request for clarification
Dear Ravenswing - thanks for reading and commenting on the page on the Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry. I understand your concern, but wish to clarify something. Compared to Society for Historical Archaeology, Society for the History of Natural History, society for historians, society for the history, society for art history, society for historians, and many more articles on historical societies; why are this page's references insufficient? I will nonetheless try and improve the article following your suggestions: it's just that information on historical societies is scarce yet relevant. Historical societies such as SHAC organise activities about and publish peer-reviewed articles on historical figures, matters, debates, etc.. Other societies and journals may organise debates or publish articles on topics covered by SHAC and thereby relying on SHAC's contributions - but SHAC itself is rarely the topic of discussion: It is a medium, not the message, but as medium highly relevant. I understand that reliable sources are required, but, to be honest, SHAC is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeV18 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for clarifying that the reference given to the article on Barbara London is not her website, but a reference to the Internet Movie Database. It looks as if this article is probably going to be deleted. Vorbee (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Improvements to article KH Coder
Hi Ravenswing, I made some improvements to the article KH Coder according to your suggestions. Please have a look at it whether it addresses your concerns. Thanks. GrryT (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Enough to warrant keeping it; good work there. Ravenswing 09:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The above is so nn viz schools, I think a better redirect target would be the historic district. Thoughts? John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'd probably go with that, honestly; I'm sure more people will be seeking the historic tie-in than the educational one. Ravenswing 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
When you have some free time, please review Philadelphia Firebirds (ice hockey). I did a major overhaul. If you can think of any suggestions, please comment. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (I didn't report you, I just included you name in the report, and thought you'd like to know. I have no hard feelings against you, it was only that you took part in the conflict).
- (talk page stalker) @Fhsig13: Just an FYI that new Talk page messages should typically be placed at the bottom of the page. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Miracle on 34th street, 1947 movie.
In the 1947 movie Miracle on 34th Street. Kringle says that Daniel D. Tompkins is John Q. Adams' vice president. I've seen the movie several times in black/white & colorized. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You've been around here far too long to need this, but:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Liu, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
—David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- And you've been around far too long to advocate a "snow" Keep before anyone else has advocated keeping. I don't imagine you're any more psychic than the next editor, nor have failed to encounter debates where you were certain one side was self-evidently right go the other way. A "snow Keep" is for when the previous ten commenters have advocated Keeping, with "What the hell?" verbiage thrown in. Ravenswing 16:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Snow" means "there's no way this is going to close as a delete so let's finish this process early". One possible reason for that is a massive pile-on of keeps, but it's not the only reason. In this case, my reason for suggesting a snow keep was that the pass of WP:PROF was massive and obvious, so that (as I imagined, and turned out to be true) everyone else who participated and used WP:PROF as the basis of their comment would have no choice but to agree that it was a keep. It had nothing to do with psychic abilities. And of course, if others disagreed there would be nothing wrong from them saying so — a snow keep comment doesn't prevent others from disagreeing or insult them when they do — but in this case none did. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Massive and obvious to you, anyway. I've certainly seen dozens of AfDs where the decision (per policy) was just plain a slam dunk, for which no one with any pretense to following Wikipedia policies could disagree, and they went the other way all the same. WP:SNOW is just plain not for how one expects a debate will go, but to reflect how it already has gone. Ravenswing 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
When you have time, I think you might be interested in reading these. They would be good references for the Springfield Indians article.
- Eddie Shore and That Old-Time Hockey
- Hockey in Springfield
Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- (grins) Own them both, actually, but thank you for the heads up! (The latter, in particular, is one of those old photo compilations.) Ravenswing 00:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to address your comment on Craig MacTavish. The reason I didn't delete the deadlinks was because of WP:KDL, which says "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful.... It could also return from the dead." It also says, "do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with for a long time." That is why I added citations, to make up for the dead links. I didn't do it because it was a controversial claim but it is an unusual claim, that he is the last NHL player to not wear a helmet during games, so I wanted to make sure it was properly cited. I totally see your point of view however, it was a little ridiculous to have about 7 citations HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is not merely a little ridiculous, but completely absurd to have six cites. TWO cites would be enough; this is an uncontroversial, unchallenged fact. Furthermore, the cites that remain are scarcely to blogs: the Toronto Star and sportsnet.ca are high quality sources. Anything more is citation overkill with a vengeance. Ravenswing 05:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I don't mind the deadlinks being deleted, I am just explaining my rationale for not. Is it still citation overkill if they are dead?
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sure it is. Citation overkill has to do with the number of cites, dead or alive. Six cites is what I'd expect to see for a highly controversial statement involving considerable edit warring and long debates on the talk page. Ravenswing 05:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for explaining this.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Our mutual "friend"
Our mutual "friend" is causing a stir at List of British Columbia provincial highways. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you note
Hi Ravenswing. I just wanted to say thank you for the message you left on the talk page of Mendoza, Texas about demanding a source for the information I added to the Geography section of that article. I agree that it is so blandly uncontroversial, and it is very unnecessary. I also think that the warning that was left on my talk page about that was VERY unnecessary. I don't understand why those mileages caused that warning to be added to my talk page. I got those distances from Google Maps, and they were true, but when I added them, they were removed by another editor, and it said that there was a link to Google Maps and other maps at the top of the page. I checked my distances, and maybe that distance to Houston from Mendoza was also quite unnecessary, but either way, I find it quite stupid that those distances were removed. I just wanted to say thank you for writing that message on that talk page, and it really helped me. Happy editing! Colman2000 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I have undone this edit of yours, as McKenna was not by any means the first untitled First Lord, as you will see from the list at First Lord of the Admiralty. DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Request on 21:37:05, 7 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Buchananlab1
Hi, uur post was recently declined. We are hoping to model this after a page for a similar research cluster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Institute_for_Psycholinguistics).
This is our first attempt at publishing a page on Wikipedia. Would you be able to provide some concrete examples of how to get the page into shape so that it could be accepted/published. Thank you, in advance.
Best,Buchananlab1 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing me, @Buchananlab1:; I'll see what I can do to help ... especially if you can wait a few hours while I do some chores! Ravenswing 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! No rush, any guidance you might have is much appreciated :) Cheers, Buchananlab1 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Alright ... before anything else, the Planck Institute article is a poor example of a Wikipedia article, and thank you for bringing it to my attention: it has several issues which I've hung alerts off of for poor sourcing and an overly promotional tone, and if it had come up as a draft, I'd have declined it far faster than I did the Mental Lexicon draft.
That being said, first off, the article reads like it's right off of the Group's brochure. "The Mental Lexicon Group addresses the profound complexity of the mental lexicon and attempts to bridge communicative gaps between professionals through integrating professionals across multiple disciplines into a collaborative network, and in turn facilitate purposeful dialogue across different fields of research" is fuzzy verbiage that WP:PEACOCK addresses directly (and the rest of that page is useful reading for you, generally). What concrete things does the Group do, and in terms an unimaginative sixth-grader could understand? Use as few words as possible to get these meanings across: using that sentence above, why "purposeful" dialogue? As opposed to jawing about the latest Spitfires game around the water cooler?
Sourcing is the more damning bit, though. The notability criterion for organizations is WP:ORG, which holds "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." In reading through your draft, you list research done by several scientists, but how does that connect directly to the Group? Wouldn't they be doing that research whether or not there was a formal "Group" to which they were reporting. The sources reference those particular scientists, but only one references the Journal, and none the Group. You would need to find reliable sources which give the Group itself significant coverage in order to get the draft passed.
In any event, I hope this gives you a foundation to start. Good fortune. Ravenswing 18:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Reliable Sources/ Article Title Change
Thank you for helping me get this done the correct way. I am novice, but truly want to follow the guidelines here. The sources Ive cited are for "Caktuz" (Born Jerome-Adika Vincent Sator Jr.). I have found his name used in both cases in several reliable online newspapers, magazines, major radio websites, etc. As well as published books, TV, & movies. I'm unsure which sources you feel are unreliable. Can you please clarify just a little more.
Besides that, how do I change the draft title to "Caktuz (artist)" instead of the given name?
Powerd By AMAS (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- First bit's the easy one; I moved the page to Draft:Caktuz for you. (There's no need for an "artist" tagged on; that sort of thing's only used when it's necessary to differentiate between more than one subject of the same name, and there aren't any other "Caktuz" articles on Wikipedia.) Ravenswing 17:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the title change
Powerd By AMAS (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: YouTube help
Thank you and again sorry for being so easily lost navigating around the wiki functions. But as to the YouTube clip as valid for visual authentication. I'm assuming it wouldn't be sufficient to just put it somewhere between a pair of parentheses, eh? I'm not sure how you guys suggest the link best be provided? Or for that matter how references are added at all. I should maybe add a new entry from scratch and see how it works from a blank page to get an empty perspective on it.
Thanks for any help. I've only ever provided small corrections, so a lot of what seems like requiring coding is lost on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehappypoet (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
(National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority) Topic
I hope your day is going well, about the article that was mentioned in the title, it was rejected today for its writing method as an advertisement.
Can you provide some parts from the article to prove your point more? If yes, what are your suggestions for some un-accepted written paragraphs?
Waiting for your reply, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_0H8k26VJ64omjRP&Q_CHL=gl
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ravenswing. I apologize for the multiple attempts at creating a page for Imaginary Forces, without making the proper edits. I am simply having trouble understanding exactly which references I included, were deemed insufficient in proving notability of Imaginary Forces, as well as why exactly they were rejected. I understand some may be rejectable because they are simply mentions in the referenced articles, however, some which I have double checked against Wikipedia's Notability guidelines seem to follow them. I am hoping to get a more detailed explanation overall of what is keeping this page from being published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLinnett12 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Andrea Luka Zimmerman page - query
Hi Ravenswing, I just got the message that the page I created for Andrea Luka Zimmerman has been rejected due to references not being notable. What I don't understand is that I had updated this draft with at least ten references to avoid this - links to journals, papers, books, radio interviews. Someone else added more references after that. But none seem to have been on the page you reviewed. I'm not sure if there is a duplicate draft for Andrea Luka Zimmerman which has these and if so if I've made a mistake along the way. I am convinced of her notability when I look at what she's done and especially in comparison to other entries I see on Wikipedia, but struggling a bit to get this through. Would be grateful for any advice please. thanks JKHB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKHBlair (talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't reject the Andrea Zimmerman draft for being not notable; I rejected the draft because there was another draft for the subject under the name of Andrea Luka Zimmerman. That draft is still pending a fresh review. Ravenswing 16:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah apologies, my mistake. Thank you!
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (
Hello Ravenswing, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be better if you re check the article. You have mentioned that the sources aren't reliable, so does it mean only the writings of british historian are correct and others are false?
I have provided the link to indian princely states, there you can find the mention of Amethia clan as Raja(king) of Kalinjar(earlier) and later as Raja of Amethi.
Though I have removed the source you had mentioned as unreliable but I would like to tell you that it is the portal hosted by Rajput community (community of indian kings, landlords and warrior races). So, you can't just ignore the facts provided there.
At last I would like to tell you that British historians never studied the history Kshatriya(rajput) of north-eastern and eastern India with the same depth as they did for western India. So, it's not really easy to get all the facts mentioned in their writings as it's common to find in an Indian writing. The same applies to the Insignia, there is no proper record of the symbols, insignia of Amethia rajput clan so, I had mentioned "undocumented" as there was no intention to mislead the people.
I have edited my text after your comment, it would be better if you take a look once again and review it.
Thanks Anony20 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you're interested in more indepth information about the type and quality of sources Wikipedia requires, please review WP:RS. It certainly has nothing to do with being British -- India's been producing scholarly works in English for a century and a half. But non-English sources are also valid, as long as they meet the standards of reliablity and fact-checking as stated in RS. Ravenswing 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain...
... your unexplained revert at Northeastern Huskies men's ice hockey? The school unveiled new branding on August 13, 2018, which means athletics has now retired the "split N" logo as noted in the link. My edit reflected those changes. Corky 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Spiffy, except that you didn't actually put IN the new logo. Ravenswing 01:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, but I did put IN one of the new wordmarks that they are using. We can't use File:Northeastern Huskies primary logo.svg due to non-free guidelines. Corky 01:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ravenswing, we've spoke in the past (several years prior) about the last World War One Veteran. While doing some research I understand there was a man named Andrew Rasch with whom the last world war one veteran community (if you can call it that) where debating his validity. I was wonder how that ended up turning out, was his real status ever uncovered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I/Archive_11#Andy_Rasch_2 heres some of the debate for a memory refresh.
(I Dan tha Man I (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC))
- Truth be told, my opinion on the subject hasn't changed in the last seven years: that Rasch was either a con artist or senile, putting one over on a credulous local yokel TV station, that there wasn't a shred of credible, verifiable evidence that he was a veteran at all (let alone a WWI veteran), that such sites as hand out information indicated that the only Andy Rasch living in his state was decades younger that he claimed, and that Rasch's "candidacy" -- such as it was -- was being pushed solely by anon IPs who found the notion intolerable that a mere woman could be the last living WWI vet.
While my further opinion is that we already wasted far too much time and breath on that BS seven years ago, I leave you with this final thought: I'd think it pretty obvious that there'd likely be chest-thumping he-man media outlets and agencies with a great deal more time, energy and incentive to discredit Florence Green than volunteer Wikipedia editors. That in the six years after Green's death no one's managed to do it suggests to me that there wasn't any smoking gun to find. Cheers, Ravenswing 23:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
O.K. I'm going to do some digging into the matter, if in the unlikely event I come up with anything to back up his claim I'll let you know, otherwise we can assume his claim to be bogus. (I Dan tha Man I (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC))
- According to the SSDI, his real birth date was October 8, 1930. He never was a veteran at all. Ravenswing 10:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Ravenswing, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
|List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
- Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
- In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
- MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
- User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy
importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
- User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script):
npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
- User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
- User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
- User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add:
rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)