This is an archive of past discussions about User:RoySmith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Your logged reason for blocking this user doesn’t really add up. The user could be someone who formerly edited as an IP, or could be a WP:CLEANSTART account, but you state you blocked it as a sock, without identifying who they are a sock of. It seems pretty flimsy to me. The block message you chose also does not align with the logged reason. (Also you failed to sign the block message when posting it) If there is more to this than the logged reason, I would suggest you clarify your reasoning there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe. But, their very first edit goes out of the way to state, This is my first edit, so an ex-IP or clean start just doesn't seem likely. If you want to unblock them, go for it, but I'm happy with my action. I'm all for encouraging new users, but we shouldn't be so blind to reality that we let obvious socks run amok. I did forget to sign my block message; I've fixed that and added an explanation. -- RoySmith(talk)23:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Please show me some diffs of where the “run amok” as all I have been able to find is perfectly normal particpation in AFD discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Define "normal". It's not normal for somebody to dive into AfD their very first edit. Like I said, if you really feel I've screwed up, you're welcome to unblock them. -- RoySmith(talk)02:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve unblocked but I am concerned that although you said you were ok with that, you clearly still believe the block was justified. I have therefore opened a thread at WP:AN asking for review of both your actions and mine in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK nomination of American Bank Note Company Printing Plant
Please userify the page so I can work to address the issues raised and submit the article to AfC. I understand I cannot simply just move the article to mainspace without more people reviewing it.ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I know people used to do stuff like that, but my own searching failed to come up with any good source. I found a copy of the TTL Cookbook on line (damn, I wonder where my copy got to), and was surprised it didn't mention it. -- RoySmith(talk)01:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan
The AfD here for List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan, which you closed on Feb. 25 with the result of Merge with the parent article, has resulted in the article not being merged. As a matter of procedure - I am not the most experienced of editors - is it expected that an editor like me perform the merge, and thus the deletion of the article in question, or is that a job for administrators/more experienced editors/poobahs/whoever? There is a stalled discussion about the AfD result at Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan, and in the meantime the article remains extant. Thanks for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, JoJo. Anybody may perform the merge. After you're done with the merge, turn the existing article into a redirect. -- RoySmith(talk)21:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Go for it. If you can come up with some good sources to address the problems from the AfD, I have no problem with restoring it. BTW, it's a good idea to add a note like, "will be adding new sources soon" to your edit comment so people know you're actually working on it. My apologies if I stepped on you, from what I could see, it looked like just a random reversion with no good reason. -- RoySmith(talk)17:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Roy - this addition further confirms that the painting belongs in Anne Vallayer-Coster#Artwork as it describes her work/style. There is plenty of room in the artist's biography to include a sentence or two that may define a certain stroke in that one painting instead of trying to create individual standalone pages for each piece of art she ever created. If a painting sold for an all-time record, or has a notable story that sets it apart from the artist herself, that's one thing, but this article simply describes the artist's style. It should remain a redirect since nothing different has occurred to warrant it being a standalone based on prior consensus. Atsme📞📧18:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, could you please just let me work on it instead of insisting of getting rid of something that you don't think is significant enough to warrant its own article? I don't often have time to go to the library and I'm there NOW, while trying to help run an edit-a-thon at the same time. Thanks for your patience. Mduvekot (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
My recommendation is that Mduvekot work on this for a while. After he's done his research and added whatever sources to the article, we can always take another look at it and go back to this being a redirect if need be. -- RoySmith(talk)20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely - not a problem on my end. Hopefully what I've pointed out will help you find the needed sources, and I will also help in that department. Atsme📞📧20:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Licensing of your screenshot image
Hi, it's incorrect to license this image as {{self|cc-zero}} primarily because the original - i.e. the Wikipedia page that you have copied - isn't CC0 but CC BY-SA. A further problem is the presence of the Wikipedia puzzleball, which is not CC BY-SA (although the rest of the page is). Please observe the advice provided at WP:WPSHOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Everything about it is an advertisement. The fact that there's other, equally bad, articles on wikipedia doesn't matter (WP:OSE explains why). -- RoySmith(talk)15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the leader of the second largest Pentecostal denomination should have a Wikipedia page. The sources are limited due to newspapers lack of religion coverage, it is not my fault that the only coverage is by a local regional coverage. I hope this article http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/08/24/4525572.htm on the lack of religion coverage by newspapers will help you see the that the sources that are there are the few that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csulaguy (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Help me out here. Was there some discussion I was involved in regarding this? If so, I don't remember. If you could provide a link that would help. -- RoySmith(talk)14:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that a draft article Draft:Museo del violino that I've just started has been deleted. I'd like to point out that the content that you claimed to be infringing the copyright of contents on www.hisour.com, was directly translated (with the assistance of Google translate) from the Italian Wikipedia page under the same name, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_del_violino. The content in the Italian article was properly refernced to a news portal and Geoplan (which I have also included in the English article). Thank you --CalebYJ (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
George Chiang/Golden Lotus (musical)/The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing
In regards to the closed Deletion Review regarding the bundle of articles related to George Chiang/Golden Lotus(musical)/The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing you mentioned that a draft is being worked on. That is correct in the case of the article for Golden Lotus (musical). Which I have completely revised the sourcing for. I believe that the sourcing on that page is now strong. However, I was not given access to revise the other two articles for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. Are you able to give me access? Or should I just start completely new articles. If the latter is the case access to the original articles would help to create the new articles. I have found numerous new sources for both the George Chiang article and one for The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. Please advise on how to go forward.John99Wick (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I understand and have already applied their concerns while editing the article for Golden Lotus (musical). I will do the same for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing. Their issues were mainly concerned with the sources. I have found additional reliable sources to apply to both articles. I will have time to do so after the long weekend.John99Wick (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I have done extensive revisions to the sourcing and articles for George Chiang, The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing and Golden Lotus (musical). I'm not sure where I go from here. As you stated to me before these articles could just be recreated, but is it better to wait for someone to approve them. I'm not sure where to go from here. Please advise. ThanksJohn99Wick (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. You should be able to move these into mainspace yourself. See Help:How to move a page for directions. If you're having trouble getting that to work, let me know and I'll be glad to walk you through the process. If you really get stuck, I can do the move for you, but it's a useful skill to have, so give it a try first. -- RoySmith(talk)16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
hi, i successfully moved the articles for The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing and George Chiang. But I'm not sure what I did wrong to move the article for Golden Lotus (musical). It's now up for speedy deletion. Please help. thanks. John99Wick (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like you accidentally moved it to Wikipedia space (which is not the same as article space), and somebody objected to that. But, looking at the history, it looks like that eventually got sorted out and all is good now. -- RoySmith(talk)13:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Um, this is from a couple of months ago, no? I'm not sure what needs clarifying. You performed both an administrative function (relisting) and also had editorial involvement (arguing to delete). You need to do one or the other, not both. -- RoySmith(talk)14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there any prohibition upon relister(s) from joining the debate post-relisting?! I know of the restriction other-way-round but am not certain about this:) ~ Winged BladesGodric05:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I asked for a clarification, due to an ongoing ANI thread, concerned with T-banning 2 of the editors (and more), that participated in the AFD.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric06:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're over-analyzing this. Do one or the other. If you try to make it any more complicated than that, you're in wiki-lawyer territory. -- RoySmith(talk)11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
17:28:10, 9 April 2018 review of submission by Ponjit1234
Ponjit1234 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)made necessary changes in the article added with sources, so please review again so that it may be published. The Jalukbari Police Division has taken a noble step to make itself known to the public so to say made it accessible. Hence it may be published. Always your suggestion will be welcome.
Step one of DRV is to contact the closing admin. Tag, that's you.
I believe I addressed much of the problems expressed in the AfD. In the April 20 edit sequence I added 17 sources, none of them from theyoungturks, his employers and the primary source previously. The claim of notability, "an American talk show host, YouTube personality, and political pundit, and serves as the main political fill-in host for online news show The Young Turks" is unsupported by sources. I sourced that multiple times. The importance of The Young Turks was questioned in the AfD. I sourced it being the most viewed channel on YouTube (not even number 2, number 1) and that Iadarola is one of the primary faces there on both its number 1 and number 2 most popular programs. Suggest that interested editors incubate it there, and wait until coverage of his career gains a little more heft before hoping to move it to a freestanding article I did. With the release of the docu-series True North this week, he has an series additional credit, Iadarolo is hosting a series on the Greenland and the Arctic, shot this summer and airing later this year foretold in the AfD. That series generated additional coverage, interviews and appearances by Iadarola in independent sources including the Hollywood Reporter. Its a big enough series to be distributed on a different platform from TYT, go90. Plus I improved sourcing on his previous content.
This goes beyond the problematic nature of the nominator. In the original AfD, I was the one voice that caused the previous nominator to withdraw. How the second nomination managed to sneak past me, might have something to do with that NOM's disingenuous nature. He's a leading, serial deletionist. He posts delete ivotes on most of the AfD list on a daily basis, its his primary function on wikipedia. Because he does not do a WP:BEFORE search, he is the classic example of thoughtless destruction of content, which goes against my professed philosophy visible on my user page. We've had run ins in the past, actually on related content I also hope to restore eventually, less than a week after this AfD, where he blatantly inserted false content, misrepresenting a sourcepolitical, POV purposes into wikipedia mainspace (at the time). Considering my previous statements about Iadarola, in a more neutral world, I think contacting me would be an obvious step, rather than an obvious step to be avoided if a negative outcome is desired. And through you, that negative outcome was achieved, by merging the content I just improved away from public view. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
So, what's interesting here is that five months after the AfD, a WP:SPA pops up out of nowhere and undoes the redirect. Which I fix. Then, two days later, you come along and do the same thing. Might there be any connection between you and User:GreyOverlook?
I have nothing to do with GreyOverlook. My timing was based on the new sources about the new release of True North coming available. Frankly, I've been busy and haven't had time to edit much lately.Trackinfo (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I took a quick look at the sources you used. My guess is they wouldn't pass muster at AfD. But, it's not my place to judge that. My suggestion is to go ahead and restore your version, but also note on Talk:The Young Turks that you did so, and ping all the participants in the AfD so they're aware of your action and get a chance to express their opinions. Whether to split out a topic to its own article or leave it covered in the parent article is fundamentally an editorial decision that doesn't need admin involvement. But it also shouldn't be done in the dark. -- RoySmith(talk)14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Request for unprotection or reduction in protection level
Hello, I was wondering if you would consider unprotecting Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series), or at least reducing the protection level to semi. Full protection seems like overkill since there was only one editor reverting the AfD consensus to redirect (IMO that user should have been blocked instead of protecting the article), and that editor hasn't edited in over 5 months. Thanks for your consideration, —KuyaBriBriTalk03:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there some specific change you want to make? Perhaps start a talk page discussion and see if there's consensus to do so? -- RoySmith(talk)11:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really; I stumbled onto this redirect page by accident and really have no interest in the subject. But I'm not a fan of indefinite full protection, especially when the protection was overkill for the circumstances. —KuyaBriBriTalk13:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I am requesting reconsideration of my submission- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mobile_Surveillance_System . Its mentioned that the images appeared to come from another source ( Soldier Systems) and that other images on the page were suspect as well. I personally took the photos in question and have dedicated them to public domain. My own vehicles are in many of the photos and if there is any question of ownership, I can certainly clarify. Soldier Systems requested the photo from me, and I provided it for their use with no limitations. I've now included a photo of my personal vehicle that has the mobile surveillance system attached. Please let me know if you would like me to send proof of ownership of the vehicle, which hopefully will convince you that I took this photo. I've also included another photo of the Humvee that was in the photo in question. It's never been used online in any way but is also now released by me to public domain. I also have a photography business. If you would like a link to my website, I am happy to provide it.
thumbthumb
.
Please see Commons:OTRS to officially communicate licensing permission to the Wikimedia Foundation. Briefly, you'll want to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to get the process started. Thanks. -- RoySmith(talk)11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Request on 13:41:11, 26 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pcmadsen
Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mobile_Surveillance_System , thank you, I have sent permissions to OTRS. Regarding relationship with MVS, I was employed by several surveillance related companies in the past including MVS.( Hence the photos I provided ), however I am no longer employed by them. I do consider myself an expert in the fields of mobile surveillance systems and aerial photography, however I am presently employed as a full time airline pilot. I'm unclear on the additional Copyvio mentioned. I have listed reference (1) "Delgado, Rick (14 August 2013). "A History of Video Surveillance". Business2Community" as the original source. Is this not done properly?
You need to declare your WP:COI on your user page. As for the copyvio text, simply citing it as a reference is insufficient, you still can't copy the text. See WP:COPYPASTE for more information. Also, as a general rule, it's a good idea to keep conversations in one place. Respond to comments on your draft right in the comments section of the draft. Putting your response on my talk page just makes it harder for people to follow the thread. -- RoySmith(talk)14:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
16:18:07, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Matthew w green
Curious as to why you find Trackvia 'unnotable' when a similar competitors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airtable) was accepted with less citations in lesser sources?
Please see WP:NCORP for the kind of coverage we need for articles about companies. Each article is evaluated on its own; the fact that other articles about similar companies may exist doesn't enter into the equation. -- RoySmith(talk)17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
19:19:21, 26 April 2018 review of submission by 50.0.154.162
50.0.154.162 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Dear Roy this refers to my bio draft of Daniel Altieri inorder that my place on the Brown University literary notables list will be permanent. The information in ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel Altieri )is all correct and I attemtped to follow those other bios on that same Brown University notable alumni list. My name and achievements qualify me on the Brown notables list. I should be there and it should be possible to "solidify"; however, I was informed that there needed to be a bio of me before this occurred. I attempted to follow what was on those other bios.
50.0.154.162 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Dear Roy this refers to my bio draft of Daniel Altieri inorder that my place/name on the Brown University literary notables list will be permanent. The information in ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel Altieri )is all correct and I attemtped to follow those other bios on that same Brown University notable alumni list. My name and and publications and literary achievements qualify me on the Brown notables list. I should be there and it should be possible to "solidify"; however, I was informed that there needed to be a bio of me before this occurred. I attempted to follow what was on those other Brown literary notables bios. Help needed in achieving this in correct wikipedia format. Woops. I am resending my request and question. Thank you Daniel Altieri
50.0.154.162 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Dear Roy. Daniel Altieri again. I am referring to the "blueing" of my name on the Brown Notables list:
(https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brown_University_people#Literature). Hoping there might by a simpler way to make my name and place there permanent on the Brown literature list other than the creation of full length bio.. Again thankyou everyone--Don't know where I would be without Wikipedia (I also work as an editor for a National audio book company-and rely on Wiki, too.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this. The goal of this project is to write an encyclopedia. To do that, we have specific standards about what kinds of articles we accept. You seem to be thinking of us as a who's who style directory, which we're not. -- RoySmith(talk)23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Your Question About a Connection Between Two Users
At User:Yawarbashirganaie/sandbox, you asked if there was some connection between two users. In my experience, that is a rhetorical question, to which the answer is "Yes", and the SPI clerks will often find it so obvious as to skip CheckUser. The two accounts have done nothing but submit the same draft. I have gone ahead and filed the SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Well, you're an admin and are supposed to be polite. Reviewers are only required to be civil. If two copies of the bio for the same non-notable person are essentially the same, then any reasoning H. sapiens should know that there are two possible explanations. The less likely one is plagiarism, that the second person has ripped off the first person's text, which is a violation of the copyleft. The more likely one is that the two accounts are the same duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
All of this is true. On the other hand, sometimes what appears on the surface to be simple politeness is actually just a generous amount of WP:ROPE. -- RoySmith(talk)23:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Request on 21:06:10, 30 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Grecourt71
RoySmith, thanks so much for the feedback. Draft: A. Scott Bolden is my first submission and I certainly want it to meet the correct standards. I will be happy to rewrite it so that it is more encyclopedic in nature. Also, I thought I had removed all of the huffington post information, will you please kindly tell me what I have overlooked so that I can correct it? Much appreciated!! Grecourt71 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)grecourt71
Dear RoySmith, first of all I would like to thank you for your review. Unfortunately, the page I created was declined (see the page here. The page definitely is not created for advertisement purposes and it is not different from other existing pages of stars (less or more known). Mr Barrios is a distinguish member of French cultural society and definitely needs no advertisement. Even though his cultural heritage is enormous, over the years he preferred to remain in the background that's why it is difficult to find resources about him. I would be really grateful if you could guide me in order to overcome this problem and finally publish the page. Thank you in advance
The statement, Amadéo felt in love with Greece, is the one that really stands out, but overall, the tone of the article feels like it's promoting him, rather than dispassionately talking about him. -- RoySmith(talk)22:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Hello RoySmith and thank you for the prompt feedback. Could you be a little bit more specific in your criticism of our submission so that we can improve it? What aspects made you think this is a test page? Are there mistakes or big formatting no-no's?
I used the sandbox to build this entry as I don't know Wikipedia that well and wanted to have some room for trial and error. However we do intend this entry to be a fully-fledged Wikipedia article.
To put things in context: we have set up the edit-a-thon at Juelich because we want to support Wikipedia and make it grow. It would be extremely useful for the success of the initiative if the corresponding article could go up soon - as the event is taking place at the end of May. Thank you!
I'm sure this is a worthy activity, but what you've got there is an advertisement or announcement, not an encyclopedia article. You might want to ask at wp:tea for suggestions on how to best publicise your event. -- RoySmith(talk)10:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I understand. You intended this to go into Wikipedia space, not main article space. That's no problem, I'll take care of it. My apologies for the confusion. -- RoySmith(talk)20:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to ask why the page on Hanna Meretoja was rejected. She is a leading scholar in narrative studies. I have gone through the notability criteria, and she fulfils the criteria 1, 2 4 and 5 (the criteria for academics/professors.
1) She has made a significant impact in her scholarly discipline, demonstrated by citations across different disciplines of narrative studies. She has significantly shaped the whole field of narrative hermeneutics. Her publications by the most prestigious publishers (monographs by Oxford University Press, Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan) have significantly shaped narrative studies.
2) She has just received the prestigious AERA award, which is specifically granted to her due to her “outstanding accomplishment in the area of narrative research”.
4) She is the Founding Director of two influential international research centres, SELMA: Centre for the Study of Storytelling, Experientiality and Memory and Narrare: Centre for Interdisciplinary Narrative Studies. She has hence had a significant impact in shaping higher education and in strengthening the interdisciplinary study of narrative.
5) She holds a distinguished Chair of Comparative Literature (there are only two such chairs in Finland).
I have now added independent sources that demonstrate her notability. Is this enough or do you want more sources/citations?
Sorry to bother you here, but I am relatively inexperienced when it comes to Sockpuppet investigations. I believe that Tarc (talk·contribs) has returned under another currently active account. Is the only way to manually go through the user's edits or is there a tool that can assist in detecting connected edits? Valoemtalkcontrib20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not really my area of expertise. I'm sure there's some good tools, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with them. -- RoySmith(talk)20:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I asked you is because the editor I believe is a sock is someone that recently attack you I am not sure if it is proper to mention this editor without pinging, I dont want to start chaos on your page. But that editor and Tarc literally edits the same pages, also very similar styles of attack. Valoemtalkcontrib20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, Roy, in regards to this edit you made recently. I had the same exact experience today, for the first time, at around 1:30pm. Failed Login AttemptDave Dial (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha, yeah, I realized that when looking up how to make the redirect. All it took was a simple edit to the article. Oh well, good to know now :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Could you star a SPI? I'm too tired. Skywarp499 originator, blocked. WorldTraveler63 version g11, now current creator. Looks like a sock farm.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I watch Dlohcierekim's talk page and saw a name I am familiar with mentioned. This name is Buchalter, a law firm. Last month I was asked about Buchalter, A Professional Corporation, a now-deleted article that was the target of edits by User:Missfixit1975 (talk) (contributions here [2]), who has since ceased editing and is possibly an SPA. Do with this information what you will. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Multisensory learning
Hi Roy and thank you for your comments. I make an effort not to use the text from a source, but I do copy the title of the articles. I am trying to write in an encyclopedic style, rather than in an essay style. But I need to learn more about this. I certainly try to stick to the facts. Perhaps, after it is posted other more experienced editors can polish it.
John talk10:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. You're good on the copying front. My initial comment was based on a quick look at the copyvio tool output, and when I looked at it closer, I realized that it's all just titles and such, so it's really not an issue.
As far as style goes, here's a couple of specific suggestions:
For more on this see learning styles. Just leave that out. You already link to learning styles earlier in the paragraph. It's assumed in a wiki that if somebody is interested in learning more about a topic, they'll click on the link.
Reports suggest the human brain.... Don't use the vague, reports. Use the more specific, Shams and Seitz suggest....
Recent research has made clear. Two problems there. First, recent is relative to now. For somebody reading this 20 years from now, it may not be recent any more. Also, made clear is making a judgement. You think it's clear. Somebody else may disagree. Just talk about what's in the source. Try something like, In 2006, Ghazanfar and Schroeder reported...
And one study says... The word, and is extraneous. Instead of one study, use the more specific, Thompson reports that....
Well, that should give you some ideas. You might also want to read WP:TONE for suggestions on style.
BTW, it's useful to include a link to the page you're talking about, like this: Draft:Multisensory learning. I handle a lot of different pages in a day, and sometimes it's not obvious which one you're talking about. -- RoySmith(talk)23:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
PitBull article rejection
I'd like to talk to you about the rejection of the PitBull article I submitted.
The PitBull product has been around and in continual use for over 25 years. There are currently approximately 10,000 users of PitBull in the US Intelligence agencies, COCOMs, and allied defense departments. Because it is used mostly in classified environments, there isn't a lot published on the product. It was recently selected to be the foundation of a billion dollar defense security initiative.
In the article, I gave references where PitBull had been through the German BSI evaluation process multiple times and also the UK MoD evaluation process multiple times.
PitBull isn't new or unused (in fact all the major Swiss banks were using PitBull to protect their websites back in the 1999-2002 era), and I included in the wiki article media articles that referred to that use.
As for the capabilities of the product itself, I've put in a request to General Dynamics to allow the actual product documentation to be put online and into the public domain, but they have to review the export restrictions and other issues to make sure that is possible. But the complete security description of the product for the Common Criteria evaluation is here:
https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BSI/Zertifizierung/Reporte/Reporte03/0303b_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
We need reliable, independant sources. If there's not much written about the product, then it probably doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. If the reason there's not much written is because it's classified, that's not really something we can do anything about. Releasing the product documentation won't really help. That's what we call a first-party source; it's not independent. What would be more useful would be a book or journal article, from a source that was not associated with the product, that was talking about the product. On a related note, do you have any connection with Pit Bull? -- RoySmith(talk)21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said, this really isn't something that DRV needs to be involved in. Discussing it on the talk page should be enough to generate consensus one way or the other, then go ahead and act on it. In fact, I just looked at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport#Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo, part 2. It looks like the discussion is already underway, and one of the concerns raised is that there's multiple discussions happening in parallel in different places; I don't see how re-opening the DRV discussion will help that in any way. -- RoySmith(talk)18:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The content should be restored. Technically DRV purpose suggests if new sources are added which they are, I should be able to restore the version I highlighted. If you agree the version I highlighted passes GNG can you revert? I would like this to be uncontroversial, this should go to a second AfD. Valoemtalkcontrib18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I neither agree nor disagree. Join the ongoing discussion. Convince your fellow editors. Obtain consensus. Act on it. Neither I nor DRV need be involved. -- RoySmith(talk)18:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Obtaining consensus on RfCs is a myth we both been here long enough to know that. This discussion will simply drag on for months if not years. This article needs to be restored the only way is to do it. But it cannot be done alone that what I'm saying. Valoemtalkcontrib19:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Lourdes†
AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
Obituaries
Hello! Your submission of American Bank Note Company Printing Plant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP possibly being used by topic banned user to get round ban. I know you are not directly involved, but as you commented on the SPI it is worth adding you in for completeness. Nightfury 14:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
