Jump to content

User talk:Revent: 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
No edit summary
Line 603: Line 603:
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=10882343 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=10882343 -->

== 14:58:34, 5 January 2015 review of submission by Carlypnicholson9 ==
{{Lafc|username=Carlypnicholson9|ts=14:58:34, 5 January 2015|declined=Draft:Broadleaf_Commerce}}


I am curious as to why the references submitted are not sufficient. I would like to know what types of references would be acceptable seeing as outside press releases and various technology conferences are not.

[[User:Carlypnicholson9|Carlypnicholson9]] ([[User talk:Carlypnicholson9|talk]]) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:58, 5 January 2015

Trout this userWere this user to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, they are open to being slapped with a large trout.

WP:EPICFAIL

Template:Archive box collapsible You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as User talk:Revent/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

15:30:50, 1 October 2014 review of submission by DaveAiello


Seth Appert is the head coach of RPI, a Division I men's college ice hockey team in the ECAC Hockey League. All of the head coaches of competing teams in the conference except for Ron Fogarty, the new head coach at Princeton University, already have Wikipedia pages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ECAC_Hockey_men%27s_coach_navbox.

I was trying to add enough information about Seth Appert to get the article accepted, but there is obviously other information to be entered, such as the record of the University of Denver's hockey team when he was an assistant coach there. If you want me to add more information about his career, please let me know how much more detail I need to add before you would consider accepting this page. Thank you. DaveAiello (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DaveAiello (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveAiello: I have little doubt, given his position, that he is probably notable, but the draft doesn't show it. You need to include references to several independent, reliable sources (such as newspaper articles) that discuss him in some degree of depth to show his notability. He does not 'inherit' notability based solely upon his job... you need to show that he, himself, is notable. To be honest, based upon a quick glance most of the other coach articles fail this criteria as well, being based upon either databases or 'news articles' that were published by their own coaching programs, but that is no reason that you can't make this one 'better'. It's somewhat unfortunate that there is a (understandable) tendency of fans of a particular subject, such as college hockey or some band, to create little 'walled gardens' of articles that have similar issues. Not that I'm 'blaming you' for this, but that's how it stands.... the entire set of articles that you referred to are about people who 'probably' are notable, but they seem to uniformly fail to demonstrate it... Reventtalk 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: I added a few more aspects to Seth Appert's bio, with sources last night. I resubmitted it. I will try to find more to add when I have time. DaveAiello (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DaveAiello: The type of references that you added are indeed exactly what is needed to show notability, and that he was elected president of the AHCA is quite good, as it is an indication that he is considered 'signifigant' by his peers. If you can find one or two more articles (actual 'news' articles would be best) that are substantially about him, then I would have no complaints about this draft, though I should probably not be the person to 're-review' it. FYI, the criteria for AfC is a bit higher than what is typically actually 'applied' to the survival of an article, as drafts are expected to show, in and of themselves, that the article would survive a deletion discussion... in the case of live articles, an editor might exercise WP:BEFORE and determine that the subject is indeed notable without actually 'fixing' the article itself. I suspect this is largely the case with these articles...they don't 'prove' notability, but people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since it seems unlikely that the coverage doesn't exist. Reventtalk 21:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Thank you very much for your feedback. I really appreciate the help. I added an award that Seth Appert received from the Autism Society chapter in Albany, NY for his work promoting Autism awareness, which was cited by the City of Troy's website on a page that included photos. I also linked to his bio on the RPI Athletics website, which further substantiates his role as head coach of the Men's Hockey Team at RPI. As a public figure, Seth Appert's comments on hockey are published several times a week during the ice hockey season by the Record of Troy, NY, the Times Union of Albany, and The Gazette of Schenectady, among other online publications. He regularly appears on the broadcast and cable television networks in Upstate New York, and on a student-run service at Rensselaer which is called RPI TV. If I start citing media coverage of games in which his team played, the question will be where should that stop? I'm saying this rhetorically, of course. DaveAiello (talk)

19:08:47, 1 October 2014 review of submission by 108.236.128.118


I am new to this process, so I first submitted a draft that was very sparse, just to get a good idea of how to submit. I then got it kicked back, so I understood better the content that needed to be added. Over the last few days, I've updated the content with better citations. I've removed external links from the body content and I've generally improved the submission. I did use the ref citation tool, and it looks like I've gotten some errors there, but I'm not sure how to Edit a ref citation through the template so that it fixes the missing URL. But, it also looks as if the URL is there for some of the red errors, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Hopefully, I've added some solid citations about Tony Humphries, as he is a legendary DJ.

108.236.128.118 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@108.236.128.118: Yes, it is much better referenced now, and the Billboard biography and entry from the "Encyclopedia of Popular Music" are quite good references for notability, as they are 'authoritative' sources that not just discuss him in depth but specifically describe him as particularly significant. The citation errors you are seeing are because when you provide a url in {{cite web}} the software also wants you to provide the |title field for the cited page, so that it can 'hide' the bare url behind the page title. In the case of the book, the use of the 'author' fields and the use of the 'first and last name' fields are mutually exclusive... you can use either way to list the authors, or use one way for some authors and the other for the rest, but you can't use both for the same person.
One additional note... you can't use 'specific' terms that indicate a person is significant or important, such as 'world renowned', without a specific citation to a source that makes that exact statement. For article to be neutral requires that we, as editors, can't make such judgements, we can merely discuss 'facts' such as that other people have made the statement about him. The reader of the article should ideally have no idea if the editor who wrote it likes, hates, or is ambivalent about the subject... the article itself should merely be a discussion of facts, and 'evaluations' of the person should be left to the sources that we use. Reventtalk 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Submitted Draft: The Toy Soldiers (film) page - Notability issues fixed.

Revent,

Would you please take another look at the Draft:The Toy Soldiers (film) page that i re-submitted? I believe that I have solved the notability issues by adding articles from both the LA Times, New York Times, and Variety, among others; and have no longer relied on IMDB as a source

Thank you!

clr65109.

Clr65109 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clr65109: Unfortunately my internet connection is acting up right now, an I can't get the references to load, but they do look from the 'description' more like what is needed. Reventtalk 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Revent,

Would you mind looking at the 'Draft: The Toy soldiers (film)' page again. It's been in the submission cue for almost three weeks now and I think that the content has improved per the specifications. I you had a minute to look it over that would be great. :) Thank you so much for reviewing the page!

Chelsea (clr65109) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr65109 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grizfolk

Hi,

I was discussing an article I've been working on for some time with Jimfbleak. The article, Grizfolk, was deleted my Jimfbleak because of apparent copyright violation re: Pandora. Could you please identify the copyright violation? I assure you it was unintentional. I'd really like to have this draft reinstated so that I can make any necessary revisions and re-submit to articles for creation.

Thanks!

Sambres8 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambres8: @Jimfbleak: Since I am not an administrator, I cannot look at the deleted page, but the deletion log notes that it was a copyright violation of http://www.pandora.com/grizfolk
From looking at that page, my memory is that you had used a substantial section from the artist biography on that page, which is copyrighted material. You cannot reuse content that has been previously published anywhere else, or that you personally did not write, unless it is explicitly released under a Wikipedia compatible license or the original author has submitted a copyright clearance to Wikipedia. Under current law, anything a person writes is copyrighted by default, without the requirement for them to 'claim' copyright in it... in this case, though, the text is attributed to Mark Deming of Rovi, and copyright to that page is claimed by Pandora. What I would recommend is that you ask Jimfbleak to give you an 'email refund' of the text, that you rewrite any and all content that was taken from other sources in your own words, and that you then resubmit the rewritten article as a new draft. My flagging of it as a copyvio was not intended to be 'critical' of you, by the way. It is not uncommon for new editors to misunderstand copyright, and reuse 'bit and pieces' of other sources to create a new article. It's simply not allowable... we can't host copyrighted content, even if it is later rewritten to not be a copyright violation... we distribute database dumps, and they would still contain the copyrighted material. It is best to completely write the text in your own words, using the facts given by the sources (and referencing them to those sources) instead of attempting to simply rewrite content from elsewhere. Reventtalk 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiralizer Page

Hey man. I read your comments on the spiral vegetable slicer draft (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_vegetable_slicer ). I have no idea what your comment means. The term spiralizer isn't actually a brand name, its just a cute name people use since "spiral vegetable slicer" is a mouthfull. In fact, there are many different "spiralizers" you can buy from multiple manufacturers.

As for more refs, I'm on it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CerealKillerYum: Perhaps I was misunderstanding, but when I looked at the references, they all seemed to feature prominent photos of the exact same product, and gave the strong impression that it was a "Spiralizer" (as a brand name), and that 'spiral vegetable slicer' was a descriptive term that you had invented that was not used in the sources. If a 'Spiralizer" is not a specific product, but instead a term that is used by the sources for them, then that should be the article title... I didn't specifically 're-review' it, but it looks now as if you have included far more sources to show notability... if this was indeed a misunderstanding on my part, I'd be more than happy to leave a comment to that effect. Reventtalk 06:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Hey, I updated the article a lot and re-submitted it. Is it better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_vegetable_slicer CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

@Sigeng: Just as a note, your alleged COI issue (which I don't think exists) is not the one I was highlighting with that COI template... looking at the history, it appears that several people with a COI have edited it over time (look at it's initial creation, which apparently had input from it's leaders)... while I'm aware it has been largely rewritten, the intent was to flag it as a 'potential problem' article for people to pay attention to. Not that I'm arguing with your removing it, just pointing it out. Similarly, my other tagging wasn't intended as a criticism of the work you have done, but actually to attract more editors with access to other sources. Reventtalk 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I thought someone had put that up before reading the discussion on the noticeboard. I see your point that that influence is still present, but the many concerns raised are better captured by the text of other templates. -Sigeng (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would benefit greatly from an 'arms length' analysis of NCMI's doctrinal beliefs by other religious scholars (some Jesuit, perhaps) if such a source could be located. Reventtalk 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources of the type you mention tend to be discussions of the New Apostolic Reformation (or whatever the author calls it), and will give NCMI as an example in a list of similar groups. Chetty under Further Reading in the NCMI article is an example of this pattern. -Sigeng (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sigeng: Yes, as I just mentioned at COIN, I unfortunately don't have access to the existing sources, and unfortunately it seems (based on what I have seen in the past) that such sources tend to be either paywalled or offline. It's my hope that we can attract some editors with access to research tools such as Highbeam who will be able to broaden the sourcing, and provide more 'context' for the article. As it stands, the 'analysis' of them is too narrow, but I'm not under the impression that this is from an attempt to introduce bias on your part, but instead just from a limitation in the sources you've been able to dig up. Reventtalk 10:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new section for the purpose of trying to focus on finding and discussing new sources, though my hunt has not been incredible successful so far. The 'best lead' I found so far was actually about a different group. Reventtalk 11:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Submission rejection - Copyrighted material?

Revent,

Regarding my resubmission Sept 26, 2014 "Mark Anthony the “Psychic Lawyer," which was rejected because it included copyrighted information.

I reviewed the submission, and could not see which content was protected/copyrighted material. can you email me the draft, and if possible, clarify which material triggered the copyright issue?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwareTroy (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EwareTroy: Since I am not an administrator, I cannot directly see the deleted page anymore. You will need to ask the deleting admin or WP:REFUND to send you a copy.
Your draft had text that directly matched parts of the 'web references' in the page at http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mark-Gager/37933663 specifically including parts of the exact description of his qualifications. Reventtalk 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TimeCamp

Could you please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TimeCamp once again? I have tried my best.

Best Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.203.206 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:51, 11 October 2014 review of submission by Fabiobat


Hi, I was advised that you declined my proposed article about Patrizia Genovesi due to a copyright problem. Genovesi is a living photographer and in fact some content was taken from her own website, as you correctly pointed out. Actually, this content was tagged in the article as "Genovesi's statements about photography", so I was not aware that this could be a copyright problem as I was declaring the source of the statements. So my question is: could you please suggest me a way to provide content that actually comes from Genovesi (and is published by her on the internet) without violating any copyright rule? For instance, would it still be a copyright issue if I explicitly quoted Genovesi's website as the source of the content? Or is there any other solution that you could suggest? Many thanks in advance for your help, Best regards, Fabio


Fabiobat (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


11:39:46, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Pt018


I just want to know what is wrong with the article. I listed the characters, short blurbs about them and who their English va's are. What else do I need? And there are no source materials for Mugen Souls characters in any newspapers, books, news, scholars, JSTORs and free images. I just jot down what I know about them, and then have someone else do the heavy lifting. Pt018 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problem' is that articles need to be about subjects that are notable, as shown by the fact that they have independent coverage. Articles aren't supposed to be based on 'what you know', but on what secondary sources say about the topic. If a topic doesn't show that it itself is 'notable' then it probably wouldn't survive a deletion discussion.
It would probably be easier, to be honest, to merge your content into one or both of the existing articles, unless you can find some more sources. As far as that is concerned, however, you might want to look at the sources used on the Japanese and Korean Wikipedia.. sources don't have to be in English (you can translate them with something like Google translate and still cite the original article if you get a decent translation)... you need to show that there is mention and discussion of the characters outside of discussion of the series itself to justify an independent list. Reventtalk 01:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In layman's terms? Pt018 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-More Insurance

@Revent: Hello - Thanks for reviewing my article. Sorry its take so long to get back.

I think its fairly obvious now that in my initial post, I had no idea what I was doing and not referencing correctly. I've since had alot of help from the community - and one particular chat TimTrent was very helpful. Anyway - I was wondering if you can have a quick look to ensure I've also cleaned up any concerns you had initially? TimTrent seems to think its OK, though rightly because he's helped so much he wants to be independent of approval.

weirdly, this post didn't add my details, so there is probably no way of contacting me... GB_at_CoverMore — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB at CoverMore (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Revant Since a full article was not appropriate, I attempted to edit existing articles on the subject of the second law and evolution. A suggested edit was posted for List of common misconceptions, 5.2.4 Evolution. The existing section of the article was quickly removed by Mr. Swordfish (talk) when the original references were examined in view of contrary references. When contrary references were posted for Objections to evolution 7.3 Violation of the second law, all my edits were rejected. While as you say “the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious”, it seems not to be obvious to all. The (talk) section tells of the discussion. Is there a way to progress on this matter? I am threatened with being blocked if I say any more. LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all ok?

Hola! Guess who!? Just checking in to see if all is good with you. Been awfully quiet as of late. You know how to reach me :) 118.165.123.156 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all ok?

Hola! Guess who!? Just checking in to see if all is good with you. Been awfully quiet as of late. You know how to reach me :) 175.111.41.184 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:04, 30 October 2014 review of submission by 90.199.7.197


I have added the references. Could you please review again?

90.199.7.197 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Help with my article

Hey Revent

If you recall you helped me out via chat with editing an article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ranveer_Brar" It has been re-declined today on grounds of non-neutral tone of information. I had a chat with one of the WIKI helpers, but sadly that person cut out almost everything from my article saying they are not needed and makes the article look like a fanpage or a resume!! I am at my wits' end now..The old draft is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ranveer_Brar&oldid=632028967 . Could you please let me know your views on the matter? Coolkrc (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Toy Soldiers (film)" page: re-submitted

Hi Revent,

You reviewed my page"The Toy Soldiers (film)," a while ago and declined it. I have been waiting more than a month for it to be re-reviewed. Do you think you could look at it again? I added a lot more sources than it had before. If not, is there away to get it reviewed faster? The film premieres this weekend.

Thank You so much!

Best,

Chelsea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr65109 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Revent. 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.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Gamaliel

I've moved your request to WP:AN#Gamaliel. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Fair enough. Thanks. Reventtalk 23:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I removed all of the copyright violation from 7digital. Please can you review the article that you flagged up last July/August? The flags at the top of the page aren't relevant anymore, as I think the article is free from such violations. Thanks :)Llamalady28 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Llamalady28:  Done The article is vastly improved from the last time I looked at it. Reventtalk 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and time. :)Llamalady28 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #135

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Inca clathrata

The source is this. Is this public domain? Do we have an attrib template? Many thanks for any guidance you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See [1], specifically "Published in The Coleopterists Bulletin, 39(4):38 1-389. 1985. Copyright © 1985 by Julius Boos and Brett C. Ratcliffe. Used by permission.". Digital Commons is an 'open access' research aggregator, but the material they publish isn't freely licensed, it's just 'free beer'. Given the amount of 'direct copying' of the species description (Earwig's bot calls it 69% confidence), I'd definitely call it nukable. The 'facts' of the species description aren't copyrightable, but the exact language used is, and it honestly looks like most of the 'divergence' is due more to poor typing ('projecting' becoming a grammatically incorrect 'projection', for example) than intentional rewriting.
If you look at the history, it's also previously had an out-of-process removal of a G12 tag by the original creator. I'm re-tagging it so that you can feel free to push the button. :) Reventtalk 00:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Button pushed. Thank you kindly for the thoughtful reply. All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: FYI, I gave the user a 'removing speedy tags' warning, but I also left a note explaining the issue and inviting them to create a draft on the subject using their own wording. Reventtalk 01:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is nice of you. I got distracted by other things and didn't do that myself. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations

Hi Revent - thanks for restoring this. It was added by a banned user so generally I revert the edits straight off without discussion - but it always annoys me a bit when I have to remove content, so it's good to see you re-adding it under your own name. I know it seems petty to revert banned users over and over, but there's no point in banning them unless we do! Many thanks once again for re-adding it and not being too shouty about it. All the best, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Sorry for being shouty at all, but I wasn't really expecting a 'nice' response, given the behavior I've seen out of some other people recently (and I apologize for extending that expectation to you). I understand the 'logic' behind enforcing the rules, but I also see that they really are unenforceable, to a large degree (dropping out for a while and coming back 'clean' under a new username is fairly trivial) and it's pretty hard to see the logic behind the way some people have acted in the last few months. I really just think we should all be here for the sake of writing an encyclopedia, I really feel there are some 'noisy' users who are far more interested in playing power games than anything else, and I strongly (though unprovably) suspect that some of them are long-banned users gaming the system to work out old grudges. It just really bothers me to see 'rules' standing in the way of improving the project, for whatever reason, and I definitely think that picture speaks better than anything else at explaining what that article is about. Reventtalk 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know where you're coming from! The rules are sometimes unenforcable, you're right: but they're not always. The G5 rule is there for that reason: banned users can't edit because if we let them edit, then there's nothing stopping them from making the encyclopedia a toxic place. I recall one example of an editor who was particularly mysoginistic: he'd improve the encyclopedia, but would send abusive, threatening emails to female editors who disagreed with him. Even though he was improving the encyclopedia with individual edits, the net effect of his presence was damaging. That's why he was banned! For most people, a ban is enough to have them let go: some people, though, get obsessed with the project, and can't let go. They just keep coming back - but those who do are only a dozen or so people in total. They'll drift off eventually. In the meantime, those of us who can play nice need to keep writing the encyclopedia. That's the fun bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revent, thank you for reverting what was obviously a useful edit. But FYI:

"Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" has made a serious allegation of me harassing him on his talk page on this project. After he initially made allegation I asked him to remove the potentially libelous allegation. He immediately removed the allegation, and then immediately raced back to English Wikipedia to re-enforce the allegation. Being level-headed I again asked him to remove the allegation, particularly as it looks like he made it on Wikimedia UK time and dime. After the reinforcement I emailed D'Arcy (the new WMUK CEO) with an unofficial heads up of the issue.

As you can see, he is hardly active on this project and on 2 December he blocked and marked an account as a "CU-confirmed sock". This indicates that he has used the CU tool on myself. I was required to create this account because my ISP account had a soft-block on it, so that it can't be edited from even if logged in from another account. As you can see I was doing useful edits to various articles, including uploading logos which have now been deleted by this person. As you can see, I was editing in areas of Burmese aviation, and also a couple of general aviation topics; not his general area of editing.

As you can see from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/Archive#09_November_2014 there is no case been opened for this account, so him "hunting" the account down wasn't as a result of normal process on this project; i.e. someone filing a report.

If The Cavalry wants to prevent himself being seen to be acting in a vindictive and harassing way, I would suggest the following:

  1. Stop following my edits on Commons. The SODPROPS is the only way he could have found the account. When one's life is in shambles because of it being made a living hell (what a load of nonsense), and when they request that I stay away from them, generally one would expect them to do likewise. Instead, he is doing exactly the oppposite, and is using the "stay away" message as a way to continue to talk nonsense about me.
  2. Stop using the tools on myself. This is especially important, because there is no evidence of disruption from that account. Only useful edits. And the insertion into an article of a photo I uploaded is hardly evidence, given I've uploaded 350,000 photos to Commons. He should be filing an SPI report, and let others deal with it. Or better yet, stop following my activities on another project when they do not impact on him in any way, shape or form.
  3. Stop commenting about me. Publicly stating that I have made his life a living hell is a pretty big accusation and demands some evidence. Continuing to comment on me will only make things worse for him in the long run.

Only then will he cease being seen to be acting in a vindictive and harassing way towards myself. Let someone else deal with the problem of me editing on this project. I will again be giving D'Arcy a heads up to this, and if I see anything else in future that indicates that he is continuing in the way he currently is, I will make the complaint to WMUK official. 201.255.99.26 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This on Nick talk page will add some more clarity to the issue as well I think. 201.255.99.26 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific please?

You know, constructive criticism and all that? Serendipodous 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Sorry, I thought you would catch it after looking at the article. That the 'Black Friday' name is due to retailers going 'into the black' is a complete myth, the result of a 'rebranding' attempt started in the 1980s in order to counteract the negative connotations of the original source of the term (that it's traffic hell, basically) and that 'Black Friday' historically referred to quite unpleasant events. There's a quite authoritative article about it here, and it's discussed in our article. Reventtalk 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #136

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Wikimedia Commons now has access to the data on Wikidata
    • Statements on properties are now live
    • Sneak peek at a prototype for checking Wikidata's data against 3rd party databases
    • The Game has a new mode: alma mater
    • Work is ongoing for a bot job to tag thousands of objects in OpenStreetMap with the equivalent Wikidata ID
    • Resolver finds Wikidata items for a given identifier (VIAF, GND, IMDB, ...)
    • English-Wikipedia now has a template, RedQ, which puts a Wikidata link next to red links for subjects which have no Wikipedia article in any language, This should prevent duplicate Wikidata items from being created when an article is written, and assist Wikipedia editors to find relevant facts and sources. Please copy it to other-language Wikipedias.
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Started work on units
    • More work on evaluating options for querying
    • Implemented Property DataType (for relationships between properties)
    • Improvements to get by with fewer memcache request on clients
    • Work on file-based cache of the SiteStore
    • Work on improved label lookup performance
    • Wrapping up work on usage tracking
  • Monthly Tasks

Unjust Conclusion of Webmeister1 as a hoax

Mr. Revent, I have just realized that you have uprightly assumed and decided that I (Webmeister1) and the American Contemporary Artist Tyler Turkle I have been writing about are one of the same. I assure you sir that we are not. If I can read through your reasoning I believe it is because with the images I have posted to Wiki Common within "Source" I placed "Own Work". I did so because I believed I was to upload accurate information about the producer of the product who is Tyler Turkle - plain and simple. This is why I stated the source as "Own Work" because it is his "Own Work". If I was in error for doing so then I stand by corrected, but to begin to assume Mr. Turkle as a hoax is not right.

I suggest that you have made a grave error in judgement sir and have jumped to a totally wrong conclusion. I request that you retract the unjust deletions that you have been making justified solely on this on this premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmeister1 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Webmeister1: While I have been given the impression that you are Tyler Turkle, it is based not only on the fact that you uploaded images of his art to commons as 'own work', but then filed tickets that were verified by OTRS. While I'm not a volunteer with OTRS, and can't see those tickets, this was either a mistake on the part of OTRS in 'verifying' them, or an oversight. It did, however, give the distinct impression that they had explicitly verified that you are are Tyler Turkle.

As far as deletions, I am not an administrator on commons, or on english wikipedia, and cannot delete or undelete anything, all I can do is state my opinions, which are then weighed together with those of other editors against policy when closing a deletion debate. As far as the images that were deleted on commons, the ones that I endorsed deleting were not on that basis, however. Those two pieces of art, even if they are legitimate cases of 'fair use' of Picasso's concept, and still derivative works, and cannot be legally licensed by him in a way that commons allows (fair use files are not allowed on commons).
As far as the AFD debate here on wikipedia, while someone else made comments about a 'hoax', I did not. My opinion was based on that the sources cited in the article do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and after a significant amount of time searching the net I couldn't find any others that indicated he does. While such sources may exist offline, and could be used in the article, I can't be expected to find them. I have no doubt that he exists, and works as an artist... I found records of several of his works selling at auction. I could not, however, find any evidence that he is a notable artist.
If you are referring to several relevant edits I made to other articles, they were based on content policies. External links, for example, are supposed to link to online sources that provide more information about the subject of the article... a link to an IMDB page on a documentary about a football team, or to one about another documentary a person was in, do not meet that criteria... they don't provide any actual information.
Either way, you would be better served making your arguments, based on policy, at the relevant deletion discussions, based on policy, instead of addressing them to me privately. Reventtalk 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #137

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

13:22:05, 19 December 2014 review of submission by Stighe


Stighe (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JOE Decker

We have been modifying the ABRF Metagenomics Research Group page. We really need this to be active before we can link other wiki pages to it as well as assemble the Extreme Microbiome Projects page and two other active pages. Can you please actually review it and not just decline it.

Scott

@Stighe: I'm not Joe Decker (talk · contribs). Your draft, however, is written as an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and does not include any references showing that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for the notability of subjects. Those policies are linked in the decline notice. Reventtalk 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #138

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Revent, 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,
Darylgolden(talk) 02:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Revent!

Happy New Year!

Revent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Darylgolden(talk) 05:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #139

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

14:58:34, 5 January 2015 review of submission by Carlypnicholson9


I am curious as to why the references submitted are not sufficient. I would like to know what types of references would be acceptable seeing as outside press releases and various technology conferences are not.

Carlypnicholson9 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent&oldid=641094011"