User:Velella/Archives/Archive 15

Archive 15 Velella talk pages

Maltese writers

Hi, we're making an concerted effort to add Maltese writers in the list of Maltese people and we're making sure that they are key players in the literary sector, hence the sudden increase in names on the list. There are various online articles about most of them. We're currently working on writing articles about each one of them.

Calleja Glen please write the articles first and get them accepted and established before adding names to any lists. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Land drainage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Land drainage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land drainage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

Hi Velella, I am brand new to Wiki so apologies if I'm not getting it right! (The undo button was the only thing that was easy to figure out in this forum.) Here's my POV: Carpenter v. United States is a landmark case that impacts the issue of privacy. Given the issue of the third party doctrine discussed in the case, Carpenter will likely impact future privacy cases. There are very, very few published law review articles on this case because it is so new. Orin Kerr's article is cited and I thought that there should be other articles cited as well in order to give as full a picture of the issues and case law as possible. So I didn't think I did anything wrong since other journal citations were included and were interesting to read.

This legal ruling is especially important since there has been a change in the composition of the Bench given Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. That is all the more reason why it would be important to broaden the universe of information available to the public in every page where the article would be relevant. There is no conflict of interest by the way except to broaden the reach of this issue since I believe privacy and the First Amendment should be very important to each of us. Thank you in advance for explaining how I may do so in an appropriate way that comports with the rules of this forum (which I actually thought I did). Or would it be possible for you to re-insert the journal citations in a way that you feel is the most appropriate since you've been on this forum for quite a while?

P.S. Please read the notes in the last edits for Carpenter re: "one weeks" and the lack of a bright line rule in Carpenter which would show that I am just interested in contributing as much helpful information as possible. Thank you in advance.

---

SanDiegoLawyer, what you appear to be doing is promoting one particular journal article by adding a link to it to as many vaguely relevant articles as possible. Editors with a strong legal background, and Wikipedia has many such editors, will typically add links to a wide variety of sources to add depth and substance to notable cases. An editor linking a single source to many articles is always a strident alarm call, and this does not appear to me to be an exception. It may also be worth noting that Wikipedia deprecates the use of primary sources and strongly prefers review articles. Whilst the conventions of legal publishing are somewhat different from the norms of scientific publishing, nonetheless, the author's work that has been linked multiple times is simply the opinion of that person. In that context this is a primary source. It would surprise me not one whit if I was to discover that you are the author so much quoted in the additions that you made to so many articles. With all due respect, what you have been doing, and are continuing to do, is spamming.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I was trying to add in information for everyone since there is only one other article about this that I found but it is not a scholarly article. It's important to note that the articles I included are NOT one sided. Also, they are important in that the third party rule could be extended to the Internet of Things and in other areas that affect each of us. (The articles I cited were also cited in an ABA article that I came across a couple of weeks ago which talked about the third party doctrine and found this issue to be be very interesting - esp. since it could extend to emerging technology and the IoT.)

Also, I didn't intend to be "spamming" - I was trying to learn how to use this forum so part of this was just trying to learn how to use this forum by practicing how to add things.

I think the issue of privacy is very important to each of us. Apparently, Samsung Smart TVs can listen in on conversations INSIDE your house even when they are supposedly turned off! Same problem with Alexa. (This is because the speaker is apparently never turned off.) The sounds are not kept remotely, they are transferred off site to a third party (Samsung). People have talking about this in the IT community but I didn't think it was true but then it was discussed in the law review article as to why it might be legally permissible. Presumably, under the third party doctrine, any information that should be private (such as sounds in your own home or bedroom) could be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant. I personally find this shocking. There is another article I will look for that says that if the public is fine with all of this then privacy protections will continue to diminish. But I don't think it's a matter of the public's approval for this. I think the public just doesn't know about what is going on. That's why I think it's very important to disseminate that information so people know how much privacy has been intruded upon.

Orin Kerr is cited a lot but he was a former prosecutor so his opinion is slanted in favor of the government. The articles I found are the only ones that discuss this in a way that doesn't seem to be biased. One of the articles literally spells out the history of Fourth Amendment case law.

Again, I did not intend to be "spamming" - I was up trying to figure out how to input the info correctly and just started playing with the "coding" more than anything to try to figure it out correctly. That being said, I also didn't intend anything malicious - actually the opposite. These are all very interesting issues related to technology that affect each of us. So could you please let me know in which pages the citations would be helpful? (I agree they don't need to be everywhere.) But I think they are important and very relevant for the Carpenter v US, Privacy, and Third Party Doctrine pages. As a gesture of good faith since you appear to be a leader in this forum, could you please assist me by reinserting them as it took a lot of time for me to figure out how to do so (and you could probably do so properly). I thought the Samsung TV situation was kind of creepy and I think other people would want to learn about it and make up their own minds about it either way. Thank you in advance for your help.

---

Dianne Lake page

Hello. Is it ok I just link the name directly to the German article? And if so, how would I do that? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy - No, please don't link to the German Wikipedia - this is for English speakers and different Wikipedias have different rules about notability etc. Best just left unlinked or, better, just omitted since there is no reliable source supporting the name at present. It can always be added later when sources are found.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No It's not an assignment ☺️

No it's not an assignment ☺️ Zebaq Khan (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Sangita Reddy

Dear Vellala,

You have deleted the changes assuming that it is for commercial purpose. But that is not true. I am doing this after doing intensive research and does not have any commercial aspects to it. I would like to showcase to the world through wikipedia the beautiful work that she is doing in the field of value healthcare in India and across the globe.

This is the first such contribution and few others are in the pipeline who are basically social reformist in healthcare from India.

Request your support on how to improve the same and make it better is welcome.

Thank You Roy Chacko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.139.148 (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

cool Okeslot (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Velella

I've just seen your tag on page I was creating - I was having some difficulties setting it up correctly but it has had some time spent on it, so i was wondering what else it might need to be ok for publication or what else was the issue - I was having trouble setting up the table on the right side and should have kept it in draft.

Many thanks

Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Gannon (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Gannon I can see no evidence that it was ever a draft. What was it called then? The major issue is lack of notability and your own conflict of interest. Please see your own talk page for more on that  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok apologies,I am still a bit confused about the conflict. I haven't said "Gannons are the greatest law firm" or made any boasts about myself on the page, only stated facts but would be happy to edit. In terms of notability, there are other law firm pages that are very similar, except perhaps they cite a couple of cases they have been involved in - is that what needs to be added? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Gannon (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth reading this regarding other articles. Regarding notability, please read the general notability guidelines which define notability as Wikipedia understands it which is not the same as the generally understood meaning of the term. This defines the standards that are expected of any article, especially new articles. But.......before doing anything you must deal with your conflict of interest or risk having your editing privileges withdrawn. Please also sign all messages on talk pages. This is most easily done by just adding four tildes at the end of the message. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I've removed references to myself other than very basics. I have tried to save but am getting 404. I can add some more noteworthy information but don't want to lose what's there already. I'm sorry to be a pain but if you can assist, I will work to get this right. Catherine Gannon (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please, do not touch the article or anything else. Please deal with the conflict of interest. I can offer no assistance until that issue is dealt with. I am also somewhat confused that a brand-new user can work out the need to make ten innocuous edits so that they can create an article straight away, then make obscure references to a draft, which does not appear to exist and then please considerable ignorance about quite simple matters for which links have been provided. For the record, your original version of the article appears to be unchanged since my addition of the CSD template.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to edit it to deal with the conflict which I understood to be your concern that I had mentioned myself in the suggested page about Gannons. After removing a paragraph about my background, I hit publish and it didn't go through. If you are saying something else about conflict of interest, with due respect, I'm guessing that other pages by other law firms and others may have just circumvented this. I would be happy to make more substantive contributions to wikipedia and yes, I do think Gannons is as worthy of having a page as other law firms, we are boutique and many clients don't want to just see massive international law firms featured on wikipedia. I thought wikipedia was better than that. Catherine Gannon (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

NO, no. Please read WP:COI. This is not primarily about the article, it is about you, an editor writing about things where you have a conflict of interest. Forget your article for the moment and just deal with your issue. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've read that - in essence, what you're saying is, someone who contributes cannot say or post anything about themselves but they can get another editor to do it for them. So, is there any way someone might be prepared to help in that regard in the future? Is the best way to contribute more or better content and develop relationships on wiki? I am just asking genuinely. Catherine Gannon (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate that you are someone who clearly gives their time and effort to improve wiki but it is rather frustrating to look at pages for other law firms, up for years, where the creators in many cases seem to be anonymous users, without even a full name, and possibly, in my humble opinion, seo people. Being honest doesn't seem to be the best policy on wikipedia.Catherine Gannon (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you might be surprised how often editors with COI are identified despite having anonymous usernames. But, yes, there are almost certainly many more who are not detected. The requirement for notability demonstrated by reliable and independent sources does also help enormously in weeding out the self-serving, advertorial (a Wikipedia word not in the common lexicon) and simply promotional content. So, to answer your query, yes, you did make it easy to identify COI , but the article would also have failed because it lacked notability. The same end point despite follwing two different policy threads.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your time - having had a good look seems to me almost all the law firm pages are to an extent advertorial. Seems you just need to know how to "play the game". Catherine Gannon (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey sir, Can we talk? Promise.im00 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, what's on your mind? 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Gannon (talk • contribs)

Probably best to have this discussion at Draft:Mrittikay Mohakal. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern Practitioner Research: Complaints from Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Hello Velella, I noticed you removed my improvement on practitioner research. Please re-add it. Every importation contained in that improvement is authentic. I have been a practitioner researcher for well over 20 years. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

I am also a transnational legal research and dispute resolution consultant. My law firm, Prof. Teddy Idiabeta Law Consult is a full in-house practitioner research law firm registered as a Nigerian law firm with registration number 2946457. Modern practitioner research is my business. It was practitioner research I employed to do some matters in Dubai on three different occasions.

I am the founder of the Advanced Business School of Research and Legal Innovation studies, Online. Everything you read in the work on modern practitioner research was what I introduced to practitioner researchers, professionals, research interns, journalists and members of the public in the practitioner research public lecture on 21st April, 2119 at the College of Education, Warri, Delta state, Nigeria. Hence I want my improvement of the article restored.

Thanks.

Sincerely, yours

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern Practitioner Research: Complaints from Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Hello Velella, I noticed you removed my improvement on practitioner research. Please re-add it. Every importation contained in that improvement is authentic. I have been a practitioner researcher for well over 20 years. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

I am also a transnational legal research and dispute resolution consultant. My law firm, Prof. Teddy Idiabeta Law Consult is a full in-house practitioner research law firm registered as a Nigerian law firm with registration number 2946457. Modern practitioner research is my business. It was practitioner research I employed to do some matters in Dubai on three different occasions.

I am the founder of the Advanced Business School of Research and Legal Innovation studies, Online. Everything you read in the work on modern practitioner research was what I introduced to practitioner researchers, professionals, research interns, journalists and members of the public in the practitioner research public lecture on 21st April, 2119 at the College of Education, Warri, Delta state, Nigeria. Hence I want my improvement of the article restored.

Thanks.

Sincerely, yours Signed in my name by me: Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. one message would have sufficed. On Wikipedia, who you are or who you say you are counts for very little. What counts is the quality of your editing and the sources used to support any additions. You have provided no independent and reliable sources for any of your additions. In addition you appear to be writing about yourself. This is strongly deprecated - please see WP:COI for more on this. You also appear to be writing about a neologism "...The professor coined the term, Open Integrated Practitioner Research to show how he had been involved in practitioner research for well over two decades for self-sustenance, and defined Open Integrated Practitioner Research ". Wikipedia does not write about neologisms unless their use is supported by independent reliable sources. If you are who you claim to be, then you will be very familiar with the requirements of a rule driven process such as operates in the judiciary. Wikipedia is also a rule driven enterprise but with a different set of rules. To contribute here, you must comply with those rules if you wish to be productive.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Request on 21:30:42, 1 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dentonkrietz

• Dentonkrietz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Frank Zarnowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I am requesting assistance because the draft I submitted was declined due to "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

I'm confused because the first reference is a multi-page article from Sports Illustrated entirely about the subject of this wikipedia article. For reference, here is a digital copy of that article: https://archive.org/details/Sports-Illustrated-1979-05-07/page/n33

The second reference is short but is his Bio for being in the Track and Field Hall of Fame. This is both independent and certainly not a "passing mention."

Is the concern simply the number of references? Some additional information would be greatly appreciated if the current references are not sufficient.

Thank You Denton Krietz Dentonkrietz (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dentonkrietz for what little it may be worth, I believe that Frank Zarnowski is almost certainly notable and does deserve an article here. However , the test that has to be met for notability, as Wikipedia defines it, is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ". This quote is from this source which contains more useful information. My judgment was that the sources supplied were not " multiple published secondary sources..." so a few more independent and reliable sources should clinch the deal. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

....and that PDF was very useful. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Velella, I greatly appreciate your quick reply and I'll get to work finding some additional secondary sources. Thanks again. Dentonkrietz (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Rajiv Malhotra article

I added an infobox to add the link to his two youtube channels.You reverted that saying one infobox is enough.Please add the youtube channel liks in the main infobox itself as I am able to do so.Links- 1.https://www.youtube.com/user/BreakingIndia 2.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLf4SEaYCuiMsRQfATlaH6A — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Seeker of Truth (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Not encyclopaedic and clearly advertising a YouTube channel. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

le lieu unique

Hello Vella, I've seen that you consider the page "le lieu unique" for deletion. I'm the person who has done some modifications last week and and I would like to explain some things about what I've added/changed on this page, and why I think these information’s should be revised. First I would like to say that it is difficult for me to find sources in English language to confirm the story of le lieu unique. I don't want to be over enthusiastic about this place but I would like to give a proper information to the readers. I’ve tried to put some interviews about the transformation but I’ve nothing in english. It is a famous place in France and a great story about new born of industrial heritage sites: this old biscuit factory that has been transformed into a cultural centre (you can check in French here: https://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/Economie-Entreprises/Economie/A-Nantes-la-biscuiterie-devenue-fabrique-d-art-_NG_-2012-07-22-833939 and here : http://www.caue-observatoire.fr/ouvrage/le-lieu-unique/?export=pdf Nantes is a big town in France (303 000 inhabitants) and his cultural centre is big (450 000 visitors a year). The previous text was full of wrong information (it says that the tower can be visited, for example, and it is not true) and the photos where very old: the place has changed today.

I hope wou'll understand that I'm only a friend of this place and that there is no interest conflict. My revision have been done only to give more information and not for advertising.

I hope you'll understand Best Ulysse Bloom (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Ulysse Bloom.Ulysse Bloom (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. However,I do remain unconvinced about notability, but I will leave the decision for others to make. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Velella Ok, I understand that you're not convinced because it is difficult to have a clear outlook from outside. I hope you'll one day come to Nantes and see le lieu unique by yourself! I hope also that someone will contribute and decide what to do with this article. Best, Ulysse Bloom (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I bear the article no ill-will - but its fate is for others to decide. And..... yes I have been to Nantes but prefer the more rural idylls of Creuse. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Curious to Know why you and two others have decided to edit my page

Hi Velella, I was just wondering why you and two more have decided to revert our company page and remove the information I placed there. Care to explain? If it had to do with the product info, that was removed before your last reversion. I would really like to know your justification since you are so full of warnings for me regarding Edit Warring, I wonder if those warnings are going out to the others, or is it OK for two or more to go after a page but not against the rules to undo the damage they do to it? As for contacting them to come to some resolution, how about they contact me and seek a resolution with me before taking it upon themselves to "edit" my page? Courtesy goes both ways. CMCEditor (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No answer Velella?

So quick with the warnings, so slow with the answers. Hmmmm.... CMCEditor (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CMCEditor - I, and others like me have a life outside Wikipedia. You may also wish to read and reflect on WP:AGF. Moreover, there is no page that is "your" page, nor is it "our company page". It is very clear that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing this article. The reason for removing all the additions you put there was that much of it was overtly promotional and even the short-form text at the end was unsourced , not encyclopaedic and still promotional. It is highly likely that the other editors saw it that way too. Now please make the declaration on your user page as required by the COI guidelines, and desist from editing NuWave both now and in the future. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Thank you for the clarification. Things would have gone a lot better had you or the others led with that rather than simply taken it upon yourselves to change the page. 2) We hear about establishing consensus through dialog. That goes for you and the others as well and yet, in this situation, you seemed to take the position that you have no such obligation. Imagine how that looked on my end. CMCEditor (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Velella/Archives,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Suzanna Hupp

The article was turned into a stub because it was heavily edited by a serial copyright violater - see Wikipedia:CCI/20110727. ミラP 20:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the report but I struggled to find evidence that it does indeed contain any copy vio material or that it has been flagged as having contained copy vio material. There appear to be many unconnected contributors to the article since 2014 with very few adding any substantial body of text. The reduction to a stub seems draconian, especially without identification of the offending editor or the text purportedly plagiarised. The copyright investigations list states that explanatory text can be found on the article talk page. There is nothing of such a nature. Can you please explain?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine may I amplify my comment. Assuming the the serial copy-vio editor's content was all a copy vio than that amounted to 8609 characters. The article prior to the recent excision amounted to 18276 characters. This suggests that just under 10K characters were not copy-vio. yet it has been reduced to just under 2K characters. This makes little sense. I am also intrigued by the instructions on the copy vio list page which state

Examine the article or the diffs linked below. If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it. If you remove text presumptively, place {{subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page. If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place {{subst:cclean}} on the article's talk page. The url parameter may be optionally used to indicate source. If there is insufficient creative content on the page for it to survive the removal of the text or it is impossible to extricate from subsequent improvements, replace it with {{subst:copyvio}}, linking to the investigation subpage in the url parameter. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. Your note on the CCI investigation page serves that purpose. To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion, place {{subst:copyvio|url=see talk}} on the article's face and {{subst:CCId|name=20110727}} on the article's talk page. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. After examining an article: replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether problem was found (add {{y}}) or not (add {{n}}). If the article is blanked and may be deleted, please indicate as much after the {{y}}. Follow with your username and the time to indicate to others that the article has been evaluated and appropriately addressed. This is automatically generated by four tildes''

I can see no evidence for any of these instructions having been enacted. What exactly is going on here ? ( Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC))

@Velella: User:Marquardtika's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Brown (2nd nomination) states Billy Hathorn typically copied content from written sources that aren't online. It's difficult to prove copyvio in such cases, especially since the sources he used are micro-local, but it was his MO, and the reason he was banned from Wikipedia. ミラP 22:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Velella/Archives,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 809 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Mortensen

Hi guy

Kindly fetch me the info what the article lacks.I feel it pretty pacy job to delete it.The all the contents available on the alongwith the reliable sources I've cited 'em all.

Regards

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see the article for deletion page here where I set out the issues of concern. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Avanan

Dude let me complete it first!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeungChow (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for incomplete articles. That is what Draft articles are for. I moved it from mainspace to Draft as a courtesy. Would you have preferred that I nominated it for speedy deletion ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

PROD on Therapeutic Photography

Hello! I took the PROD off the above article and added a few sources. One of them is a literature review that links to dozens of sources. If you have a psychology background you could perhaps cull some refs from that? In any case I wanted to give you a heads up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Further research has turned up the fact that the article may be a duplication of material contained at Photo psychology. I leave it to you if you would like to merge or redirect.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP - Thanks for that. My real issue is that it clearly falls under WP:MEDRS but was in no way compliant. I have no experience in psychology (other than the essential bits that form part of bringing up children) and was judging it purely on Wikipedia's acceptability and notability criteria. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will just redirect. It was nothing much to start with, just something we rescued form a socking editor!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yoon Young Bae

• annoyed sigh* I’m not going to participate in move warring; I have my own personal reasons why I have stopped submitting my drafts for review unless an administrator requires it. Having created over 130 articles, most of which are on models, I very well know what sources outweigh others. In the case of a fashion model, a Vogue profile is more than enough for general notability. With W to match. On top of the fact that she not only has been on the cover of British Vogue, ranks as a top 50 model on models.com who says A British Vogue cover sealed Yoon Young Bae’s sizzling status. It feels like just yesterday a Prada exclusive marked this Korean model’s coming-up moment. Things have been good, nay great, for Yoon Young Bae in the international market: campaigns for DVF and Zara and editorial appearances in the best glossies Vogue Japan, i-D, Another, W Korea and a cover appearance on the latest British Vogue is the icing on the cake., and holds a record for most show appearances, there’s no reason why this model shouldn’t have a Wikipedia article. A draft is just a draft. Trillfendi (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are confident, then please submit it for review. It is a better solution than me raising an AfD case after the event.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, you can revert my edits...

...but you can't stop the message from getting through.

And so..... Wikipedia is not for canvassing or promoting petitions. Sorry  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Why the name change without a discussion for reuse of excreta?

I discovered today that you changed the name of the article reuse of excreta. Please point me to where you discussed this before making this change? If you made the change without any prior discussion, I would find this upsetting because it makes a big difference. I have also written on the talk page here but just wanted to make sure it doesn't get overlooked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reuse_of_human_waste#I_don't_agree_with_the_name_change_from_excreta_to_human_waste EMsmile (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Horseshoe Lake

Hi being new to providing edits on Wikipedia I appear to be not getting it right. However I can't see in my latest edit below any promotional information that is being refered to. I linked to source information that I found on the web in the text for an area I live opposite to that had no information on Wikipedia

Horseshoe Lake Reserve or Waikākāriki as it was once called is a wetland reserve, The Reserve has a length of 5.66 kilometres with a second jetty structure over a wetland area off Broomfield Terrace. In pre-European times Waikākāriki "Horseshoe Lake" was the site of a significant Māori settlement called Te Oranga. The lake was called Waikākāriki (wai means water and kākāriki has various meanings including green, a type of green lizard or a green parakeet or parrot). The lake is believed to be an arm of the Avon River (Ōtākaro River) and became cut off when the main flow found another more direct route to the sea; it has also received Heritage Site status. Horseshoe Lake receives waters from a number of streams, drains, and storm water pipes it is then pumped into the River Avon by way of the largest pump house in Christchurch. The pump house was built in 1979; Pump Station 205 provides land drainage and flood protection to the nearby area. In 2017 it was agreed that close to $2 million will be spent on the pump station to restore the station’s capacity to pump water in a major storm event, improve its operational reliability, extend its life, provide resilience against future sea level rise and provide flood protection to the most properties. Part of the work planned for the pump station includes replacing the old wooden flood gates with a fish-friendly passage for inanga (whitebait) so that is easier for them to travel between the Avon and Horseshoe Lake, an important ecological area.

All your edits are supported by an overtly promotional web-site christchurchchnz.info. This is not an acceptable source and all your edits have used this site as a reference. In Wikipedia this is called link spamming - trying to get more traffic to a particular web-site by quoting its URL as if it were a reliable source. It isn't and further editing using such sources could get you permanently blocked from editing. Please stop now. I managed to find several reliable sources for Horseshoe lake including Stuff.co.nz and Christchurch City Council, so I guess you weren't looking very hard. For the record, I too know the lake personally. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply

I have submitted changes without references I will comment though on your referral to other sources: Stuff recent articles are opinion pieces only and the council information is primary promotional both of which I thought not to be suitable.

Re: promoting a URL I thought I needed to refer to sources the site in question was one that I came across and accepted my edits to ChCh places. A previous edit I submitted "Margaret Mahy Playground" was rejected as being too promotional/positive, however I note that the current information is promoting in the negative refering to mistakes and closures which have little relevance to the facility unless there is reference to the improvements and its use of. Thank You for your guidence djade7 17/12/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djade7 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Two housekeeping issues first. Please indent your comments on a thread like this by adding one more colon (:) than the previous comment. This allows all editors to keep track of who is talking. I have added two colons to your previous comment and started this with three colons so that it indents properly. Secondly, please sign any comments of contributions to talk pages, noticeboards etc. with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically signs your post. The key issue is the source that you are using is a simple vehicle for advertisments with some text thrown in as click-bait. Such sites are not and never will be reliable sources. Please do not use them. Subsequent edits demonstrate that other editors share the same view.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of my What is Telecom Expense Management?

Hi,

Can you let me know why you keep removing my content? It is not promotional, and is informational.

Thank you, Melinda Cooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melicoops (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Melinda. It is simply that the source is not a reliable independent source. The language it uses makes that clear. It is a player in the business and is putting forward a one-sided view. I also believe that I am not the only editor to have taken that view. In any case, Wikipedia guidance in case like this is be bold, revert, discuss. I.e if your edit is reverted, discuss on the talk page, don't simply re-instate your edit. That way leads to edit warring. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,Not sure why this is not a reliable source, this is what I do. I write blogs for the telecom industry and TEM is a big part of this. You should also be deleting the writeup by Cimpl and Radius Point as they are selling their product, it is boldly shown on the page that is linked from this content. Large button saying how can they help!!Even if I re-write the content you will remove, right?Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melicoops (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have probably answered this question at User_talk:Melicoops#Warning:_Using_Wikipedia_for_promotional_purposes now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The presence of some unacceptable text or source doesn't make the addition of more unacceptable text or sources in any way acceptable. If other sources are inappropriate, please delete them and explain why in your edit summary. You may also like to read WP:COI if your employment is writing a blog about the telecoms industry and you are also editing here about the telecoms industry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thermohaline circulation

@Kroger4: In this edit: edit

You reverted an edit on the basis that it was copyright violation. While that material may have come from the source you cited, it also comes from (presumably originally) this site which is a work of the federal government and therefore public domain. However, some issues remain, and I'm going to elicit input from @Diannaa:, our resident copyright expert. I've always worked on the assumption that works created by federal government employees are in the public domain. The notice on this site even states that it is public domain, but it goes on to assert that attribution is required. That's not my understanding of public domain.

copyright reuse:

U.S. government publications are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection. You may use and/or distribute any of our data, files, databases, reports, graphs, charts, and other information products that are on our website or that you receive through our email distribution service. However, if you use or reproduce any of our information products, you should use an acknowledgment, which includes the publication date, such as: "Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (Oct 2008)."

The attribution requirement is valid, then the edit can be removed on the basis that it didn't comply with the attribution requirement (although my guess is that the practice of Diannaa might be to cure the problem rather than revert). I'm separately concerned about whether it is a reliable source. I don't question the federal government as a source when it comes to many subjects, but I don't automatically assume that they know what they're talking about when it comes to climate issues. I will leave that discussion for another day. I work on the assumption that the source is deemed reliable, and we merely need to sort out whether the attribution requirement is valid and what to do about it. Arguably, "should" is a request, but not a requirement, although I'd be hesitant to make that argument in a tax audit. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi S Philbrick. Whether or not the US Govt requires us to provide attribution is moot, when our own rules require it. Adding the attribution lets our readers know that the prose was copied rather than written by a Wikipedian, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. The way I handle these cases is to leave the content in, and add the template {{PD-notice}} as part of the citation. (I also add the relevant citation if the editor has not already included it. Here's an example.) Then I notify the editor of the issue using the {{uw-plagiarism}} template, or using a hand-written note if I'm not too busy. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, Thanks for the excellent advice. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)