User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4/Archives/2021/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:HickoryOughtShirt?4. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey, I wanted to discuss the notability of this person as an academic. I was about to accept it first but then I thought I will have your views first. At GS [1] I found multiple works that have more than 100 citations which is usually enough. In one of those, he is one of the two authors of the paper which carries more weight than a paper having 200 citations but having four authors (let's say). Do you think this is not sufficient though? WP:Academic isn't a straightforward criteria so I thought will be good to discuss. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nomadicghumakkad, based on my experience with academics, it is unlikely for someone who is an associate professor to be considered notable enough. The ones that are, are usually are members of an elite society per WP:Academic. Secondly, in only one of three articles with over 100 citations is he the first author. For example, per discussion on the WP:Academic talk page (see here), Canada Research Chairs are only notable if they are Tier 1. This is because Tier 2s are usually assistant or associate professors. Personally, I typically don't write about anyone with less than 4K citations and even then I'm iffy. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4 , thanks for your opinion. I see your point about being first author and agree with it. So the names are always written in that order? That first person is first author and so on. From what I know, many times in academics, the first person is the principle investigator and the senior most person in research (usually HODs etc) but it not necessarily mean that they did most of the work. The other people might have done most of the work while the PI simply gets to put their name as first author as respect and seniority and they are mostly just reviewing the papers in the end and giving feedback. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nomadicghumakkad, Per this it seems to be based on contributions. While I was awaiting a response, I saw they updated the draft but are wrong about him passing criterion 5 seeing as he isn't a full professor. I am personally not ok accepting the article based only on three 100+ citations on Google Scholar. I suggest taking this to the WP:Academic talk page for more opinions. As well, based on their username and edits, I have a feeling there is a COI issue here. They made a few edits then went right into article writing with perfect use of citations. Just saying. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't appreciate their change from associate to just professor. Seems sneaky but AGF. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nomadicghumakkad, Per this it seems to be based on contributions. While I was awaiting a response, I saw they updated the draft but are wrong about him passing criterion 5 seeing as he isn't a full professor. I am personally not ok accepting the article based only on three 100+ citations on Google Scholar. I suggest taking this to the WP:Academic talk page for more opinions. As well, based on their username and edits, I have a feeling there is a COI issue here. They made a few edits then went right into article writing with perfect use of citations. Just saying. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- HickoryOughtShirt?4 , thanks for your opinion. I see your point about being first author and agree with it. So the names are always written in that order? That first person is first author and so on. From what I know, many times in academics, the first person is the principle investigator and the senior most person in research (usually HODs etc) but it not necessarily mean that they did most of the work. The other people might have done most of the work while the PI simply gets to put their name as first author as respect and seniority and they are mostly just reviewing the papers in the end and giving feedback. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this resourceful link HickoryOughtShirt?4. Yes, it clarifies that first author is the person who contributed the most. My comment was more from a practical point of view as per what I have seen. But we must go through what's an established theory as against what I have experienced personally since it might not be universally true. I am declining it now. I didn't get to the stage of investigating COI. I usually first check notability and then move on to COI - unless it is so obvious that it's right in front of your eyes! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
GNG
Your rejected a new article saying "Per WP:NOLYMPICS, he does not qualify until he actually competes. Please wait for the Games to begin."
But that is wrong. He meets GNG. That is all that is needed. There are multiple RS articles devoted to him.
You make no mention of having considered GNG - which was all that I ever considered when submitting this draft.
2603:7000:2143:8500:C13F:1A89:7716:B2C3 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Editing the GAN page
... it won't work, Legobot will override any manual edit; the main GAN page is entirely based on the GAN template on the article talk pages, which you should edit instead. I've tagged the /GA1 page for speedy deletion and edited the GAN template accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe, I don't know why I didn't think of that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
.svg){kind=small}
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
DYK for Gracelino Barbosa
On 7 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gracelino Barbosa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gracelino Barbosa won the first Paralympic medal in Cape Verdean history at the 2016 Summer Paralympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gracelino Barbosa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gracelino Barbosa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello HickoryOughtShirt?4/Archives/2021:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Your GA nomination of Mathieu Perreault
The article Mathieu Perreault you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mathieu Perreault for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mathieu Perreault
The article Mathieu Perreault you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Mathieu Perreault for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Jeffrey Viel
- added a link pointing to RDS
- Keegan Kolesar
- added a link pointing to TSN
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The Signpost: 25 July 2021
- News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories
- Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong
- In the media: Larry is at it again
- Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates
- Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki
- News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department
- Humour: A little verse
The article Avery Carl Frix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
There's a more updated article of this on Avery Frix.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dillon251992 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)