Jump to content

User talk:Flat Out/Archives/2017/January

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

Welcome back!

Hello Friend,

Great to see your Aussie signature again. Happy 2017! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Hope all is well with you and your family. Flat Out (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Things are going well, family wise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

12:04:58, 7 January 2017 review of submission by Johnckrauss


I was unsure whether to call this page "problem list" or "medical problem list" at the outset. I believe I can add better references if I call it the "problem list" page. I looked at adding to the electronic health record page, but it didn't seem to fit. If you think I should leave the title, I will add references as "medical problem list". I am still learning wikipedia conventions, so sorry if I asked this question incorrectly. Thank you. Johnckrauss (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnckrauss, the article should be a summary of what reliable sources say about a subject - so the title should reflect what is in the sources you have cited. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Page curation script

Hello. I noticed you've added my page curation script to User:Flat Out/PageCuration.js. The correct method to use it is to add importScript('User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js'); to User:Flat Out/common.js. Thanks. Lourdes 07:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lourdes, thansk for that mate I was planning on following up with you when it didn't work. Should the toolbar also be showing? Flat Out (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, the words Page Curation should show up in the top menu (the small menu at the top of your screen, where you'll generally find links like Sandbox). You can also go through User:Lourdes/PageCuration for instructions. Ping me for any help. Thanks. Lourdes 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your last message

We are still working on the draft and adding citations. Thank you for your help.Sebastienb06 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'm glad to see you've returned to editing. I had to find other talk pages to stalk when you went dark. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Chris, hope you are well. It's nice to be back and I'm slowly re-learning everything :) Flat Out (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Flat Out. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 13,500 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Davidwr. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Donald Trump-Russian prostitutes orgy sex tape, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, I thought that I had reviewed it, but I was mistaken (my internet connection is wonky and the review tools aren't always loading properly, and this is the first time I've used the tool since getting the requisite user-right). So... I thought I was un-doing my own review. Later I checked the logs and saw that you reviewed it. In any case, this page - and the resulting discussions on the talk page and the author's talk page - need several more sets of eyes. BTW, he changed the db tag back to just "db" (from "db-g8").
If he had written this in a much more neutral tone (if that's even possible with this topic) and had put it in Draft: space until it was clear that there was something too this story (many news outlets are still calling it "unverified") then he would probably be on much more solid ground vis-a-vis speedy deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, davidwr. I agree with your view on this and it would have been better created in Draft space. I nominated it because it's not written neutrally, has factual errors (IMO), and because the title is inflammatory. That said, I'm returning after a break and am happy to see what the mood is on an article that has a basis in reliable sources, but appears to be written to disparage the subject. Thanks for your thoughts, best wishes Flat Out (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Compromise: how about we change the title to that which David suggested "Donald Trump Russia Tape"?

Would that satisfy you? I'm happy with changing tthe title if you like, but don't know how. I still say it's clear that this isn't an attack page. I've quoted CNN and many other reputable outlets. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind; he did it already. Thanks anyway!Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Human, All Too Human and thanks for asking. I think the title is inflammatory but consensus will be achieved by interested editors once the CSD nomination has been reviewed by an administrator. Until then I suggest you leave the article as it is and thereby avoid allegations of edit warring. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, to reiterate, title has been changed to Donald Trump Russia tape, officially. I think that's non-inflammatory. on my view, even if there turns out to be no tape, this is still a notable event. We have many pages regarding notable conspiracy theories on Wikipedia, and this is far more notable than most, and has more evidence in its favor-- enough for CNN to report and for American and British intelligence to brief the president. If Pizzagate, or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, neiother of which ever had any evidence from "intelligence" and emerged from the fantasies of Alex Jones and was a pure hoax which never led to any intelligence briefings or agencies endorsing get their own articles, then it is hard to see why this should not. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey there. Glad to see you back in Wikipedia! Happy editing! Jianhui67 T★C 12:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate, good to see you old friend. Flat Out (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

23:21:15, 13 January 2017 review of submission by 173.230.165.49


I have removed all citations that aren't good sources and done cleanup for things that aren't verifiable.

thanks for your message, unfortunately the draft still doesn't meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Flat Out (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jericho Summer

Hi, I see it was you that added the notability tag to this article – I took it off, not realising you'd literally just put it on there. I figured that the band was notable simply given the notable artists involved, but feel free to restore the tag if you want. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet , thanks mate. I popped it there while I sorted through the links. Agree its notable. Flat Out (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I've had my eye on this one for a while and was meaning to work on it. I assume it's Zeffin that's editing the article, but I guess we can ignore the COI providing he doesn't break any other rules? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, now that ive taken out the POV it should be right. Flat Out (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a fair bit of that! Haha... he's chucking references at it but I don't know how many of them are useful. I'll have another look at it later if it still needs addressing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violation,

You will have to explained to me why my picture was speedy deleted because I am the right owner of this picture and I am still waiting on OTRS pending and I also have a ticket number to prove it. I even left the {{OTRS pending}} script in the description. could you please help me here... --Sebastienb06 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sebastienb06, the image is clearly watermarked with a website that claims copyright. Once you have cleared at OTRS you can upload (minus the watermark) with the appropriate image license. Flat Out (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly when the OTRS is approved I can upload the picture without any writing on it.Sebastienb06 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft comment

With regard to the comment you recently made there, what claims in Draft:Paul Joseph Watson did you feel were unsupported by the sources? Please let me know so I can fix them. Everymorning (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As an example, "Paul Joseph Watson is a British conspiracy theorist, writer, and YouTube personality based in London, England.[1][2][3]" - I have read those sources and they only support that he is an editor and and writer. Flat Out (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding News Source


Dear FlatOut, as I am creating a draft for our company page, I've been benchmarking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Capital_Partners and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_North_Venture_Partners, and I don't see much difference in the quality of references between us and them. Could you explain what they have that we don't have? Company's like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Growth_Partners also used references from PE week, BusinessWeek, and The Deal as news sources and I'm wondering if it's okay to use references from these websites as long as they are secondary sources that offer independent insight as opposed to PR material?

Thanks!

Mjiangscp comparing to other articles is not always the best way to go, instead have a look at the criteria at WP:CORP. You can use press releases to confirm that something has been announced, but they don't add anything in terms of supporting notability. You need to show that the subject has received coverage in independent sources and this is explained succinctly in the golden rule. Flat Out (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

07:13:31, 16 January 2017 review of submission by 86.170.87.123


I have appropriately restructured the contents of the page. Now, all accolades / nominations have been put inside a "Awards and nominations" section. This should help it appear less like an advertisement and more as an award/nomination since there are supporting citations to notable sites confirming the award or nomination.

I see that this draft has been declined by another reviewer. To be accepted the subject must meet the standard for notability at WP:BLPNOTE or at the least, WP:GNG. Put simple, read the the golden rule. Let me know if you need further help. Flat Out (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Silverlake Axis

Hi Flat Out, I actually just replied Swister Twister's comment to let him know that Gartner and IDC (which are very reputable) do independent reviews of companies from different industries. All the company provides is raw data and maybe a company profile. The data is independently analyzed and compared against other companies in the same field. Business announcements and press releases are not part of what's provided at all. Those reports are only available with a Gartner and IDC subscription so I don't know how to show it to reviewers. The webpages I linked to are already where they're hosted. Mictan236 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mictan236 and thansk for your post. I'm always happy to defer to SwisterTwister but even if these 2 sources can be verified, I don't think its enough to get it across the line. Flat Out (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. I'm feeling pretty helpless about this, honestly. I've looked at Temenos' (another core banking company) page and it looks even sparser than mine. Do you think there's anything else I can do for this page? If it's really not notable then I think I'd better leave it instead of wasting more time on it. Then maybe I should make edits to existing articles for practice. Mictan236 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there sources out there that you've missed? A quick search and I came up with one you dont have Flat Out (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've actually seen that before, but I didn't know where to include it. Should I start a new section called "Share prospects" or something? There are a number of articles and blogs that tell people whether or not to buy Silverlake shares but I'm not sure if those would be considered reliable or just personal opinions. Also, how about analyst reports? These are independently done by investment banks. Mictan236 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Mictan236, the problem you have is that no-one is writing articles about the company. Flat Out (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's definitely true. Just gonna have to accept that it's not notable enough. Thanks for all your help anyway Flat Out.
Mictan236, anytime - there's lots of notable topics to write about so keep contributing! Flat Out (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks

cool, thanks

take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisartguy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pamela Ryder article

Hello.

I've added an additional reference, this time from The Huffington Post.

Irving Malin is a legendary critic, who's listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Malin

I also included D’Aoust’s review from the BROOKLYN RAIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brooklyn_Rail), and Robert Glick's review in AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Book_Review). These are all reputable sources, as demonstrated that they've been vetted as reputable by Wikipedia itself.

Please advise.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmadera (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Whiskey Bards

Please re-evaluate my draft according to the same standards by which the Wikipedia pages below were accepted. All of them have fewer sources than I do, and some of them use the same sources. You cannot claim I have too few sources when the articles below do not have as many. And you cannot claim that my sources are inadequate as some of them are shared with the articles below. I now have eight more sources than the first article on the list below, and the one valid source on that page is also one of my sources. If that article was acceptable, with only one valid source, then my article should be acceptable, since I used precisely the same source. If my article is not acceptable, then you are using different standards than other editors.

This Wikipedia page, Going_Overboard_(album), has only two sources, one of them invalid, the other is also one of my sources. If it is a good enough source for an already accepted page, it should be good enough for mine.

This music article, Rubber_Biscuit has only three sources, one of them You Tube.

This article about a band, Sparx_(US_band), has only two sources, plus a link to the band's website.

This musical show, EFX_(show) has only two sources.


Cybotik (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cybotik and thanks for your post. Pointing out the poor quality of existing articles is not a case for your draft being accepted. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you can see how the draft meets WP:MUSICBIO I would be happy to take another look. Flat Out (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The musical group my article is about meets this criterion. My reference to the other Wikipedia pages was not so much about the pages themselves, but about the particular sources they used.
rambles.net has been acceptably used as a source more than twenty times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Rambles.net&searchToken=5shz9k66y4k300jvxsq8fu6f6
Bilgemunky has been acceptably used as a source five times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bilgemunky&go=Go&searchToken=21c6vutmvj5x0jzih41zpalgj
My article uses both of these sources. That makes multiple sources. They are non-trivial, published works, specifically album reviews. They are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the group. That fits the first criterion for musicians and ensembles. And since Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that an article about a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, according to WP:MUSICBIO, then an article needs to meet only one. My article meets the first one.
Cybotik (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Cybotik , per WP:MUSIC/SOURCE reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc. I'm not sure you sources meet this criterion. Flat Out (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Folk music does not get a lot of attention from mainstream media. Like a capella groups and novelty musicians, the publications that cover such acts tend to specialize.
rambles.net is an online cultural magazine focusing on folk music of various genres. Here is a link to their writing and editorial staff. http://www.rambles.net/staffbios.html
Bilgemunky Radio was a pirate-music-themed radio show. A pirate version of Dr. Demento. Bilgemunky was the on-air moniker of Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who produced and hosted the show, as well as providing DJ services for pirate-themed parties and festivals. The show was carried in various markets in syndication and online. There were over 200 episodes. The broadcast has since ended, but the online reviews of various groups, albums, books, movies, games, and alcohol are still available.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090522143648/http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/marooned/
http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/lost-at-sea/
http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/going-overboard/
http://www.bilgemunky.com/category/pirate-reviews/rum/
http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/rum/review-fortuna-8-year/
https://www.behance.net/gallery/19118491/Bilgemunkycom-Film-Review
http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/books/sea-witch/
http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/games/pegleg-petes-deck-of-royal-rogues-pirate-playing-cards/
WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires either a professional DJ, such as Gerard Heidgerken, aka Bilgemunky, or a online or print publication with an editorial and writing staff, such as rambles.net.
Cybotik (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 12:46:21, 23 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Quokka123


Hi Flat Out, thanks for reviewing my article! Can you help me a bit so that I can improve it? You mentioned that: "Most of what is written is unsourced, and where sourced the link to the subject is tenuous. The History section, for example, barely mentions the subject." Do you mean that I need more sources for the History section? Should I focus more on the impact that Silverstack had on the challenges of digital film production? I had been in contact with the user OneI5969 who reviewed the article before and was told to take a look at the article of Final Draft as an example. Since this is my first article on wikipedia, I'd be very grateful for any advice! Thanks in advance!

Quokka123 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quokka123 and thanks for your post. Any article should be a summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Until reliable sources are writing about Silverstack, its too soon to be creating an article. The history section is interesting but it's selective, and it unclear how Silverstack features in that history. Pls keep in mind, this is not the big issue - its the lack of reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Flat Out, that clears up a lot of my questions. I'll work on the history section and empasize how Silverstack features in that history of digital filmmaking. As for the sources: The three sources (the two books and the website) are respectable and reliable sources that talk about Silverstack and are the to-go-to-sources to read when wanting to become a DIT or start working in filmmaking. Since working on digital film and its data with datamanagement software is relatively new, I'd argue that most sources are web sources. I had included many more of them in an earlier draft which was declined. There the reviewer criticised that the sources were web sources and not newspapers. Right before my last submission of the article I was told to look at the Final Draft article as an example. I guess what I am trying to say is, that software usually has less "respectable" sources meaning fewer (printed) mentions but that doesn't say anything on notability. Btw: Hopefully, I'm getting this whole responding on talk pages thing, if I made a mistake, please change it or let me know how it works! Thanks! Quokka123 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flat_Out/Archives/2017/January&oldid=992872081"