User talk:Newslinger

This is Newslinger's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water monster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River monster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No action. The edit was intentional. — Newslinger talk 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbox WM

Hello, I noticed you were an editor in the "free and open-source software task force.", I don't know where or who to ask about this issue, but the Blackbox article, lists an unofficial repository as the repository for the project. The problem is, the unofficial repository is recognized by Arch Linux as the official Blackbox package. I don't know the ruling on what is considered the official version in situations like this, however according to the FSF directory, it still only recognizes the original maintainership which ended in 2005.

The problem with the unofficial repository is that I can't find any reliable sources for calling it a continuation or fork besides itself and to some loose extent the recognition of it as the official Blackbox package provided by Arch, which raises questions of notability of it being mentioned at all. ShimonChai (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ShimonChai. In general, articles should reflect information in reliable sources (preferably secondary sources). I noticed that the Blackbox article only cited primary sources, so I added two secondary book sources to show that Blackbox is notable. (Google Books is a great resource for older software.) Several books, including SUSE Linux 9 Bible (page 186), mention http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net as the website for Blackbox, and I would use this site instead of an unofficial repository. I do note that the site appears to be offline, so it might be helpful to add the {{Dead link}} template after the URL. Thanks for working on this article, and please let me know if you have any questions! — Newslinger talk 03:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Karita clan

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. Here's a link which explains the origin and a little background history of the Karita clan, which was rather one of the smaller clans back in the Heian / Kamakura period. "Major daimyo of Miyagi prefecture" on Historical warehouse</ref> Made it easier for you to upload a screenshot with an explanation.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. Thanks.

Greetings,

Zaagmans

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaagmans!, and thanks for continuing to work on the Karita clan draft. I see that you have added three more sources for a total of four, and that you have submitted Draft:Karita clan for review. Unfortunately, I am not proficient enough in Japanese to determine whether the newly added sources are enough to pass the notability guideline. Some of the sources embed Japanese characters in images, which makes it hard for me to use an online translator. I'm a little concerned about sources #1 and #2, since they appear to be self-published sources, which are not considered reliable.

I can give you faster feedback if you tell me who the original authors are for each of the sources cited in Draft:Karita clan. Can you please provide me with this information? — Newslinger talk 10:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I updated the draft and deleted the 2 links you were concerned about. I added new links which look - to me - more reliable. I understand little Japanese, but my knowledge is very limited. There's one English link of the castle mentioning something about this clan, but it appears to be self-published. This is all I could find.

If you have questions, just ask. Thank you.

Zaagmans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Zaagmans!. I've reviewed the sources:

Monumento: This a primary source, since it's a picture of a sign at the Shiroishi Castle. The general notability guideline requires secondary sources, so this one doesn't count.
History-land.com: This appears to be a self-published source, according to a translation of the site's description on its home page. ("The manager loves history. I hope to introduce the knowledge I gained so far in an easy-to-understand manner so that the charm of history can be conveyed. Through this site, history is interesting, I would be happy if you think that I knew such a thing for the first time.")
Environment and history of Zao Town: I translated this PDF, and it looks like most of the content is a geographical description of Zaō, Miyagi, with only a passing mention of Karita/Kariya. Sources need to have significant coverage of the topic to count toward the general notability guideline.
A Collection of Photographs of Japanese Castles: This is a self-published source, according to the site's introduction. ("I have travelled throughout Japan in order to capture and publish a range of photographs depicting castle ruins and the sites of prominent castles. Although some of these pictures may be considered somewhat amateurish, I hope that they can at least provide you with a glimpse of the beauty and magnificence of Japanese castles.")
World of Kamon: I have no idea if this source is reliable or not. I'm seeking input from other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § World of Kamon/家紋World (harimaya.com/kamon) for Karita clan, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion.
Shiroishi Castle: As the website of Shiroishi, Miyagi, this is also a primary source.

Since you need at least two qualifying sources for the Karita clan to meet the general notability guideline, I'm afraid that I can't accept the draft at this time. The Karita clan is almost certainly notable, but we'll need better sources before the draft can be published. If you can find some books (Google Books is a good source) or other reliable sources, and include them into the draft, then the draft will be eligible to be published. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. And you are right. In that case, since there is hardly information about this clan to be found on the net, I'll leave it for now. Thank you very much for your time.

Greetings.

Zaagmans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for your efforts. Please note that the Resource Request page is available to you, and you can also consult the folks at WikiProject Japan for assistance. Unfortunately, my Japanese language skills are too limited to be helpful for this topic. — Newslinger talk 09:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Facebook Research

Hello Newslinger,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Facebook Research for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed at Talk:Facebook Research § Contested deletion. The Facebook Research page is a redirect, not an article. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Going commando, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed — Newslinger talk 11:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure

Hi, I feel that your closure here does not take into account my serious concerns regarding the "location" parameter. In addition, I'm surprised this got closed anyway, as the discussion seemed to be still ongoing. --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, I've undone the closure to allow for further discussion. While you did state your objections to the location parameter multiple times in the discussion, I omitted it from the closing summary because I didn't think your arguments gained enough traction with other editors. When the RfC is ready to be closed, you or any other editor may request another closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. — Newslinger talk 11:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This discussion was not well-advertized and I came to it quite late, but I think that my arguments merit more discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Template:Centralized discussion is looking pretty empty, so you might want to consider adding it there. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent closes at WP:ANRFC

Hi Newslinger. Thank you for your prolific excellent closes at WP:ANRFC. I enjoy reading your detailed closing rationales. Thank you for being responsive to editors' queries about your closes like at the Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard, I'm glad that you enjoyed reading them, and I'd like to thank you as well for ensuring that RfCs get listed at WP:ANRFC. An up-to-date queue of RfCs that need to be closed is essential to Wikipedia, and you're clearly the top contributor in this area. I appreciate all of the work you've done! — Newslinger talk 01:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very kind words! :) Cunard (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

— Newslinger talk 02:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants. (I realize you were the closer, not a participant, in the previous RfC on the related subject, but some participants were missed so for thoroughness and neutrality I'm adding everyone I saw comment in any form.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Wampler Pedals

Hi, I've taken a pass at this article (Draft:Wampler Pedals) and updated the content considerably to expand on the brand's history, relevance, and reach in their industry. I was hoping you could see if it has improved enough to warrant removing your flagging of the piece. Thank you! Potatowrite (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Potatowrite, and thanks for taking the time to improve the draft. As it stands right now, the sources cited in the draft are enough to show that Wampler Pedals is notable. However, the tone of the draft is a bit too promotional, and this needs to be addressed before the draft can be accepted. Some suggestions:

Consider combining the "Artist Collaborations" and "Associated Artists" sections into a single section about the company's association with artists.
Prose is generally preferred over lists, especially when the lists are short. Consider rewriting the list of products and artists into complete sentences.
The sentence mentioning the company's Facebook group should be removed, unless the group is covered by an independent reliable source.
Some parts of the draft rely exclusively on self-published sources, which are considered generally unreliable. Sentences like the one mentioning Boutique Amps Distributors should probably be removed.
Section headings should be in sentence case, not title case. For example, Design and Fabrication Process should be titled Design and fabrication process.

Once these issues are addressed, another reviewer will look over the article. Please note that past reviews don't count against the draft in future reviews – they're there to help keep track of the draft's progress. There are no deadlines to finishing a draft, and no limit to the number of times you can submit it for review. Good luck! — Newslinger talk 05:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Newslinger! I've gone through the text and tried to update the formatting to remove lists and corrected the section case. I've also found an independent source that cites the FB group as a relevant source of guitar pedal expertise. In addition, I've found additional sourcing for the distributor that was self-cited. Finally, I've taken a pass at the text and attempted to remove any puffery and promotional language that snuck in when I was summarizing the sources. I hope the current revision is a bit closer to what you would consider objective. If you see any other major issues, I would be happy to hear about them and see if I can eliminate them and improve the piece. Potatowrite (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Your draft is improving with each revision. Here are several more things you can address:

Currently, the majority of the draft's information on the company itself (not its products) is based on interviews with Brian Wampler. Interviews with a company representative are in a gray area where some editors don't consider them independent sources. If available, try finding more reliable sources that are independent from the company and add citations to those sources in the "History" and "Design and fabrication process" sections.
Try to keep the wording as factual and unopinionated as possible. For example, words like "guru" and "infamous" should probably be replaced with more neutral words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for a list of words and phrases that are generally not recommended in articles.
Citation markers should be placed after punctuation (including periods and commas), not before. See WP:CITEFOOT for an example.
I would remove the reverb.com citation, since online storefronts are considered self-published sources, and the sentence is already supported by 2 other sources.

After you make the necessary improvements, another reviewer will provide their opinion and make a decision. Thanks for your hard work. — Newslinger talk 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again,Newslinger! I've gone through gone through and updated the placement of all citations and located an additional local news source that was able to corroborate the information from interviews. I removed the source you mentioned and also updated the wording further. I added one additional section on the company's issues with name changes (they've had a string of products they've been forced to change the name of over the past several years). Hopefully the current draft is an improvement over the last. Potatowrite (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Please disregard, I found the correct area to ask this question. Thanks again.