User talk:Zsmithzdlgs2

Welcome!

Hello, Zsmithzdlgs2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Nesbett (composer) (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 music-related topics 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.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Nesbett (composer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Zsmithzdlgs2, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:John Nesbett (composer) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Nesbett (composer). Thanks! NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah

Thank you for adding two more people who wrote orchestration for Handel's Messiah. Problem: It's in the introduction, which should be only a summary of sourced information from the body. Messiah is of highest article standard, so should have no fact (however true) without a source. Can you do that, and perhaps mention the two only in the body, not in the introduction? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't realise that was how the intro section worked. I'll put them into the body instead. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - I wonder if in edit mode, some notice should explain how the intro (lead, led) works, - not only for you. It's so normal to find something missing when you begin to read and add it right there. Will sing For unto us a Child is born for Christmas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Mars

Wikipedia does not typically permit self published sources, per WP:RSSELF. If you want to add the content, I would recommend you find third party reliable non-self published sources to add. Garuda28 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your email, flagofmars.com is not reliable, as it is self published. Garuda28 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the book by Robert Zubrin referenced on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashline_Mars_Arctic_Research_Station#cite_note-ZUBRINBOOK11-4 as an illustration of real-world use of this flag by Mars research scientists? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other edits to the Mars Flag page seem to have removed comments pertaining to the status of Mars under international law that were sourced in university-published papers, and also references to the Outer Space Treaty. Aren't these reliable sources? These facts are hardly controversial, so is it just the way they've been referenced that is a problem? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That can be mentioned, but it need to be directly stated in the source text that it is the pascal flag. All that I see mentioned on the page is that it is a tricolor flag. We need a specific and explicit connection to link it to a certain design. Mention of the outer space treaty is problematic as it is being used to say something that it does not say. That is WP:SYNTHESIS. Garuda28 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link refers to an RGB tricolor, which is exactly the same design as Lee put forward. It doesn't seem very likely that an institute that Lee himself worked for, as mentioned elsewhere in the Flashline Research Station article, might have decided to hoist *a different RGB tricolor flag*. At the moment we have a situation where a Mars researcher designs a Mars flag and his Mars researcher colleagues fly it above the Mars research base where he works/ed, and world-leading Mars expert Robert Zubrin makes explicit reference to it in a published book about Earth-based Mars research bases, but because Zubrin didn't name-check Lee in print it somehow doesn't count as legitimate or worthy of recognition. Doesn't that seem like we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the World has more info on the extent of this flag's use: https://fotw.info/flags/qp-4.html Unfortunately some of the key links to the Mars Society website are now broken. I have contacted Pascal Lee to see if he can provide a solid source to link him to this flag and underline its noteworthiness; I'll also get in touch with the Mars Society and ask them to follow up on some of the claims made c.2004 on the FOTW site. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Marspedia" seems to be maintained by the Mars Society as well, incidentally - so it may be more reliable than it appears. But wikis in general may be a no-no due to their perception as being open-access sandboxes where anyone can say anything unchallenged Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide independent third party reliable sources, then we can have the discussion. If not, then it cannot be added. Flags of the world appears to be using volunteers without credentials (wiki model), and potentially unreliable. The marspedia is a wiki, and also unreliable. Garuda28 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also even if you contact Mr. Pascal, he cannot attest to its notability. Only reliable third party sources can do that. Garuda28 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That this flag is widely-used among the Mars research community is not open to dispute as the evidence is overwhelming. The flag is literally mounted on top of the research station, as a quick Google Image search for "flashline mars research station" shows. The research station's Facebook page features it prominently (https://www.facebook.com/FMARS-Flashline-Mars-Arctic-Research-Station-381999371915902/). The Mars Society, who operate the Flashline station, refer to the flag repeatedly in their published content (http://fmars.marssociety.org/2017/07/20/sol-summary-july-20th/ et al). Is the issue here "proving the flag is noteworthy", or "proving the flag's specific connection to Lee", or both? If the former, what further evidence do you require? If the latter, how is anyone supposed to prove attribution if *the person to whom the work is attributed is not an admissible source*? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's own website attributes the flag to him (http://www.pascallee.net/artwork/flag-of-mars/). That deals with authorship, even though he himself can't prove its noteworthiness. The above links, although they do not prove that the flag is Lee's, indicate its noteworthiness. Between them, they answer both of what I understand your concerns to be. Do these sources satisfy you, or does the self-published nature of Lee's website mean it cannot be used as a source for *anything*, even simply to prove authorship? Because if "I designed a thing and you can see it on my website" isn't admissible to prove ownership then I think honestly the problem may lie in the referencing guidelines. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there needs to be a stated connection between the two. It seems the mars society source says it is the flag of the mars society - not a proposed flag of mars. Perhaps adding it to the Mars Society page, where it could be better sourced, would be more appropriate. Otherwise there need to be reliable third party sources saying it is a proposed flag of mars - not the mars society. Garuda28 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee presents it as a proposed flag of Mars (http://www.pascallee.net/artwork/flag-of-mars/). He works/ed on the Mars Society-operated research station where it is now used. The Society refer to it both as their flag (http://fmars.marssociety.org/2017/07/20/sol-summary-july-20th/) and as the "Mars flag" (http://fmars.marssociety.org/2017/07/21/sol-summary-july-21st/ and http://fmars.marssociety.org/2017/07/27/crew-photos-july-27th/) so I think it's fairly clear that they're not making a hard and fast distinction. In fact, the fact that they themselves don't use it on any of their branding eg their website suggests that they're *not* laying claim to it for themselves but *do* see it as a flag for the planet Mars in the abstract. Does this help? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what Lee wants it to be, but rather what third party sources say it is. The Mars society has thrown a significant amount of ambiguity into this. What we need is reliable third party sources on is it a proposed flag of mars. Garuda28 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading more ambiguity into it than is really there. There is one statement alluding to the "society's flag" but that's pretty clearly an anomaly if you look at the wider picture, both on their site and on the internet generally. For one thing, it's the only flag sufficiently widely recognised to be marketed and sold on flag-sellers' websites as a Mars flag. In any case, as per the Wikipedia page's intro section, the flag does *not* need to be a proposed flag *of* the planet (eg for use by some future planetary authority), but merely a flag *representing* it. And the abundant references to the flag as "the Mars flag" indicate clearly that it is being used and regarded in that sense. What else would you interpret "Mars flag" to mean? Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in contact with the Society to get definite confirmation of their view of the flag, but the circumstantial evidence is already very clear indeed.

This commercial site (https://flagpolesetc.com/blog/mars-flag-history-the-planet) reiterates much of what has been cut from the page; does that also fall under self-publishing?

That is a family owned store - hardly a reliable source. For it to be added to the article we must have a reliable third party source - one that should demonstrate its notability, which has not been done so far. We don’t do circumstantial evidence on Wikipedia. We call that WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Garuda28 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the above statements (its use by the Mars Society, sale on Amazon etc, and indeed carrying into space on the Space Shuttle evidence of notability? This CNN story (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/01/07/mars.flag/) outlines both the origin and notability nicely - though despite the clear textual descriptions of the flag in the article the image itself no longer loads so I'm sure this source, too, will be inadmissible as evidence. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is exactly the kind of source that would indicate a degree of notability. However, it being on sale on amazon really does not contribute at all. I will modify its addition to the article, but information that is self published and cannot be verified cannot be added on. Garuda28 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That CNN article has been in the references for the page the entire time. Neither of us noticed it before.

That would have saved us a lot of trouble and debate as well... that is exactly the kind of source that moves this from what would otherwise be fan art to something of note. I added the details of the article. I also have not been able to find anything since 2000. If the Mars Society does post anything about the flag, then that (as a reliable third party source) can also be added. Garuda28 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I got was that they'll do so over the next couple of days. I'll keep an eye out (though I expect the guy I was talking to will email me as well) Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If something is to be reliable it will need to be publicly posted - personal communications will not work. Garuda28 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I just meant they'd probably email me to let me know when the post had been posted. I get why emails themselves wouldn't be admissible. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]