User talk:Newslinger

Close an RfC?

Hey Newslinger,

Regarding this RfC: a week since the last comment, consensus fairly clear - would you like to close it? François Robere (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi François Robere, in light of the active ArbCom case, I would prefer to be extra cautious with this closure. Since the topic is highly contentious, it would be best to wait for the standard 30-day RfC period to elapse, and then submit a request for closure that explicitly asks for an administrator. One of my previous closures was challenged for being in a contentious area, despite the clear consensus in the discussion, because these closures are sometimes considered inappropriate for non-admins. I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Helps? No. But thanks for the reply. :-) François Robere (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Accenture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Big Brother

Cognizant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cognizance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Newslinger. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Please realize that the statue is a direct artwork of Libertas ("The Statue of Liberty is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess".) The American coins represent Libertas (see the Libertas page). Many other direct representations shouldn't be removed or changed, and your page closing took into account number of editors for each position which is not used in closings (if you closed using the editors count as a criteria maybe another look would be warranted), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, and thanks for the note about the Statue of Liberty and the American coins. I'll review every use of Liberty (goddess) to ensure that all of them point to the correct article (Liberty (personification) or Libertas), including coin-related articles. In the move discussion, most editors objected to the previous article title, Liberty (goddess), because it was more ambiguous than the proposed title (which is in line with WP:PRECISION). Although Libertas is also a personification (as you mentioned in your argument), the overall consensus was that the "personification" qualifier distinguished the broader concept of the personification from the more specific Libertas better than the "goddess" qualifier did. As the majority opinion was a valid position that complied with the article titles policy, I believe there was consensus to move. Please feel free to submit a move review if you think my closure should be challenged, or tell me if I misidentify any of the Liberty (goddess) links. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your extensive answer. Please consider these two paragraphs from the Libertas page:

"In addition, money throughout history has borne the name or image of Libertas. As "Liberty", Libertas was depicted on the obverse (heads side) of most coinage in the U.S. into the twentieth century. The University of North Carolina records two instances of private banks in its state depicting Libertas on their banknotes;[9][10] Libertas is depicted on the 5, 10 and 20 Rappen denomination coins of Switzerland.

"The symbolic characters Columbia who represents the United States and Marianne, who represents France, the Statue of Liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World) in New York Harbor, and many other characters and concepts of the modern age were created, and are seen, as embodiments of Libertas."

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, all of the Liberty (goddess) links originally pointed to the article that is now titled Liberty (personification). After moving Liberty (goddess) to Liberty (personification), I retargeted Liberty (goddess) to Libertas because editors in the move discussion believed that the Roman goddess was more closely associated with the "goddess" qualifier than the broader personification. As Liberty (goddess) now redirects to Libertas, I intend to change back all links to Liberty (goddess) that should point to the broader Liberty (personification), which was the article they pointed to before the page move.

I understand that the Roman goddess Libertas is depicted on the Statue of Liberty and the coins, but I am not so sure about whether the affected pages in the scope of the paragraphs you quoted should point to Liberty (personification) or Libertas. This is because the links originally pointed to the content in Liberty (personification), and I would effectively be changing the target by keeping the Liberty (goddess) links unchanged. Also, the Libertas article focuses on the goddess herself, and is less relevant to the way she is portrayed in culture.

Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this is for me to retarget Liberty (goddess) back to Liberty (personification), which would leave all of the prior link targets unchanged, and revert all of my link changes. The Liberty (goddess) redirect could then be submitted for discussion by any interested editor. Does that sound like an acceptable solution to you? If you want any additional clarification on the above, please let me know.​ — Newslinger talk 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The extensive discussions over the move request should have clarified this. I and at least some (I think most or all) of the supporters of the move do not believe that the Statue of Liberty, and the many figures (several male) labelled with "Liberty" on US coins represesent Libertas, nor any goddess except in a loose metaphrical sense. Libertas was not a personification, she was a proper goddess, with priests and temples, who was believed to welcome animal sacrifices. She may be treated as a personificatory goddess by mythologists, but that is different. Randy's position was not supported in that discussion, except for one editor. Many of the articles above need touching up. I think Randy has edited many of them. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I was going to revert Liberty (goddess) to point back to Liberty (personification), but you beat me to it. I have responded at Talk:Liberty (personification) § Liberty (goddess) redirect. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, please let's now discuss this on article talk pages. I'll just make this one reply to your comment. You seem to be saying that the Statue of Liberty is not specifically of Libertas? If it is not, then both the Statue's page and the Libertas pages have made major mistakes and contain long-term incorrect information, as do other page. That would be a "yikes" mistake in the annals of Wikipedia. What you are implying would be a major historical change for all of these articles, so you should bring it to the Statue of Liberty talk page. I personally do not know what the sources say, so I'm starting from ignorance, and was just going along with what the pages say. If I made the edits which brought that information into those pages then I may have been wrong. I just don't know if I made the edits, and haven't looked. You hint it was probable that it was my edit that brought what you claim is incorrect information onto the page, and if you are correct then my sincere apology in advance. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the SofL is of Libertas in any very meaningful sense. As the article explains perfectly well, it draws on the modern iconographic tradition that is discussed here, especially the style developed in France since the Revolution. There is nothing drawing on Libertas except the general concept, and the long dress. Libertas never has a torch, nor a radiant crown. Ewulp gave some good sources re coins above. I am indeed not happy with the sentence in the lead "The Statue of Liberty is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess", which has various issues. The treatment in the section lower down is much better. No doubt I'll get round to raising this some time. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, checked, it wasn't me who brought that information to the article. The editors who edit the Statue of Liberty page should be included if such a major change is afoot, so sources can be well researched to find out the validity of the claim. Maybe talk page it there. I see you are already making some good edits, but please leave the claim on the page until it is disproven, as I'd think it would be long-term stable language seen and left there by many editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Non admin closure of contentious move request

You closed the move request for WTC Cortlandt, but it was contentious. WP:RMNAC advises against non-admin closing contentious discussions. Please undo your close and allow an admin to close, as the previous non-admin closer did. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, rendered moot. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi JHunterJ, if I had been aware of the request for closure that specifically asked for an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion. The language in WP:RMNAC is quite generous in allowing non-admins to close requested move discussions, but if an editor requests a closure by an administrator, I would respect that request and refrain from closing the discussion. In this case, no editor in the discussion (Talk:WTC Cortlandt station § Requested move 28 May 2019) linked to the request for closure or asked for a closure by an administrator. In the future, if you include a brief comment somewhere in the discussion asking for a closure by an administrator, I would be certain to avoid closing the discussion. Thanks for understanding. — Newslinger talk 02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to participating in discussions on the new noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Facebook Portal

Hello! Your submission of Facebook Portal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Newslinger,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Facebook Portal

On 5 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Facebook Portal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a five-star Amazon review of Facebook Portal by a writer, who claimed not to be a "big" Facebook user before buying the device, was traced to a Facebook employee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Facebook Portal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Facebook Portal), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Street

You said no consensus, but there were five supports, including me, and only three opposes. From what I understand, consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Amaury • 03:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amaury, although there were more supporters in Talk:Hunter Street (TV series) § Requested move 9 June 2019, requested moves are discussions and not votes. It's also not unusual for proposals with 5 out of 8 supports (62.5%) to be closed as no consensus.

The discussion focused on whether Hunter Street (TV series) is the primary topic for the term Hunter Street. Examining the arguments in detail:

• Usage: As you and the other supporters have mentioned, the TV series currently has the majority (90%) of all pageviews for the term Hunter Street. However, the opposers believe that the pageviews are inflated because the series is actively airing, and that its proportion of pageviews will decrease significantly once it's discontinued.
• Long-term significance: There were no arguments made in favor of the TV series's cultural impact. The opposers noted that the three streets named Hunter Street have existed for much longer than the TV series has.

I don't see consensus for or against the requested move from the arguments presented in the discussion. In the future, when the cultural impact of the TV series becomes clearer, it will be easier to determine whether this move is warranted. Feel free to submit another requested move when you think it's time for a reassessment. ​— Newslinger talk 04:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What template should I use in this case?

Hello, I'm contacting you as a member of notability and reliability projects I believe they are relevant in this case. I am not new to Wikipedia but I don't have much experience in English Wikipedia in particular so I hope you could help a bit. I am looking for a template to use for a statement in an article that *is* sourced but the source is of questionable reliability and also questionable notability too. A guy on his youtube channel said that one author considers another author's books to be plagiarism, and it's given as a source for a statement that said basically this, in Wikipedia's article. I cannot use {{fact}} because technically source is given, can I? What template would be appropriate here to mark the statement in question as questionable? Here's the talk page where I explained the issue in more detail. I'd be greatful if you could redirect me to appropriate Wikipedia's rules/accepted practices page for this situation or help in any other way. Thanks in advance! --Nomad (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nomad, you're right that {{fact}} wouldn't be the right template here, since a source has been provided (even though it's low-quality). The video is produced by a YouTube (RSP entry) channel named The Rageaholic, which is a self-published source because it's one person's own production. Here, you could use {{sps|certain=y}} to mark the citation inline, and {{self-published}} to mark the article (Elric of Melniboné) or section (Elric of Melniboné § Books).

However, I would actually go one step further and just delete the claim. This is because our verifiability and biography of living persons policies allows us to remove claims that are not adequately sourced. It's strongly recommended to remove contentious claims related to living people, such as the one here, when they are unsourced or only supported by low-quality sources (including self-published sources and questionable sources).

We have a wide variety of cleanup tags available for marking content that needs attention. See the list of templates at Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates and the list of inline tags at Template:Inline cleanup tags. Thanks for asking for clarification, and please don't hesitate to ask again if you have any other questions about editing. Cheers! ​— Newslinger talk 22:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! That's super helpful. I'm going to do just that. Also thanks for the invitation and the teahouse link. I wasn't aware I could ask question there, I wouldnt have bothered you otherwise --Nomad (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no problem. I'm happy to answer any questions here. (It's not a bother at all!) ​— Newslinger talk 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

I disambiguated all the article links that linked to Pop Out (song). Wasn't a lot of work, but it did take up time. It's not like readers are going to search for "Pop Out (song)". So that redirect with the ambiguous title and qualifier should target the disambiguation page where other songs are mentioned. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth, and thanks for carrying out the requested move and for disambiguating the article links. I thought that Pop Out (song) would be a case of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} because that was how In My Feelings (song) was handled (the subject of a similar requested move that we participated in). If Pop Out (disambiguation) would be a better target, I think this pattern should be consistently applied to all redirects named Song name (song) that have a corresponding disambiguation page when one of the songs under that name is a primary topic. Since WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is not entirely clear ("Sometimes"), would you like to start an RfD discussion for Pop Out (song)? — Newslinger talk 21:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

​Actually, since this situation covers a number of Song name (song) redirects that are treated inconsistently, I've gone ahead and started an RfD discussion. If you're interested, you can participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 11 § Pop Out (song). — Newslinger talk 21:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd forgotten about that consensus at PRIMARYREDIRECT. It didn't make much sense to me then and doesn't now; however, it was consensus, so... And I can see where the "sometimes" might be misconstrued. It's meant to mean "sometimes a page is moved", not "sometimes this is what we do when a page is moved". I'll see if it can be clarified. Thanks again! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Regarding your collapsing of personal-related comments in that particular discussion, I think the paragraph immediately before the first collapse (... in regards to your linking of my edit, it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page ....) contains 32 words associated to editor talk page out of a total of 39. I believe this comment should also be included in the collapse per WP:FOC - "comment on content, not the contributor". Thank you. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pyxis Solitary, I've collapsed the paragraph in question. Hopefully, the collapse boxes make the discussion easier for uninvolved editors to follow. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that you did so @ 08:39, 12 July 2019 -- but it was reverted @ 13:27, 12 July 2019 with the allegation that the collapsed signed comment was "split" from the previous signed comment (this edit deleted the previous signature). This is how you left the section, and this is how it is now (two comments combined as one after-the-fact). Pyxis Solitary yak 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

​The collapse box was not intended to be a contentious issue, but a reading aid for uninvolved editors. I've removed the first collapse box entirely because it does not appear to be making a positive difference. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that. I also understand the well-intentioned but ultimate futility in trying to deal with contentious editing. You did what you could. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Don't say it was two comments combined as one after-the-fact because that's false. Here is the initial comment, there was only one signature. I spaced out the message for styling purposes. It's not an "allegation" of splitting – that's what happened. My revert restored my comment as it was. (Not the main point of my message, but any comments about how to use a talk page can be brought to → my talk page.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul 'Smiler' Anderson moved to draftspace

Hello @Newslinger, pleased to meet you. I was somewhat surprised that you felt the above article didn't contain enough references as there were already plenty included. However, I have since added more and I have resubmitted it. I woud be obliged if you would look over it again and if you feel it now meets the community guidelines, please reinstate the article. If you are still not happy, please be specific with any sections you feel need more citations. I am completely satisfied with the accuracy and veracity of the article. Your loyal and obedient, etc., Lloydmayer (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lloydmayer, and thanks for working on the article for Paul 'Smiler' Anderson. To show that Anderson is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, we need at least two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Anderson. After looking over the cited sources in this version of the article, I don't think we're there yet:

1. Amazon listing: Not independent, since it's a store listing for Anderson's book.
2. Suit Yourself Modernists: As a self-published source, this site is not considered a reliable source.
3. The Modcast: This two-person podcast is also considered self-published, and not reliable.
4. Omnibus Press: Possibly. I don't have access to the book, so I can't tell if it provides significant coverage of Anderson.
5. Amazon: This is the Amazon store listing for #4, and should be removed.
6. History of RnB Records: Self-published, and not reliable.
7. Get Reading: This article only gives a passing mention of Anderson, which doesn't count as significant coverage.
8. Suit Yourself Modernists: See #2.

Even assuming that #4 counts toward Anderson's notability, you'll need one more qualifying source before we can publish Draft:Paul 'Smiler' Anderson. The notability guideline for biographies also lists some other ways to show notability.

Once you've made the necessary additions, please submit the draft again, and an editor will review the new sources. Remember that there's no deadlines for finishing a draft, and no limit to the number of times you can submit it for review. Good luck with your research! ​— Newslinger talk 11:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed response.

I have added some more references, including booksellers in Australia and New Zealand; hopefully it now meets your stringent criteria!

With regards to the Get Reading article, I would argue it contains more than a passing reference: The exhibition was the brainchild of second-generation Caversham Mod Paul ‘Smiler’ Anderson who collected many of the exhibits from people living in the Reading area. He said: “I came up with the idea four years ago and I came here three-and-a-half years ago and it’s just grown and grown from there. “I interviewed a lot of Reading Mods because I wasn’t actually around at the time and spoke to them about their experiences. “The exhibition is set out as if a Mod from the time is telling you about his life and that story is all accurate, based on facts and experiences.”

'History of R&B Records' is a record label with a prolific output -it is not a one-man-band; the question here is whether Anderson actually wrote sleevenotes for their record releases, which he clearly has done.

Yours aye, Lloydmayer (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lloydmayer, let's look at the sources that were added:

1. Pan Macmillian: Any page titled "our authors" generally won't count. This is because the website is owned by a company that is affiliated with Anderson, which makes it non-independent.
2. Arcadia Bookshop: The same applies to bookstore listings. Since the bookstore is selling a book written by Anderson, the bookstore's website is non-independent.
3. Get Reading: To count as significant coverage, a substantial portion of the article needs to be focused on Anderson, and not just something that Anderson is affiliated with. The WP:CORPDEPTH guideline is written for companies, not people, but it gives a better idea of what significant coverage entails. Both of the Get Reading articles don't count as significant coverage of Anderson.
4. Fred Perry: This is a press release of a clothing brand. Press releases are non-independent, and can't be used for notability.
5. Chris Farlowe: This is someone's blog, which is a self-published source, and is not reliable.

Sorry, but these sources don't establish Anderson's notability. Please review the basic criteria of the notability guideline for biographies, and find some qualifying sources. If you're not sure what kind of sources count as reliable, take a look at the perennial sources list which contains many examples of sources that are considered generally reliable and generally unreliable.

Sometimes, a person might not have enough coverage to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. If that's the case, you can always add sources to the draft when they surface in the future, and submit the draft when it's ready. There's no rush. ​— Newslinger talk 12:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Very well. I still maintain that he is notable person; the sources support this, and I have read many other Wiki articles with far fewer citations. I would have preferred you to have left it on the main Wiki page, perhaps with a note to say 'more citations needed' so that others could also contribute, but I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Lloydmayer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, Lloydmayer, but notability on Wikipedia isn't really the same thing as notability in the real world. However, we need some some way to determine whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia, and the notability guidelines are the most practical solution that editors have been able to come up with after many years of discussion.

There is a list of alternative outlets that might help you find a different place to write about Anderson. For example, it's pretty simple to move an article to Wikia, since the formatting is mostly the same. I hope you find a good home for your article. — Newslinger talk 13:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lloydmayer, I just did some research on Anderson. Although I didn't immediately find enough qualifying sources for Anderson himself, I found this GQ article and this Louder Sound article that should make Anderson's book, Mods: The New Religion, qualify for an article. You can then create a redirect from Paul 'Smiler' Anderson to Mods: The New Religion, and include some background information on Anderson in the article on his book. Is this plan something that would work for you? — Newslinger talk 13:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Guidance Needed

@Newslinger

Hello. I would appreciate your guidance concerning the proper way under Wikipedia standards for a living person about whom a Wikipedia article was created when he was a public figure can get an independent, unpaid, 3d party to review the contents of an article to make sure that each and every sentence satisfies Wikipedia standards.

If this cannot be done because the article is considered contaminated, then how can such a Wikipedia article be deleted?

Finally, I hope that I have contacted you in the right manner and in the right forum. If not, I apologize in advance.

Kind regards,

RKN888 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi RKN888, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! I'm happy to answer questions here. Since the letters in your username correspond to the initials of Ronald Kenneth Noble, I'm assuming that you're referring to the Ronald Noble article.

It looks like Davykamanzi had previously edited the article for pay and made significant additions at Special:Diff/736330180 in August 2016. Davykamanzi then submitted the article for peer review in March 2019, but the review was closed after it was unanswered for a month. Finally, Davykamanzi asked for the {{COI}} cleanup tag to be removed from the article just over a week ago at Talk:Ronald Noble § Maintenance template, but there was no consensus to do so.

Spintendo explained what needed to be done before the {{COI}} tag could be removed: an editor without a conflict of interest needs to check all of the content added by Davykamanzi, verify the cited references, and ensure that it is compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Most importantly, all claims should be verifiable, the cited sources should be reliable, the phrasing should be neutral, and included information should constitute due weight. The editor should also ensure that pertinent information is not excluded from the article in a way that causes it to be unbalanced.

Once the editor thoroughly reviews the article and rewrites the problematic portions of the paid edits, they can remove the {{COI}} tag themselves. By removing the tag, the editor assumes responsibility for the paid edits, and is expected to respond to inquiries regarding the content they rewrote.

Sometimes, there is not enough interest in a topic for other editors to volunteer to review an article. (This is probably the case here, as the peer review was closed without any activity.) In this case, you can try contacting the associated WikiProjects for help (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States for this article). You can also post on the Wikipedia:Reward board, where you can offer to do a Wikipedia-related task in exchange for having the article reviewed.

If none of these options work for you, you'll just have to wait until someone comes along and cleans up the article themselves. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer service, there is no timetable for when an article gets improved. It all depends on when people want to help, and that can be unpredictable. I hope this answers your question! — Newslinger talk 03:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

​I just noticed that your username implies that you are Ronald Noble, and I've adjusted the wording of my comments above. If you're not Ronald Noble, please say so. — Newslinger talk 04:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger:

I am Ronald Noble. Thank you for your advice which is very helpful and which points out both the strength and weakness of Wikipedia. Anyone can create an article about a living person. He or she can do it anonymously, but the living person cannot correct the article himself/herself, nor can he hire someone to do it in a transparent manner. He must beg a community of anonymous persons to take an interest in him and hope that someone will do so.

I take this issue seriously. I am copying my response to @Bafflegab who responded to my request for copy editing. His/her response was very professional, very transparent, very respectful, but would result in a 100% accurate statement about an event of great significance to the security of the White House and the President following a series of security breaches and following the Oklahoma City bombing being deleted.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful response. I've read some of your other exchanges and you are always thoughtful and thorough which is greatly appreciated.

RKN888 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My note to @Bafflegab follows:

@Bafflegab

Thank you for having taken the time to respond my request for Copy Edit assistance. As you correctly pointed out, the Wikipedia article in question is about me. I do not wish to complain about Wikipedia’s rules as they relate to living persons, but they seem unfair. Any 3d party is allowed to create an article about a living person that is false, misleading and incomplete or that does not follow Wikipedia guidelines, but the living person does not have the ability to correct the errors himself or to hire someone to correct those errors. This seems patently unfair.

I am now trying to use the Copy Edit approach simply to have an article that was created by someone without my knowledge to become a neutral, unbiased and encyclopedic type of article.

I want to use your specific proposed deletion as an example of how Wikipedia’s rules are stacked against living persons. Before doing so, I want you to know that I greatly respect and appreciate how transparent and careful you were about your proposed deletion. Unfortunately, since the language that you deleted was not carefully written, you reached a wrong conclusion that the language did not concern the subject of the Wikipedia article. In addition, since the editor of the deleted language did not use the best citations, you were able to point out his/her citations were lacking.

Let me begin by quoting you:

“CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section was removed from the article be me; for reasons see below or the article's edit history. I am leaving it here in case its removal breaks any references and so future editors may reuse refs if relevant. Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC) (this appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble, who is not even mentioned in many of the sources.) In 1994, following a plane crash in the south lawn of the White House carried out by Frank Eugene Corder,[1] Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen directed Under Secretary Noble and Secret Service director Eljay B. Bowron to conduct a "thorough and comprehensive" investigation into the circumstances leading to the plane crash.[2][3] In 1995, a public report of the White House Security Review was published, with President Bill Clinton accepting all its recommendations and announcing the closure of the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House on May 21, 1995, restricting movement only to pedestrian traffic to eliminate the threat of any potential car bomb or truck bomb attacks,[4] as well as changes to air traffic rules and other security measures.[3]”

My response to your statement: “This appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble, who is not even mentioned in many of the sources.”

Your basis for deletion is clearly stated. First, you believe that the deleted material has nothing to do with Ronald Noble. Second, you write that Ronald Noble is not even mentioned in many of the sources.

Let me first demonstrate why the event that you deleted is significant not only to Ronald Noble but to the United States and therefore should be included in a Wikipedia article.

The White House Security Review overseen by then Under Secretary of Treasury Ronald Noble was ordered after a series of security breaches and terrorist attacks about which many articles were written in the US and around the world. Prior to the White House Security Review’s recommendation to close Pennsylvania to vehicular traffic, there had been an assassination attempt of President Clinton and a suicide plane crash into the White House. There also was the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City where 168 people were killed on April 19, 1995 less than a month before the White House Security Review that I oversaw recommended closing Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic.

Neutral articles making clear the importance of the White House Security review:

An LA Times article was entitled, “Clinton Seals Off Traffic from Part of Pennsylvania Ave: White House: Street in front of executive mansion is permanently closed to vehicles. President calls it part of 11-step program to tighten security after terrorist attacks.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

In this article, then President Clinton highlights the significance of his decision to close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. I quote: “Clinton noted that Pennsylvania Avenue has remained open to vehicular traffic for 130 years, "through four presidential assassinations and eight unsuccessful attempts on the lives of presidents . . . through a civil war, two world wars and the Gulf War."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

This article also makes clear how extensive the White House Security Review was. I quote: “The advisory committee reviewed more than 1,000 documents and interviewed 250 individuals, including former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, and experts from eight nations with considerable experience with terrorism. It drafted a top-secret, 500-page report with a 260-page appendix; Five of its 11 recommendations remain classified.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4461-story.html

Now, let me turn to your observations which are understandable in light of the text as written in the Wikipedia article. You write: “this appears to have nothing to do with Ronald Noble.”

The language in the Wikipedia article states: “In 1994, following a plane crash in the south lawn of the White House carried out by Frank Eugene Corder,[1] Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen directed Under Secretary Noble and Secret Service director Eljay B. Bowron to conduct a "thorough and comprehensive" investigation into the circumstances leading to the plane crash.[2][3] “

This declarative sentence was imprecise in that it uses the label “Under Secretary Noble” when referring to who was directed to conduct a “thorough and comprehensive” investigation of White House security. It should say “Under Secretary Ronald Noble.” Earlier in the Wikipedia article, it states, “In 1993, Noble was appointed the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, being placed in charge of the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Customs Service Office of Enforcement, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.[4][9]” Therefore, one could deduce that the Under Secretary Noble referred to in this paragraph is in fact Under Secretary Ronald Noble, but you are right that it is not clear as currently written.

Once it is clear that the Under Secretary Noble referred to in this paragraph is the same Ronald Noble about whom this Wikipedia article was created, and the same Ronald Noble was ordered to oversee the entire White House Security Review, then the deleted material has everything to do with Ronald Noble.

Neutral citations referring to Ronald Noble as overseeing the White House Security Review:

Regarding your second point, you write: “Ronald Noble … is not even mentioned in many of the sources.”

Again, you are correct. The sources that were cited in this article do not clearly mention Ronald Noble’s name, but this problem can easily be corrected. I have very little familiarity with Wikipedia’s detailed rules, but I researched “types of content removal” and the sub-heading “unsourced information.”

I quote:

“Unsourced information[edit source] Shortcut • WP:USI

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal

There are many neutral, independent and credible sources to support the statement that Ronald Noble oversaw the White House Security Review that gave the recommendation to close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic and that Ronald Noble was tasked by then Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen to conduct a review of White House security.

1. New York Times:

“Treasury Under Secretary Ronald K. Noble, who oversees the Secret Service and heads the committee of security experts, declined to comment today about its conclusions or the Administration's plan to close Pennsylvania Avenue. But other officials said Mr. Noble had told them he was concerned about the possibility of a car bomb and would like to see the avenue closed to vehicles.” https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/10/us/security-plan-close-pennsylvania-avenue.html

2. LA Times:

“Ronald K. Noble, undersecretary of the Treasury for enforcement, was overseeing the investigation.” https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-24-mn-5471-story.html

3. UPI:

“Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, who oversees the service, ordered Noble to undertake a 90-day review of the security for Clinton and his family, which will parallel the sweeping probe of the crash by the Secret Service, the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the District of Columbia police force.”

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/09/12/Probe-begins-into-White-House-plane-crash/8392779342400/

4. Washington Post:

“It's not clear whether the advisory committee's proposal has the support of Ronald K. Noble, undersecretary of the treasury for enforcement, or his boss, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who will forward the panel's report to Clinton, possibly next week.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/05/10/proposal-to-close-pennsylvania-ave-irks-commuters-tourists/dfe4ca2d-d86f-45ad-a443-10e2b24cc18c/?utm_term=.166af3944830

5. Orlando Sentinel:

“But Noble's report made clear how vulnerable the White House remained to an assailant. For example, he disclosed that Frank Eugene Corder, the pilot who crashed below the president's bedroom window last year, had his plane's wing flaps up and his throttle at full forward, which led investigators to conclude that he had intended to crash in a suicide mission.”

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1995-05-21-9505210399-story.html

6. The Daily Pennsylvanian:

“The advisory committee, which will be chaired by the Under Secretary for Enforcement Ron Noble, will review "every aspect of how the White House could be attacked, from the ground or from the air," Bentsen said during a press conference.”

https://www.thedp.com/article/1994/11/pres-rodin-named-to-white-house-safety-panel

Conclusion:

Using my Wikipedia account, I requested a copy edit of an article in a transparent manner where a major editor has a close connection with me. You rightly pointed out language that was not as clear as it could be. You also rightly indicated that Ronald Noble was not even mentioned in many of the sources used.

If the event in question is notable and would be included in any encyclopedia, if it is linked to the subject of the article and if it is properly sourced, then it should be included, not deleted.

Next Steps:

I do not wish to get involved in a dispute with a thoughtful editor such as yourself who took the time to respond to my request for a copy edit. I also will not add back the language that you deleted, but I would just appreciate your giving me guidance as to how a living person can make sure that a Wikipedia article created about him is accurate if he cannot make it accurate himself or if he cannot hire someone who indicates his conflict of interest to make corrections/additions/deletions?

Again, thank you for the time that you have devoted to this issue.

@Gunslinger

Can't I just ask @Davykamanzi to delete all of his edits? Wouldn't that resolve the problem?