Jump to content

User talk:St170e/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Reference errors on 31 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, St170e!

Happy New Year!

St170e,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year Davey2010! Best wishes to you and your family. st170e 21:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Need some clarification on wikipedia page Mujaddid

I have requested some edit on wikipedia page Mujaddid, for details please refer to my comment on 'Semi-protected edit request on 2 Jan 2017' and 'Semi-protected edit request on 3 Jan 2017' on page Talk:Mujaddid.

But i got a reply from the editor that it looks contentious.

Though I still dont think that it is contentious but just to avoid that let me propose one more way of representing information in Wikipedia same as you guys have done on some other pages.

On Mujaddid page, it is mentioned that "The Shia, Ahmadiyya and the Naqshbandi order have their own list of mujaddids". Then as per this statement "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" should be part of the "Ahmadiyya majaddid" page or list. So kindly make this thing visible on page that this list is as per Ahmadiyya OR "Ahmadiyaa muslim community" (This is what Ahmadiyya's called themselve)[1]

Re-iterating the point that 99% of Muslims dont consider Ahmadiyya as Muslims and countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Palestine, Indonesia, Saudi arabia and Palestine have defined them as non-muslims[2].

So only request is to make this visible on page that this list is as per "Ahmadiyaa muslim community" OR just remove "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad" name from the list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.217.94 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. At the top of the page, you'll be able to see that Ahmadiyya has their own list. However, if you look at the page history, the information is disputed which is part of the reason why the page has a protection. I will not remove this for you as it is contentious. Please ask other editors on the talk page what they think, present your evidence and start a discussion. I will not remove this for you without consensus, sorry! st170e 16:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.alislam.org/introduction/index.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

Page mover granted

Hello, St170e. 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, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

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, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Rob13Talk 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg

Hi St170e. Are you aware that there is a freely licensed version of File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg already uploaded to Commons as File:British biometric passport.jpg? The only difference between the two appears to be a slight difference in color, but this difference is not really significant enough to justify additional uses of the non-free file in articles such as Visa requirements for British citizens and Passports of the European Union per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. You can, however, use the freely licensed Commons' file in those articles if you wish. Moreover, if the licensing of the Commons' file is acceptable, then there's really no reason for Wikipedia to have a local non-free file per WP:F8. The most recent version of the passport coud probably just be uploaded as an update to the Commons' file, and I have started a discussion at c:COM:VP/C#en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg to see if this would be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly - thanks for letting me know! I did change it because additional security features were added to the cover (i.e.: the gold is more refined and easily noticeable when comparing the two/small design features). I don't see how the front cover of the new passport though could be copyrighted, because the coat of arms was created before 1967 and has been in the public domain for too long. The rest of it is too simple for copyright. Thank you for bringing this discussion to light! st170e 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Irish refugee travel document.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irish refugee travel document.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Technical move request

I don't have an autoconfirmed account, I cannot move a page since the 'More' option doesn't appear for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpgomar (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Performed this now, st170e 18:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

CSD X1 & X2

Just a note, when tagging for speedy deletion under the temporary criteria CSD X1 & X2, you can use the standard templates {{db-x1}} & {{db-x2}}. These templates will properly tag and categorize the target for deletion. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Friargate Bridge

Hello. I see you've had the extend mover permission for all of a few days, so perhaps this is just zeal to put your new-gotten tools to use, but please be more careful. First, just because someone tells you a request is uncontroversial doesn't make it so (in this case the requester did not notify anyone of his intention, so nobody had chance to object); it's your responsibility to check first. Second, it's usually a good idea to check with the author of the article to be moved. Third, the original title is not necessarily any more or less correct (the spellings differ in the sources). Last but not least, you should have left the request to an administrator; the simplest way to perform that move would have been to delete the redirect rather than make a mess by moving it to a third title. I'm not going to revert you because either title is valid and I'm nto going to take any other action mostly because I don't need the hassle. Just ... please be more diligent next time. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell. When I saw the request, I decided to have a look into it and it seemed to be an uncontroversial move, not least because the sources listed on the article verify the spelling. I searched the name too just to make sure and came across this website. The results on Google too showed the spelling Friar Gate, rather than Friargate. I did check before I moved this page, as I do with others. I didn't make a mess, rather I swapped the two page titles and re-targeted the new page at Friargate Bridge to Friar Gate Bridge. I don't see which redirect should have been deleted. If you do think that it shouldn't have been moved, I'd be happy to revert the move and contest the move request on your behalf. st170e 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of Walmart archive

The 730 days was my fault. I think at the time I set that the talk page had seen very little activity in years and it seemed reasonable. Thanks for fixing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries -- I noticed the talk page was getting slightly lengthy and needed archived. --st170e 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg licensing

Hi St170e. We had previously discussed this file at User talk:St170e/Archive 4#File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg. At that time, however, I failed to remember Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 23#Non-free British passport files. I did ask about the version you uploaded at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/01#en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg, and as a result I converted the licensing to PD, but that may have been a little too bold. So, based upon the FFD discussion as well as another post on the file's talk page, I decided to revert back to non-free. FFD and COMVP/C are both community discussions, I think we have to give FFD a little more weight when it comes to files uploaded locally to Wikipedia. I'm not saying the discussion on Commons was wrong, but the other person involved may not have been aware of the FFD discussion. The version you uploaded may be different in some way to qualify as PD or perhaps you can provide some evidence that the file is now PD. So, if you feel this is something which should be discussed further, the I think it would be best to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. You could also bring this up for discussion once again at FFD to see if a new consensus can be established, but I suggest you at least let Explicit (the admin who closed the FFD discussion) know that you intend to do such a thing as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank you very much for your efforts and your reply to me on this matter. I am not too concerned about the current state of things, but it would be good to have the copyright changed to PD. As long as the latest design is used on the British passport article, I don't think I will and I'll leave things stand. I'll change the image at Visa requirements for British citizens to a different image, but thank you for your efforts nonetheless. st170e 13:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding declined The Sims 4 expansion pack redirects

Good day sir/madam. I have noticed that you have declined my redirect requests for shortened versions for The Sims 4 expansion packs. I do not have an issue with this, and I actually agree with your reasons for declining the creation of the redirects, but I wish to inform you that there is a redirect to the The Sims 4: Outdoor Retreat article, which was the reason why I decided to make the requests: the redirect is just as vague as the redirects that I requested to be created, and according to the redirect page itself it is a leftover from a page move, but there are no pages that link to the redirect. I am unsure if you are the right person to make this request to, but due to the above reasons I feel that the redirect is redundant and should be deleted for consistency with the lack of equivalent redirect pages for the other The Sims 4 expansion pack pages.

114.75.78.136 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message. There is a process to delete redundant redirects and this can be found at WP:RFD. If you do wish to nominate a redirect for deletion, then you can follow the steps there for the deletion of the redirect. All the best, st170e 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I will do as you have suggested.
114.75.78.136 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

New Wikiproject!

Hello, St170e! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

15:26:34, 22 January 2017 review of submission by 202.168.62.236


Resolved

Thank you for your help with this issue. Happy to close this discussion.

As I am approaching this article as per your guidelines for Creative Professionals, point 3 - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I feel that the rejection is unwarranted and deserves to be reconsidered.

So, if we are to focus on just one accomplishment - The subject is the lead and title character in a feature film (The Legend of Ben Hall) about a real historical character (linked in the article). He not only acted in this original work, but also co-produced the film. This film has distribution in Australiasia, USA, Europe and the Middle East - and is linked to its own Wikipedia page. It has won multiple awards, domestically and internationally, including Best Foreign Western by True West Magazine USA, and the score shortlisted for Academy Award nomination in the USA. The World Premier event sold over 800 tickets, and frequently sold out 300+ seat theatres around Australia during its promotional run. Most of the subject's publicity has been in print media, radio and television that are not available for online citation (example; see reference to written interview at the end of this article: http://www.who.com.au/article/entertainment/callan-mcauliffe-ive-always-wanted-to-shoot-a-film-in-the-aussie-outback) (example; see article linking to radio interview - http://www.3aw.com.au/news/ben-hall-returns-interview-with-ben-hall-director-matthew-holmes-and-actors-jack-martin-and-jamie-coffa-20161201-gt1neq.html). The references listed are relevant to the information provided, as opposed to specific articles that would reference specific pieces of information, such as things that would be written to further the article at a later time. As I have mentioned, I have kept the article short for the time being for simplicity's sake. Nowhere in your guidelines does it say that the citations need to be specifically centred around the subject, only that they substantiate the information provided. Hence, the references provided do just that.

As I have mentioned, the article has been modelled on a number of others that have been written on behalf of domestic actors at similar points in this subject's career, and several of those have been approved with less notable and fewer references, in some cases 4 or less from local papers and user-controlled profile sites. If the Wikipedia guidelines are so strict, why then does there seem to be so little consistency in their application? A simple google search will reveal dozens of articles on the subject, and yet you seem to be doing little else than skimming over the draft and rejecting it based on barely more than assumptions. Your initial rejection came so quickly it would have been impossible for you to have read the 16 references initially provided at all. (Example; see this reference where your claim that they are little more than a 'passing mention' is inapplicable, as the article has large portions directly from and about the subject - https://filmink.com.au/2016/mount-up-crafting-the-legend-of-ben-hall/)

If this further information is not enough, then I would greatly appreciate specific instructions on what it is you feel you need for this article to be approved. For example, "Please provide two further references for the subject," or "Please expand on the original draft so that further information can be provided to substantiate the subject's notability."

Thank you again for your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.62.236 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your message. The WikiProject Articles for Creation (AfC) allows articles to be submitted and reviewed and Wikipedia policies are strictly adhered to and I do hope you appreciate this. Articles that are not independently reviewed have a higher chance of being subjected to being proposed for deletion. Wikipedia guidelines are applied consistently and articles that satisfy criteria and policies are only then approved at AfC. Not all new articles go through AfC, which is probably why you're seeing these articles with less than 4 references.
I would urge you to assume good faith. My rejection of your article came exactly three hours after you submitted it, so I would hardly say that was quick. A 'quick Google search' actually reveals more hits from Jack Martin Smith. But I'll now get into why your article was rejected.
The notability guidelines for actors are set out at WP:NACTOR, which is what I used to determine the notability of the subject in this case.
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Based on the references and information in the article, I determined that the subject did not meet these criteria and I rejected it based on this. The previous reviewer, SwisterTwister, left a comment that notability is not inherited, which I believe you seem to be assuming. Just because he starred in the feature film, doesn't mean that he is automatically notable. You don't inherit notability from something you have taken part in. The actor guideline states that you're notable if you've had significant roles in multiple notable films. He starred in an episode of Home & Away; I wouldn't consider that to be notable in itself.
Per the guidelines set out at WP:GNG, you need significant coverage of the subject. You claim that a google search will reveal dozens of articles - then why did you not add them into the article? You need to pass notability guidelines if you want this article to be approved. But the subject isn't meeting WP:NACTOR at the moment, so I would recommend that you meet WP:GNG by adding plenty of sources that are significant, reliable and third-party. st170e 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, and firstly, my apologies as I thought I was addressing the original reviewer a second time. That is my fault. The reason I am using the guidelines for 'creative professional' is because of several fields the subject has worked in. As for the further articles for reference, I have mentioned that I kept the article simple in an effort to begin from a solid platform and build from there once the article was approved.
I fully understand that notability is not inherited, however this is not the case with this subject. The creation of this article has not come from nowhere, but on the back of a national publicity tour where requests from the general public were made for such an article.
To confirm, you are asking for further citations, but also more information about the subject in the article itself? (As the citations used have been provided only to substantiate the information provided, and nothing extra.) Or are you simply stating that one feature film (regardless of the two upcoming films) is not enough to satisfy your criteria at all?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.62.236 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, no problem at all. If I were to approve this article, there would be nothing stopping another editor from proposing deletion. With the current state of things, there would be a high chance of deletion, so this is why I'm sticking by guidelines.
You need to prove that he has been the subject of articles, so add them in to the article. This may be a case of WP:NOTYET, though. There may indeed be wider coverage of the subject after the next two films are released, so I would recommend waiting until then because it doesn't seem like there are articles for those films yet. That would show that he has been in multiple notable films.
If you are still insistent on publishing this, then add as many citations as you can to the article that would help confirm notability. --st170e 08:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. The draft has been deleted. Not sure how to close this discussion though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.62.236 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, it'll eventually be archived. No worries, happy to help though. st170e 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

New edit on the Merle Hoffman entry

Hi! Wanted to let you know I have posted the new edit of the Merle Hoffman entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merle_Hoffman#New_Edit_of_Merle_Hoffman_based_on_your_requests

I tried to make it exactly how you recommended. Please take a look when you can.

Markdphillips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdphillips (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello St170e,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

AFC

Hi, st170e, Thank you for your help. I am extremely appreciative. Please look at my new submission. I have improved the citations quite significantly. I believe I have submitted enough reliable resources to show my subjects notability. All of the articles are reviews or interviews about the subject’s artwork. I have had to research a great deal since the majority of articles and reviews are in foreign languages but I choose to utilize the available English sources as much as possible. Obviously, I’m more concerned with getting the article itself up right now but originally, I added a number of images to the Wikipedia article which were rejected. I would still like to add them but I am not aware of how to have them uploaded to Wikipedia commons. The artist uploaded them himself the last time but they were rejected because he originally gave me permission to upload them and there was some understandable confusion about their legitimacy. I would like to know what the best way to fix this problem is. Thank you again for all your help and advice. Sincerely, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJardine (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Department for Infrastructure Logo Northern Ireland.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Department for Infrastructure Logo Northern Ireland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Department of Health NI Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Department of Health NI Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

British passport image caption

Hi, just want to let you know that the EU-version of British passport is not the only design in circulation. British passports issued to persons who are not EU citizens do not have the words "European Union" on top, and British passports issued to residents of British Overseas Territories have a completely different cover. Hence the "EU branded" notion.C-GAUN (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The standard British passport has the EU name on the front. I'm aware of the different types, but the main article topic is on the passport issued to UK passport holders with EU a citizenship. st170e 22:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello St170e,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Honor 8 edit requests

You were kind enough to help with an edit request on the Huawei Honor 8 talk page, so I was wondering if you might be willing to assist on the same article once again. One in a series of edit requests was skipped over. This request is to note a Guinness World Record verification. I've provided content and sourcing markup, so reviewing should be pretty painless.

On a related note, the edit request directly below was answered, but in the process of the updating the article, the opening sentence was removed from the "Specifications" section. I pointed out this error to the reviewing editor, but so far I've seen no response and this individual has not edited Wikipedia since 2/17. I am wondering if you might be willing to help with either of these tasks. If not, no worries, just thought I would ask. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on Adam Cooley

Hello st170e, Thanks for all of your help and support. I’m presently waiting for a review of my article on the artist Adam Cooley. I very much hope you will have a chance to review the article as I was happy to use the advice you had given me originally. I’ve made a lot of changes since the last time you saw it. I have tracked down a great deal more references and I think there is a lot of support to prove my subjects notability. This includes interviews, exhibitions, television appearances, art reviews and museum collections of his work by very notable museums. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, 

Kevin

KevinJardine (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Article on Adam Cooley

Hello st170e,

Thanks for all of your help and support. I’m presently waiting for a review of my article on the artist Adam Cooley. I very much hope you will have a chance to review the article as I was happy to use the advice you had given me originally. I’ve made a lot of changes since the last time you saw it. I have tracked down a great deal more references and I think there is a lot of support to prove my subjects notability. This includes interviews, exhibitions, television appearances, art reviews and museum collections of his work by very notable museums.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely, Kevin KevinJardine (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@KevinJardine: I will leave this review to another editor as I have already declined it. I would be inclined to decline it again because it hasn't answered my original concern. There is a long backlog at AfC so you may be waiting some more for a review. st170e 09:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ET-Plus Guardrail COI

Hi, in Talk:ET-Plus_Guardrail I see you denied an edit request from a COI, but it seems that editor had gone ahead and made significant, possibly controversial edits prior to your denial, and in addition, their changelog claims they had permission! An attempt by another editor to have them clarify which editor approved it has gone unanswered. I'm not sure a wholesale undo is proper, as there are some beneficial changes, but to me it generally feels biased (enough that I had felt it necessary to check the edit history...) Thanks for your time! --Strangerpete (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Strangerpete Hi, thanks for letting me know! I've reverted their edits after reviewing their changes. st170e 10:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I only just noticed this editor also did the same thing for Talk:Trinity_Industries - on the plus side, at least they waited 20 days after the request before making the edits; is there a policy on that? (I couldn't readily find clarification) --Strangerpete (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such a policy. Conflict of interest editors must wait for approval. There is quite a backlog for edit requests. st170e 18:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Merle Hoffman edits

Would you be able to look at the edit of the Merle Hoffman entry once more? your last posting about it is in the parenthesis. Thanks for your time on this. I am trying to get it right! Talk:Merle_Hoffman

(When you resubmit this, remember to activate the template again or ping me. st170etalk 02:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)) Markdphillips (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markdphillips: Hi, thanks for letting me know about this. I didn't realise you posted a new draft. I've reactivated the template for you. I haven't got enough time at the minute to look at it in more detail. If no-one else looks at this, I'll do it in a few days. I've taken a glance, but it still sounds a bit promotional. You can't say things like 'her efforts were instrumental'; instead, you need to word it as 'her actions helped....' - remember, it needs to be entirely neutral. st170e 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

You may be interested in this merge discussion. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Bastun st170e 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello St170e,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 806 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hilton update

Hello, St170e. You've assisted with some updates to the Hilton Worldwide article in the past, so I thought I'd reach out to see if you might be willing to help again with one or more of the edit requests I've submitted, starting here. I see you are on a 'wiki break', so no rush, and no problem if you are not interested. Take care! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Inkian Jason, I've had a look and I've completed a few of your requests. I'm on a break so I'll be less active over the next while, but if you do find yourself stuck for an editor to review your requests, I'll take a look when I'm next available. st170e 19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll take a look now. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Grammer

Can you give me some examples of poor grammer at the 1939 Coventry bombing article? Excusing my confusion of where and were, I feel a bit insulted to say the least. Mabuska (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I've insulted you, but the article does need copyediting. They're just minor errors and some problems with tone. For example:
The introduction needs to be better laid out. Remove comma before 'with seventy people injured' (I'd re-write this section to 'A bomb was left... and caused the deaths of 5 people and injuring 70 others.'
The second section uses both the 12 and 24 hour clock - this needs consistency. There are more where/were errors throughout the article and need fixing.
'Damning evidence' - this is not of a neutral tone. Why does 'bicycle bomb' have quotation marks?
The Irish Free State did not exist after 1937 - this needs fixing. It's mentioned more than once in the article.
No apostrophe on Hewitts (in article: Hewitt's). I'd re-write this to make it sound better.
There is an underlying issue with tone in the article as it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV. For example, 'McCormick stood defiant' - is this really an encyclopaedic tone? Furthermore, the source says 'According to criminologist Steve Fielding, whose book Hanged at Birmingham covers the case, the two men were treated as martyrs in Ireland following their executions.' In the article, this is written as 'They were seen as martyrs'. To try and make the article sound neutral, I would also use the same wording as the source to ensure NPOV.
Change 'Some Irish' to 'Some Irish people' - the first one is too colloquial.
All in all, with the examples I've shown, the problem is not only the grammar, but the encyclopaedic tone which lacks in some places. 'A few dozen people' isn't encyclopaedic, but that is what the source says, so quotation marks should be utilised there. Hope I've helped. st170e 12:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes thank you and I will implement your suggestions when I get around to it. Stood defiant was as neutral a word I could think considering the wording in the source and not wanting to copy it word for word. Ironically I heavily edited the article to get rid of the apparent republican tone of it so trust me it's not my intention to create such a tone. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
In instances like this, it would be better to just quote from the source. Although I'd argue that the source relies too heavily on the BBC article. st170e 17:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Paula Jacklin page

Begorrah, begorrah bejayzus, iz dat roight? 86.173.10.189 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Irish database

Hi, Do you know the site where collected all international Treaty of Ireland? I cant find. Thanks. Norvikk (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Norvikk: Hi, I know that Dfa.ie contains all the treaties to which Ireland is a member, but are you looking for the full texts? st170e 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as in UK [1], Russia [2]. --Norvikk (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This may be what you're looking for: [3] st170e 23:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! --Norvikk (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello St170e, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ian Paisley Jr.

I have reverted your WP:BOLD move of Ian Paisley Jr. to Ian Paisley Jr (without the dot).

There has been some discussion of the article name on the talk page, which didn't seem to each a conclusion. There are so many possible variants on the title of this page that it's better to stick with the current title unless there is a consensus to change.

I don't have a particular preference for one variant, but I do have a strong preference for stability of page titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for letting me know. The last discussion on the talk page was over 9 years ago so I decided to move the page. I'll open a move discussion on the page instead. st170e 14:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Yes, an WP:RM is a good idea. Whatever the outcome, we can at least stop this page hopping around like a frog <grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello St170e, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi, I notice you're answering COI edit requests. In case you didn't know about it, I'm only here to inform you of a table with similar edit requests much like the ones you've already answered. If it's not any trouble to you, have a peek at the list. There are several requests that have been sitting on some article's Talk pages since as far back as April. Hope this helps, and enjoy answering edit requests! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of this, there is still a pending request waiting for you over at Talk:Merle Hoffman. The editor with the COI made some improvements and would like a review. I only ask of this because I know you answered this individual last time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jd22292 - thanks for letting me know. I've been moving country the past few weeks so I haven't been active at all on WP but I'll check the edit request out now. Cheers, st170e 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Alice Walton

Hi, st170e! I am looking for editors to review this edit request for the Art section of Alice Walton. The Art section is in fairly good shape as it is, but there are a few areas that could be tidier. I appreciate any help. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 18:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello St170e, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello St170e, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:St170e/Archive_4&oldid=1075721038"