Jump to content

User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29

BloxyColaSweet Request

i removed the scratch link, so i hope your very statisfied. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet Yes, I am for now. Thank you very much. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Speedy700 on Talk:Vons (13:45, 10 August 2022)

I invested in vons stock market years ago was wondering am I still in --Speedy700 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Speedy700 Your question does not seem relevant to our work in building an encyclopaedia. Am I missing something here? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Gustavlopez38 (17:32, 14 August 2022)

Hello Nick, nice to connect! --Gustavlopez38 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gustavlopez38 Hello there, and thanks for dropping by. Creating an article from scratch is the very hardest thing any editor can do - and many times more so if that user has never edited Wikipedia before. I advise against trying until you have learned the basics. The key thin to understand is that Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business (see WP:PROMOTION) and that no article would be permitted if the business is not deemed 'notable' by our criteria. You should read WP:NBUSINESS, which lays put precisely the criteria are that we need to meet 'notability'. To save you a lot of heartache, why not drop by by again and let me know the name of the business and leave me the three best Reliable Sources that talk about that business in detail and in depth in an independent manner. If you are unable to do that then I'm afraid you would simply be wasting your time trying. If you think there might be a chance, you might then want to read "Your First Article" for further advice, and this page on your obligations to declare any conflict of interest you might have. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nick, i attached the articles and company name:
New Department www.newdeptclub.com
https://www.modaes.com/empresa/la-start-up-de-gafas-new-department-levanta-200000-euros-y-abre-su-capital-a-un-ex-hawkers
https://www.businessinsider.es/albero-zurano-fundador-new-department-gafas-cruzan-fronteras-994227
https://www.modaes.com/empresa/new-department-pone-el-foco-en-el-extranjero-para-triplicar-su-facturacion-en-2022
Thanks Nick Gustavlopez38 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Gustavlopez38. I appreciate you giving me these links to check out. I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but those links are not acceptable at all to support notability. Insider press releases, business fact sheets and so on are quite irrelevant when it comes to us determining [WP:N|Notability]. Had three or four major news outlets run really detailed pieces about the company, then we'd look more closely at them. Right now I'm afraid there is absolutely no chance of having an article here based on those sources. Maybe it is simply WP:TOOSOON. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, i will continue working. I had a mistake because i published a small edit. im trying the optiones. Best regards. Gustavlopez38 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
How can I add a warning that the page is under construction?
It would be important to add it to show that we are working on the article. Gustavlopez38 (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gustavlopez38 Who is "we"? Does more than one person have access to your account?
Either way, I've got be frank with you, your page Draft:New Department (Brand) is going to get 'speedily deleted' pretty soon. From the links you've shown me there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO CHANCE of it becoming an article. So, my advice as an administrator here is stop now and, seriously, don't waste your time. We don't allow users to WP:PROMOTE their businesses here - and I fear you would be doing just that. So please stop.
That aside, the answer to your question would have been to use Template:In use which is added to the very top of an article or draft page during the time someone works on it, but must be removed immediately that editing session ends. It cannot stop someone else from editing it at the same time, but simply serves as a polite reminder. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay Nick, very thanks, really. Sorry, im a worker from this company and had try with my job position. thanks Gustavlopez38 (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gustavlopez38 OK. If your boss told you to do this, please tell them we take a dim view of people abusing the volunteer force of Wikipedia to get free promotion. Because you came to me as your 'mentor' I took a much more lenient view than had I simply encountered your draft by chance. Clearly someone else had, and took a firmer view. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

Greetings, I would like a feedback on the stubpage, Chondrilla acantholepis. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@BloxyColaSweet Hi, and thanks for asking for feedback. Could I turn it around by asking you, first, why you think this is a valid taxon to create an article about, and do you understand what a synonym is? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Well this is a valid taxon according to this page, Chondrilla. Ive heard that a synonym was a scientific name but now goes by a diffrent scientific name. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh and also didnt find synonyms for Chondrilla acantholepis. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet You must never rely on Wikipedia as a Reliable Source, nor ever use it to justify creation of other red-linked articles. You must develop and use your skills to find, read, understand and interpret genuinely reliable sources. There are many red-linked taxa out there that you could work on, but if you choose to get into moderately obscure groups and a minefield of synonymy without the ability to research them properly, you are best advised to stay away, and stick to many of the other 'low-hanging fruit' that you can be sure are accepted taxa. C. acantholepis seems to me to be a synonym of C. juncea. Would you agree?
Please investigate further (but don't use Wikipedia) and let me know your thoughts. If you can show me links to support your conclusion (either way), that'd be great. I ask this simply as a valuable learning exercise, not to make you feel awkward. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, thank you for the critique. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet You're welcome. But my question to you now (as one Wikipedian to another) is "what should we do now with this article, and why?" Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
May I ask, What do you mean? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Ill add a synonym. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
(Note: to Bloxy: I've re-instated your deletion, but have struck it through for you. If you delete part of a thread that someone has already replied to, it makes it very confusing for everyone. Just stirke through something you now realise was an error.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet Errm, no. That doesn't sound right to me. Which taxon is the synonym, do you think? If you can tell me the answer to that, my question asking you to tell me what should happen to this new page should then follow logically. If you think I'm wrong in what I'm suggesting, I'd invite you to link to sources to support why this is a valid article and why it should remain in mainspace. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the page should be removed entirely. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet Actually, no. I wouldn't go that far. Don't remove it. I think your page still could serve a purpose. Don't just believe what I say...have you managed to establish for yourself that C. acantholepis is an invalid name, and is just a synonym? I'd like yo to sure in your own mind that this is the case. If so, what you can then do is make a WP:REDIRECT to the appropriate page (assuming it exists) that does relates to the valid taxonomic name. Would you like to go ahead and tell me your thoughts and take the appropriate action?
(That "action" could include standing up against what I'm hinting at and telling me I'm utterly wrong in what I'm suggesting. I'm quite happy for you to do that (I'm not God!).So don't just agree with me because I tell you something.
By deciding for yourself, based on evidence from good academic sources that you can unearth, you will gain confidence when thinking about creating other pages, and you'll be able to argue your case with other editors by citing those sources. I'm not teasing you, but am hoping to teach you. Stand against me (using evidence) if you feel your case is valid and mine is wrong. Or show me why you agree with what I'm hinting at, and take the appropriate action. Don't worry: If we get it wrong, we can always fix it! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
PS: I'm off to bed shortly, so maybe when I wake tomorrow I might see you've decided what to do, and have acted on it. Like I say: if we get it wrong, we can always fix it! BEBOLD Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Well its a synonym, I dont know what else it could serve. Thank you for your criticism. Tho Im so confused! I dont know what you need me to so! All iI can think of is delete that page because its a synonym of something else, This is going to take a long time.BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Update : I have made a WP:REDIRECT to the page Chondrilla acantholepis. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I have decided not to delete it. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, I think C. acantholepis is a synonym for C. juncea. I can proove it. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet Brilliant! Well done. That shows critical thinking and improving investigative skills. I'm pleased and impressed that you concluded the same as me. The next step, of course, would then to be to edit the target page and to add the synonym parameter to the species box; then insert both the synonym, author, and a citation. But I've just done that for you with this diff. I always feel that if one creates a redirect on the grounds of synonymy, the target page needs to have a mention of that synonym somewhere on the page.
I apologise if I confused or pressured you. Understanding that one species can have many synonyms, and that sometimes even the same name can apply to two different species is really important. In the latter case, you have to include the name of the author of that species name when you're investigating it because sometimes two different botanists in the past have applied the same name to two different taxa. Using that name without the author can lead to even more confusion.
Take a look at the list of synonyms that one very well-known British flower, the Bluebell, has had over the years (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and you get a sense of how important synonyms can be. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok im going to bed shortly, I will do that tommorow. Cheers! as m BloxyColaSweet (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on Festuca ampla

Greetings, havent heard from you today. I would like feedback on this page. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BloxyColaSweet. I've been busy in real life. This is a lot more complete, and far more interesting than some of your other stubs. Well done. There are still a few things I would suggest you need to work on. Only include information that relates to that specific species, and not to the family as a whole. Thus "...and make caryopses" is pointless, as all grasses produce seeds that are caryopses. I'm not sure what you meant when you stated "These grasses often thrive in habitats that include sunny weather, dry soil and sandy layerings." I feel better use of English is needed here. What does "these grasses" mean? Does "these" relate to all the Fescues, or all the grasses? You wrote: " native and endemic " - why use both terms together? What's the point of this statement? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Nick Moyes. I will be sure to make note of this...... BloxyColaSweet (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I updated the page. Plus I added references of the synonyms. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet We’re getting there! This is a very odd phrase which could do with being changed: ...sunny weather, dry soil and sandy layerings. I genuinely have no chance idea what a “sandy layering” is. Was the man who first described this taxon also a novelist? I doubt it, so it’s incorrect to call him “the author”. That’s a very different thing to him simply being the ‘’scientific author‘’ of the species. Ive not encountered Hortipedia before. It sounds like a user generated site (like Wikipedia is). s such, it’s reliability might be in question. So are there other sources you can cite from that are more ‘official’? And have you checked others language wikis, both to find further sources that they might have used, and to ensure your page links to them via the language link in the left hand menu? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Nick Moyes. I will be sure to make note of this...... BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Unlike wikipedia, Hortipedia is a database that has a collection of plants, im intrested in plants and have been using Hortipedia, second anyone cant just edit Hortipedia, so its probably official. If you disagree why so? I would like to hear your thoughts. Also, I have heard that you said wikipedia wasnt a reliable source, so why get me to search on other wikipedia languages? I would like to hear your thoughts on that too. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Update. I have made some of your requested changes, and took note of it. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@BloxyColaSweet Yes - the English reads so much better now. Well done. It's important when we write that we don't accidentally introduce false information or allow wrong conclusions to be drawn that aren't valid or in the original sources. So that's a good improvement. Tiny point: you only need to put the subject name in bold once. The second use of bold should be removed, whilst of course retaining the italicisation. So, to address your other questions:
  1. You said: "Hortipedia is a database that has a collection of plants, im intrested in plants and have been using Hortipedia, second anyone cant just edit Hortipedia, so its probably official." I don't know who Romuald Ruffing is (though the site says he has a "diploma in business administration") but it looks like one person has made a website with some nice academic-looking content - perhaps their hobby. Quite where they sourced it from, I don't know. But that's 100% not a definition of "official". I'm not suggesting the content is poor, or that you shouldn't visit it, but Wikipedia needs to find the best sources, and this one looks to have gathered information second-hand from elsewhere. What Wikipedia should be doing is citing those official botanical sources - you know the ones linked to major botanical institutions such as Kew Gardens, the London Natural History Museum (where I worked in their European herbarium for a very short period as a student back in the 1979!), the Smithsonian etc, or websites that are consortiums of these organisations. I don't know if you appreciate this yet, but one of Wikipedia's greatest (but often overlooked) uses is not as a source of info, per se, but as a source of Citations which let a user springboard on to deeper sources of information on that subject. What Wikipedia does is use a bunch of us volunteers to collate and summarize information from good sources on a topic so that others can quickly get an introduction to it. If they want to go deeper, those reliable and often academic references are there waiting for them at the bottom of the page. So it's up to us to add them if we can.
  2. You are right to say that I told you "wikipedia wasn't a reliable source" (see WP:NOTSOURCE). And so you may ask "why look for other language wikipedia articles on your species?" Well, three reasons.
  • Firstly, you may find they contain additional (and more academically-sound) citations which you could utilise. (So you should check them all)
  • Secondly, you may find when you translate those pages that some of them contain information or images that you weren't aware of and which (having checked the sources) you could add to make your own new page in English even more complete. (So you should check them all)
  • Thirdly, having found that other language articles exist, you should connect your new one up to them so that all language versions are visible, irrespective of which language article someone is on. There's a link for yout o tie up those various languages and to add your to the existing multi-language pages.
Hoping this explanation makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thank you for your feedback, sorry for pestering you, I will look for help in the Tea House. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Graph showing 90-minute response time without the new tool and 39-minute response time with the tool
The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-35

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

Recent changes

Problems

  • In recent months, there have been inaccurate numbers shown for various Special:Statistics at Commons, Wikidata, and English Wikipedia. This has now been fixed. [1]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (calendar).
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 30 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 1 September at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).

Future changes

  • The Wikimedia Foundation wants to improve how Wikimedia communities report harmful incidents by building the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) to make it easy and safe for users to make reports. You can leave comments on the talk page, by answering the questions provided. If you have ever faced a harmful situation that you wanted to report/reported, join a PIRS interview to share your experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

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

23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

New Article

I've recently made a new article about the problematic genus Hanadirella and I would like if you would check it out and tell me what I should keep and what I should remove because I'm a bit sceptical on how good it is. Best regards from the Ediacaran Trilobozoan.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

Sorry for invading your discussion. There are only three noteworthy articles that seriously discuss the nature of Hanadirella.
El-Khayal (1985) noted the similarity of Hanadirella with Vendia and Praecambridium, but rejected their relationship.
Vannier and Babin (1995) and Meischnerare et al. (2019) mentions a Vendia and Praecambridium among others when he lists the variants of the similarity of Hanadirella considered by El-Khayal, no more than that. Ediacaran fossils specialists also do not consider the similarity of Hanadirella to ediacaran fossils. This version is dead. All specialists agrees that these are some kind of arthropods. I don't see any point in focusing on the superficial similarity of Hanadirella to Vendia and Praecambridium and even more so drag Yorgia and Proarticulata in here. Best regards. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC))
ah, okay I'll remove the parts which have those similarities from the articles. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It good Dray truly (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for warning me about the entire sandbox thing. Take this as a gift. Regards, Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dray truly (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Dray truly on User:Dray truly (22:54, 26 August 2022)

How to edit pic to your page --Dray truly (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea and enjoy seeing Commons images on Wikipedia
@Dray truly: I am assuming you have already found an image image you want to use on Wikimedia Commons? If not, go to this main page and type a keyword in the search box (it's at the top right in desktop view). If you find an image you like, but it's not quite the right one, you could click one or more of the "Categories" listed at the very bottom of the page. This helps keep related images together and helps you find others.
It could be like this one of a cup of tea that you want to use. Using an existing one is easier that a brand new image of your own that you would first have to upload from scratch. So, click on the link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps.
If you need advice on actually uploading your own image first, that requires a slightly different answer and a mention of copyright issues. Let us know if you need further help on that. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks bro but I don't know Dray truly (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Armored mud ball

On 30 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Armored mud ball, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that armored mud balls are formed underwater when fragments of clay or mud are rolled by moving currents, picking up a coating of gravel or pebbles that helps to stop them breaking down further? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armored mud ball. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Armored mud ball), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 6,859 views (571.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Moyes/Archive_29&oldid=1124767512"