal to deprod on that basis - but it seems almost to take us backwards rather than to progress.

You simply "ask", "needs expert attention; barony=lordship?".

That question is not quite the point. A lordship could be construed as a form of barony if barony is taken in its widest sense, an area of land "governed" by permission of the monarchy in those days. A lordship however implies a higher level of authority and in this case the oversight of the Earldom of Mar, since it was originally the Earl of Mar who ruled over a mucch widerf area including Cromar and Migive Castle as well as three other Lordships which made up Mar.

Even if one could acccept that suggesting a barony was equal in some way to a lordship, that does not mean the area or authority here was ever given the title "Barony of Cromar", or it's holder "Baron of Cromar, or even that the term was used asually. In fact considerable research on the area suggests that has never happened historically.

The article states that a Feudal barony of Cromar existed attached to Migvie Castle. But, during the time of Migvie Castle's existence i.e. up to 1565 when Migvie castle was probably uninhabitable (Canmore https://canmore.org.uk/site/16985/migvie-castle) there was no mention of that being a caput of a baron or of a baron owning that place. The master was the Earl of Mar, who administerd it as a Lordship, a part of the whole Earldom.

The note on the web site asking for secondary references to substantiate the existence of the Feudal Barony of Cromar and so address notability criteria has never been addresse. The books cited as a reference in the bibliography makes no mention of such a thing either, although it is entirely focused on the history of the general area of Cromar.

I could cite a number of books on the area, some old and which refer to ancient charters for Cromar and its surrounding area, ch include ancient charters, None of them refer to a Barony of Cromar. (e.g. Records of Invercauld : Michie, History of Braes of Coldtone : Michie, Records of Aboyne and more...)

This PHD Thesis explores the administrative structures of the area in detail during that period. It refers to a number of Baronies and a number of Lordships. It lists Cromar as a Lordship and provides its historical evidence in charters in that light. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/25815/1/PHD%20THESIS%20FINAL%202017.pdf

This wikipedia page is being propagated automatically and manually across the internet and no doubt is being included in people's thinking and research. The risk is the historical significance and nature of this ancient authority and dignity and the area itself becomes lost or confused.

If someone has used the "technical" definition to say that lordships can be looked on as baronies, and so substantiates it as a commercial commodity and thing to be owned and enjoyed in recent years for example, that seems reasonable given the law clearly allows it.

But if so I would suggest that ought to be done with an explanation as to that rationale and what it represents truly rather than implying it has had genuine historical usage. That being an addition to the article page "Cromar".

Historical information and subtleties of ancient tenure are complex enough without overwriting history. It will be a great shame if history is obscured. I hope this makes sense, and appreciate your taking time to consider it. If I have added it in the wrong place, or it is couched in the wrong terms I would welcome your advice as to how to improve it.

I am also happy to listen to counter arguments if any are posed.

In terms of progressing this. I am of course happy to hear ccounter argumnets. Although I do not see a clear link from the page to (http://doublecheck.wikiloop.org/revision/enwiki/1116136985) for anyone to be made aware there is a discussion, nor am I sure how one would discuss further on that page, or what further evidence might be needed to progress the discussion and in my case deletion.

I would appreciate your advice on what I would I need to do further to this.

Thank you very much

Aardnavarkin Aardnavarkin (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aardnavarkin -- Proposed deletion is intended only for completely uncontroversial deletions that don't fall within the speedy deletion criteria. Any editor can contest proposed deletion for any reason or none. If you think the article needs to be deleted then please take it to WP:Articles for Deletion, where you can explain your rationale and other editors can consider whether or not it is correct. Alternatively you could take up the question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland or Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Field & Laboratory

Hi, I'll do the merge if you have any suggestion on where to merge this in that huge article, because I don't really see a good spot... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I looked earlier and wasn't 100% sure. Perhaps a new third subheader under Libraries and museums? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: I'm agnostic in that case; agree the thought it had run for most of a century was what made it particularly worthy of comment. We could leave it up to the editors of Southern Methodist University, perhaps? There might be other serial publications that could be added to it. Or perhaps the note could be added to history? It seems just as interesting as a number of entries in the current history. (I'm still reeling from the idea that it has one school that covers both humanities and sciences!) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

The honourable opposer's award
By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of BWC CORPORATION

Explain your reasoning behind removing my article? Konor20001 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konor20001: A "corporation" founded on October 28, 2022 is highly unlikely to have yet received sufficient reliable independent coverage to merit an article. The article certainly listed none and Google finds nothing that is relevant. If other sources pick up on the existence of your "corporation" then an article can be reconsidered. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Wisner

Okay, do you seriously think I don’t know BLP applies to living people? Get real. Do you seriously not understand verb tenses at the level of a young child? When the very first line of the article says “ Geoff Wisner is an American author…” means he is living because is is present tense meaning he is alive. If he was no longer alive, it would say “he was….” Okay, first grade language arts lesson over. BostonMensa (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merely quoted the text from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the second sentence says he currently lives in MYC. The two together certainly mean he is alive amd BLP would apply. BostonMensa (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt! Is it really nine years?! Espresso Addict (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Imagination, Inc. Deletion

Please help me understand why this article keeps getting deleted. It is a real non-profit organization that plays a large part in the lives of many young people as well as adults around the world. It was deleted a few years back and I am trying to get it re-established properly. What do I need to do to keep it alive? Adamvlaw (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adamvlaw -- First find some sources, preferably at least three, that are reliable and independent of the organisation and that cover it in reasonable depth. National newspaper or magazine articles are ideal but material based on press releases can't be used. Then write the article based entirely on what they say, rather than what the organisation says about itself. You are better with a concise introduction rather than attempting to document everything the organisation does. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations has some detailed advice. Good luck! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That should not be a problem. Can I still access the article in order to make those edits before requesting publication again? Adamvlaw (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espresso_Addict&oldid=1119297608"