Jump to content

User talk:Utopes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peiris Fox (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 25 March 2020 (→Draft:Francesco Sidoti). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hand counting redirect

Hi Utopes,

I'm only reviewing redirects for now, until I complete the entire NPP curriculum, and only those with which I feel comfortable doing. This one, I didn't want to leave an edit summary because that would cause DannyS712 bot III to mark it as reviewed (well, it would if I removed the underscores from the target, that is), but I'm wondering if this should be brought to RfD. What do you think? It could be a primary redirect to this topic, but I'm not sure, as there are certainly other uses. At any rate, curious your thoughts. And, is there a script for easily adding hatnotes to the target article, and, in any event, which hatnote would be best (assuming it's a primary redirect and not brought to RfD, of course)?

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: The redirect in question looks ambiguous, as it would make sense for the redirect to target either Finger counting or Vote counting. I would personally retarget the redirect to the former, and leave a hatnote on the Finger counting saying "Hand counting redirects here. See also: [Vote counting]]." There's a template for that somewhere, but I cannot recall the name. If you want to have a larger discussion than this, you may RfD the redirect; however, I don't see an immediate need. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, Yeah, those were the two targets I identified. So you would probably just retarget it to Finger-counting, and then just use hatnotes? Doug Mehus T·C 01:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir! Utopes (talk / cont) 02:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I ended up just refining the existing vote counting target since "hand counting" wasn't mentioned at all at finger-counting. Plus, the latter article is a fairly weak article. I used {{Redirect}} at vote counting and, somewhat reluctantly, {{for2}} at finger-counting. I say "somewhat reluctantly" because I'd have preferred to use {{about}}, but I don't think it supports custom text.
Nevertheless, do you think my messages to the redirect creator are helpful, and do most reviewers do this? (See: User talk:Numbersinstitute#I have sent you a note about a page you started)
By the way, I closed the Dean/Milan redirect you nominated as "speedy delete," as CambridgeBayWeather speedily deleted it per WP:CSD#R3, in case you were wondering. Doug Mehus T·C 07:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camwhoring soft redirect

Hi Utopes,

I'm hoping you can re-consider your reversion of my soft redirect to camwhoring. We really don't have a topic specifically to that term, only an article where it is mentioned briefly in a single sentence of a section, so it's one of those grey areas of soft redirect where, depending on WP:PAGEDECIDE by the regular editors, we include it there or as a soft redirect. I'd rather not make any waves with the editor by starting a 30-day RfC on whether to include the Wiktionary link that is quite clearly within reason. So, my thinking was, let's just do a soft redirect. After all, there's no real reason not to as we do have ~1,500 or so soft redirects to Wiktionary—and that's not even including the Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and Wikibooks soft redirects. ;-)

At the end of the day, it's harmless, and we also have no rules, too, and aren't a a bureaucracy, though we don't actually have to invoke those policies in order to effect the soft redirect.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for "camwhoring" at Wiktionary is also a sentence long, so I fail to see why that page deserves more attention than a similar page on Wikipedia with a similar entry. In addition, we provide more information concerning the subject on Wikipedia compared to Wiktionary. If people wanted to find the definition, they would use Wiktionary in the first place. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, Yes, I understand that, but WP:SISP is meant to help direct additional traffic to our sister network sites, which generate drastically lower participation and pageviews than English Wikipedia. I've never looked at the numbers, but suspect English Wikipedia gets > 90% of the participation and pageviews relative to all other Wikimedia projects. I agree there's no reason not to have a Wiktionary link on that page, but to save the argument, the thinking was, it's harmless to have a soft redirect to Wiktionary since that page's editors don't seem to want it there. Note, too, that {{Wiktionary redirect}} criterion #2 specifically states, "[t]here is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect," (emphasis added) That's vague, but it benefits us in that it implicitly states that if an existing Wikipedia target article does not want a Wiktionary redirect box on the target article, then that can be construed as being not an appropriate redirect target by the redirect creator/reviewer. Doug Mehus T·C 00:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our sister projects do not exist for the sake of receiving traffic from Wikipedia. There are many articles on Wikipedia that have entries on Wiktionary, but most of them are not linked to Wiktionary on purpose. Take Sitting, probably the most basic verb. There is no link to Wiktionary there, because people interested in the definition would instead go to Wiktionary. We only soft redirect to Wiktionary if it is a word that is not covered on Wikipedia. "Camwhoring" IS covered on Wikipedia, so the redirect should stay within this project. Soft redirecting to a sister project is a last resort, as people interested in those projects would use those mediums. It is not the redirect's fault that Wiktionary is not viewed as often as Wikipedia. Per the Wiktionary criterion #2 that you quoted, there IS a Wikipedia page that is an appropriate redirect and Camwhore has existed since 2004 before it became a redirect in 2012. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that assessment, at least in part. WP:SISP very clearly does exist to cross-promote Wikimedia's sister projects and, related to that, soft redirects to Wiktionary help to enforce the idea that WP:NOTDICTIONARY. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR are actually our two most important rules, in my view, besides WP:GNG (I personally wish we didn't have the SNGs (save for maybe WP:NPROF, WP:NOLYMPICS, and, of course, WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH) and just made all subjects pass WP:GNG, but that's another argument), and this is very clearly within the purpose and, at the same time, maintaining positive editor relations with an editor who, for reasons unknown, disputes adding a Wiktionary link to the page. Doug Mehus T·C 01:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, How about this, I'll try re-adding the Wiktionary link, but in the see also section, and ping you in the edit summary that I have your concurrence to add either camwhore or camwhoring in a Wiktionary link, and if Trivialist still reverts it, then will you consider a "soft redirect"? Doug Mehus T·C 01:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SISP is a link to the page about Wikimedia's sister projects, and how to link between them. wP:SISP does NOT advocate for the cross-promotion of the sister projects through soft redirects. Because WP:SISP refers to our sister projects, it is confusing when you write: "The page about our sister projects exists to cross-promote our sister projects". Maybe there is some disconnect between your argument and mine. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second message, you don't need to add the link to Wiktionary into the article. For one, the term is derogatory in nature, and secondly and more importantly, the term is not the subject of the article on webcam models, but a subtopic that is not worthy of a full article. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, that the term is derogatory is not a valid reason for not providing a link, per WP:SISP#When to link, though. And that's my point, camwhoring is not the subject of the article; thus, for the purposes of a Wiktionary link, which the very purpose of which is to enforce WP:DICDEF and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, there really is no suitable topic. The Wiktionary link is deemed not appropriate for the article in question; ergo, there's no suitable target, and a soft redirect is thus fine. There's nothing saying we can't do this, so we needn't invoke WP:IAR or WP:COMMONSENSE, but if it would give you comfort in added policy backing, I have no problem with invoking those policies. Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, Yes, but both between the lines and at "when to link," where it says, "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible," that to me implies that the idea is to cross-promote the Wikimedia sister projects. Indeed, through Meta, there is very much an overall strategic imperative of Wikimedia Foundation to cross-promote each project; I don't know about you, but I think of myself as a Wikimedian not a Wikipedian. Doug Mehus T·C 01:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects, these links should not be forced into the article. If they are to be added, they should be about the subject of the article, and should not be emphasized beyond a See Also section or a template for the sister project. A link to the Wiktionary entry on "camwhoring" within the Wikipedia article on webcam models is not appropriate. If there were to be a Wiktionary link on that page, it should be to the subject of "webcam models". But even then, the subject is much more aptly covered on Wikipedia, so the typical reader wouldn't benefit much from a more limited entry, and they also wouldn't benefit from the limited Wiktionary entry for "camwhoring". It seems to me that you are trying to cross-promote Wiktionary for the sake of cross-promoting Wiktionary, which should not be the goal for the soft-redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My goals are two-fold: (a) to ensure we enforce WP:NOTDICTIONARY through the creation of soft redirects to Wiktionary, when there isn't even an appropriate subject article and (b) to cross-promote our sister projects. Note, too, this discussion, in which I gave a spirited defence of Wiktionary soft redirects for pissing it down. It's true that there isn't an article which mentions that phrasing, but note from the discussion, several long-time editors and even an administrator thought it was clearly within at least the spirit of WP:SOFTREDIRECT to do soft redirects to Wiktionary as we see fit. Ideally, we should add a Wiktionary link to the article; I disagree it would be inappropriate, but seeing that's off the table, I see no reason why we can't have a soft redirect. We clearly have the policy backing on our side, so I'm asking you, to please consider a soft redirect for camwhoring. We can keep the noun form camwhore targeted to webcam model. It's clearly within the spirit. Doug Mehus T·C 02:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your spirit in maintaining WP:NOTDICTIONARY, don't get me wrong. I just don't believe that it makes much sense to point "camwhore" and "camwhoring" to different targets. If you want to put a Wiktionary box on webcam models, then I would put the box for "webcam models", because I am sure that it exists there. In the discussion you linked, all of the soft redirects that you included make sense as soft redirects, because there were no logical targets on Wikipedia for them to go to (such as "give a man to fish... etc"). In this case, there IS a logical target for "camwhoring" on Wikipedia, which is where I'm suggesting the redirect be targeted to. For the record, just because I am suggesting the redirect targets a Wikipedia page doesn't mean that I am against soft redirects, and it doesn't mean that you should stop creating them either. It just means that I don't believe that "camwhoring" should be a soft redirect. If you disagree and would like to have a larger discussion, you may start a RfD discussing whether the redirect should target webcam models or the Wiktionary entry. Remember: RfD stands for Redirects for Discussion and not Redirects for Deletion, so we can agree to disagree here and get the opinion of more editors there. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes, camwhore and camwhoring should target the same place, but they don't have to. After all, we do have WP:DIFFCAPS for the purposes of targeting different capitalizations to two different targets. Nevertheless, I'm willing to set this aside for now; my more immediate concern is having megathread, Googlewhore, and I just work here marked as reviewed following closure as "keep" at RfD. Would you mind marking those as reviewed for me? You're one of the few NPP patrollers (besides Rosguill, feminist, and Britishfinance) who get soft redirects and how they're set up. Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIFFCAPS exists for two separate subjects that have distinct capitalization variations, so it makes sense to have different capitalization among the titles to show the differences. In this case, "camwhore" and "camwhoring" are essentially the same subject, which is why it would make sense to me to send them to separate places. With that being said, I am not going to mark the redirects reviewed, as I appear to now be an active party. It's not that I don't agree with them, but that I would rather somebody to review them who has not been a part of this discussion. I promise that 90% of new page patrollers "get" soft redirects, and I doubt that there will be a problem. The soft redirects you mentioned above look just fine in my opinion. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you don't need to respond to everything immediately. It makes it rather difficult to reply to you when I'm put into an edit conflict whenever I try to publish changes. Wait a couple minutes for me to write my reply. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry about that. I appreciate the spirited argument, though! You are clearly engaged and offer a refreshing perspective, particularly at RfD. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was just a reminder. I understand that your edits were in good faith. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Eccentric Cinema

Hi there Utopes!

I just wanted to talk to you about my American Eccentric Cinema article. I understand the reasoning behind the decline of submission, however, I would really appreciate some guidance in terms of specific sections that are too essay-esque. I will take out quotes aligning to opinion and summarise more secondary sources. However, in terms of original research, I do not understand where I would have seemed to put my original research?

I have looked at your editing comments, I will adjust them.

Thank you very much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:American_Eccentric_Cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by OLEAOWIKI9 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OLEAOWIKI9: Sorry for the delay. The parts of the article that is the most essay-like is the "Characteristics" section, however the "Interpretations on Defining the Genre" also has essay-like tendencies. In general, the article relies too heavily on primary sources, and utilizes too many quotes from referenced texts. The information should be summarized using mostly secondary sources, with primary sources to supplement. With sources aside, the information at WP:Encyclopedic tone should be kept in mind during the revisions; in particular, remember to maintain an impersonal and dispassionate tone. Encyclopedia entries should not try to paint a particular light of the topic, but should instead give due weight to important information all while remaining neutral about the topic. Hopefully this information will be beneficial to you in your second draft. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(FibreStream AfC) / Request on 02:10:38, 25 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ilanabel

Hey there!

Thanks for your helpful feedback on Draft: FibreStream

Hope you can review my edits.

Best wishes, Ilana

Ilanabel (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Utopes. I feel I did a good job of addressing your feedback but Sulfurboy continues to reject for completely different reasons (lack of notability). "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article..." etc. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

Ilanabel (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilanabel: Hmm. I believe that what Sulfurboy is getting at with the declination is that there aren't many sources present in the article that can justify that the topic is notable. While I went ahead and deleted some content that contained POV (I'd say it's pretty neutral at this point in time), the notability of the topic cannot be established with the sources only having passing mentions, which is where the article is right now from Sulfurboy's perspective. For this article, the most important thing right now is to find a source or two that provide significant coverage of the topic, rather than just mentioning it. The references in the article are fine where they are, but Sulfurboy believes that those references alone are not enough to establish notability, regardless of whether the topic is notable or not. I'm sure that such sources exist. With that being said, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I wouldn't include a "press" section. The references will speak for themselves if you include them as inline citations. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review

Thank you for the review of Bibliography of Martin Van Buren. Have a good evening/day   // Timothy :: talk  03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And to you as well, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the Draft namrespace

You are invited to join a discussion about Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review!

Hi, Utopes

Thank you so much for your review of Draft:Makoto Matsuno (Pen name: Hiroshi Hasebe)

I have re edit it to make sure it looks neutral.(donno if I did it well lol Please if you would like to have a look at the new re-submit it will be great.

Thank you again for the advice.

Q.Ma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 馬祈 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  • England Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  • United States Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

@Utopes: Please support me here Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#User:GargAvinash if you think that I should granted Autopatrolled right. GargAvinash (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(in)equalitie

Hello Utopes, thank you very much for reviewing my submission last month and for the very helpful feedback. It took me a while to attempt a new edit and have now added more reliable secondary sources about the organisation as opposed to the Deflect service. Should I have removed some of the primary references or the multiple secondary sources to the same topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotFromNotNotFrom (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KARNA band

Hi Utopes, what sources are needed to publish this page? I have popular Ukrainian publications and links to social networks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:KARNA_(band)

I'm afraid that is too broad of a question for me to answer. No amount of sources can make up for a subject's lack of notability, unless the sources are both reliable and independent, and show significant coverage of the topic. If you know of sources that can accomplish those three tasks, then feel free to add them into the draft. However, I have been unable to find any sources that do so beyond routine coverage. I do believe that User:Chris troutman has already answered this inquiry, here. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Aggestam

I would like a answer why you choosed to delete the article about Rolf Aggestam, and what you mean with undersourced, when the article had all the citations needed? Probably notability could have been better, but that would have taking a short while, a few hours, and the article was linked to two language versions of Wikipedia. I don't mean to criticize you, I'm rather eager to learn. --Vannucci (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vannucci:, thanks for reaching out to me. I did not delete your article, as I am not an administrator. I moved your article to Draft:Rolf Aggestam, because the one source that is present is self-published, and therefore cannot be used to establish the notability of the subject. However, because I do believe that notability can be established for this topic, I moved the article to the draft space to give you time to polish the article and submit the article through Articles for Creation. Thank you for understanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to finish the article in a few hours, that would be fantastic. Just make sure to reach out to me on my talk page when the article is complete, and I'll review the draft as soon as I can. Hopefully you understand why I draftified your article, as it was two sentences long. I see that you are a prolific editor on the Swedish Wikipedia, so I'm sure that the draft will be ready for mainspace soon. If there's anything else I can do for you, just let me know. Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 23:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix it tomorrow since it's night time in Sweden. Thank you for the help and the replies. Draft page sounds good. I will notify when the article is completed and hopefully be good enough to be moved to the mainspace. Cheers, --Vannucci (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm finished with the article and I hope that the draft can be moved to the mainspace. --Vannucci (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review

Hey, Utopes, thanks for reviewing my article and giving it an awesome rating. Do you have any tips on how I can improve upon that rating? I have read the guidelines for improvement but are there any other tips that you might have for me in the future? TIA NotJuggerNot (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Francesco Sidoti

Hello Utopes. I appreciate your good will, but you editors are incurring in a tremendous mistake. The text in question is not a biography of king or a rock singer but a compte rendu of a notable academic. So there is no surprise it reads like an essay. I hope you agree that these drafts take a lot of work and research, so it will be a disgrace if one is to curb before restrictions that in fact do not apply. Yours patiently.Peiris Fox (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Utopes. Now the editors changed their mind, from pesting on "inline citations" to silly harangues on my text being not on private life. I repeat: it's an intellectual biography of someone alive. I bet if it was about someone English or American this ridiculous interchange would never have happened. Yours Peiris Fox (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Peiris Fox:. To provide some context, the previous reviewer of Sulfurboy declined the draft on the initial premise of lack of inline citations, and rightly so, on the account that there were entire sections of the biography that did not contain any references. On Wikipedia, we treat the referencing of biographies of living people very seriously, and draft articles that are not aptly sourced can be declined before any consideration has been given to the content. With that being said, the article still does not provide the source for many of Sidoti's direct quotations, so this issue still remains. However, upon my review that was separate to Sulfurboy's, I interpreted that this article gave undue weight to Sidoti's direct philosophy as a means of the promotion of his ideologies, which is also evident through the twenty-nine selected biographies. This declination has nothing to do with nationality, this has everything to do with not properly citing the source of Sidoti's direct quotations, which were put into place by the over-arching bias in favor of the subject. In my opinion, I would suggest that the direct quotations be removed, and the "Disastered modernity", "On investigation and democracy", and "On intelligence and intelligence failures" be combined into a summary of Sidoti's viewpoints, rather than explicitly stating what he says about them. The introduction and critical reception looks just fine to me, but too much focus is given to his individual viewpoints when a summary of his ideologies would be more appropriate. Hopefully you understand why I declined the draft article now, and I'm sorry that you are upset. With respect, Utopes (talk / cont) 18:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peiris Fox, I typically decline using the most glaring issue instead of stacking multiple issues as to not bite newcomers WP:BITE. I would highly advise that you read the linked articles about the formal, neutral one required by Wikipedia. Your article (essay really) is nowhere near the standard required. The idea that prejudice is being shown because the subject isn't American or English is patently absurd. I've literally approve hundreds of articles that are about subjects that are non-American and non-English. Throwing out unwarranted claims of prejudice and playing victim will get you nowhere fast and will not serve as a substitute for actually putting in work to improve an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deal all. "Promotion of his ideologies" (?!!) That's a new one! Sorry, but you both have got no inkling of what 'ideology' means. Perhaps you must refer to Wikipedia (it can help). The chap (Sidoti) dedicated most of his productive life to study, research and make a place for himself in the global academic world, but all he could come about was 'ideologies' (!!) And just for your further information, Wikipedia is filled with published stuff with blanks indicating that 'reference is needed', but it didn't prevent the material from being published. It's true that most of the time the subject was English or American - otherwise one author would be forced to stay in the background hearing a lot of nonsense. Wikipedia is an open endeavour and I never intended to produce a final statement on Sidoti (or Scuro or any other subject I treated in the past, not only in Wikipedia - of which you seem to hold the key). I repeat, even though you don't read: I'm writing on people's work from an intellectual perspective, therefore giving much less importance to nitty-gritty than to fundamental issues raised by my subjects. My only sin was to write on non-Englisn/American authors. So I would recommend that you give up inventing new rules, as you did in my case. Peiris Fox (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utopes&oldid=947353053"