Jump to content

User talk:Kj cheetham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Ways to improve Sam Edwards Medal and Prize

Hello, Kj cheetham,

Thank you for creating Sam Edwards Medal and Prize.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

We should have independent references, bot just the awarding body

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your comments - I've now added a couple of additional references, I hope this is sufficient for now? Kj cheetham (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That is an improvement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Kj cheetham

Thank you for creating James Joule Medal and Prize.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

There was a pre-existing Wikidata entry about the award, so I've linked to this article from it.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Blythwood (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tina Antolini (January 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please show WP:THREE external news source articles that cover Antolini's career.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kj cheetham! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tina Antolini (January 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Some of the sources are from Twitter, which isn't a reliable source. These need to be removed and replaced.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
MurielMary (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

IOP awards

Hi, apparently the IPO gives a gazillion awards, but as far as I can see, only very few (if any) are notable. Almost none of the award articles have independent references. Note that anything the IOP writes about its awards is not independent. Neither are announcements by companies or universities that one of their people has won such an award (almost invariably written as a press release). I am redirecting most of these articles to the main IOP article. Please only revert these redirects if you can add reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, personally I think mass redirecting rather than just tagging them to give others the chance to show notability is slightly overkill, but I'll leave them as they are. Cheers, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of these awards are obviously rather minor and may never become notable. And some that just might be notable I didn't redirect but tagged the for notability and sources. For the others, if anybody finds sufficient coverage to show notability, then the content is still available in the history. If you could find coverage for IOP awards in general, then a list article might be a good solution, with brief descriptions for each individual award. But in order for the list to be notable, you'd need at least a few independent sources that talk about the list subject (i.e., IOP awards as a group). --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lawrence Bragg Medal and Prize for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lawrence Bragg Medal and Prize 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/Lawrence Bragg Medal and Prize 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edit of User:RockMagnetist/Drafts/Louis Néel

Hi. Just wondering if you're aware that you edited a userspace draft. There is also the article Louis Néel in article space. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, to be honest I hadn't noticed that, and wasn't intentional! Thank you for letting me know. :) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Teacher of Physics Award. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, that wasn't intentional - I'd just meant to fix the redirect. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tina Antolini (January 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:
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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Insufficient evidence of notability for a Wikipedia biography.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
MurielMary (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I don't see E.L. in the voice, except in the correct section External links. Please use that template with knowledge.-- Windino [Rec] 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the template was that some of the external links would be better suited as footnote references. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

danah boyd

You recently categorized danah boyd as active in LGBT Studies. I know danah and I know her work, and I have never been aware that she done such studies. She does ID herself that way, but not a focus of her research.Bellagio99 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd only reclassed her page from "start" to "C", looks like the LGBT studies tag was already there. Please do feel free to remove the tag if it's not appropriate, or let me know and I'll take it off. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to do categories, so could you do it? Thanks. And sorry for the bother. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. :) For interest, I personally use a script from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kephir/gadgets/rater for things like that. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Carolyn Rodriguez

Hi K.J. cheetham, I was wondering if you could help me. My page for Carolyn Rodriguez was deleted and I did not have a chance to make changes before its deletion because it all happened in 2 hours. Is there some way to get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microglia145 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. That was very fast for it to be deleted! I'm not an admin so I can't do anything myself, but it looks like TomStar81 was the admin who deleted it after Graeme Bartlett taggged it I think. Your best bet is to go to [this page] and write something about why it shouldn't be deleted. Good luck! Kj cheetham (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If you're ever concerned a page might have copyright issues, one tool I tend to use first is https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ - can't be used for pages that have already been deleted though. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reasons to eliminate 'women scientists' category

Good day @Kj cheetham:!

I have seen that you have removed the category Women scientists from two of the biographies I have wrote. Is there a reason why you are removing this category?

Thank you for the information, Angel Manuel 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel manuel (talk • contribs)

Good day! It's because that specific category isn't for individual scientists, it's more an umbrella category for all the related sub-categories. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_scientists. It's better to use a more specific category, like the ones based on nationality, field, or period. E.g. "Women rocket scientists‎", and/or "Greek women scientists‎". Kj cheetham (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The E=mc² Barnstar
Thank you for all the work you are doing to improve the coverage of women scientists on Wikipedia! I'm happy that you are apart of WikiProject Women scientists and most of all happy you're willing to help out with arduous new articles. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 15:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! It's very much appreciated! :-D Kj cheetham (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Rate all as 'C'

Hi! I wondered why you rate most articles as C, even when they are quite comprehensive (i.e. Paul Cornely? What's missing? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I suspect overall I've rated more articles as just Start, but generally I do it fairly quickly and make use of the [ORES] machine learning score quite often. I should take it as an opportunity for improvement on myself to put a bit more human input into it. :) (Especially for marking more as B.) --Kj cheetham (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your approval of a change to Ronald_McDonald

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that the change to the Ronald_McDonald article you approved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_McDonald&diff=966835197&oldid=966765463) has been the subject of a little contention. The IP editor insists that one of the dates ("King Moody"?) is wrong, but isn't willing to (or can't) cite a good source. I've reverted the edit, and wanted to let you know why—it's not an indictment of you. Take care! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know! I'd originally taken it on good faith they were going to provide a source, and hadn't looked carefully at the page history. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem, and nice to meet you! (He's already tried it again, and I disapproved the unexplained, unsourced edit. Again.) Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Good luck, I hope you manage to come to a resolution! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards sections

Thanks for the pokes to cite facts wherever they appear in the article. :) - Astrophobe (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help ;) -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reminder on working WP:RMT

Hello,

Thanks for your contributions at technical move requests. Just wanted to give you a quick heads up to please remove any of the requests you successfully complete from the list after you do them. I noticed you did several but they were still listed when I went to work the list.

Thanks! -- Dane talk 16:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, ah yes, my mistake! I think I was thinking they were automatically removed by a bot. Will remember next time. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Kj cheetham. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not inappropriately relist AfDs

You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolate (puzzle) even though it had a "delete" consensus. Please leave these AfDs to admins to close instead. See Wikipedia:Relist bias. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, that was definitely my mistake. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tina Antolini concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tina Antolini, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tina Antolini

Hello, Kj cheetham. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tina Antolini".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Rule

Hi. Please change the name of the page back to 'Redskins Rule' as that is still the name of the long-standing "rule" and wouldn't change retroactively. Thanks. It was not a noncontroversial move. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I thought I might regret that seconds after I did it, utterly my mistake. I'll see what I can do. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It may get changed eventually, just seems like the historic name of a "rule" which wouldn't change with the team rename until maybe this years election. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye. In the meantime it's now swapped back round. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Duffield, VA

Hi! I wanted to drop by and tell you I un-did your acceptance of the IP editor's changes to the Duffield, VA article. He/she changed the 2010 numbers, and made the same change to the 2018 numbers, too. S/he then changed the year on that line to 2020. All without citing a single new source. S/he has been doing this frequently, too—in fact, it appears this is why the page was pending-change protected in the first place, only a few days ago. <sigh>

Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the info. I was taking it on (perhaps too much!) good faith they'd add a source in the near future, as they didn't sound completely unrealistic. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sensitivity analysis page

Dear Colleague

I did recently some cleaning/declutering work on the sensitivity analysis page, creating new pages for applications of sensitivity analysis as to make the original page less crowded. Unfortunately some of the text I moved (which I did not write myself) had copyright issues, so some of the pages were deleted and I go the blame for the offense ... never mind. I now see that the original sensitivity analysis page is marked for copyright violations. Since this page is quite old, may I suggest that the offense is in the opposite direction, from the page to the articles? Alternatively, if you can help me pointing to the offending periods I can rephrase. Thanks Andrea Saltelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltean (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. My apologies if you felt blamed, my intention was to merely tag the text itself, which was then deleted by an administrator. On Sensitivity analysis the bulk of the issue seems to come from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/variance-decomposition, but https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/samo and https://mc.ai/the-data-science-life-cycle-for-deep-learning/ are also potential places where text may have been copied from. The two tools mainly used for checking and comparing such things are CopyVios and DupDet (with the former being my own preference). I hope that's helpful to you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD Relists

Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I've noticed that you did some AfD relisting. I have some questions about some relists you've done:

  • How did you determine that this would be a final relist?
  • Why did you relist each of the AfDs below rather than letting it be closed as delete/soft delete?
  • Why did you decide, in light of guidelines and procedures, to relist this a third time without a relisting statement?

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. I'm going to chalk it down to a naive attempt at being bold and not being familar enough with the guidelines. I'm sorry if I caused trouble. I have since familiarised myself with the relavent guidelines and ceased relisting completely. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kj. I notice you've been active but have not responded to this message. I would very much ask for a response to the points made above. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, was just working my way through a bunch of tabs. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kj cheetham, thanks for agreeing to stop relisting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Kj cheetham. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ratings of women in economics

Hello! I see that you have been adding short descriptions and talk page ratings for women in economics. However, you seem to be rating all of them as "Low importance"--even women who have won MAJOR economics prizes, such as Erica Field and Emi Nakamura. Please reconsider.--EAWH (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I was intentionally not rating importance for economics, only "quality" of the article. I did however rate quite a few as low importance in terms of "women scientists" though. I'd agree they should be rated higher for specifically economics. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Why do you consider women who have won major prizes in economics to be of low importance as "women scientists"?--EAWH (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If they weren't notable they wouldn't have a Wikipedia article at all, and the majority of bio articles are ranked as "low". The rating doesn't make a great deal of difference overall, it's more important that the article is tagged with projects so a project is flagged if anything happens to the article, etc. I've inevitably made mistakes, so please do feel free to correct them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cat Hobaiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Byrne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about review

Hello! I saw that you reviewed the page: Yemima Ben-Menahem, which I wrote. What does it mean that you did a review for it? Do you think it is well written, And does this affect its presence in the search engines? thanks Naftalig (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I was primarily checking basic things as part of New pages patrol. This includes things like checking the article has enough content, has some suitable references and shows notability, has some wikilinks, and that other pages link to it, is in some suitable categories, part of suitable projects, no copyright issues, etc. Glancing at the article again now I can see no obvious issues with it, but might be worth adding another couple of references to the sub-sections of 'Philosophical work'. I don't think what I did will make any difference to search engine results to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Hullo! Thanks for your comments on the new Cat Hobaiter page. Is there any better way to find categories than guessing or looking at how similar people/things are categorised? Is there a list/tree anywhere? I have discovered Hot Cat, which is interesting but does not give suggestions. An obvious good one for Cat Hobaiter (primatologist) does not seem to exist. Is there any point in creating new categories? --MerielGJones (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! To be honest I'm personally mostly only familar with categories under the banner of Category:Women scientists.
There is a hierachy though, but I'm not sure where you'd find that as an easy to follow diagram. Wikipedia:Contents/Categories is probably the closest though, with Wikipedia:Contents/Natural_and_physical_sciences being the next level down, then Category:Scientists and so on.
Special:Categories is the master list, but harder to navigate.
Hot Cat is definitely helpful, especially for autocompleting categories when you only know part of the name, but it's not clever enough to suggest ones based on the article. Creating new categories is certainly an option, if you believe a new category would have multiple entries. For 'Primatologists', I'm not sure where it would fit best, somewhere under Category:Scientists by field, perhaps under 'Naturalists' and/or 'Biologists by field of research'? That's where things like 'Zoologists‎' fit at least. Or could even go slightly deeper to Category:Zoologists by field of research? Categories often fit into multiple places simultanously, which is also fine (i.e. categories themselves are also in categories). -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
MerielGJones, When I actually looked more closely, I found both Category:Primatologists and Category:Women primatologists already do exist!. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Kj cheetham I am sure I tried primatologist ... maybe mis-spelt or something. Many thanks for finding them!--MerielGJones (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comments to my new page

Hi Kj cheetham,

thanks for your comments on the new page, I did not know about the opportunity to send a page draft for editing to you first (this would have been good..). Just tried to translate a long existing german Wikipedia page since there were recently requenst from english speakers. About the "copyright" issue: there is a limited number of combinations of wordings for a CV, so if you indicate which passages you see as a problem, I can change those. Btw it is my own text/copyright from all sources.. I'm just not sure about the correct mechanism required to prove that or solve this issue. Thanks for all your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysseus3 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your message! To be honest I personally only took a relatively quick read over it as part of New Page Patrol, there is also the formal Articles for creation process available if that's of use to you for future articles you create, which you might have come across before.
For the Stefan Dübel article, it probably needs a bit of editing still for grammar, etc. I tagged it with the 'External Links' tag as it's better to have webpage links as references, rather than as external links embedded in the body of the article, or at least in the 'External links' section near the bottom of the article. It needs some references in the Biography section too, as it's a biography of a living person.
I'm not really familar enough regarding how to incorporate your own copyrighted materials, but is something you could ask about at Wikipedia:Teahouse if need be. It's better (and easier) to write things with different words for Wikipedia though where possible. The Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool highlights the parts it detected as being a potential violation.
As a final tip, you can sign your comments on Talk pages with -~~~~ to automatically add your name to messages, to save a bot having to do it. :)
-Kj cheetham (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Kj cheetham. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Philippine languages

What are you trying to do at Talk:Philippine languages (language group)? As you can see in the page history, the page was recently moved boldly from Philippine languages. Now that the move has been contested by Austronesier, the only sensible thing to do is to move it back. Nardog (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nardog Sorry, I think I messed it up a bit! The request went to 'Uncontroversial technical requests', then I moved it to 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves', then I believe someone else removed that request which I interpretted as a contest, hence opening a discussion, and oddly the tag already on the talk page had a nowiki tag around it, which I tried to remove. Also some confusion as the page seemed to have change name multiple times recently. I agree the whole thing should be reverted, so will leave to someone else to implement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. Someone boldly moved it a couple times, then Austronesier opened an RM to move it back, then the same person moved it again mid-discussion, and then I filed the technical move request and disabled the RM template because the move was done without discussion in the first place so no RM is necessary. It looks like ZI Jony removed it from RM/TR because he misinterpreted the order of events like you did, possibly misled by your reply there. Nardog (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I still plan to leave it alone now in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your prompt response and kindness , so far you're the only admin who actually addressed me as if I am a human and not a "stupid rookie". Stay safe and take care :) Glow--stick7 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, much appreciated! I should add though I'm not an admin, just someone who has spent too many hours on Wikipedia. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Move review for Crotalus concolor

An editor has asked for a Move review of Crotalus concolor. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page of Sensitivity analysis

Dear User:Kj cheetham, together with User:S.lopiano we have done the analysis you suggested to detect copyright infringements in the page Sensitivity analysis. The results are surprising, please give a look. Thanks for your help.

Andrea Saltelli 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltean (talk • contribs)

Many thanks for your comment, and I'll try take a look tomorrow. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Kj cheetham! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How best to check if a newly created article is 'substantially identical' to a deleted one?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Copy/paste tags

Hi! I'm working on the copy-paste backlog and I notice that I've deleted a couple of copypaste tags that you recently posted -- in particular on Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu and on Change management. In both cases, the copypaste source seems to be spam pages or copy-pastes of Wikipedia posted after the original content was added here. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to review those changes. Cheers! Themillofkeytone (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Themillofkeytone Thank you for following those up! Only one of those two was my actually tag, but I'm sure you'll come across more of mine before too long. :) You may also want to take a look at WP:BACKWARDSCOPY and the related template {{backwardscopy}}, which I only came across myself very recently. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Article tarkhan

In article name Tarkhan I would like to removed racial comments about caste influence in society.tarkhan is second to jat etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvir Malik (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Manvir Malik Please include a comment in the Edit summary when making such changes. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok my lovely friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvir Malik (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Handshake

The Friendship Barnstar
For your help in reviewing my newly created BLPs CanadaMaple123 (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
CanadaMaple123 Thank you, glad to be of help! -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Check this

Check this sockfarm and SPI casepage Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Punjabier. I've already added those two accounts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realised that as I was filling in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshit ghuman! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Check the Saini article also. After the main article got EC protected, this sock farm started spamming its talk page. They have been doing that for more than a year I believe. They have problem with some content in teh articel, which is properly sourced. Now he's hell bent on proving other castes of Punjab as "low-born", low caste, etc. There was also one in Jat Sikh article, who got indeffed for this kind of behaviour [1]. I didn't file an SPI that time, but it is probable they are same. I got a little upset about that warning though - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Alas difficult to stop completely for a situation like that, even with some IP range banning. I admit I was a bit hasty and didn't follow WP:DTTR, so I hang my head in shame for that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
That's totally OK mate. These sock farms I tell you.. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm often impressed by User:ClueBot NG and it's automated vandalism detecting, which I'm sure could be expanded more to detect socks, but slightly uneasy at taking humans more out of the equation and potential false positives. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the barnstar. A kitteh for you, as a token of friendship .

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Very kind of you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks man. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ISO 21500: Copypaste tag Suggestion

Greetings fellow editor! I see you tagged ISO 21500 for duplication. I tried to click on the URL you gave, but it's dead. I tried the Wayback and found a copy of the link from 2018 at for June 2018. Wayback says the very first time this site had this info was in February 2018. THe first draft of the Wikipedia article was mine in March 2014. See this link. It seems that the dynamic-strategies site in 2018 copied the 2014 wikipedia material verbatum. They should have attributed the material to Wikipedia but they didn't. I would like to propose removing the copy-paste tag based upon this inforamtion. Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Risk Engineer! Odd - that site must have died since I looked at it last month. I'd agree with you though they probably took content from Wikipedia. You might want to take look at WP:BACKWARDSCOPY in case you want to avoid other editors coming across it again if the site comes back online.
The other issue though is that the Overview section appears to be the same as that on http://www.gcerti.com/site/english/html/certi/21500.htm according to [2] - would you be able to take a look at that too? Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shirley Ze Yu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources in Battiston's bio

I guess the template you added in Roberto_Battiston#Life can be removed after my last edit... but I'd like to make sure you agree! --Lecciosauro (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lecciosauro, thank you for the message! And thank you for adding extra sources - I've now removed that section template. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Lecciosauro (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Stronghold 2 Page Link Removal

At what point is it unacceptable to post an external link on the Stronghold 2 page to an official fansite recognised by Firefly Studios themselves, and listed in the game manual of several of their games? Why is that an "inappropriate link"??Derginth (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Derginth, thank you for your message. I removed it as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, as most fansite links are to be avoided on Wikipedia. Also it doesn't count as an official site, even if recognised by the company, as per WP:ELOFFICIAL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I got confused because of the edit summary. Should have checked before undoing it. Thanks for this. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help, it's easily missed. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

My deleted article

Can you please move the deleted article about /zerion.net to my Sandbox?! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holtiana (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Holtiana. Unfortunately it's not something I'm able to restore myself, but please ask User:Liz who is an administrator who may be able to help. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Move of Starry Night

Hello. First of all, thank you for doing the moving that had corrected the title of "Starry Night over the Rhône" to the correct form "Starry Night". However, another admin undid your move saying it couldn't have been the object of a technical move but should have been done through a normal move procedure. As discussion on the move had been proposed months ago in the article itself, and as it seems just logical to me that the title of a Wikipedia article on a painting should be the official title of a painting, I would like to ask how exactly should a "normal move procedure" in this case be done. Thank you a lot. Arrasarro (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arrasarro, as it has proved to be controversial, you'll need to take a look at WP:RM#CM. Basically though you need to add {{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change.}} to the article talk page, changing "NewName" and the reason as appropriate. Don't include your signature or a heading, as those will be done automatically. This will generate a more formal discussion where other editors can either support or oppose it. I hope this helps. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's really rare to find a veteran who actually conserves a helpful, collaborative spirit. I've decided I'll be happy to just leave the article with the wrong title - I've done my part, not my problem if it stays wrong in Wiki. Thanks again and keep up the good and helpful work! Arrasarro (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry! Someone else may come along and look at changing it again in the future. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Steven Umbrello

I saw you put the Biography status for Draft:Steven Umbrello (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steven_Umbrello). I am not currently part of the Bio project, although I am looking to join. Could you perhaps begin whatever work is needed on this particular article as an example that I can follow for the other two biographies that I have written and that you have marked as part of the biowiki project? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi EthicsScholar93, thank you for your message. I'm not officially a member of the Bio project either really (but I work on a lot of scientist and academics profiles), but the article is obviously a biography, hence why I tagged it. Glancing at it, it looks pretty good already to be honest! Personally, I might cut down the list of selected publications to maybe 5-8, and I'd try to avoid giving a fact more than two citations, like you did in the lead for him being a managing director. I've also tidied the external links slightly. Independant reliable coverage is always important, as you may already know. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you so much for this and for taking the time. I will take care to make these changes! EthicsScholar93 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
EthicsScholar93 Do give me a shout if there's anything else I can help with. I should add I am a member of WP:WOMENSCI, which may also be of interest to you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gilgit Baltistan Medicos Union

Hi, I have to discuss the matter of speedy deletion of Gilgit Baltistan Medicos Union with you Kumail1293 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Kumail1293

Hi Kumail1293 How can I help? I don't remember the contents of that article, but it was deleted under WP:A7. WP:SIGNIFICANCE may also be of interest. I did not personally delete it, I only tagged it - User:Discospinster was the administrator, so you might want to discuss with them directly. Note though that if the article is not also supported by significant independant coverage it may be deleted for other reasons. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There was reference of news . Kumail1293 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a reference of news isn't usually sufficient. If you want to recover the article to move it to your sandbox to work on it further you'll need to speak to the administrator as I mentioned. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

UAA

In general, please, Wait until the user edits.. Cabayi (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Academy Graduation

CVU Academy Graduate
Hi, Kj cheetham, On behalf of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy, congratulations! You have successfully completed all assignments and have now graduated from the Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 89.5% – well done! It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program and do always note that the motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility. Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this CVUA role. Best. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cassiopeia, thank you so much, and thank you for all your time! It's been a very useful experience and I'm sure I'll have further questions as time goes on. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kj cheetham, Good day. You are most welcome and thank you so much for taking up this role. You can apply for Wikipedia:Rollback useright - see HERE since you have graduated from CUVA for with rollback right you can use Wikipedia:Huggle, a vandalism tool, which is very efficient, fast and effective tool for counter vandalism editor. When apply mention my name and state you are a CVUA graduate for the admin might want certain verification. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 10:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Kj cheetham. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Big thanks

Thank you for helping out and adding SD on Joanne Martin. EraKook (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi EraKook, glad I could help! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Val Curtis

Many thanks for deciding that the Val Curtis article is no longer a stub. Please can you give me an idea of what is/isn't wanted in a list of scientific books and publications, and any related links? The article linked to in 'See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions' does not include anything about publications. I selected some that were heavily cited from among her very many. Which ones would you advise removing? Should there be more commentary on why they are significant? You also have a comment about farms. Her research is on hygiene but mainly in a domestic (home) context and involving humans. I don't think her career was particularly involved in agricultural or animal hygiene. Finally, you have a comment about 'This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.' It only has 5 links in it, although 2 are to the websites of the publishers of 2 books? If I could understand what the policies or guidelines were, I would follow them. It would be very helpful if you could point me at a page in Wikipedia which has a good example of how to include a scientist's publications. --MerielGJones (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi MerielGJones, thank you for your message, I'll try and address the points raised:
  • The "farms" reference was just for "example farm", which is a Wikipedia term for the template I used for one of the tags: Template:Example farm - nothing to do with farms. (Technically it probably wasn't the best tag I could have used though I admit!)
  • For lists of publications, I was basing it partly on my own experience of the number of publications listed on other articles. MOS:LONGSEQ possibly applies to lists in general. For academic publications I generally say to only aim to list 5-10 max. Additional commentary is probably optional really. I couldn't advise on which specific ones to choose though.
  • For external links, that was due to having two external links in the Publications section, which aren't recommend in the main text. The other links aren't external. WP:EL is the full guidance on external links in general.
  • One method some people use to cite publications is using the {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} templates. Similar to how it done for references, but without the <ref></ref> tags. Some people also split into separate lists for journal articles and books, etc. but that's also completely optional.
I hope that helps at least partly? Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the explanations, Kj cheetham (especially about farms!). Very helpful.
  • I'll remove some of the publications from the list. I'll also see if it is possible to give a better sense in the 'Career' section of why some were considered so significant by her peers and collaborators.
  • The two external links in the Publication sections are to the page where the publisher of the book describes it. I thought that was helpful, but if that is not the thing to do, the links can easily be deleted. I do not understand the point of the ISBN number wikilink. When I click on the number, it goes to the number in a search box on a wikipage called Book Sources, and that takes me round in a circle to the same search box on the same page. Surely it is not meant to do this?
  • Also, many thanks for the tip about how to do a publications list using the cite journal or book template (and will generate using DOI apparently from reading the webpage you mentioned). I'll certainly try that out. Will save a lot of time! --MerielGJones (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • MerielGJones I admit I've not proof-read it, but glancing over Val Curtis it looks good to me! The only minor thing to think about might be to split the Careers section into smaller sections. A photo might help, but I also admit I've never actually added a photo myself. Regarding the ISBN link, it's not the best interface, but if you look further down on the Book Sources page it links to, it's got a set of specific links to find the individual book on websites like Amazon, etc. I'm not sure how fast the DOI auto-population is as I've not tried it myself either - it's done by a bot so not instant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Kj cheetham Thanks for the feedback - and a barnstar (!). The more I read about her, the more remarkable she became, and such a great loss. I agree about photos being a great idea but I've found them a minefield except for the few I've been able to take myself (which are plants and buildings, since I don't know the people I write about) or that happen to already be in Wikimedia Commons. I will have a think. --MerielGJones (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeated citations

Hey, thanks as always for all the page review work you do. I know I mentioned this to you and said the opposite before, but after dutifully going back to fix templates you added saying that sections contained un-cited information that was already cited previously in the text, I eventually went looking for a relevant consensus to figure out how I should be handling this. These cases have all been lists that summarize material that is cited inline earlier in the page when it's first mentioned, so I believe this is a case of repeated citation like the kind discussed at WP:CITEKILL. It would be fine to cite it both inline and in the list, but it does not appear to be consensus that you have to cite every single instance of a claim on a page every time it appears; if you cite it the first time you mention it, that's sufficient. But of course I'd be perfectly happy to be corrected about this if I'm misunderstanding consensus. It's not a big deal to name all the refs relating to awards and invoke them in the list too, but these pages take long enough to write from scratch that avoiding busywork that isn't mandated by consensus ends up really mattering over time ... - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message! I believe I was only tagging specific secions of living people bios which had zero refs at all in that specific section, rather than any kind of expection that every fact needs citing every time it appears. I'm by no means an authority on wikipedia editing and always learning myself too! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah OK, I see what you're saying. Thanks again! - Astrophobe (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gourd of Gratitude

Gourd of Gratitude
For many many many diligent page reviews Astrophobe (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Page Review for Ann-Sophie Barwich

Hi! I'm the creator of Ann-Sophie Barwich and it was my first wikipedia article. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on the Grade-C rating. What could I do/have done to create a better biography page for this scientist and philosopher? Thank you! FlybellFly (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi FlybellFly! Thank you for your message. To be honest I thought it was borderline C/B. Good work for your first article! For B I'd have hoped to see maybe a little more about her early life (such as when/where she was born) or life outside of work, if only a few sentances. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! There is an interview (I put it under external links) that does go into her life both before and beyond academia. However, I thought interviews were primary sources and thus are not sufficient as citation. FlybellFly (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the ORES tools says it's already a B article with 56.2% confidence! I wouldn't object if it was bumped to B as is really. Interviews are indeed primary sources, but it is okay to use them in an article. They just can't be used to show notability, and the article should not be based on them. Citing interviews is okay sometimes, there is even a template for it: Template:Cite interview. Take a look at WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. I've not looked carefully, but for stating uncontroversial facts it should be okay. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Very useful. I just added a note on birth city from the interview, used the template, and will add more details when I have more time. Thanks for taking the time to explain the different usages of primary and 2ndary sources. Very, very useful. FlybellFly (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Page Review for Sabina Leonelli

Thank you for reviewing Sabina Leonelli! I've improved the page with a bio and involvement beyond academia (in science policy), as recommended. Does this work at least bump the page up to Grade-C? FlybellFly (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi FlybellFly. Happy to help! I'd say it's now borderline Start/C, so I've bumped it up to C. Need to watch out for ideally not including external links in the main body of the article though where possible, and I thought the 9 inline cites in a row in the lead was a bit overkill. Maybe a "Selected publications" section might be better? Quite a few of the refs were missing the title, but I filled those in automatically for you using the Refill tool. Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I would love to learn how to use these tools! It was taking a lot of time for me to copy and past the title, etc., one by one, so I added just the links first. These references are all book reviews (indept, reliable, 2ndary sources) that establish the notability of the book itself, in addition to the Lakatos Award (which should be enough...). Where do these citations go, usually, if they are numerous? They are not articles written by the subject herself. Should I add the external links to the bottom of the piece, then, in the "external links" section? Thank you so much for guiding me through this. FlybellFly (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: just fixed many of the problems mentioned! FlybellFly (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot of automated tools available for things once you start digging around more, including for tasks like adding categories, etc. For the reviews you've already done what I was going to suggest it looks like! The other thing to bear in mind sometimes is to think do you really need to cite them all, as you can proof a point with just a few and beyond that can sometimes be a bit overkill. The external links section is less ideal for things like that, as that apply to just a specific part of the main article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Page Review for Rachel Ankeny

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to help review and grade my most recent work, Rachel Ankeny? Looking forward to your comments and many thanks. FlybellFly (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it in terms of rating it! Looks okay overall - I'd say it was Start/C, probably just need a bit more content to firmly push it into the C class. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for reading my page for Daisy L. Hung. I noticed that you tagged an external links issue. I have 4 external links to the organizations hosting Hung's talks and lectures. Each talk/lecture has also been properly cited by secondary sources. I was wondering what specific issue I could work on to better improve the page? Pjtian (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pjtian, I'd recommend removing all the external links to the organisations, as there is no need for them, especially not in the main text. The subsequent cites are sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. To clarify, links to organisations are number 19 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I see, thank you for letting me know and for linking the wikipedia page addressing this. I have removed all external links. Could you please remove the external links tag? If not, could you please let me know what other issues regarding the links I should be aware of? Thank you!Pjtian (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy to help. And done! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source Tag for ISHPSSB

As I mentioned on the talk page of ISHPSSB, I've added all the secondary and tertiary sources I could find about the society. This includes two to three obituaries, two research studies on the society, a Brazilian press release about the conference in 2017, a book that recounted the seminal meeting, blog articles on individuals I cited in the history section, etc. This is probably the best we can do for an academic society and more than most have done. Please let me know whether this is sufficient for the primary source tag to be removed. FlybellFly (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi FlybellFly. My original concern was too many of the references were to ISHPSSB's own website. The article is in a better condition now though, so I've removed the tag. I'd argue that if other societies don't have sufficient independant significant coverage perhaps they should be considered for deletion as may not be notable if none are found. Sometimes WP:OTHER is relevant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Kj cheetham,

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)

Una McCann

Hello Kj Cheetham, I noticed that you have been looking at my draft article for Una McCann and you have made some helpful edits, which I appreciate. As you could probably tell, I am new to Wikipedia. I am not sure if this is the appropriate area to ask you about this but what would I have to do with the blue links that have disambiguation next to them, is too vague and how can I talk to others who edit the page? I would appreciate any response or help, thank you. BiologyATP10 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi BiologyATP10. Welcome to Wikipedia! And thank you for your message. Looks like you've managed to work out how to solve the disambiguation issues already - it was a case of for example depression points to a disambiguation page, which is discouraged to link directly too, and Depression (mood) is more appropriate. I should add that in your infobox American, BS and MD should also be disambiguated. For finding others who edit the page, the best place is to view at the history page, which I assume is how you found me. Happy to answer any further questions you may have though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm TheAafi. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Afiya Zia, 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.)

─ The Aafī (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the intrusion, but I seem to recall you are a page mover? If so, could you help me figure out how to do a somewhat confusing move I was hoping to carry out (and which I don't have the rights to do)? Basically, I want to move Miss Honey Dijon to Honey Dijon per WP:COMMONNAME (she's not known by "Miss" anymore). But Honey Dijon is already a dab page and so I can't overwrite it. Should I just move Miss Honey Dijon to Honey Dijon (musician)? Or should I request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Thanks for any help you can provide, and sorry to ask such a nitpicky question. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi AleatoryPonderings, thank you for your message. No intrusion at all. :) I am indeed a page mover. Normally if there was no primary topic, Honey Dijon would be the DAB page, and would use (musician) for the person's article. However I felt that the person was the primary topic in this case. So I've taken the liberty of doing the required moves. I also fixed the redirect at Honey dijon (disambiguation) which was using a lowercase "d". The issue was that you would have needed to surpress the automatically redirect to do what you originally tried to do I think. I hope this is okay! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I appreciate it :) Hope you're doing well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Kj cheetham, 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,
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Fylindfotberserk Thank you! :-D -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Tag removals from Debbie Klein's page

Hi Kj cheetham. I added citations to Klein's page to verify her education and teaching credentials and experience. Her publications and honors appear under three different versions of her name: Debra L., Debra, and Debbie. Perhaps that is part of the verification problem. Thank you. Lolade1998 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lolade1998, thanks for making the changes. I've removed the tags. The issue was more a case of those sections not having any refs at all to easily verify the facts of a living person, rather than any issue with multiple variations of the name. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi again Lolade1998, You might also want to look at rewording the section on 'A Political Economy of Lifestyle and Aesthetics', as it's a bit too close to one of the sources when looking at Earwig's Copyvio Detector. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kj cheetham. Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the changes you suggested. Lolade1998 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Kj cheetham!

Happy New Year!

Kj cheetham,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anil Koul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDRI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Tag removal for page on Heather Grabbe

Hi Kj cheetham, I have modified the bibliography section of the page on Heather Grabbe. Now the external links are only in the titles of the publications, where publications are available online. Does that address the issue raised in the external links tag? Thanks! --User20200627 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi User20200627, thank you for your work, that is certainly much improved! I have reviewed the page again, and taken off that tag, but added two others. I feel the list of items in the Bibliography is a bit too long, and should be more just a representative selection and/or the highest impact items. 5-10 max is probably a more suitable number for an article like that. I have added a new section with a link to the Google Scholar page showing a more complete list though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Polish physicists by field

It's a container category; I want to make a similar one for other nationalities, e.g. for American physicists – categories about field of reserach are somewhat blended there with those about membership, employment etc. Categories with physicists by century have a container, so I guess a similar thing for field of research would be okay too. --Tarnoob (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tarnoob, Even Category:American physicists‎ only has 18 sub-cats and that's the largest number of any of the national physicist cats, so I feel that making an extra level of "X physicists by field" is a bit overkill. You might want to confirm consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics before making any larger scale changes. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Loop quantum gravity researchers

I just wanted to defend the LQG people category; I'm not sure if the guidelines specify it, but I believe that lists & categories are complementary. The way they present information can diverge; e.g. a list doesn't have to be sorted alphabetically and a category, by default, always is. --Tarnoob (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In the future, please reply on your own talk page, otherwise it makes things much harder to follow. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding British Comedian Bill Bailey to the Today's Date list

Hi there Kj cheetham - Following an earlier post (that you also picked up) I'd like to ask how to correctly add a notoriety to the Today's Date List on Wikipedia. Today it is the birthday of the British musician and comedian Bill Bailey (born 1965). I've noticed that he is not on the list - in fact, there's nobody listed under 'Births' and the year '1965' yet. I'd say Bailey is famous enough to be on the list. But, how do I add him correctly without the entry being removed 2 minutes later? - Cheers and thanks --> Kmilling (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kmilling, thank you for your message! I don't think I've ever actually done it myself, but the guidance is at WP:DOTY. The key part is "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. A blue link to a Wikipedia article is not sufficient." So you need both a blue-link AND a reference for it to not get deleted. I'd also agree that Bill Bailey was famous enough though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Kj cheetham - I'll read the WP:DOTY later today, and then give it ago. See if I can find external and trustworthy sources to validate Bailey's actual birthday. --> Kmilling (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Kmilling, I'm sure there must be something out there. Good luck! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

check orphan status

Hi KJ cheetham!I saw your orphan tag and cross-linked other articles to Kuo-Fong Ma. Please check.

Hi FlybellFly! Tag duly removed. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks!

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Wanted to thank you for the warm welcome! I'm doing my best to add to the coverage of healthcare and scientists on wikipedia, where I can tell you are a master. Feel free to let me know if you have any tips as I go along! Thanks :) RJorst10 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced I'm a master, but thank you for your very kind words! :) Do give me a shout if you ever get stuck on something, though I tend to stick more to scientists than healthcare really! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality criteria for bio articles

Hi KJ! We were wondering what criteria are used to assign quality ratings to biography articles. Reading Quality scale didn't help much. You recently rated Ally's last articles B, C, C, so you must be using some method, and we are all curious what it is :). Thanks! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 凰兰时罗! Partly based on having personally previously looked at literally 1000s of other bio articles, partly based on the quality scale description from other projects, and also fairly heavily on the ORES probability and rating, which uses machine learning. However, I admit I made a mistake with two of those articles looking at them again more carefully! I have reclassed the latter two as "B". -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
So, it was essentially a machine-based rating... Got it. Thanks for looking into this. See, at Wenard, we set high standards (at least that's what we think), and if something obvious needs to be improved, we want to know :). 凰兰时罗 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought they were all very good articles personally, and better than most I see! Though I looked fairly quickly, and didn't go to the level of proof-reading the grammar or checking sources. My only very minor suggestion might be to consider cutting down the lead (the part above the Contents) slightly. "B" is the highest I ever rate anything, because there is a separate process for nominating articles as "good" at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, which I'm not involved with. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood :). I'll pass the message to Ally too. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

LTA nonsense

Are you prepared to do the work required to fix her submissions? And this is the important part - at the rate she adds them.

Her errors are all largely predictable and easy to spot, and have the same root cause - she would rather be fast than do it right (and she genuinely believes the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, is her being the star, and everyone else cleaning up after her).

You must know what I am talking about. Stuff that just has no source at all, but also stuff where the source is in the wrong place, or is unreliable, or stuff that doesn't even match the source. Then there's all the usual traits of a slapdash editor, right down to the typos and copy paste errors.

She never goes back to fix these issues. She could give less of a crap, I think. She has never experienced anything here but praise and protection, for being such a manifestly poor editor.

You must have noticed. Day after day, she posts an orphan with no categories, and day after day, it's left to chance whether even basic stuff like that, is caught and fixed.

It's not an issue of skill or knowledge, it's just basic contempt for her peers. People like you.

So, if you're going to do the work to mitigate the pile of shit she is storing up for Wikipedia (because someone will eventually have to deal with all this backlog of work), that's great. But if not, I am frankly baffled as to why you would rat out those fixer accounts.

Please don't tell me it's because you genuinely believe sock puppetry is wrong, because it's not. WP:SOCK is simply a tool to keep insiders in, and outsiders out. It would be useful, if the insiders actually cared about basic stuff, like article quality, and the outsiders did not. Are you sure that's how it's being used?

Take a look at Acroterian. Has he helped Wikipedia today, or not? I could find no evidence in the references she provided that Duncan is a Full Professor, and I was the only person today (or yesterday) who apparently took time out of their day to fact check Jess Wade's latest article for basic issues like that. He is back to being one though. Why? You tell me.

Wow. Jesswade88 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Michelle Singletary, 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.)

DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Welton Taylor

Could you please hold off on Welton Taylor for, say, an hour or so? I am adding content, references etc., and the edit conflicts make it harder than it needs to be. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully didn't cause too much of an issue in the end. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding author Namina Forna

Hi there Kj cheetham - I just spent a couple of hours creating an entry for debut author Namina Forna. I created the entry using my sandbox, and then sent it for review by a Wikipedia admin. Much to my despair, I received a note, that it would take as long as 4 months for the admins to review it. So I was wondering if you know of any ways to speed up that process? I know the author is gaining some heat fast these days, following long interviews in magazines and newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Elle Magazine and The Guardian). Please, let me know what you think, and don't hold back on any advice you can give. - Cheers -- Kmilling (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kmilling! I've just moved it to the preferred location in draftspace at least, but I'll try and take a better look at it later. Unfortunately not a lot can be done to speed it up, as they are done in a fairly random order, and I don't approve AFC articles myself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like someone else has beaten to me to, and it's since already been approved and edited! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kj cheetham - Thanks mate. We'll have to see if someone can help with more citations etc. -- Kmilling (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kmilling, I'm sure more sources will be found in time. The novel is still fairly new, so understandably not many independant reviews of it yet. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Cheman Shaik Tagged Afd

Hi Kj cheetham, I would like your candid advice on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheman_Shaik. It has been tagged with Afd for having a low Google Scholar score (h-index 5) and lack of strong notability (though mentioned in two prominent daily news paper in India and UAE), but I believe as a computer scientist and inventor the subject deserves an independent article. There are 6 USPTO patents in computer science application to his credit. Thanks Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wisdomwiki 40. I originally tagged the article as a potential notability issue, but looking more closely, the number of papers and citations is far too low to show notability on those grounds under WP:NPROF. I'd normally expect quite a few 1000 citations in computer science on Wikipedia. Six patents is also not a lot by itself, and so would need to show their impact and how they are being used independantly by others to show notability, perhaps in commercial products? Regarding news papers, as per WP:SIGCOV, they need to be significant coverage of the person, not just passing mentions of achievements. At best it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and need to wait for evidence of notability. Personally, I'd be inclined to !vote delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please check my thinking on Raven Baxter?

Good afternoon (where I am), I have noticed that you and I touch a lot of the same pages -- or at least that you often check my work, for which I thank you!

Today I made an edit on the page for Raven Baxter, somewhat reversing a previous edit in which the editor felt Baxter could not be referred to to as a molecular biologist. I laid out my thinking on the talk page. I noticed you had made some edits to her page, previously. If you find you have some time, I would be grateful for your thoughts on my reasoning on the talk page and the wording I put in the opening sentence of her entry.

I am just learning, so I'm trying to do the best I can.

Thank you, Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad I can be of assistance! It's an interesting question, and I'll reply on the talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision Removal Request

Hi Kj cheetham, FM Global has found evidence of slander against one of our employees on a revision of the official FM Global wikipedia page. I noticed you were the moderator to force a new revision after the action occured and we were hoping you'd be able to remove the revisions entirely? The reason for this is due to DuckDuckGo caching which still displays information from the previous revisions. Could you please remove the following revisions from the "FM Global" Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FM_Global&diff=prev&oldid=992129702 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FM_Global&diff=prev&oldid=992130097 Thank you! 159.221.32.10 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Zach

Hi 159.221.32.10, thank you for your message. Unfortunately I'm only an editor and not an administrator, so I'm not able to remove revisions myself. If you look at CAT:REVDEL there should be a list of administrators who can help you though. If that doesn't work, take a look at contacting the oversight team at WP:RFO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Burton, Wiltshire =

Hi Having originated and maintained this page for some years. Whilst I understand the logic of changing the page title to Burton, Nettleton, it creates a new ambiguiy because there is Nettleton in Lincolnshire. I would be happier if it were changed to Burton Nettleton, Wiltshire

Best wishes Alc59

Hi Alc59. I'd only moved it as it was requested by someone else. I have no stake in it and wouldn't object to it being reverted. If you'd like it moved back I suggest posting a request at WP:RMTR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Hello, could you please take a look one more time at the article about the musician Ludwik Konopko? Yesterday you have marked it as an orphan article. I connected it to other site and some lists. Does it solve the problem? If yes, could you please remove the orphan tag? If not, I will further work on it. Thank you a lot! Best regards, Msciszewianka (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC).

Hi Msciszewianka. Thank you for that, it's no longer an orphan, so I have removed the tag! -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Quentin Skinner's Principal Publications.

Hello there Kj cheetham,

I've posted enquiring about this more generally on the Talk for Quentin Skinner's entry. But I noted your complaint (in your January 8th edit) about the 'indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples' in his list of principal publications. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I am a PhD student with a background in intellectual history and am thus--I hope--well placed to fix the problem. I noted that Wikipedia's manual of style states that 'Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.' The list as it stands is not exhaustive but is certainly very detailed. Do you think that Skinner's entry would merit an abbreviated list of publications in the article proper and then a separate entry for a list of works (as, I notice, the intellectual historian J. G. A. Pocock has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_J._G._A._Pocock )? I'm very keen to do this properly, and so I'd appreciate any and all advice you have.

Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gulielmus Rosseus, thanks for your message. From MOS:LISTSOFWORKS your quote is from the clause for "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists", and I'd interpretted Quentin Skinner (perhaps wrongly) to be more of an academic than an author. For academics such lists within the main biographical article are typically limited to under 10, as such lists are more easily found elsewhere online. However looking again, given it's listing books rather than just journal articles, it probably does warrant being a full list. Personally I'd be inclined to say WP:SPLIT it into a separate list as per Works by J. G. A. Pocock, though I don't know whether "Works by X" or "X biliography" is better. I hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Pradeep Adatrow

Hello Kj Cheetham! I noticed your recommendations on Pradeep Adatrow's page and added some external links as requested. Thank you for your feedback on this. Puppylove64 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! It might be best if you can incorporate them into the article itself somehow, rather than just as external links at the end. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for moving Lowerkoti to Lower Koti, I sincerely appreciate it! I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, and Lower Koti originally popped up when I was doing basic copy maintenance, and it's become somewhat of a pet project. So, thank you for the move! I hope to expand this article when I can find any reliable sources for it. Thank you for correcting the page! --NotThisEvening (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi NotThisEvening, glad I could help! That article definitely does seem some sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lalita Ramakrishnan American?

Hi Kj cheetham! You might be able to help with this. Thanks in advance. --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Annegret Hannawa

Hi, this article should no longer have an orphan tag, please check. Thx, --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlackPantherDesert. I'll remove the tag, thanks for letting me know. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kj cheetham. I fear I am personally being blackmailed and harassed by an editor (Dmries) with a personal conflict of interest against either me or Hannawa (?) in this article. Could you please help me keep this article professional in accordance with the true Wikipedia standards, and not this person's overly picky sourcing-deletions. Dmries has now almost deleted half the article with sourcing-arguments that are neither justified properly nor comprehensible. I would appreciate your help, since you were one of the first to contribute to this article in a professional manner along with myself and many others. Not sure where this sudden aggression comes from today, this doesn't feel right, there's evidently some personal attack going on here. Thanks! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi BlackPantherDesert, sorry to hear you've been having problems! I've not reviewed all that's been said about it, but your discussing it on the Talk pages was the right course of action. Dmries is an experienced admin, but I also see you've spoken to Johnuniq, who is also an experienced admin - so I'll leave it to Johnuniq to handle. It is possible to escalate it, but I don't think that's needed in this case. I hope you manage to resolve things! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kj cheetham. Please take a look at the "COI" discussion at my user talk page. I really tried to settle this issue with them with sincere kindness, on both their talk pages (Drmies and Johnunig). Apparently, these two editors know each other, and they are pursuing some joint agenda against me. They are not responding to my questions about the sudden mass deletions with any comprehensible justification. Instead, they give me fishy responses and patronize me -- now even on my user page! How do I escalate this? I am almost about to leave Wikipedia for this, I'm speechless that such behavior can be happening here. I'm hardly sleeping anymore because of their harassment. I was really just trying to do a good thing, and it's making me sick now. :-( --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi BlackPantherDesert, I'm not familar enough with the COI situation to comment, but it sounded like the latest thing was questioning where you got the image from, if it's something that wasn't originally public. I don't really want to get involved with that. If you feel you need to escalate things though, take a look at WP:ANI. Do make sure you read the things in the box labelled "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" though. It might also be worthwhile looking at Wikipedia:ANI advice before posting anything to WP:ANI. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivan D. London and Miriam London

Perhaps You "decided" the article to be "class=C ", but without refering criteria and giving an information about the board that decided. It seems to be so officially like decided by a university, by a government agency or even by a government itself. Please can You amend Your "talk" from January,24th 2021. Thank You. --Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Klaaschwotzer, the talk page already referenced the criteria in the form of the quality scale. There is no "board" involved. I also make use of the ORES tool as part of my assessment, and my past experience of having looked at several 1000 other article classifications. Of course I do sometimes make mistakes. Looking at that article again I've now bumped it up to a "B" for the Biography project, which ORES agrees with with 42.7% confidence, and included it within another project. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

I noticed you've been reviewing a lot of the new biographical pages I've created, thanks for taking the time to do so! Darfst (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help Darfst! I tend to keep an eye on the new women scientist articles primarily, but often end up reviewing other bios too by following various links. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Jane Setter

I would be grateful if you would explain your reasons for adding "needs additional citations for verification" to this article. It seems to me to be very much in line with other articles on academics in my field. RoachPeter (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi RoachPeter. The entire "Education" and "Career" sections of the Jane Setter article contain no references. If there are other biographical articles in your field you'd like me to glance at I'd be happy to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Could you clarify, please? Do you mean that information about education and career in an article on a living academic needs to be supported by citations of published evidence? RoachPeter (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Ideally for every biographical fact for a living person (WP:BLP), not just academics, an editor should be able to easily WP:VERIFY it. A reference for every sentance is usually overkill, but I'd generally expect to see at least one reference per section, which covers most of the facts in that section. They might already be covered in another existing reference, in which case the source should be referenced again.
Potentially even things like year of birth can be contentious in some cases.
As not dealing with establishing notability, it's fine to use primary sources (e.g. subject's own academic profile).-Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, got that. RoachPeter (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (as above)!

I appreciate your help as I trying to get information into Wikipedia. There is so much behind the scenes that I never knew happened. Cheers. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DaffodilOcean, happy to help! Do let me know if there is anything you get stuck with, and I can try and point you in the right direction. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I already have a question! I updated the list of award winners for the ASLO AC Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award and discovered questions about names along the way. In three cases, the name on the award links to the wrong person in Wikipedia. For Frederick Grassle, I figured out how to do a redirect to J. Frederick Grassle. But I am perplexed on two others. For Ronald Benner, the link goes to a Canadian artist. Benner doesn't have a page at all yet so I don't know what to set up as a redirect. For Stephen Carpenter the link goes to a musician, though on that page there is a note about 'not to be confused with ...' that sends you to Stephen R. Carpenter. Since the ASLO citation is to 'Stephen Carpenter' I suspect that renaming the award name to Stephen R. Carpenter would be wrong. But perhaps there are other solutions? Thanks in advance.--DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi DaffodilOcean. Glancing at A.C. Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award I see for Frederick Grassle you've done it as a redirect, but the other option is to pipe it - take a look at WP:PIPELINK. For Ronald Benner, given there is potential for confusion and the actual article doesn't exist, I'd say just remove the wikilink. And for Stephen R. Carpenter, looking at https://www.aslo.org/aslo-awards/2019-aslo-award-recipients/2019-a-c-redfield-lifetime-achievement-award-recipient/ I'd say pipe that as well, or just include the R. on the award list. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Perfect. The pipelink was what I was missing. I will also correct the no citations in the table. Thanks.DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Need help renaming/moving an article

.

Hello Kj cheetham, Thank you for your comment. I disclosed my employment on my userpage now. Could you help me move my page User:S&J-mdusoffice/JohannesFleischmannEnglish ? Renaming it simply to "Johannes Fleischmann"? I haven't done enough edits yet to move it myself but I'm not sure if I can do it via the technical request page now, or not, considering my COI.

Hi S&J-mdusoffice, I've moved it to Draft:Johannes Fleischmann in the short-term, and added your COI note to the corresponding talk page. You'll need to submit it to the WP:AFC process for review before it's published, which isn't something I'm involved with. If you go to your draft page, and in source mode add {{subst:submit}} to the top it should submit it. I hope that helps. The process can sometimes take up to a couple of months though, as there is no particular order they are reviewed in. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alice Thompson (musician) (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
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 music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kj cheetham! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Missvain (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about Cindy Lee

I think I am ready to put the Draft:Cindy Lee (chemist) into review at the mainspace (not sure that is the correct phrasing but I think it's ready for broader sharing). However, I would like an opinion on what to use as the title. I started the page as Cindy Lee (chemist), but poking around different corners of Wikipedia also finds Cindy Lee (oceanographer) as a red link at Women in Red / Women of the Sea, or Cindy Lee (scientist) at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Geoscience. These are all true, but what is the process to decide which would be best?

Thanks also for cleaning up pieces of pages that I have been working on. I am trying to use your edits in future pages. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi DaffodilOcean, thanks for your message. WP:NCBIO is probably for appropriate guideline for you to read. As long as it's a single word, to me it boils down to which is she most well known as? I don't know, but (scientist) might be a good comprise, if there are no other scientists with the same name, and she's multidisciplinary. I'd add a hatnote to Cindy Lee once the article is in mainspace too. If others disagree with the name, can always open a move request discussion at a later date to establish concensus. Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - this helps. From your comments and the WP:NCBIO page, I think scientist is the best place to start (and I learned a new term (hatnote - I had to look at that up).DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Glad I could help. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Since there are at least three pages with Cindy Lee, I setup a disambiguation page (here). But then I got hung up as I could not move the page because of the existing redirect [Cindy Lee --> Cindy Lee (businesswoman)]. Before I break too many things, can you give me a hand here? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Your best bet is just edit the Cindy Lee page directly at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cindy_Lee&redirect=no - removed the redirect and make the DAB page there. Fine to just copy and paste in this instance, as there's no page history to worry about. The alternative would be to request a page move at WP:RMTR, which is something to be aware of in the future if nothing else. Or just ask me, as I've got page mover rights. :)
I've also discovered there is a Cindy Lee Van Dover, who also works in oceanography, so some hatnotes probably are still needed to avoid confusion. You might even want to include an entry on your DAB page to search for all articles starting with "Cindy Lee". Give me a shout if you'd like an example of that! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have the DAB page setup (with the three names and the search for others with Cindy Lee). I went back and forth about specifically mentioning Cindy Lee Van Dover on Cindy Lee (scientist), but in the end did not. I can be convinced either way. Thanks for your help. This has been very helpful.DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking good. For interest, your other option for hatnotes on the main pages linked from the DAB is {{Other uses|Cindy Lee}}. I don't know what's best for hatnotes though, so shall leave it up to you! Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for editing and reviewing

Thanks for all your efforts editing and reviewing! Particularly as a Wikipedia newbie this has helped me a lot (and encouraged me to hopefully contribute further articles)!TuriLi (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

TuriLi Happy to help! Do let me know if there's anything in particular you need help with too. Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kj_cheetham/Archive_1&oldid=1143117618"