Jump to content

User talk:Sam-2727/Archive 2

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

Your contributed article, Sam-2727/Farah Damji

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

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

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Sam-2727/Farah Damji. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Farah Damji. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Farah Damji. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

The article written was deleted... can you do a google search of the subject and see if its notable? I don't want to fight a losing battle.

The subject is Rashad McCrorey NanaKofiER (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NanaKofiER, thanks for asking. I did the requested search. [1] seems to support the general notability guidelines, but that is only one source. Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that there must be multiple independent, reliable sources that mention the subject significantly (not just trivial coverage). Since I could only find one, I'm afraid that this person isn't yet notable according to Wikipedia. Let me know if you have further questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, last question now many is multiple in your opinion. Thank you for your time... NanaKofiER (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NanaKofiER, I generally go by WP:THREE. Although not a guideline, this is a rule of thumb that a lot of people use. Also I'd like to point out that WP:GNG is just a guideline, meaning that there are exceptions that can be found based on discussion, but this is the general rule that Articles for Creation reviewers go off of. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your previous help. I created a user draft and I listed 5 articles and 1 social media link where the subject is verified. when you have the time please let me know how many meet the notability guidelines you were teaching me about previously. I believe out of the 5 articles. 3 would considered notable, but I am still learning. and the socail media link where the subject is verified is that allowed to be included in a wikipedia artice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NanaKofiER/Rashad_McCrorey NanaKofiER (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

UGC 8837

Hi, I got a references on the page UGC 8837, so I think it should not be redirected again.

Sincerely, Space2006 (Talk), 13:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Space2006 the reference you added is just references the object with respect to the M101 group. The M101 group is a stub article as it is, so there is no need to create a separate article for this galaxy. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

.art

Hi Sam-2727, made extensive revisions to .art and removed the advert tag. Hope youll appreciate the effort and affirm the removal. Best Pratat (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratat, it looks good now! Thanks for putting in the effort to write it in a neutral tone, Sam-2727 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for keeping an eye on Single Liquid Flow Battery article

Hi Sam, I'm Laura, the creator of Single Liquid Flow Battery article. I would highly appreciate and be very grateful to you if you can help or guide me to improve this article rather than deleting this. I'm actually an engineer from western Isles of Scotland and the creator of this page last year. I was a wiki editor for few years. I grew up in Knoydart, which is a remote peninsula and energy for our community came from a small hydro system rather than the main grid, and proud to be the first female electrical engineer to emerge from this remote community:-). The technology used in this article was first tested there and manage to save our community a fortune by not replacing the hydro turbine with a Diesel generator. I thought I should start a discussion about this technology and created this article after obtaining permission from the inventor. It's purely for non commercial purpose. I should admit that I do have an emotional bond with this technology as this was donated to the community and it genuinely helped the community. But I have no commercial intention to promote a company or a product. The technology it self was quite unique as it has only single liquid and had a very simple setup allowing less fortunate remote communities such as Knoydart to easily acquire and maintain it. Having a single liquid makes a massive difference! Other flow battery variants I had come across used two liquids requiring lots of space and lots of auxiliary equipment such as pumps, valves and sensors making it hard to maintain. When I learnt about this, I realised that it's NOT a Flow Battery as the cathode or the anode is not in flow or liquid form, which is the definition of "flow batteries". Instead the electrolyte and part of the cathode is converted to free flowing liquid, making this a different battery variant. I just noticed that a user called Jamie had edited this and then had deleted "commercially sensitive" section, which has triggered a curator to mark this as AFD. I contacted the user and asked what he did and specifically requested not to add anything which can be promotional or commercial in nature. I have reviewed this article again and have removed any new added sections which I thought was a bit promotional. --Laurawoods1979 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


Progress MS-14

Got tagged by User:CRS-20 asking me to help so I went in and did a bit of a rewrite before publishing the article directly to the mainspace. I also added a bunch of citations so it definitely meets WP:N now. Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark Gottlieb (literary agent)

Hello, Sam-2727! Would you be able to look at the page of Mark Gottlieb (literary agent)? I believe there might be a case of defamation or negligent biography narrative. Some of the information was based on the dead links and the other via Paywall. Since there is a case of very strong criticism there, I believe more reliable sources must be used to retain the information regarding resignation and ethics code abuse. There is more in a discussion in the Talk page of the person --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C53D:7FBF:E4AB:BD61 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of playing with words: 

"in spite of resigning from the Association of Authors’ Representatives (AAR) following an ethics investigation in August 2018.[25][26][27] Gottlieb ultimately resigned prior to being expelled."

The last sentence is unsourced and it is not clear whether the AAR said they were going to expel the agent. It is only clear that Gottlieb ultimately resigned following the investigation (and we still don't have appropriate sources for that).--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C53D:7FBF:E4AB:BD61 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP,
I think you are confused into the purpose of OTRS. OTRS is not here to solve disputes. Rather, OTRS agents respond to queries sent to the email addresses info@wikimedia.org and info-en@wikimedia.org. Whenever possible, we try to point editors to on-wiki venues for their concerns. Generally, discussion about an article is kept on that page, although if you feel that the discussion has become unproductive, there are a variety of other venues you may take. You can read more about these at WP:Dispute Resolution. Let me know if you have other problems, Sam-2727 (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Sam-2727. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello! Thank you so much for sending me the article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Sam-2727, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject

I'm a AFC reviewer, I like plant articles, how do I add a table row to that page? I suck at adding rows to tables, etc. I cannot do it without the help of visual editor. Hoping you can help me. thanks --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 16:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser, I have added you to the list. I have added empty rows which you can edit with the visual editor. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank You --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 17:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the way forward

Hi Sam, I am the creator of the draft Magnon Group. Thank you for taking the time out to review. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am open to learning and contributing. I am not a paid editor and am not directly associated, but I do know about the company closely. As suggested by you, I have declared the COI on my page. And I have also made further edits to make the page more neutral. It will be great if you can have a look and suggest further please. Bhaktiverma (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed the draft name. Please check. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 10:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

CipherCloud's compliance

Hello, Sam-2727! I =found you checking the CipherCloud. Since your last review, the page has gone through many changes and the text looks much more neutral now. May I ask you to have a look at it one more time and review if is compliant with the Wikipedia policy on neutrality now? Thanks in advance. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:DC56:17E1:3962:F6E5 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are some phrases I find to be problematic: "provides a range of IT-services to corporate as well as," "to not only," "data protection, adaptive access control, threat protection" (these are broad terms that are commonly used in articles written like an advertisement), "all the popular cloud applications." There are other examples as well. When revising the article, I would recommend focusing on the phrasing that isn't opinionated or states opinion as fact. For instance, according to whom are these "popular" cloud applications? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Because of the issues that remain, I think the tag should stay for now. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, generally adding more text will not solve a neutrality issue. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Trevor Packer.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Trevor Packer.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Change of fortune paradox

This might be as far as wikipedia's discussion of this issue goes. Not trying to get the last word here. I just want to say that during this review process, there was a wikipedia editor who gave me specific changes that would make the article quite neutral in his view. I did the things he asked for. His opinion was that, once I had made his changes, the article IS neutral, and contains no original research, and I made his changes. I agree with that editor. Then there have been two subsequent editors who disagreed, and now claim again that it isn't neutral. It looks like this is the end of discussion, because you're not going to tell me what to do to the article to make it neutral in your view.

Maybe that other editor was wrong, and you're right. But that's a big maybe. I think that it's pretty clear that this article is entirely neutral. It contains no actual opinion of mine, nor does it synthesize the different prestigious theories on the subject. Wikipedia doesn't disallow theories or even opinions, per se. Sorry to use an exclamation mark, but, respectfully, wikipedia DOES contain opinions! What it doesn't allow is the opinions of the people writing the wikipedia articles. For example, the wikipedia article on the theory of proper names or the theory of descriptions contains the opinions of Bertrand Russell and Saul Kripke, and several other people. Wikipedia does contain their opinions. But it contains them written by someone else -- the authors and editors of the wikipedia article. The opinions of the wikipedia writer are not in the article -- therefore the article itself is neutral. But you're an expert on this. You already know these things.

It's the same with this article. It doesn't have much of a tone at all. It is only facts--the fact that, say, Smith belives x, Jones believes y, Murphy believes z about a particular subject. Many approved wikipedia articles contain exactly the same structure. I could list them all day long. The content of the beliefs presented aren't themselves the neutral facts. The neutral facts are THAT those beliefs exist, those are the notable beliefs and events that have occurred, pertaining to this topic. How is that different from your wikipedia article on other similar subjects, such as in philosophy or science? So the article contains no hint of my personal view. Though this might be the end of discussion, and that's fine, here's what I think really happened. You look at the article and notice that it's not very important. Maybe you're right. It's not very important. That's fine. Maybe you win on the notability issue. But while the article might not be notable enough, it's neutral. To say that this article isn't neutral is ridiculous.

But you also would seem to be wrong if you said this wasn't notable. The opinions or theories in it are the views on a 500-year-old topic by the most prestigious classical scholars in the world. 500 years is very old. That's as notable as it gets. It's before the American Revolution, even older than Shakespeare. I think that if you could say how this article is non-neutral, you should. Another editor did, if he can, then you can too. (And I made all the changes he asked for -- so from his view, everything that's in the article should be there and is allowed to be there, and that it's all neutral).Cdg1072 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Cdg1072, I apologize if the reject message sounded harsh. It's a templated message, so I can't really change that. The article is indeed neutral: that isn't the problem with it. The problem is that it engages in too much original synthesis of sources. For example the section "Sheila Murnaghan" has some aspects that are an appropriate summary of the sources, but there are sentences like "The contradiction of chapter 13 and 14" that are editorializing the opinion into fact. It might be helpful to read WP:Synthesis. You say that you see other articles like yours. Perhaps you could name an example and I could explain how it is different from yours? Sam-2727 (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sam-2727, I understand what you're saying. I turned Murnaghan's view into a fact without stating it as indirect discourse, as in "according to." You made that a bit difficult to understand what you meant. But that's so easily changed, all I have to do is add, "according to."Cdg1072 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As for other articles, let's discuss how structure might be different from mine, in these examples. I choose these because they have a similar deep structure, and you're saying I'm treating the underlying structure differently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_name_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor Cdg1072 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I fixed that sentence in Murnaghan by linking it together into one sentence, which it was supposed to do to make sense.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Know you are busy, but when you get back to this, will you be letting me know when to submit again? Also, I'd like to avoid the scenario where a different admin appears to respond to submission, and doesn't share the positive opinion of a previous admin. That is like a Catch-22.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Cdg1072, yes sorry I am a bit busy right now. I'll respond to this 24 hours from now. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose in that example, it quite easy to change. It's hard to articulate what I'm trying to say explicitly but I'll try to. There is a difference between a historical research paper and a Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is part of an encyclopedia: it presents synthesis of sources, but only synthesis of reputed ideas and not singular opinions. In its current form, the article simply summarizes sources one after another. This doesn't represent a factual synthesis of what the "change of fortune paradox" is, but rather a listing of various people's opinions on the paradox. While valuable to include majority opinions, not every opinion is needed. These opinions are primary sources, as they present original resources. Secondary sources on these opinions would be required to allow each of them to be included in the article, or at least multiple primary sources mentioning the same concept. The reason for this is that I could fairly easily go and publish an opinion on this theory, but that doesn't mean I deserve an entire section of the article. Notice how in the articles you have provided, each section is still a "main idea" presented in multiple sources. In Proper name (philosophy), many of the sections even have their own Wikipedia article. Admittedly, Theories of humor does rely too much on primary sources. This is a problem with the article. Particularly in that article, the section "Benign violation theory" currently only cites primary sources from the authors. But my assumption at this point is that other sources exist to complement that section, they just aren't currently included in the section. I think it might be acceptable to perhaps provide a one sentence synthesis of each source, but not an entire paragraph for each. This is about the best I can explain it. If you need further clarification, I would recommend you ask at WP:AFCHELP or WP:TEAHOUSE. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I did just correct where I'd synthesized Lessing as fact, and added his name to that sentence. You're partly right about the rest of your points here.
Benign violation is an extremely famous theory that has been discussed in many, many media outlets, several of them very high profile, including e.g., Joe Rogan's podcast, The New Yorker (multiple times), Huffington Post, Atlantic Monthly (the March 2018 piece by Ben Healy), and most recently, Scientific American (the Giovanni Sabato artcle). Consequently, benign violation belongs in that article. Even Peter Marteinson's theory has been written about in a few books not authored by him. There are only a few theories in that Wiki on theories of humor-- according to your view-- that definitely should not be there. Those have not been written about by anyone except the author of the theory itself. So in fact, you guys are not hypocrites in the case of the Theories of Humor piece. You are consistent-- it would be possible to back up many of those theories with high profile media pieces. For example, the 2011 article in the Boston Globe that interviewed Matthew Hurley, and the discussion of Inside Jokes in the Huffington Post (2014) and Scientific American (Sabato 2019). It would not be possible to do this for that funny little "computer" theory of humor, so that one ought to be deleted. Now this general point is where I agree with you.
I'm no longer committed to this project. But, why I disagree with you, is that secondary sources can be recovered for all of the opinions in Change of Fortune Paradox except for Murnaghan. I'm not sure Wikipedia stipulates the reliable secondary sources have to be famous media venues. I agree with the idea that famous venues should be considered particularly reliable. That's fine. Actually, Kripke's theory of proper names still draws mainstream media attention.
However, those high-profile or at least local news sources don't always define and describe the said theories. It did happen in the case of benign violation, especially because the theory is so simple. But in pretty much all other cases in that Theories of Humor article, someone editing Wikipedia put in the detailed description of those theories, deriving it from the primary source. Even worse, that article starts out with Wikipedia stating what looks like someone's opinion about the relationship between incongruity and superiority, citing a very obscure article. No prominent scholar in the field, such as Morreall, would approve that comment, in fact Morreall (and Jerrold Levinson) explain confidently that superiority is not a theory of humor itself but something extraneous (and they don't synthesize it with incongruity). Now this is kind of a dead issue. Admins have agreed with me years ago that Theories of Humor is a mess, so maybe it's not a good case to argue by.
In Change of Fortune, I put in summaries equal to the ones in that article, not bigger, and they can all be connected to a secondary source except for one, Sheila Murnaghan. None of the summaries is more detailed than the ones in the other articles we're comparing. Some of those summaries I wrote are shorter. Appropriate sourcing was the whole point of including Takeda. It was because he compiled all by himself so much of the history, that it became plausible to consider Wikipedia. Admittedly, Takeda ruined the situation by doing a horrible job, misinterpreting Lessing, Dacier, EVEN Halliwell. But it doesn't take much to describe those simple views. With one of your other admins, I argued with him and he even said ay one point, "who cares about Takeda?" Here's what I basically think. What you are really appealing to is fame of an idea. That's fine, I accept this. That's possible why you write that you're not sure exactly what's wrong. This is what's lacking--the overall familiarity of the topic. No one would dispute the summaries in Change of Fortune Paradox or consider them to be original research, but the topic is simply too arcane--not because it's academic. Rather, it's because even among academic topics it's arcane, not being talked about much in either academic itself or in the media. By contrast, theories like the Causal Theory of Reference and even deconstruction are almost common knowledge (deconstruction definitely in the case of the word itself).
These are the secondary sources for the Change of Fortune Paradox article:
Vettori: Reliable secondary sources are many--all the other scholars that have mentioned his role: Dacier, Lessing, Takeda. There don't seem to be many more.
Castelvetro: Takeda, very recent, 2016.
Dacier: Takeda, Lessing.
Lessing: Very many subsequent mentions, since his theory is the most influential.
Moles: His view is mentioned by many others including D.W. Lucas, Arata Takeda, Halliwell and Murnaghan.
Bywater: His view is mentioned by D.W. Lucas.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Halliwell: His view is mentioned by Elsa Bouchard.
Bouchard: Her view is mentioned by Andrew Ford in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review journal. That is not a professional, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but Bryn Mawr is very prestigious, as is Professor Ford himself, who teaches at Princeton.
Heath: His view is mentioned by Elsa Bouchard.
Whatever the outcome, I'm not sure I need to go to the Teahouse or a live admin. For what it's worth, I believe we have here all the things necessary to work this out, even if having to shorten the summaries even more, or to delete Sheila Murnaghan. If those actions are insufficient, then it's time to delete the whole thing. I'm going to save a new copy right now. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me answer again more concisely and defensively. I think these are the most crucial implicit claims you seem to make, that I disagree with.
(1) You're implying that the summaries I wrote are not accounted for by secondary sources. I disagree, except for Murnaghan. I think that even Bywater can be fully accounted for by a third party. And despite any rules of Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles present explanations or summaries modeled on a primary source even while providing a secondary source mention of the scholar in that specific primary source. It doesn't seem clear that one cannot summarize Bywater directly from Bywater, just because the secondary source does not actually fully explain Bywater's view. In Wikipedia articles, there is a lot of primary source usage, but this does not equate to original research, because it seems that the secondary source is really to give proof of objectivity and neutrality--the rule does not seem to be that the secondary source acts as the actual, or only, source from which any content can be summarized or taken.
(2) You're implying that acceptance of a Wikipedia article often comes down to, ultimately, the sheer notoriety and general familiarity of an event or concept, above and beyond the appropriate use of secondary sources. Wikipedia may often operate in that way, and that's not such a bad thing. Indeed, there are reasons to do so. If Wikipedia accepted too many pieces like mine that were familiar to a tiny majority of people, this would appear awkward. Unfortunately for that implicit rule, however, Wikipedia has yet to fully and clearly codify it. It might be hard to make this a rule without appearing too strict. But the site could create a rule that said that in certain cases, such as (1) abstract scholarly ideas and (2) biographies of living persons, for example, there ought to be a stronger criterion of general notability. But at this point you still don't have such a rule, so rejection of an article like this one is not so easy. But it's up to you.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, Just telling you what I'm going to do today to Change of Fortune. (1) I'll reverse all the synthesizing into fact by putting in the name of the author in each case, and (2) attempt to add a secondary source to each section that doesn't yet have one. Some of them do, the ones mentioned by Takeda: Dacier, Lessing, Halliwell. Although one admin suggested to me that it wasn't necessary, according to the rules strictly speaking it is necessary. (3) I'll try to shorten the sections only if you find it is necessary.

On Theories of Humor, I'm going to reiterate that the Computational-neural Theory not only lacks a secondary source, but I believe none exists. This theory has only been known as a primary source, so it ought not to be included in that article until the situation were to change. Admittedly, I just found that secondary sources can be recovered for pretty much all the others in Theories of Humor.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cdg1072, you are welcome to change the theories of humor articles yourself. Not having expertise in this area, I don't think I would be able to. As for your article, I'm going to recommend that you ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I'm still not persuaded by your argument, but again, I'm just one volunteer editor. My opinion could very well be wrong. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
And although there are guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, ultimately the aim is to build a more comprehensive and quality encyclopedia. There are very few firm rules on Wikipedia, which is why I didn't link to any in my previous response. I do believe your topic is notable. As a general rule of thumb, if there are three independent reliable sources that mention the concept, then the article is likely notable. I just don't think in your article, paragraphs should be dedicated to every single source one by one. But I would caution you when addressing this to others to address the history of declines. It isn't just me declining the article here. There are others doing so as well. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sam-2727, I'll take your advice on live assistance, but have difficulty imaging what more engaging progression or arrangement could be used--nothing comes to mind. And if there were such an alternative, surely it would be synthesizing their relationships, exactly what Wikipedia and the editors rejected. That's exactly why we turned to the present form of scholars' names, instead of defining their theories. It sounds like what you imagine is that only Castelvetro, Dacier, and Lessing merit a paragraph or two, and no one else gets that much attention. So for the whole 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century, everyone gets only a single sentence. I see. That's how you imagine embedding any number of individual views into one article. But if you embed them in some sort of logical discussion that progresses from one to the other, you're still creating a list, just a condensed version of it. That structure of "one by one" does not seem avoidable, nor is it atypical. Why does this stack of theories, "one by one" look mechanical, stodgy, or wooden to you? Is it the way things are worded and phrased? Do I write like a robot? And at the same time, you wouldn't be able to compress those individuals into only a few sentences each. There's not enough space to describe them adequately, except in a full paragraph. It seems to me that the alternative avoiding a list of views, is a mirage that won't materialize. And it strikes me as hypocrisy--the same structure is found everywhere in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then why do you accept Theories of Humor? That's a list of theories, "one by one." I regret to say that your objection seems pointless.

In that message on the one hand you're treating the scholars as each putting forth a different view--and though you claim the OI rules are less than strict, you more or less expect a third party to mention these people; but here you refer to them as merely "sources." If they were sources, they wouldn't need a third party. They represent a small number of significant theories, that is, primary sources--not because they're correct--but because they are all authoritative and more than a few are quite influential, within the field. Even Heath is influential, and certainly highly, highly respected in Classics. Andrew Ford finds Bouchard's view highly plausible (I, of course, personally disagree with all of them). Perhaps Murnaghan could be deleted, despite being an Ivy League professor and a brilliant prose writer. There is no way Halliwell could be excluded.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

National symbols of Belgium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_symbols_of_Belgium#List_of_official_national_symbols I changed the article and it's ready for review now.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Jason Simon (artist)

Dear Sam, Thank you for approving my new article on Jason Simon (artist). I noticed the flag about weasel words above the article. I would like to improve the article and am wondering what passages you found to be “weasel” quality ? Thank you very much for your help ! Nicolas Nlinnert (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Nlinnert, I'll respond to this in a week, if that's ok with you. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Nlinnert (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Nlinnert, upon reflection I believe "tone" would be a better tag so I changed it to that. The article contains vague statements like "while also drawing links between different generations of artists and reintroducing historically marginalized projects or cultural producers," which to me looks like what would be written in an advertisement for the place. In this example, this example, the phrase could be changed to this sentence: "The project also aimed to compare different generations of artists..." (to be honest I don't even understand what the second phrase means. What is a "cultural producer"?). This is just an example: there are other instances of this throughout the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is super helpful. Thank you ! I will look out for phrases like this and adjust so it is more clear and precise. Thank you again. Nlinnert (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"so it archives" signing

I have archived the section that you signed to allow archival using WP:1CA (OneClick Archiver). You may consider installing it and do semi-automated archivals. Thank you! Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sarcocornia perennis

I have a minor issue with one of your actions as a reviewer. You draftified this article with the comment, "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace". I often agree with draftfiying, but I think this is a case where there should be a Special Notability Guide that says that a species is ipso facto notable. My issue is that there ought to have been a guideline that said to leave it in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Robert is right here, species are a special notability case. If a species is shown to exist, then it is notable. However, things below the rank of species, like varieties, subspecies, hybrids, etc. do need to meet GNG. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek and Robert McClenon, yes you are both correct. I believe I was confused by the (in my opinion) obtuse draftifying guidelines. Anyway, won't do that in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer to a question

Hi! To answer a question you asked elsewhere, the content that was removed from that page can be read here. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that that could not be included in this project without being completely rewritten – so probably less trouble all round to just rewrite it; but you may see it differently. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks for pointing it out. I'll follow that route. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bartol Reserach Institute

Thanks for reviewing the article Bartol Research Institute. Motivated by your review and other feedback, I have collected additional evidence of notability at Talk:Bartol_Research_Institute, and included some references in the main article. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankSchroeder (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Sam-2727,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of NGC stars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of NGC stars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NGC stars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

David Elbaz - not sufficiently objective?

Thanks for the comments. I presume you referred to the description in the research area, which I've toned down. The reason I had this was based on the bibliometric indexes of Elbaz. As you can see I have now provided the detailed numbers (impressive numbers of 1000+ citations for the each one of the papers mentioned according to Google Scholar) in addition to the global recognition: a) 40,000+ citations with direct link to the Google Scholar profile and the b) his recognition as ISI highly researcher which "...is recognizing the world's most influential researchers of the past decade, demonstrated by the production of multiple highly-cited papers that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and year in Web of Science." I presume that these two justify the objectivity of the statements in the research part. Regarding the public outreach, I believe is also reasonably objective and justified in you consider that he has over 1.5 million views for his various talks (according to Youtube), even though the audience is only french speaking one. Vcharmandaris (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

deletion discussion

two months ago, you accepted the Chief Pat article. I've nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chief_Pat. notification a few days late because I didn't realize the article went through AfC. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, Thanks for the notification. I think many people forget to notify AfC reviewers of articles they have been involved with. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for talking through my odd policy idea at WP:Identity verification. I appreciate that you read the idea and understand it entirely, and even did off-wiki research about best practices elsewhere. I felt good to be able to communicate and be understood. Thanks for your interest in the Volunteer Response Team and the OTRS queue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Ramirez article

Dear Sam,
Thank you for proofreading and comment my draft on Enrique Ramirez. I would like to improve the article in the way you asked and I would like to understand in which section should I add articles/references?
I had already referenced two international articles from independent and reliable art publication and several museum website (such as MoMA collection) and private foundations. Of couse there are many others citations on his work but not all are free online.
https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/201407/enrique-ramirez-47951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2sEYxJbgM
https://www.beauxarts.com/videos/enrique-ramirez-dans-linconscient-de-lhistoire/
https://artishockrevista.com/2018/07/31/enrique-ramirez-un-hombre-que-camina/
http://www.zigzags.be/blog/2020/2/13/enrique-ramirez-barco-galerie-michel-rein
Thank you again for your time.

Lanochedinosaurio (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lanochedinosaurio, apologies for the late reply. I would encourage you to provide those citations that you have, even if they aren't publicly available. This would probably make it clearer that the subject is notable. A brief preview of the sources you have here shows that they might make the subject notable under WP:GNG, so I would encourage you to submit it once you add these sources. The sources you had previously didn't demonstrate independence from the subject (museums featuring his art aren't independent, in my opinion). Also, if you look at Wikipedia articles, they don't have "appendix" sections. I would encourage you to get rid of that section and incorporate the information from the sources into the article. One last comment: you have Draft:Enrique Ramírez and User:Lanochedinosaurio/sandbox which are the same. I've redirected the latter, but feel free to undo this if this was incorrect on my part. My general personal policy is not to re-review the same thing twice, but I can continue to give you informal feedback on your article if you'd like. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Trevor Packer

Hello, Sam-2727,

Thank you for creating Trevor Packer.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A couple more non-directory WP:SIGCOV sources would be great.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Change of Fortune Paradox

Hi, are rejected articles deleted after a certain number of months, just like the ones that are declined and not further improved? I never got a response from the Advice page about this article. Perhaps they will take a while. I believe that just now I fixed the last instance of non-attributed fact in the article, in the section on Dacier. Now there is nothing synthesized as fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradoxCdg1072 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cdg1072, Sorry for the late response. The advice you were given was that you should focus on editing articles that already exist for now. The article will only be deleted if you don't edit it in six months: simply make one edit (i.e. add a space or something) and it won't be deleted for another six months. This will allow the article to sit there while you learn the structure of articles. The thing is, although you might not realize it, is that your draft article differs from what other WIkipedia articles are written like. I see that you are wanting to improve your article so I'll remove the "rejected" banner so you can eventually resubmit it. However, please don't resubmit it until I or another editor tells you that it's good to go, so you aren't at risk of rejection. I'll think of another way to communicate to you how the article can be improved, but in the meantime here's another place to ask for help: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy (a specific subject area). :Sam-2727 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
As you said, I'll add or remove a space now and then to make it stay at six months out from deletion. And I'll content-edit it later when you get a chance to tell me how it could be better, whether it relates to structure or a particular spot in the article that has an unattributed fact or something. For example, you never yet mentioned anything about the "The Problem" section, where Aristotle in a couple of places is cited even though he's the primary source. There are several secondary sources in that section, but if the next admin finds it's not enough, that section could be considered faulty. But I don't know what other specific areas you will point out. I suggest that if you can, please indicate something to change. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Today, July 19th, I found another unattributed statement in the section on Dacier, so I rewrote the paragraph to connect everything to him by name, and also made it more concise.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Cdg1072, again at this point I don't think my advice will really be of use as per the content on the page. There are plenty of other editors that are likely willing to help you, it just might be a bit tricky to find them. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:41:21, 22 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Simaslowik


The draft of a biography of a notable physicist has been shut down twice. We are trying to understand better the nature of the complaints about the draft. We tried to improve the form of the presentation according to the suggestions of the referees. However the formal reason "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." seems to be in contradiction with WP:ACADEMIC

According to WP:ACADEMIC the subject aptly qualifies to have a Wikipedia page: his research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, as evidenced by the publication list, the citation index, in fact, by several independent science databases, refs 11 and 12, he has received several highly prestigious academic awards and honors both at a national and international levels (refs 4,5,6), and he is an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, both national and international (American Physical Society, ref 3, and National Academy of Sciences of Norway, an inline ref). All these are from independent sources, as, for example, the scientific publications are refereed by independent researchers, the prizes are awarded by the committees independent of the subject, the academies and scientific societies elect their members by a vote system. The news articles about the researchers are rare and not necessary according to WP:ACADEMIC. Nevertheless, the subject has been a subject of several news publications, see, for example, the ref 9.

Your suggestion to convert the presentation to the prose form has been noted, the exposition was improved. Sam-2727, Thank you for your reply. The article has been resubmitted. (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2020 (EST)

Simaslowik (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Simaslowik, while some of your arguement about WP:NACADEMIC is misleading, being a fellow of APS does certainly meet WP:NACADEMIC, which I missed when originally reviewing the draft. Also, ref 9 isn't a reliable source.
I will accept the draft if you resubmit it. By the way, who is "we"? Sam-2727 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Richard J. Eden

Hi User:Sam-2727. Thanks for reading Draft:Richard J. Eden, adding Catgories and moving it to live Richard J. Eden. Please clarify if any further evidence of notability is advised. Also, I have a portrait photo of the subject taken for the Cavendish Laboratory in 1998 which I would like to load to Wikimedia and display in the article. I have a copy of an email from Malcolm Longair stating that the photo may be used if annotated: 'Courtesy of and copyright Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge'. The photograph was taken by Keith Papworth of the Cavendish Laboratory. Will this be sufficient proof of my right to use the photo?

Bernardboase 12:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bernardboase, I think the article doesn't need further evidence of notability (although other editors might feel otherwise). You are of course welcome to expand the article. Unfortunately, you won't be able to upload the photo under those parameters. You'll have to get the original license holder (whoever owns the copyright to the photo, typically whoever took it) to release it under a sufficient license by uploading it to Wikimedia commons themselves. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, Re. photo: rather as I suspected. Thanks for your advice.

Bernardboase 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert Tralins

Thank you for being alert and spotting a probable copyvio in Robert Tralins. I looked into your request for a revision delete. I decided that the LibraryThing site had probably copied Wikipedia. The biographical information you removed had probably been added by the author himself in this edit of 12 March 2007, so I removed your request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I see. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Now I have been looking into Stereology where you also asked for a revision deletion. In this case the apparent copyvio was added on 17 November 2006 in this edit by an editor called "Baddstats". If you look on his user page you will find he is the Adrian Baddeley whose text about the "International Stereology Society" was what appeared to be the copyvio source. He also has an entry on Wikipedia, Adrian Baddeley. So no copyvio here, I am afraid, and I have replaced the text that was removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Cwmhiraeth, ok. Man, a lot of those old copyvio tags seem to be incorrect. I really need to look more in depth before asking for revdel. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I find it quite interesting trying to trace where the information was added to the article and where it came from, and the further back it is, the greater the difficulty. The copyvios you find when new page patrolling are much more straightforward. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, definitely, although I find that in NPP, most are already taken care of by the time I come around. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam-2727/Archive_2&oldid=985486697"