Jump to content

User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47

I am done

Too much on my plate this week, am stepping away from that drafts mess. Good luck, I am done. Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll add the two other drafts. And yes, it is a mess, thanks for all the work you put into it. Have a MerryHappyHannuSolsticeChristmaKwanNewYear. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

02:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Isaac Fordjour Nimoh (talk)

Clarification of your review on Draft:ikranium.com

Hi Dadivwr, based on the message you left on my talk page, I have come to make you aware taht i haven't taken any compensation on my edits on Draft:ikranium.com but rather just freely created a page on wikipedia for a news website in Ghana, which has been created by myself. I would be glad if you respond to this message. Thank you. 02:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Isaac Fordjour Nimoh (talk)

@Isaac Fordjour Nimoh: If your web site will produce revenue, you should consider yourself a "paid editor." Even if it won't, you definitely have a "conflict of interest." Edit accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thank you for all of the useful information and for your help. It is much appreciated. Btarbortem (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@DavidWr: I have made some edits to the page Draft:ikranium.com. I would like to ask for a review if i comply with all the principles governing the wikipedia. Isaac Fordjour Nimoh (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I have put it in the review queue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Davidwr/Archives,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Small IP range with slow chronic vandalism

Where is the best place to report 24.46.136.0/22 (whois) as a possible school netblock? The contribution history shows at least as many juvenile vandalism type edits as productive ones, at least for the past few months. I went back a few years an did some spot-checking and it's similar.

I'm not saying it should be blocked now, but it might be helpful if the entire block were watched by an edit filter or bot.

If it is determined to be an educational institution, putting the usual "school ip" template at the top of all 1024 user talk pages may be useful as well. Likewise, if it is a school, any wiki-blocks should probably be applied against the /22 netblock rather than one IP. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to send you to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism where you can provide your evidence to an actual admin interested in working against vandalism. Your guess about what they'll decide to do is as good as mine. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The instructions at IAV made it sound like it was for urgent matters, so I asked basically the same thing on the talk page. I'm sure an admin will see it sooner or later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Spicy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Louis Wright (digital operator), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Spicy (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

preview

I tried 3 times to respond to you at SPI but conflicted every time - please, please use the preview button when corresponding like that. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Yes, I almost always do use preview. I didn't the 2nd time, that 3rd edit shouldn't have been necessary. Today is one of those days where I really need to "stop and measure three times instead of two" before "cutting." I'm glad it's the weekend. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Untitled section 14 December 2020 67.68.16.7

HI DAVID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.16.7 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Um, hi? If you are looking for general help with Wikipedia, please ask at WP:Teahouse. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis

Regarding this, a common convention is to use wikt:my emphasis. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a Wikipedia app for KaiOS phones. It was released in India in September. It can now be downloaded in other countries too. [1]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 December. It will be on all wikis from 17 December (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome but please will you help me in my article just as a friend. As it is my first article. Please Arjuna Anchan (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I've got a full plate right now.
A good place to ask for help is the WP:Teahouse.
Before asking for help, I would recommend reading WP:About, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Your first article. As you are a paid editor, you need to be extremely cognizant of Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines. In particular, if a topic is NOT "notable" by Wikipedia standards, it should have an article, period. While you will find articles in Wikipedia on non-notable topics from time to time, these articles should be deleted. When experienced editors find them, they typically nominate them for deletion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This will help you avoid wasting your time, your employer or client's time and money, and our time on topics that should not be in Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Aurora Negro

Hello! I saw that you tagged my article for needing more citations. I have used 7 sources, so hoe much more do I need??? DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: It's not the "how many." I tagged your page for two reasons:
  • There is an extraordinary claim that this rabbit breed came from 37 species. Even if it came from 37 other breeds that would still be an extraordinary claim, requiring a citation from a reliable source.
  • The sources are largely "in-industry." That makes their independence of the subject weak at best. I did not check them all though, so I might have missed one. For an article this small, you just need one or two sources that are both reliable and independent that, taken together, show significant coverage of the subject. For example, a story about this breed in a newspaper or general-interest magazine (like Time or Newsweek, vs. a pet-oriented or animal-husbandry-oriented magazine) where the content was NOT provided by anyone associated with rabbit-raising would be a good source. On the other hand, a "feature story" in the same newspaper that "had the tone" of being largely "spoon-fed" to the reporter by someone with a financial or other interest in promoting this breed would not be considered "independent."
I recommend moving the page back to "Draft," making sure it has at least one independent, reliable source that gives the subject "significant coverage," listing that source or those sources on the talk page, then submitting it for review using the process outlined at WP:Articles for creation.
If you do move it back to "Draft" please change |class= from "Start" to "Draft" in the template that I added to the talk page. Also, if you do move it back to Draft, please put the categories inside a {{Draft categories}} template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Regarding the last comment on my talk page, is user bunnyrabbitbunny still a user? DestinationFearFan (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User accounts aren't deleted, so by definition yes, unless the account is renamed, that account-name is still that of a user.
I assume you mean are they still an active user. You can see a user's contributions by going to Special:Contributions/DestinationFearFan but replacing your name with that user's name. You can see if a user is blocked by going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=DestinationFearFan but put the user's name in place of yours. You can also use {{ping}} on your talk page (or anywhere else) or put a note on the user's talk page to get their attention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RealNZZN

When should I consider moving an article to mainspace? When I feel there is enough information and content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNZZN (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@RealNZZN: Writing a new article is not easy if you are not familiar with Wikipedia. Unless you are on a deadline, such as a school assignment, I recommend you spend a few hours each week for the next few weeks making small edits to other topics. Look at the talk pages of articles. If you see an article that is being "nominated for deletion" go read the "deletion discussion" page so you get a "feel" for why it was nominated for deletion.
I also recommend that new editors submit drafts through the WP:Articles for creation process. Although the nominal backlog is 2-3 months, typically the "easy to accept" and "easy to decline for improvements" ones get looked at quickly. If you spend a few weeks "getting your feet wet" first, you will have a much better idea of how to write an article that will be "easy to accept." More importantly, you will have a good idea if your topic even qualifies to have an article written about it. I see you've had an account since February and have been editing more than occasionally since late November. This means you aren't "brand new" but additional experience editing existing articles will be helpful.
If you haven't done so already, I recommend reading WP:About, WP:Five pillars, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Notability, Help:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Conflict of interest. You don't have to read them all today, but please read them before submitting any draft.
Also, if you are the type of person that enjoys "training games," visit WP:Adventure.
Oh, one more thing, read WP:Signatures. Signing your messages on talk and other discussion pages is pretty much "expected." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 00:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Idea

I have an idea for you, but we need to talk somewhere private, if you're up for it. Discord or IRC is preferred. Discord: BlackWidowMovie0#8377, IRC: blackwidowmovie0. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 01:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My time is limited and the fact that you are asking me to discuss it off-wiki suggests that it is the kind of idea that will take a bit more time than I have to offer.
Also, as a general rule, I prefer to discuss things on-wiki precisely to avoid the appearance of "doing thing off-wiki/in secret." That said, there are obviously things that should not be discussed on-wiki, but ideas to make Wikipedia better or ideas for a new article are best discussed on-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 04:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maged Essam (December 19)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Davidwr was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is substantially identical to Maged Essam (permalink). That article is up for WP:A7 deletion as advertising and up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maged Essam. Since these are substantially identical and, barring a surprise outcome, it will be deleted one way or the other, this topic is either non-notable or it is written like an advertisement. Also, the primary author is globally locked for cross-wiki abuse (see Special:Contributions/Maged3sam and meta:Special:CentralAuth/Maged3sam).
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Note to self: I "submitted" this for the express purpose of "rejecting" it and recording the message above on my talk page so it wouldn't be lost when the draft is WP:G13-deleted in 6 months. The actual author is globally locked for abuse. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion, please

What's your opinion on "Awards and Recognitions" sections in articles about corperations, like the one we find here? Is is generally ok to just delete them? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sam at Megaputer: I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a wiki-wide consensus on this that would apply to all companies with "lists of awards" sections, but there is a wiki-wide consensus on presenting material that is encyclopedic without "padding" it with puffery.
As a general rule (with many case-by-case exceptions), a list may be in order if the company or its employees have received more than a small number of awards which are themselves notable, such as a Nobel Prize. See Bell Labs#Nobel Prizes and Turing Awards for an example.
Otherwise, picking one or maybe two "relatively notable" awards and mentioning them - and no lesser awards - in the prose section is probably the best way to go. For example, if a local TV station has received numerous local- and regional-industry awards but no national awards, and you can find that information in a reliable, third-party source, it's enough to say [station call letters] has received over [number] regional industry awards including [most prominent example] in [year] for [whatever].[citation or two that backs up both parts of the statement goes here]. That would be much better than having a section listing a dozen regional and local awards that people outside of the local area don't care about. If they have received ANY national or other higher-than-regional-prestige awards, there's no need to mention an example of these awards, you can say [station call letters] received the [national award name] in [year] for [whatever].[citation goes here] and be done with it.
If you aren't sure, ask on the appropriate talk page. For articles with active talk pages, the article talk page is a good place to ask. For other articles, try the talk page of the associated award if the award has an article and its talk page is active. You can also try the talk page of a WikiProject associated with the article or the award if there is a relevant WikiProject with an active talk page.
Sorry if this isn't the "yes" or "no" you are looking for, but you did ask for my opinion.
By the way, if you are asking in relation to any article about any company in which you have a conflict of interest, which includes competing companies and discussions involving awards that companies you are in a COI are eligible to earn, you should not be making such edits directly, you should treat them like a "COI edit" and use Template:Requested edit on the article's talk page, disclosing the reasons why there is a "conflict of interest" ("I work for a competing company," "My company is involved in selecting awardees for one of the awards listed," "My brother owns the company that makes the plaques associated with one of the listed awards," etc.). When it comes to actual or perceived COI-editing on Wikipedia, "erring on the side of caution" is better than the other way around. Also, it goes without saying that, like all other polices, WP:Paid-contributions disclosure must be followed if it applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! This is a helpful information. Just so that you know, I'm asking about this because I put together a new tool this weekend, and I am now (perhaps ironically) using it to identify promotional content. I'm trying to learn more about anti-promo editing so that I can improve the quality of my edits and my tool. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested in the copyright-checking tools listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright violations § Other resources.
If you have a useful tool that you can open-source, please mention it on WP:VPT. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sam at Megaputer: Good catch on Eurotrials, it was puffed up by two spammers a few years ago, both of whom violated copyrights. Both were partially de-puffed but the copyright violations remained. I just reverted back to the last "clean" version, then looked through all the sources listed and did a Google search. While at least 2 of the sources are dead links and the company's web page redirects to its new owner's web page, my inability to find anything is enough to make me propose it for deletion. The parent company doesn't have an article either. I tried a web search for it - I won't say outright that the parent company is definitively not notable, but if anyone wants to try their hand at finding sources to demonstrate notability, it will take some digging. Also, I've marked the copyright violations so that if someone ever does as for a undeletion, which is allowed for pages that have been deleted through "proposed deletion," they won't get the puffed-up, copyright-violating versions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll check out that copyright tool. As for my new promotion detection tool, I can't open-source it, but I will be able to make it available through a web interface. I'm hoping to have a functional version up and running in a few days. I'll be sure to post to WP:VPT when its done. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sam at Megaputer: If you can't open-source it, at least offer to allow source-code inspection to anyone who asks for it. Without this, confidence will be low and people are less likely to use it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 14:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The software that I built the tool with uses a graphic interface in place of code. Everyone will be able to see the project from a graphic interface level, which will serve the same purpose as code inspection. I'm thinking that today or tomorrow I'll release a video explaining how the tool works and how to use it. No faith will be required. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to the topic, which is why I'm just dropping a note, but you can link to sections in permalinks. For example, Special:PermaLink/995520139#Broken_with_{{draft_categories}} (though I did have to muck about with the URL encode, obviously). Primefac (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 14:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft categories

There isn't actually a hard and fast rule about whether mainspace categories on draft pages should be disabled or removed. We don't have a policy that one is always required or that the other is deprecated, and instead it's a question of context: sometimes there are legitimate reasons to remove a category outright, and sometimes there are legitimate reasons to just disable it, and sometimes it's just a question of which tool is being used to do it because there are differences in how editing tools work.

The main issue that the pages aren't even necessarily always using the "correct" categories in the first place. Just like in mainspace, editors sometimes leave pages "filed" in redlinked categories that don't exist at all, or in categories that the page wouldn't belong in even if it were a real mainspace article (e.g. filing a writer directly in the top-level Category:Writers instead of the appropriate subcategories, or a musician in the Category:Artists tree) — so it wouldn't be beneficial to the encyclopedia if such categories were left on the page in disabled form, because if and when the page got approved at AFC and promoted to mainspace the disabled categories would just get undisabled and the page would have to be revisited for a second cleanup of the wrong categories. So it's not helpful or productive to leave a bad category on the page in disabled form, if that would just make more work for people days or weeks down the road.

Now, of course, if you come across one improperly categorized draft page in the regular editing process, then it's obviously easy to evaluate whether all of the categories are "correct" ones for the topic or not and thus make a "disable or remove?" call right then and there — but if you're powering through a batch of 75 or 100 of them in AWB, which is what I was doing last night, it's a lot harder to judge each individual category for "correctness". AWB is a tool for performing preprogrammed automated edits, but is useless for evaluating content: it can't tell you whether all of a page's categories exist or not, it can't tell you whether all of a page's categories are the correct ones or not, and on and so forth. And with a large batch to clean up all at once, it also isn't feasible to deal with them all in browser mode instead of AWB mode. So in AWB, really all you can do is either a blanket "disable all categories, even if that would leave stupid ones on the page" or a blanket "remove all categories", because AWB offers no way to check each individual category against a "disable because good" or "remove because bad" test.

So typically what you'll find is that if an editor is dealing with one page that they happened to come across on its own, then the categories will usually just be disabled because they were able to evaluate the categories for their "correctness" at the same time — but if they're dealing with a large batch of pages all at once in AWB, then the categories will more commonly be removed outright. Neither one's right or wrong per se. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-52

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 11 January 2021.

Recent changes

  • The {{citation needed}} template shows when a statement in a Wikipedia article needs a source. If you click on it when you edit with the visual editor there is a popup that explains this. Now it can also show the reason and when it was added. [2]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.

Future changes

  • You can propose and discuss what technical improvements should be done for geographic information. This could be coordinates, maps or other related things.
  • Some wikis use LanguageConverter to switch between writing systems or variants of a language. This can only be done for the entire page. There will be a <langconvert> tag that can convert a piece of text on a page. [3]
  • Oversighters and stewards can hide entries in Special:AbuseLog. They can soon hide multiple entries at once using checkboxes. This works like hiding normal edits. It will happen in early January. [4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Graham Hill (Theologian)

Thanks for your note about notability in specific field davidwr.

I think the field WP:ACADEMIC is the right one, given the subject has achieved one or more of the following three things:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

3. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Evidence of point 2:

1. Appointed Principal of a national theological college, which campuses in each Australian State (the highest appointed administrative post in a national theological college/institution in Australia) - https://vox.divinity.edu.au/news/graham-hill-appointed-principal-of-stirling-theological-college/

2. Prior to that, the subject was the Provost (head of a university college) of one of the largest theological institutions in Australia - https://www.morling.edu.au/staff-spotlight/

Evidence of point 3:

The subject's academic research into World Christianity and gender equality in Christianity has been profiled by a wide range of academic and non-academic institutions and has substantial influence beyond the academy, including:

1. Christianity Today (the largest and most influential evangelical Christian magazine in the world):

2. Patheos (a prominent non-denominational, non-partisan online media company): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/01/14/is-our-church-global-or-colonialist/

3. Eternity News (a News outlet run by the Bible Society of Australia, the oldest and one of the most prominent/respected Christian organisations in Australia): https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/graham-hill-named-new-principal-at-stirling-theological-college/

4. Missio Alliance (one of the largest mission organisations in North America): https://www.missioalliance.org/author/graham-hill/

5. The research Graham Hill did with Grace Ji-Sun Kim into Asian Christianities has been profiled on Australia's national public broadcaster: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/soul-search/asian-christianities-beyond-asia/11417098

Evidence of point 1 (and possibly point 3 also ... ):

Hope you get some rest over Christmas and the New Year

TrekMaster1900 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hi again! Thanks for helping me with my top icons. Enjoy your cupcake! 🌀☾⊙☈⊙♫ꍏ🌀 14:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but that cupcake is a bit big for a topicon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 14:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Rekom UK

Hi David

Thanks for editing the Rekom UK page. I was also trying to put in the new logo for the company.

Thanks DylanC1996 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)DylanC1996

Blackhall Studios edit - page name

Hi - Thank you for updating my entry. Do you know why I'm seeing the page title as "Draft:Blackhall Studios" instead of just "Blackhall Studios"


Jpj87 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jpj87: Because that's the name of the page, Draft:Blackhall Studios. It is a draft article, not a "real" article. New accounts aren't allowed to create "real" articles. If you would like to have it reviewed, follow the instructions at WP:Articles for creation. Before you submit it, please read WP:Your first article, paying careful attention to anything related to policies, anything related to notability, and anything related to citing/referencing sources.

Two tips that might help speed up the review process:

  • Make it as easy as possible on the reviewer to see that the topic is "notable." If you have more than a handful of references, start a conversation on the "talk" page and mention the best 3-5 of those references. By "best" I mean the ones that are "independent" and considered "reliable" which cover the topic "in-depth." More about what these words mean in "Wikipedia-speak" is at the "Your first article" page and the pages linked from it.
  • The less the page reads like an advertisement or public-relations piece, the better. A 2-paragraph draft with just enough to let the reader and reviewer know that the page is "notable" enough to qualify for an article is much better than the same two paragraphs plus more text that looks "promotional."

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr:
Therefore, I can not submit that draft article for review? I need to start over? Ideally, I would like that draft to be reviewed.
Jpj87 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I mis-communicated. It looks like you have already submitted it. I would have recommend you read those pages I talked about before submitting. It will likely be declined because the references aren't the kind of references that Wikipedia needs. When you've been around a bit longer, you will be able to create pages directly in the main encyclopedia, bypassing the "Draft" stage. I will say that there is still value in using "Draft" and "articles for creation" process even when you are able to create articles directly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr:

Thanks so much for your help. I understand some of the references may or may not suffice for the content provided. Some of the information is direct knowledge from the Founder of the studio. I am new to Wikipedia and attempting to help them ( as a client) get a page up on this platform. Jpj87 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict resolution?

Sorry to bother you again, but the page has continued to be edited, and the editor (who have been sockpuppets or a brand new account) have repeatedly ignored my attempts to reach out to reach a consensus. What should I do, when they clearly are uninterested in going through the process wikipedia has? I don’t want to give up and just allow info to be removed from the page because of a fanwar on twitter, but I don’t know what I could possibly do about it. You seem to know your way around wiki better than I do, could I ask for some advice? Jayb.rd98 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which page you were asking about, but if it was Han-bin the other editor was correct. The person you have been writing about is already listed on Hanbin. If you meant some other page, please let me know which one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Cypherium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@davidwr

Thank you for your comment. The sources for my Cypherium article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cypherium

1. AP News:

https://apnews.com/press-release/Accesswire/61deb0778324434bbc954b3e324d997d

2. PDF file from the Federal Reserve that explaining about Cypherium's product

https://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2018/December/20181228/OP-1625/OP-1625_121318_133013_454044695698_1.pdf

3. Forbes Magazine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrynpollock/2019/08/14/google-makes-another-move-towards-blockchain-as-cloud-wing-partners-with-cypherium/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrynpollock/2020/02/29/human-resources-giant-randstad-looks-to-blockchain-and-google-cloud-for-talent-matching/?sh=7a9a068e3b18

4. Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-08-26/cypherium-listed-as-preferred-startup-on-soci-t-g-n-rale-startup-flow

5. Business Wire: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190510005405/en/Cypherium-Partners-with-Amazon-Web-Services-to-Launch-Enterprise-Blockchain-as-a-Service

6.China Banking News: https://www.chinabankingnews.com/2020/08/03/cypherium-signs-mou-with-suzhou-for-blockchain-infrastructure-development-following-launch-of-chinese-cbdc-trials/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes234hens (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion copied to Draft talk:Cypherium, please continue there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promo hub

Is there some sort of hub around here where the anti-promo editors can communicate, like a WikiProject or a noticeboard or something? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sam at Megaputer: You might want to ask on the talk page of WP:Conflict of interest. There was, and I guess still is, WP:WikiProject Integrity, but it was recently marked as "inactive." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Davidwr, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

May you be showered with good health, wealth, peace and prosperity. Merry Christmas to you and your family!RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive_45&oldid=1002626044"