User talk:A412/Archive 3

New page reviewer granted
Hi A412. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for maintenance so that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
 * Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Assist to remove notice on Curiel (brand)
Please assist to remove notice of copyright infringement. Have rewritten the text, as well as removed reference to website. Donspore (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been removed. Thanks for rewording the article. To answer your question elsewhere, no, you may not copy information out of websites, as that information is almost always copyrighted, and information copied into Wikipedia must be able to comply with its CC BY-SA 4.0 license. See WP:CV. ~ A412  talk! 18:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Asiolasma billsheari
Please explain your desire to make a cut of the descriptive text on this taxon page which i've just created. As far as i understand it, scientific publishers will largely adopt the view that a subset of text can be reproduced if for non-commercial and/or educational usages. Wiki is both. Otherwise, Zenadoo do not own the copyright they are merely an agent making content available, also perhaps taking advantage of fair usage. If you do not like the Zenadoo link in the reference, it could for example be switched with the one on the researchgate profile of where the author makes the content available - which is an agreement typical between authors and publishers. But specifically for the particular journal where i had extracted the text from, it was namely the Revue suisse de Zoologie. The copyright issues within Switzerland are notably different from other places, but all that is moot discussion - the journal presents all published articles as open access, meaning any concerns you may have had about copyright etc can be irrelevant. https://bioone.org/journals/revue-suisse-de-zoologie/volume-126/issue-1 Sjl197 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @NotAGenious. Feel free to join this discussion, as you just made effectively the same notification of possible copyright violation on another page, namely for Asiolasma schwendingeri where i'd adopted the same outline as above. Meanwhile, i've learnt that Zenado is a partner entity, directly collaborating with Revue suisse de Zoologie to facilitate open access to the information in their journal. Sjl197 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sjl197 There's a distinction between open access journal publishing and the copyright requirements of Wikipedia. All text on Wikipedia must be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Open access journals don't charge money for access, but generally still hold copyright on their works and do not necessarily license under a license compatible with Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia's CC license has no non-commercial limitation.
 * Can you please clarify the license of this journal? Various sources either report it as CC-BY and CC-BY-NC. The former is compatible with Wikipedia, the latter is not. ~ A412  talk! 16:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like myself as an animal taxonomist is the best person to ask to determine the intricacies of copyright laws and licences, but if you and others involved in this highlighting or reviewing these possible violations on Asiolasma billsheari and the parallel edits on Asiolasma schwendingeriAsiolasma juergengruberi would please look at the outgoing doi links or footer of the article on BioOne, those all lead to partner Zenodo page which again near the bottom of page has a section "rights" explicitly stating "CC BY 4.0". Feel free to clarify, but in my understanding that's now explicit about having an even broader licence type (than the sub-options mentioned in message above), i.e. without any of the finer limitations. If so, and the license can be "CC BY 4.0", then is it permissible to use any of the contained text etc directly on wiki sites? The page of Zenodo is part of a wider initiative (Plazi approach) to share open access and copyright expired works, e.g. [https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039AE028BA04FFA7B7C2FD60FBACF91B
 * Treatment for Asiolasma billsheari] with a footer reading "No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation." That open access paper then reads "The information that users will find in Plazi's Search and Retrieval Server (SRS) – taxonomic treatments as well as the metadata of the publications – is therefore part of the public domain and free of copyright protection. Plazi does not make available protected works from which this material may be extracted. "
 * Hence, from all this, i'm really not seeing how decisions of copyright violation was reached. Reproduction under Fair usage still seems reasonable for such short chunks of text (i'd say what was copied was <0.01% of the content). If some is reproduced, the need for linked citation seems reasonable to circumvent any concerns for "BY" attribution, which was done in all cases. Furthermore - just to highlight, that in each, i'd adapted some aspects of the text when i felt was especially unclear in the original, e.g. my Asiolasma billsheari is a ... "I-IV areas of opisthosoma each with a para-median pair of low tubercles" which can be compare to Marten's original text on p.104 of the species diagnosis - its written differently in original. That really gets to essence of way forward - I feel a better solution to all this could have been to just paraphrase and/or re-order the inserted "description" text, rather than get into a debate about copyright. I would have gladly re-written these text much further than i did - IF I had i simply been asked at outset (rather than them being notified as possible violations then the content being wiped). For me, this is just part of a series of wiki-community interactions that has (again) left me feeling that trying to update old misleading wiki data on such creatures is not something worthwhile. Sjl197 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nthep - as you made decisions on those other aforementioned pages and your profile says "with a particular interest in copyright and free use." Sjl197 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * CC BY 4.0 looks good, that's a license compatible with Wikipedia. In the future, if you copy CC-licensed text, typically include Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice to make the licensing situation clear and avoid problems like this. Please read WP:COMPLIC for the relevant policy.
 * In general, licensing aside, while copying small amounts of text could be considered fair use, please see WP:NFCC, the guiding policy on non-free content. In particular, point 1, "No free equivalent", generally means we should not reproduce non-free text when we could write it in our own words. ~ A412  talk! 22:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sjl197 I've restored the section and included the cc attribution notice to Asiolasma billsheari. ~ A412  talk! 22:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the feedback. Adding such template links seems to be useful for clarity, hence i've added that same template link onto a couple of further wikis where i'd adopted elements of the same Marten's paper. I'll try to remember them in future. Else, I'll also aim to modify body text (such as from descriptions) further than i did - if i do any more.
 * [@Nthep - trying a tag again, but i don't they have that enabled] Sjl197 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

2005 Zimbabwe loan repayment
I think, the step you took by merging 2005 Zimbabwe loan repayment article into Economy of Zimbabwe was too big without proper consensus. Mindthem (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mindthem per WP:BRD feel free to revert my WP:BOLD merge and discuss on the talk page. For what it's worth, I think it was a merge of a non-independently notable stub into a much better parent article. ~ A412  talk! 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Roller coasters that closed in 1974


A tag has been placed on Category:Roller coasters that closed in 1974 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit  12:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for Reviewing
Hey @A412, Thank you for reviewing Salyan District Hospital and Rapti Provincial Hospital. I hope your reviews and contributions in Wikipedia will play a great role. I would like to request you to review other pages mentioned on my User Page too when you get free time. Cheers and Happy editing. WikiEditorNepali (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"William Entriken" page
Regarding the page you recently reviewed, what specifically justifies the "unclear citation style" tag? If it's the bundled citations, there is consistency in how its applied, and it is a valid usage for verifying information within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Or is it something else regarding how some of the resources within the citations are written out like the dates or conforming to MLA vs APA format?

Also what was the reason to remove the "See Also" section in its entirety? You state that it was "unnecessary" but it's never REALLY necessary to have that section in any instance is it? It adds value to readers by sharing related topics to the subject that they might be interested in, and the ones present were relevant. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Codeconjurer777
 * Backlink for my purposes: William Entriken
 * On citations:
 * Bundled citations are okay, but if you could use one of the formats at WP:CITEBUNDLE they would display better on desktop.
 * Also, the article cites up to nine different references at once in this style. This is usually unnecessary (WP:OVERCITE), or it's unclear what parts of a sentence is being cited to which source (see again the CITEBUNDLE examples for how what's being cited could be more clear).
 * WP:CITE / WP:DUPREF -- the article repeats the same citation across many footnotes, duplicating the full citation information each time.
 * Ultimately it's fine and per WP:CITEVAR Wikipedia's citation style is not prescriptive, but these make it decently hard to update and check references on the article. In terms of severity on the bullet points I'd say 2 > 3 >> 1.
 * On See also:
 * MOS:SEEALSO indicates that "See also" sections should not link articles that are linked in the article body. "Ethereum", "NFT", and "Blockchain" should (if they aren't already) be linked in the article body. The general concepts of "Hacker" and "Programmer" seem ...quite distant from the article subject. I don't think users landing here would be likely to want to read those two articles next.
 * Generally, "See Also" sections are used for tangentially related or similar topics that can't be naturally linked. Say, if there was another influential developer of blockchain/NFT protocols that Entriken didn't directly work with, or a list of influential people in blockchain.
 * ~ A412  talk! 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response.
 * -So the "bullet list format" citation typically applied is one of the formats listed in WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * -Regarding the repeating of citations across footnotes causing duplications of the full citation, yes this is annoying and is due to a limitation in Wikipedia's editing system. It would be better if a bundled citation could be given a " and have it be repeated like a single standard citation, but this functionality is not currently present nor is there any other way to repeat a bundled citation without full duplication. Something to request for future implementation in the editing system!
 * -I can understand the potential lack of clarity for what a bundled citation is referencing within a sentence, but in this particular article I don't think there are instances of this ambiguity here where there are multiple contentious statements conjoined and addressed singularly. They tend to be reinforcing of the same claim across sources that demonstrating veracity from multiple source viewpoints (something I explained in the talk section). I'd also note that (WP:OVERCITE) is an essay and not a consensus-based policy or guideline so the number of resources in a citation is not given an established limit, so long as it functions as verification of information, which they do. Even based on that essay, I find it much preferred for readability to bundle these resources rather than having numerous footnotes one after the other; I tend to implement the bundling on articles I come across with a long string of footnotes and hope others follow suit.
 * Given all the above, I would like to remove the tag as I don't see it as being a substantive issue in violation of policy or guidelines requiring change.
 * -I understand your point about the "See Also" section, that makes sense. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Codeconjurer777
 * I cleared the tag. Two things:
 * You can remove most maintenance tags yourself, if you think they were placed in error or the problems have been fixed. See WP:DETAG for more information.
 * Some advice for contributing on Wiki after reading your talk page comments: Most regulars have read the policies and guidelines pages dozens of times. Just link the relevant ones, and maybe add a sentence if you need to further a specific point. Writing essays in the talk namespace won't win you many friends, and you may get accused of bludgeoning discussions.
 * ~ A412  talk! 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I can remove tags but I wanted to be diplomatic about the matter by raising my perspective first and giving you a chance to reply. I did feel confident about my perspective's reasoning here but maybe there was something missing or new to consider or something you felt strongly about so I didn't want to assume and just remove it without discussion.
 * As for the lengthiness of some of my replies, yeah I am trying to find a balance. Even though ppl have read the policies and guidelines many times, it does seem apparent that ppl do interpret things differently or miss things, so instead of assuming we all have the same understanding, it does pay to be comprehensive SOMETIMES... I am still trying to find that balance. There are even discrepancies over simple things like when you suggested to use one of the formats in WP:CITEBUNDLE yet the bullet list I use is in fact one of those formats. Simple things like that can be addressed with a single sentence like I did since it's a pretty clear cut example of either being there or not being there, but other more interpretative things get more complex and require weighing and balancing out reasoning and judgments. I try to ensure my elaborations are thoughtful and paint a thorough picture so to reduce misunderstanding and assumptions.
 * I do think at the very least in trying to find a balance, I try to act with patience to give people time to review, reply and consider things without rushing the situation as well as not assuming my positions are infallible without hearing others out. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Cometeer Coffee tag
Good Day A412, I wanted to give you an overview of what has been done to address the advertisement tag.

Steps taken to reduce promotional content:

Reduced promotional content by changing the subjective statements "potent strength" to "to achieve a high coffee concentration", "consistently good cup of coffee" to "consistent coffee profile", and "unique manufacturing process" to "innovative coffee processing methods". These were changed because they are subjective and promotional. Tried to use a more neutral language to describe the coffee and its brewing process.

There was more effort to reduce promotional content and remove unnecessary details: Information about the size of the manufacturing facility and the location of Birdseye's facility is not essential and was removed.

More of the effort to reduce promotional content by focusing on objective facts: Instead of mentioning specific investors and their companies, it was rewritten to simply state the total amount raised and the types of investors involved (e.g., founders of tech companies, institutional investors).

I added encyclopedic content by providing more context by linking to the "third-wave coffee" and its significance.

I would mention other companies offering similar flash-frozen coffee products and how Cometeer differentiates itself, but they seem to be unique in the market.

I tried to neutralize the tone by ensuring the overall tone was neutral and objective and avoiding language that promoted the company or its products. There are no external links except for a single link to the company website in the infobox. I checked for promotional or irrelevant external links.

Just wondering if you had any other suggestions for edits to reduce promotional content?

Thanks, Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's better but not perfect. The general issue is that it uses generic accolades / "words that sound good" instead of encyclopedic, neutral, language. I'll try to outline a couple problem spots:
 * The brand uses proprietary brewing technology - this sounds like marketing speak and doesn't actually say anything. In addition, the source doesn't actually mention higher concentration, it quotes the company as saying "allows flavor and aroma compounds to be extracted with unprecedented precision". Could remove this phrase entirely.
 * compatible with the most popular coffee machines - again, sounds like marketing speak. Are there specific coffee machines that RS cite them as being compatible with? If not, could remove this phrase entirely.
 * The company is known for using its innovative coffee processing methods - the source does not use the term "innovative".
 * ~ A412  talk! 03:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Based upon your suggestions, I have removed "proprietary brewing technology" due to marketing speak and "higher concentration" because the source doesn't mention higher concentration; I removed "compatible with the most popular coffee machines" for marketing issues speak; and changed "innovative" with patented (also added a source link to Google patents. If you have no further concerns, I will remove the Advert tag.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Interest in writing pages for Thinky Games?
Hi there,

I saw your recent pages about A Monster's Expedition, Bonfire Peaks, and Snakebird and thought I'd get in touch as I'm currently looking for writers for our Thinky Games website. We're planning to launch a database of thinky games to help people discover new games to play, which means providing descriptions of those games from a "thinky-first" perspective (i.e. the mechanics and types of problem solving). If you're interested, please get in touch at joseph AT thinkygames DOT com! It would be great to hear from you.

Thanks, Joe 109.149.134.90 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)