Jump to content

User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Biased wikipedia

You are in the news for bias. This is shameful, Despacito is more important than a researcher with such a good curriculum--2A02:C7F:5025:3D00:F9B9:9DAA:42B3:7F47 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Again with Günter Bechly. This has been discussed a couple of times on this talk page already, we do not have a policy that "has a number of species named after them" is a substitute for significant mentions in reliable sources independent from the subject. The best you can say is that the attention Mr Bechly got from his coming out did attract attention to his article and people noticed that it didn't meet inclusion guidelines. And if people don't understand the difference between closing a deletion discussion (where you need to assess the opinions of others) and participating in it (where you need to opine on the notability of the topic) then they need to learn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe people can make a claim that "has a lot of species named after them" means that the topic is notable. I think @DGG: wanted to examine this point, I do think it has some merit but didn't see evidence it is supported by guidelines or precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The real problem is that Bechly discovered or named a number of species himself (his argument says 160 of them, plus several genera and one family. There's evidence that his family is acceptedby other workers in the field). I do not think we have ever deleted an article on anyone who has discovered even one new species. I ask those in favor of deletion to find another such instance in WP. A subsidiary point is that scientists naming species in honor of another scientist is a recopgnition of him as an authority in the field. (It is true that naming a species after someone forsome other reason can be another matter entirely--species have been named for relatives or other miscellaneous people).
See the article on him in the de WP de:Günter Bechly -- he wrote this himself also, but I think it's objective, and the original enWP version is a close translation of that. I have almost never seen an article here on a German academic or other professional with a corresponding unchallenged article in the German Wikipedia being deleted here--they have high standards or BLPs than we do.
The arguments based on low citation count did not take account of his field--paleontologists and other descriptive scientists normally do have low citation counts as compared to experimental scientists. This was mentioned at the afd and not refuted.
The article was in large part deleted because of the tactics used to write it and support it. People who write or largely contribute to their own biographies tend to encounter difficulties--it is normal for us to resent this to the extent of looking for reasons to delete the article. Articles at AfD that are defended by single purpose accounts tend to have exactly the same problem. I in particular invite my good wikifriend David Eppstein to take another look--it is the first time I have ever disagreed with him to this extent on the bio of a scientist. David, you were right to be outraged by the tactics used here, but it shouldn't affect the article.
FWIW, There have been prior instances of editors trying and sometimes succeeding in deleting articles on scientists who have at some point expressed creationist or anti-global warming or other fringe views,. but the people I remember from these discussions were not present at this one. As for me, I think it's important to keep them==there is no better way to demonstrate our fairness.
I notice the Haaretz reporter was of the opinion that "These [Intelligent Design] activities prompted some Wikipedia editors to question Bechly’s scientific bona fides, and in turn the value of his biographical entry as a scientist in the encyclopedia." and "If Bechly’s article was originally introduced due to his scientific work, it was deleted due to his having become a poster child for the creationist movement."[1]
They apparently see our deletion as an expression of bias, and think the bias praiseworthy. read more: https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/1.823247" DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Haaretz columnist has a clearer grasp on our procedures than the ICR people but that aspect of the column was annoying. Despite my delete opinion I don't feel very strongly about Bechly's inclusion (and could easily have written it as weak delete rather than delete); both the scientific contributions and the creationist press are borderline, but one could easily and in good faith argue that either was on the inclusion side of the border rather than the deletion side. The ICR people's tactics don't particularly motivate me to revisit the issue, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Consortium of Christian Study Centers - merger

Hello. As principal author of the erstwhile Wikipedia article 'Consortium of Christian Study Centers' -- now merged with the article 'Christian Study Centers (United States)' -- I'm wondering to whom I would make a case for restoring the original article. I do take the point that it overlapped with the article into which it is now merged. I do, however, have a great deal of additional material I could offer on the Consortium specifically. As to the objection that Christian Study Centers warrant an article but the Consortium does not, the logic in play would seem to require the merger of any article on a trade association -- e.g., 'Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry' -- into an article on the trade itself -- e.g., 'Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom'. Doctor Mellifluus (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that one article was treated in a certain way does not mean other similar articles must be treated the same. I shall see what the opinions of @DGG, StarryGrandma, and Peterkingiron: are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I voted to merge, be3cause the Christian Study Centres are a wholly US phenomenon, so that the consortium article was covering exactly the same ground as the Centers article. The other case cited by Doctor Mellifluus is completely different. The trade body and the industry are not essentially the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

More notes to self

Apparently 1/4 of all readers of Lake Ptolemy found the topic interesting enough to click at one more link on the page. 1/5 for Lake Corcoran. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-47

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

  • If you use the Chrome web browser on Android you can see a download icon on the mobile website. You can download a formatted PDF. It will work in other mobile browsers in the future. [2]
  • The abuse filter now has a function called get_matches. You can use it to store matches from regular expressions – one of each capturing group. You can read more in Phabricator.

Problems

  • Last week's MediaWiki version didn't come to all Wikipedias because of a database crash. It will be on all wikis on 20 November. [3][4][5]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Language converter syntax will no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}- must be replaced. You will have to write -{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }- instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. This will happen next week. [6][7]

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

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Infinite Computer Solutions

I would like to understand the reason behind the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Computer_Solutions page. I had done a few edits on the page when it was triggered earlier for promotional content, i helped clean up the article to comply with Wiki guidelines. With regard to the history of the recreation, i see that there were many issues with the article. However, the recent version of the article had every piece of information, cited a legitimate third-party reference. As an editor, it would have been of value to have helped further improve the article than just deleting it and SALT! This appears more like a blanket evaluation. Can you restore it and keep it open for improvement? I would suggest the article is reinstated and modified; not just deleted outright Dhiraj1984 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dhiraj1984: According to the deletion discussion the sources were not of adequate quality to justify an article. Sometimes a topic simply cannot have a good article written about, and this seems to be one of the cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
66 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Puyehue-Cordón Caulle (talk) Add sources
108 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Villarrica (volcano) (talk) Add sources
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Agracetus (talk) Add sources
47 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Osorno (volcano) (talk) Add sources
132 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Volcanic bomb (talk) Add sources
23 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cat-Man and Kitten (talk) Add sources
28 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sanatana Dharma College (talk) Cleanup
133 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Postcards from the Edge (talk) Cleanup
17 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Coleman University (talk) Cleanup
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Iván Almár (talk) Expand
5,451 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Volcano (talk) Expand
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Greenland Ice Sheet Project (talk) Expand
1,623 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Superhero (talk) Unencyclopaedic
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Hello from Earth (talk) Unencyclopaedic
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Church of Christ, Instrumental (talk) Unencyclopaedic
110 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Supreme (comics) (talk) Merge
150 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Active SETI (talk) Merge
279 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Electroporation (talk) Merge
184 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Genetically modified soybean (talk) Wikify
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub False peak (talk) Wikify
43 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start G. Sudhakaran (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Norrin Weismeyer (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start High School Heroes (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Fishing industry in the Marshall Islands (talk) Orphan
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Pomerape (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Paniri (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sierra Nevada de Lagunas Bravas (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Linzor (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Pabellón de Inca (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sidus Ludoviciana (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Expand Article

@Jo-Jo Eumerus with regards to the Deletion Review for the article, "Selena Zhao", the article has been reinstated but given that the presentation of multiple new sources demonstrates the potential for WP:GNG, how would you suggest expanding the article to incorporate these sources and improve it? Sources: http://web.icenetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120916&content_id=38517104&vkey=ice_news http://www.thewhig.com/2015/01/21/zhao-doesnt-disappoint https://skatecanada.ca/2014/10/trading-places-us-born-selena-zhao-proudly-represents-canada/ http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/09/12/200902400/the-inside-edge-chen-edmunds-headline-ewc https://goldenskate.com/2015/07/selena-zhao/ https://skatecanada.ca/2015/01/selena-zhao-wins-junior-womens-title-in-kingston/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.201 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The normal way to expand an article from a source is to take information from the source, write it in your own words into the article and cite the text you added to the source. Category:GA-Class Figure skating articles lists some articles (Ok, their talk pages) that you may want to use as a template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-48

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

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 November. It will be on all wikis from 30 November (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 28 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 29 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Good article reviews

From what I can tell, you've never started a good article review and have only commented on a couple in the last six months. Yet you have 17 current nominations at geography. How about pitching in by reviewing someone else's nomination? Or is there a limitation for admins about reviewing GA's? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no such limitation that I know of. The principal reason I don't do any reviews myself is because I don't trust myself at assessing the quality of other people's writing (the points 1a of the good article criteria). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I have been wondering myself whether I am too much all-take-no-give in GA reviewing matters, incidentally. I'll refrain from nominating stuff for a while I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I would encourage you to review an article or two instead. If you suggest something, the main contributors can push back if they feel you're wrong. Good luck. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Direction (geometry)

In July you deleted and redirected Direction (geometry) as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direction (geometry). Could you restore the content for me so that I can see if there is anything that can be salvaged. Unfortunately nothing in the existing articles on direction given by the disambiguation page covers how direction is used in physics and is indicated by angular measurements. Articles that used to link to Direction (geometry) are now redirected to Relative direction, about left, right, forward, backwards, up, and down and the cultural meanings thereof. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the page history under the redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, the parts of the oldest 2006 versions that relate to math are close to what I think it needs. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Solimana (volcano)

On 30 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Solimana (volcano), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fumarolically active volcano Solimana (pictured) has been identified as the site of an Inca oracle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Solimana (volcano). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Solimana (volcano)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Question Regarding Deleted Page

Hi, just wanted to ask a question about the "List of Running Man missions in 2013" that was deleted about a year ago. I'm thinking about making new page for that and for 2016 since they don't exist, but I would like to know why only the 2013 page was marked for deletion with the rest seemingly untouched. The page for 2012 has a similar style to the deleted page, but has stayed intact. If I created a new page for this, what would I have to do to make it acceptable for a new page creation? I would ask this on the Talk page, but that doesn't exist right now either. Only 3 people voted it for deletion, and I don't see an attempt from them or other users to revise the page to better fit Wikipedia's list standards before it was slated for deletion. And I believe that one of the voters had a subjective opinion in regards to their reasoning to delete the page in the archived debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FBE0:5510:FD8B:8B85:EC0:6AB7 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. The reason why List of Running Man missions in 2013 was deleted and no other page was is because no other page was mentioned proposed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Running Man missions in 2013. Subjective opinions aren't all bad in an AfD debate, sometimes a judgment call is needed. And not all articles can be saved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lake Cahuilla

Hello! I am not quite certain about the GA review that was seemingly done by yet again another relatively inexperienced editor in around 30 minutes, but I see that you have expressed similar concerns. I didn't find any concerns after several spot check, but it's 3 AM and I am not the best person to scrutinize well written articles with much technical details. Hopefully we will be fine this time! Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I had a bad feeling about that review, especially when they didn't notice templates like 150,000,000 tonnes per year (4,700,000 long ton/Ms). I am guessing that since GA is very backlogged (there is a query on this talk page farther up about that) inexperienced users are trying to fix it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Lake Cahuilla

On 1 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Cahuilla, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lake Cahuilla, with a maximum surface area of 5,700 square kilometres (2,200 sq mi), covered parts of Southern California less than 500 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Cahuilla. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Cahuilla), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dan Weinstein

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. Since you deleted the Dan Weinstein (business executive) page, I just wanted to see if you'd be able to remove the dead link on the Studio71 page. I would but since Studio71 is a client of my firm, I don't want the community to think I am reverting back to direct editing. Also, would you be able to provide me with the latest draft you have of the page? Would be much appreciated. Thanks. JacobMW (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Um. I don't want the community to think I am reverting back to direct editing, perhaps it's best to leave the link alone then? Asking someone else to do the edit might be considered "direct editing", but by proxy. I don't think that redlink is very harmful, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I miscommunicated that. Not myself, but some other users who I was working with (which I have greatly learned from since then, thus, why I am coming to you). It is no problem to keep the redlink, I just figure since it's dead we should remove it and it wouldn't take too much time to do so. Would you be able to provide me with a draft of the Dan Weinstein page? Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a coward or a responsibility dodger, but I'll defer to WP:REFUND when it comes to that text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:REFUND says If your article was deleted through the articles for deletion process, then a request here is not the way to seek restoration. If you believe that the deletion was handled improperly or that circumstances have changed, please contact the administrator who deleted it. I fully agree with the deletion of the article, so I'm not trying to contest that. Forgive me as I'm still learning the ropes here, and it would be much easier if you could just send me the draft you deleted (I believe you are the right person as you closed the discussion). I am not asking for the page to immediately resubmit. I want to look it over, review any new sources, and eventually resubmit. It would be greatly appreciated. Let me know. JacobMW (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I closed the discussion, but for userfication requests I think that REFUND can handle them as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the two FAC image reviews you did during November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-49

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

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 December. It will be on all wikis from 7 December (calendar).
  • Very old versions of the Opera Web browser are no longer supported. This means that technical development will not be tested to make sure it works with those Opera versions. Use Opera 15 or above or another browser if you have problems. [14]
  • Almost 170 wikis with no high-priority errors in Linter categories will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. A few larger wikis such as German and Italian Wikipedia will also make this switch. It will happen on 5 December. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed in the middle of 2018. [15][16]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 5 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:UND#John Yates (Culadasa)

Can you undelete this article and move it to the draft namespace? — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC) edited

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Riverton Lock

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I was wondering whether you would be willing to return to this nomination and continue your review. As I have been accused of newbie biting, I think it's best I stay away going forward. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Hi - I have a question. I received a notification that a student of mine had posted some copyvio to an article. I'm not entirely sure if the sites' licenses are compatible with Wikipedia, so I wanted to double check before I do anything. The article is Disability in Australia and the places that the content was taken from are The Conversation and the Australian government. It looks like the Conversation source would be considered a copyright violation since we're not able to change anything from the source material, but I'm not sure if the [http://www.beta.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/%A9+Copyright?opendocument Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia licence is compatible or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. First off, reinserting a copyright violation is something you absolutely must not do. Based on this the theconversation content isn't OK to host here but the Government stuff is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Tamplin

Umm, why did you delete him? It makes no sense to delete an article where the consensus was split down the middle. I didn't understand your argument either, the keep side had more details for keeping the article over the delete side. Govvy (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, consensus is not a matter of head count but also of strength of argument. In this case the several people who addressed the sources in some detail and called them insufficient win out over the several people which didn't address these points. In addition, as per WP:DAILYMAIL using the Daily Mail for sourcing is questionable, never mind notability. Finally, arguments that the Billericay FC is notable are an argument for making an article on the group. I personally have never really liked the "but it's routine coverage so it doesn't count towards notability" since I am a true believer of the WP:WHYN arguments but my views do not reflect policy or practice here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed the Daily Mail citations and replaced with BBC News and Sky Sports to fix the WP:DAILYMAIL. The only routine citations were the ones related to the transfers. The main citations were video interviews from some of the biggest news agencies in the UK. In fact I avoided using the tabloid agencies as citations in the article, but the main bulk of google searches come up tabloid, I truly think a few of the delete votes were lazy votes and they didn't review all the information at hand. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Could be. I don't have a particularly good grasp on the reliability of the sources in the article, but it seems like many of them were passing mentions or more focused on the group than on Mr. Tamplin. Others weren't. Are there additional sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't do much research for his business, I went down the football route, because major news services where interviewing him over his purchase of the football club, they were interviewing him, saying he isn't notable defied logic to me, why would each major news service be interviewing a guy if he wasn't notable or news worthy?? How many people can afford to buy multiple Ferrari's, that was tabloid enough for the tabloids! It's the eccentricity which is highlighted and that is what makes the article. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50

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

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 December. It will be on all wikis from 14 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Localizing_the_SDGs&action=edit&redlink=1

Dear Jo-Jo Eumerus,

Following the instructions of this message: "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."

I have created the page that was deleted, and even if I have carefully revised what was being said in the discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Localizing_the_SDGs ) and added many modifications, my page was still deleted. Therefore, I am contacting you to understand why my page was not considered suitable to be part of Wikipedia. The main argument of the discussion said that the page was an essay, so I have removed all the elements that made it look like it and made sure all that all the content there was refered.

I apologize in advance for my inexperience on writing Wikipedia pages. Nevertheless, I really put a lot of effort to develop the content and as I am intending to add it again, I would like to first have your advise on how I can better do it.

Thank you very much for your advice on how to best proceed.

Kind regards, Anna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaEstrada (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@AnnaEstrada: It seems like the problem was that what was written there was fundamentally not suited for Wikipedia: It was not so much an article as much as a comment on the Sustainable Development Goals and thus not really worth of an article. The last version still looks like an essay for me, for what it's worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jo-Jo Eumerus,

I am sorry, but I would have to disagree with you. The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals are a global agenda and therefore, its concept and implementation follows a different logic of what it is being presented with the Localizing the SDGs. Therefore, in order to help others to understand this concept I have decided to add this page. I am a student and I have recently finish a long study related to this topic. I have spent the last 6 months researching about it, and that is why I can ensure that the information that I gathered and want to add is useful, since during my research I would have wished that this information was available online and in one place. I will add the page again, following the 2015 Post-Agenda page structure and format, so hopefully this does not look like an essay to you, but I am still glad to receive your feedback on how things can be improved.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaEstrada (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Apacheta-Aguilucho volcanic complex

Thanks for pointing it out; I've remedied that item. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hi Jo-Jo, I just logged in to Wikipedia and found a message pointing to a deletion of an article I initiated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_Wan. I get that the decision was to delete it, and I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to register why I thought the article merited inclusion. It is true that not every councilor should be included in Wikipedia, and I understand that not every "first" should be included either, but I disagree with the assertion that the person in question is not notable. 1) Oakland is major city. It is underrated, but it is. 2) The councilor in question brought the first gay pride celebration in the city in the late 1990's, as noted by a primary source. That's not notable these days, people take that for granted, but back then, for a city in the San Francisco Bay Area, I think that it is. 3) I felt the article was well-written enough and sourced enough to ensure the other biographical references are substantiated (e.g., year of graduation, etc). So I am disappointed that it was deleted, rather than say re-written; but I will defer to the decision; though I would appeal to re-instating it if granted the chance. Given the list of Oakland councilors currently extant, and the standard by which "notability" is granted for "non-notable" offices, I would not count most of these folks to have biographical articles in Wikipedia (except say, the current and past mayors of Oakland). But they are still there (doing your job or being accused of something (notoriety is not notability) should not be a standard for inclusion). So I'm perplexed by the standard Omandra (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that for an article to stand it needs to have good independent reliable sources, which the previous article lacked. Oakland is not such a major city, certainly not in comparison to Los Angeles or New York City. Merely being related to something noteworthy likewise is not a good proxy for notability. So you'll need to find these reliable independent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tolmachev Dol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

GA reviewing

Hi, as a fellow-user of the GA process, I would like to invite you to consider reviewing one or two article in the GA nominations queue. The process is as you know intentionally straightforward, and involves checking an article against the GA criteria that you are familiar with. Guidance is provided on the GA pages. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article for Günter Bechly?

Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I saw you were the fellow who made the very thoughtful close to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly. I was considering rewriting the article on the basis that it passes WP:GNG, especially seeing as the close itself got some media attention which adds to potential sources. Sources:

Ironic that the deletion of his article for non-notability might actually lend itself to his notability. What do you think? Is it WP:ONEEVENT? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How many of these are reliable sources? I'd be inclined to punt this to WP:DELREV, also because WP:BLP1E might apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is a large Israeli newspaper and is certainly reliable. PJ Media is a conservative news blog, less reliable but not entirely unreliable. The rest of these are mostly Christian publications. Certainly biased, but still sufficiently reliable and independent of the subject. In terms of BLP1E, #1 applies in this case. #2 doesn't necessarily, because this guy is still a published scientist (with past work on insects [23]), and he is currently high up at the Discovery Institute. We may very well hear of his work again. And I don't think #3 applies., seeing as Bechly was very much at the center of these articles. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
See, to me these things read in part as being more about his Wikipedia page than about Bechly. I am still not certain about this, so I am going to repropose DELREV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Archive_31&oldid=816857997"