User talk:JustBerry

WP:RETENTION - This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Notice: This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 365 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. This page is being archived for organization purposes. Please leave a message on my talk page if there is a discussion that needs to be retrieved from my talk page's archives.

Speedy deletion declined: Tradekorea

Hello JustBerry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tradekorea, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#CORP, WP:CCSI#ORG). Thank you. SoWhy 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for the note. Looking at the article's sources, claiming to be the largest business organization by one's own website (kita.org) does not make its notability verifiable. Also, the fourth reference seemed to be simply promoting or advertising the organization (tradeford.com). I suppose notability can be adequately verified via the other two sources? --JustBerry (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability or verifiability is not an issue for A7, just some claim of importance and significance, an explicitly lower standard. Usually, subjects that are part of a larger entity can be merged or redirected to a broader article per WP:ATD. You might want to consider that. Regards SoWhy 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Before I post an AfD, I want locally hash out its merit as its own article further. The third reference (globaltrade.net) does not verify the subject's notability. However, the volume of trade represented by joins.com seems to suggest the potential for notability. Here's another source: [1]. If you have no further thoughts, I can proceed with posting the AfD. --JustBerry (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

At second thought, the extent of our discussion seems to imply the suitability of opening up an AfD. Opened. --JustBerry (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello JustBerry, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Five years of editing

Hey, JustBerry. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks! I really appreciate your commemorative efforts. --JustBerry (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI - AIV

Er4848 Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Decline my page

Why u decline my page??? It took me like 17 seconds to write it Rais Cooper (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Shelli015

@Oshwah: @MSGJ: User left a "Hey" on both of your talk pages (Special:Contributions/Shelli015) after about a year of no activity and no prior interaction with either of you (even via edit reverts) in the past. Sounds like a duck of... (that's the mystery). (I called both of you to this talk page because I realize the sock is probably waiting for your replies on their talk page. Also, the title was made with Template:noping.) --JustBerry (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User is now blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

at last

after all these years have been called somebody else. Where I come from elsewhere is actually a geographical area so to speak - at last JarrahTree 23:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Sorry, what are you referring to? It is not so clear cut when we have both edited on multiple pages recently. --JustBerry (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

apology - I can be annoyingly obscure on talk pages - the new user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HTIDCam

and then I saw who created the veterinary medicine page and I think the synchronicity is just a little spooky.. Someone else...

I think maybe I need to be careful what I wish for today (at 8+ it is just the beginning)

btw - thank you so much for the link - [2] just brilliant, I can think of some applications for that now that I know it exists - must dig into the deep fathoms and rabbit holes that may well take me JarrahTree 23:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

On that page, my edit summary was briefly acknowledging the fact that you had already welcomed the user. Regarding the link, no problem. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - the link to the veterinary area on the user page reminded me of the backlog of trying to keep vet med cats up to date JarrahTree 02:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Edit1224/sandbox

Hi, Apologies if I've done something wrong here but i'm new to Wikipedia. I was using my sandbox just to draft up changes to an article that I wanted to make. You flagged it up as something to do with copyright violation so I thought it best to just blank it but you also seem to have flagged that as being wrong. Any chance you could explain this to me so i don't make the same mistake again?

Thanks Edit1224 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edit1224: Absolutely! Firstly, I truly appreciate your reaching out to me on my talk page; discussing and collaborating is all of what Wikipedia is about. Edit1224, welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone makes mistakes, but that's how we learn.

Some of the text that you had added to the page was directly copied from Ronald Duncan Literary Foundation website. In short, this is not allowed, particularly because the site is explicitly copyrighted. Wikipedia's copyright policies can get a bit extensive, but you can reach about the policies at WP:COPYVIO and WP:C.

With regards to the particular notice that I had posted on that page, the notice was requesting an administrator to delete some of the prior versions of the page, i.e. the verisons that contained copyrighted material. This is so that the copyrighted material is no longer in public view. Once again, the policy here can get a bit extensive, but the reference to that would be WP:CRD (criterion #1). I do appreciate your trying to remove the content on the problematic page. However, because copyrighted versions of that page are still stored in the page history, I merely wanted an administrator to delete those past versions of the page (not the entire page). No worries, though, as I have restored the page for you.

In short, you want to avoid copy-pasting from sites; paraphrasing is the way to go. If you're not sure, just ask! WP:TEAHOUSE is a great place to ask more experienced editors, and putting {{help me}} <your message> on your talk page is also another way of asking for help. I'll leave you an invitation to the Teahouse and a few welcome links on your talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@JustBerry Thanks for this. I had copied and pasted the info there so that I didn't have to keep flicking between the two web pages. Hadn't quite appreciated that the sandbox was also effectively a public page! Will bear that in mind for the future. Thanks for the help and the invites. Edit1224 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback from Yu Jing Hao Tse

Hello, JustBerry. You have new messages at Yu Jing Hao Tse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi,

Thanks for your advice. I am just learning the ropes and this is a lot of fun. I spent some time reviewing and learned a lot about references. I reviewed the article adding footnotes and researched a little more and added more references about the author and re-submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yu Jing Hao Tse (talk • contribs)

@Yu Jing Hao Tse: Fantastic! I am thrilled to see that you are having fun editing Wikipedia. I'll leave reviewing this version of the draft to another editor, as I already performed one review. --JustBerry (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, JustBerry. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Editor of the Week

I wanted to thank you for your nomination for Editor of the Week. It truly means a lot to me. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lonehexagon: It is really my pleasure. The community is grateful for your contributions. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi JustBerry! You created a thread called Seeking second opinion on a few pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on an article

Hello, i would appreciate if u help me or give me your opinion concerning this article i made about the faculty of dental medecine of Monastir which is mainly a translation from the french article in which im contributing too. Many thanks. Kind regards, --Jihed M'hamed (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jihed M'hamed: Hello, nice to meet you. Have we chatted before (either via IRC or onwiki)? I apologize for not remembering. If so, were you chatting using another username? I noticed that the article may not have been initially created in the draftspace. Creating an article in the draftspace and submitting it to WP:AFC is a conventional way to get advice on an article. What do you need help with in particular? --JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @JustBerry: , we talked on my discussion page. It's fine, no need for appologizing. I just wanted a general opinion; if there is something noticeable which needs to be done, edited or corrected or what are the big lines that should be worked on...etc, if that's possible of course. Thank you, --Jihed M'hamed (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jihed M'hamed: Ah, yes. I copyedited the lead of the article, as it needed some cleanup and clarification; WP:MOS can give you some insight into the manual of style of articles. I do see that there are some claims in the article, such as it being the "only institution for dental studies in the country," that need some backing up with sources. Once you have found some independent, reliable sources to support such claims, you can use inline citations to reference those claims. Also, the lists may be better served as paragraphs with explanations on how those entities were created, their history with, relevance to, and importance to the institution, etc. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@JustBerry:, thank you again for your help and supportive attitude. I will take your remarks into consideration. Concerning the claims about being the only faculty of dentistry; i only found two mentions one in an electronic tunisian newspaper and the other in a guide for students published by the university, but in french (i linked it already so it's available to check). Looking forward for your continuous support.--Jihed M'hamed (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Gap in communications?

Regarding this edit: I guess I don't understand. I said I would open a section; why did you feel a need to preempt the work I said I would do? (And incidentally misspell my user name.) Is there something unusual in how I stated my intent that could be clarified? It's great to see your interest; if you can just avoid bumping heads with other participants, then we can get some momentum going. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(I will avoid pinging you per your prior request, assuming you are watching my talk page.) I just caught eye of this: "Can we just channel this desire to get things moving into some brainstorming of ideas? I'll try to open a section later today." later in that conversation. Also, I have fixed the typo; my mistake. Agreement does appear to be forming the current section that has been created; you can certainly add your thoughts to that section. If you feel that the section does not address what you meant to address, you can always mention that as well or, if you feel it is truly necessary, create a new section. --JustBerry (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Framing the conversation is important to keeping it on track, and there's only one chance to open it. It would have been helpful if you had allowed me to assist with this, both to demonstrate your good faith, as well as to guide the discussion. Now it's already splintered, and unbreaking the egg (to mix metaphors) is always hard. Consensus requires patience; please consider not trying to drive every conversation and not prematurely claiming that agreement appears to be forming. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The post was, after all, taken as a direct quotation from your previous intentions; there is little that can be said here regarding my own words guiding every (a globalization) conversation. However, I do understand your concern regarding your needing to add additional relevant, important information to the conversation. Please note that your intention to create a new section was mentioned later in that conversation, and I do apologize for not catching eye of this in the midst of the extended conversation. I really do not see how the conversation can be characterized as 'splintered' when it has reached more of an agreement relative to the prior section(s) active on that page earlier today/yesterday. As you have ushered others to do in that same discussion, let us move forward. (I hope that our interactions are not passive aggressive. I have enjoyed working with you in the past, and I would certainly like to continue working with you in the future. I started one additional section from the initial section that had sparked these series of discussions, which was, in good faith, intended to represent your willingness to move on, which I do applaud. If I could, I would ideally let you make the post, but I do want to avoid a WP:REDACT situation, which could be seen unfavorably by other members. I'm happy to work with you given what we have moving forward.) --JustBerry (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The conversation immediately digressed into a history of the project. Two people contributed their thoughts; it's pretty premature to say that there is an agreement on anything. This is what I mean about patience being required. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There was an increase in agreement: "I completely agree with John." (from Buster7) and "I can agree with you, John and Buster." (from myself). Moreover, Kudpung provided some useful, practical advice later in the thread. It is really too early to deem a conversation useless. Then again, your proposition to create a new, thought-out section specifically to brainstorm is good. Go for it. --JustBerry (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're reading things that aren't there: I never said that the conversation thread in question is useless. Quite the opposite: I said you've got to wait to evaluate the conversation as a whole to see what agreements may or may not exist. A few people saying we agree while covering diverse points isn't a basis to say that agreement is forming; the feedback loop has to be closed, and in an online conversation spanning the globe, time is also required to let everyone have a chance to weigh in. The role of patience in collaborative discussion cannot be understated. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned that the role of patience is not essential, there is never only one chance to open a section, nobody is "[driving] every conversation," and the conversation is not "already splintered." Your primary concern was the creation of the section. Even though "[digressing] into a history of the project" can appear fruitless, listening and processing that discussion can offer a substantial amount of feedback (over time) about what to do next, particularly to those who are looking to brainstorm, make lists, and form a plan. I understand the brainstorming list that you have proposed does feel more tangible, but it is often the back and forth that sheds light on underlying problems. Having both types of sections is important; people may be more inclined to use the less defined section before moving on to the more tangible, defined section. It may feel like the discussion is splintered in the short run because more people are inclined to post in a discussion-based thread and digress to get their complex thoughts and ideas onto the page. However, in the long run, the two sections are not mutually exclusive. Changes are rarely so linear onwiki. --JustBerry (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)