Jump to content

User talk:Powderday

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Picture of the day!

Hello, Powderday, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Happy editing! — Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready for editing?

[edit]
The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi Powderday!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by — Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Listed sources are simply announcements, interviews, listings, mentions and blogs, none of them establish significance in notability and we need major independent news instead.
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.
SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Powderday/sandbox has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Powderday/sandbox. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:People's Cube has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:People's Cube. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:People's Cube has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:People's Cube. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:People's Cube

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:People's Cube, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powderday, as you can see over on User:Exemplo347's user-talkpage, this was just a good-faith error. The G4 criteria specifically excludes draftspace-re-creations, but those WP:CSD criteria are nutty-complicated. Anybody can request deletion, or request CSD-deletion even, but only admins (who have by necessity memorized the various gory details) can actually delete stuff. Though per WP:REFUND any admin can also undelete stuff, if the deletion was accidental. See for instance Comparison of Robotic Simulators which just recently a nice admin undeleted for my use. The only time when re-creation-in-draftspace is NOT permissible is when copyright-infringement is involved, or for attack-pages, or similar. In your case Powderday, the admin who explained the draftspace exception to the G4 rules was User:samtar, so give them a nice thank-you, and if you have wikipedia-process-related-questions Samtar might be able to assist. You might also ask Samtar to double-check my analysis of whether Billionaires for Bush ought to be sent to AfD or not, if they have a minute to check. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no worries - deletion policy is straightforward in some areas, and almost an entirely different language in others. Do feel free to drop by if you do have any questions. As for Billionaires for Bush, I don't believe it would be deleted at AfD, and you're quite right in your analysis 47.222 - that being said, if you (Powderday) feel you have a policy-based reason for deletion then AfDing the article will at least allow other editors to consider and discuss your reasoning. Thank you for engaging with us in your creation of Draft:People's Cube - by communicating you vastly increase the likelihood of developing a draft which will meet our criteria for inclusion -- Samtar talk · contribs 13:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments, you in special Samtar for explaining the deletion tag. greetings Powderday (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:The-Peoples-Cube.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:The-Peoples-Cube.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no point in messing with image-uploads right at the moment. The copyright-rules for draftspace articles like Draft:People's Cube are even more byzantine than the copyright-rules for wikipedia articles in mainspace, and that is REALLY saying something. Imagefiles and other decorations have nothing to do with satisfying WP:GOLDENRULE, the only thing that matters for that is WP:SOURCES. See below for analysis of what is needed. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD

[edit]

Information icon Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Billionaires for Bush but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. — Sam Sailor 18:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Powderday (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the group easily passed WP:GOLDENRULE to me. Here are the refs in the article, with my own numbers to indicate their best refs (group#1 is a set of refs, #2 is the next-best, and so on). Just looking at the top three ref-groups, I see multi-paragraphs-about-BFB in NYT'04, multi-paras-on-BFB WaPo'05, and multi-paras-on-BFB CNN'00, plus Boston Globe, some local Philly papers, then various blogs/etc. Easily passes WP:GNG aka WP:GOLDENRULE, though not by "much" compared to e.g. John Kerry. Big-name publishers, in-depth coverage, spread across many years, spells WP:GOLDENRULE. Here is the detailed summary:


  • local#4A, Zuckman, Jill. "Forbes signs N.H. anti-tax pledge; flat-tax proposal protested as elitist by Boston group", The Boston Globe, March 17, 1999
  • meh#4B, Vozick-Levinson, Simon. "'Wealthy' Protesters Make Case Outside DNC", The Harvard Crimson, July 30, 2004


  • local#5A, Shaffer, Gwen. "C'mon Buy!", Philadelphia City Paper, July 27, 2000
  • local#5B, DiFilippo, Dana. "Funny way to run a protest", The Philadelphia Daily News, July 29, 2000


  • ref#3, "Nader tossed off grounds at debate site", CNN, October 3, 2000


  • ref#1C, Hitt, Jack. "The Birth of the Meta-Protest Rally?", The New York Times, March 28, 2004.
  • borderline#7, Trav S. D. "The Art of Party Crashing: Artists and activists stockpile Dick Cheney jokes, Dubya drag, and phalluses in preparation for the Republican invasion", the Village Voice, July 27, 2004
  • ref#1A, Trigaux, Robert. "Satire in the streets", St. Petersburg Times, August 31, 2004
  • ref#1B, Dwyer, Jim. "Is Satire in a Slump? 'Yes' and 'No'", The New York Times, February 16, 2008
  • meh#1D, "Editorial: The Convention Papers", The New York Times, August 18, 2008


  • ref#2, Montgomerry, David; and Vargas, Jose Antonio. "The Anti's Antidote For the Bush Blues: Counter-Inaugural Ballgoers Don't See Red", The Washington Post, January 21, 2005.
  • borderline#6, Sycamore. "Inauguration Guide for Pissed-Off Patriots", Daily Kos, January 13, 2005


That is exactly the sort of thing that is needed, to justify Draft:People's Cube and the parent-article of Draft:Oleg Atbashian. It does not have to be those specific publishers, but it has to be books/tvNews/academia/newspapers/similar, the more well-known the better. It can be foreign-language coverage, or English-language coverage. It can be online or offline-only coverage. But it has to be independent, multi-paragraph-depth, respected-publishers, preferably spread across multiple years. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have also done a similar analysis of the top-three-refs for TPC over at Draft_talk:People's Cube, and the top-N-refs for Oleg+CFK+TPC+GMU over at Draft_talk:Oleg Atbashian. I think I already pinged you about those Powderday, but just in case anybody else is talkpage-stalking, will also mention it here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't panic but CFK is now in the wiki-oubliette

[edit]

You may have noticed Communists for Kerry turned into a redlink, but no worries, I have asked for it to be restored, please see User_talk:RoySmith#request_for_WP:REFUND_x3 for progress on that front.

I will continue to work on Draft:Oleg Atbashian, and with our recent efforts I believe we are coming close to achieving WP:GOLDENRULE for that biographical article, which will of course contain Draft:Oleg Atbashian#Communists for Kerry as well as Draft:Oleg Atbashian#The People's Cube.

Although this is a discouraging moment (for beginners on wikipedia -- you become immune to wiki-tradegy after awhille when you realize it is all just electrons), please do not lose heart. I have enjoyed working with you thus far, and would like to complete our work, and get Draft:Oleg Atbashian turned into a bluelink in mainspace. Best, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for your consideration

[edit]

Hi again Powderday (fka Powderdry ;-)

I'm not sure about the closeness of your connection to the topic-matter of Draft:People's Cube and the related Draft:Oleg Atbashian, but if you will peek at the instructions I left for User_talk:Atbashian#how_to_make_a_userpage and the detailed steps and explanation at User_talk:Snit333#since_we_are_starting_to_think_about_mainspace, you can make a judgement call on whether YOU also ought to follow the steps that Snit333 has already completed and that Atbashian is about to start working on. If like myself you don't have a close connection, but only heard about the group/person via wikipedia, that is also fine and you don't have to 'disclose' something that does not exist  :-)

But in case you are a former CFK participant or current TPC participant, and especially if you have a close relationship with the topic-matter of Draft:Oleg Atbashian in any sort of financial capacity, then now is the time to start getting all the relevant wiki-paperwork organized. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bigger shovel

[edit]

Hi Powderday, you asked if there were any specific tasks, but then the thread got archived. There is a "bot" configured now, which moves stuff around to keep the page tidy. Rather than bring the section back, or start a new section, I figured it was easier to just answer you here.

...if there's a specific task to be done or source to be checked please let me know.
Yes, there are several things that need doing still. If you want some "assignments" (feel free to ignore me and do your own thing of course) per WP:VOLUNTEERS what I'm thinking will help are these:
But if those are not appealing, anything still listed on the talkpage, would be helpful. If you speak Russian you might be able to help with ru:snob.ru, and with Orlov in the newspaper fka-www.NRS.com, or perhaps with Boris Tenzer and the R.T.N. interview. Best, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS

[edit]

Nice edit to porencephaly. Some warnings, there are EXTREMELY touchy people in the medical articles, since vandalism (or just good faith mistakes) could lead directly to death, or even worse, medical malpractice lawsuits. If you want to edit there, read WP:MEDRS very very carefully, and remain 100% cool as a cucumber 100% of the time. You thought the politics-related articles were a bit ticklish? Cake walk.

Also, your edit was correct i.e. accurate, but used Wiktionary as a source, and your change also involved some WP:SYNTH on your part. (Did the URLs you provided actually *say* the word 'porencephaly' in them? If not, how can you WP:PROVEIT that the Greek roots are actually the etymology? Make sure the WP:SOURCES explicitly say exactly what you are summarizing, with no logical leaps needed on your part.)

What about wiktionary, as a source? Although it *is* at a different URL than wikipedia, it is still #1) part of the WMF project family, and #2) just a wiki with crowdsourced contents, see WP:SPS. Therefore, it is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR (and in some ways WP:NAVEL). You can link to helpful pages on wiktionary, like this: wikt:porencephaly. But you should NOT treat wiktionary as a 'ref' because it is not WP:RS. Who's the author? Anybody with internet access. Who's the publisher? Well, the WMF is the webhost. What's the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Crappy!  :-)

But after you read WP:MEDRS you will see that even RS-compliant dictionaries you might find in a deadtree bookstore by an RS-compliant publisher, are not good enough for medical articles. Again, the death thing, and the lawsuit thing. Pretty much the only sources you should use for medical articles, are sources you find on https://scholar.google.com -- even for seemingly 'simple' stuff like the meaning of the word. Make sense?

Its name is derived from the greek word πόρος ("hole") [1] and Κέφαλος [2] ("head").

References

  1. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82
  2. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%AD%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82

Above is what you have so far. Techie-related note, you don't need to paste the humongo-URLs. You can just say this:

Which works fine on wikipedia, you just sometimes need to copy-n-paste the english stuff and then do another copy-n-paste for the non-english stuff. But hey, that is a Witionary link, a sibling-project, so just use an interwiki-link, like this:

Or the shortened form which hides the prefix:

Below is what I suggest changing the mainspace-sentence into:

Derived from Greek roots, the word porencephaly means 'holes in the brain'.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ For the etymology, see πόρος / póros / 'hole' + Κέφαλος / képhalos / 'head' as well as the wikitionary entry.
  2. ^ Maria Gieron-Korthals; José Colón (2005). "Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in infants: new challenges". Fetal and pediatric pathology. 24 (2). Taylor & Francis. ... Porencephaly (Greek for 'holes in the brain') are hemispheric cavitary lesions that typically communicate with the ventricular system....

In addition to finding a source with ~40 cites on scholar.google.com which verifies the meaning of the term and the Greek-derived nature of the roots, the material wikilinking *to* the greek words themselves I moved into a footnote, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY here on enWiki. The sentence explaining the meaning is fine, the sentence giving the wiktionary-interwiki-links is better put in the footnotes. Also, as you can see, instead of using the full URLs that you had originally, I switched to wikt:πόρος. If you like my version better, feel free to ram it into the article (wikitionary entry is deficient as well but *those* folks are too rules-oriented for my tastes  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I will change it as soon as possible. Powderday (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atbashian: conflict of interest

[edit]
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Oleg Atbashian.

To whom it may concern,

I volunteered to help edit material relating to Oleg Atbashian and his website, The People's Cube, because of my previous experience editing Wikipedia articles and my familiarity with the content of The People's Cube. I have contributed to the TPC website with images and texts. I am not compensated financial for my text or image contributions, nor do I have any monetary interest in the operation of The People's Cube website or the sale of its merchandise.

oh-so-seriux warning, aaarrgh me hearties!

[edit]
  • ...we will only cloud the glinstering pirate treasure we have found with copper coins and ocean sand, aaargh matey. —Powderday

Shiver me timbers, don't ye ken there is NO TALKING LIKE A PIRATE HERE unless it is Talk like a pirate day???  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:People's Cube concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:People's Cube, 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. HasteurBot (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Powderday&oldid=1089570617"