User talk:ColinFine/Archive 6

Thanks for helping me out!
Hey ColinFine,

if I may quote you: "I can see that, while the sources are probably reliable, not a single one of them is independent of Stossier"... So if I list the sources I used:

1) Registry of the Austrian Medical Association -> it is an Austrian governmental institution which administrates all Austrian physicians. it would be comparable with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Board_of_California -> therefore I think this source is reliable and independent?

3) Website India Today -> based on the size of the organisation and the date it was founded it would assume it is considered as well-established. ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

4 and 5) Union Registry of the Austrian Ministry of the Interior -> it is an Austrian governmental institution which administrates all Austrian unions and their registration. i would also assume that this source is independent?

now i would say at least 4 out of 6 sources are reliable and independent according to wikipedias guidelines?

Have a good day! Yet another IT guy (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the AMA and the Ministry are reliable at storing and presenting the professional data provided by the subject, or his institution. That does not make them independent. (I also presume that they are little more than directory entries, but I can't tell since in each case you have linked to a search function, not to an entry). India today is no doubt reliable, but that article is an account of the presentation made by Stossier and others. This is not independent.
 * What we require is an article substantially based on what people unconnected with the subject or their institutions have chosen to publish about the subject. Directory entries can be used to support the statement that the person holds such and such a position, or is in such and such an institution, but cannot contribute to notability. Articles based on interviews or presentions by the subject can support statements about what the person has said, but not about the content of what they said, and also do not contribute to notability.
 * Let's also look at this another way. said they thought sourcing needed to be improved vastly. You asked for guidance, saying "in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines"; I replied with my opinion that they were probably all reliable, but none of them independent.  agreed with me. Now you come back questioning my judgment on four of the six sources.
 * It is, of course, possible that Hell in a Bucket, Cullen328, and I are all wrong, and other editors would disagree. But if you look at our contribution histories, do you think it is likely? (Hint: I've been here a lot longer than the other two, but I'm the baby, with less than 15000 edits) --ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In order to establish notability, sources must be independent and reliable, and must devote significant coverage to the topic. All three are required. Directory listings are not significant coverage and often are not independent, so they do not contribute to notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting,, is that Applied kinesiology is pseudoscientific, so there will be extra scrutiny given to this topic. See WP:FRINGE. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Orthomolecular medicine is also pseudoscience. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for the explanation. Of course I do not question your judgement. It was just not clear to me how I can improve the sources to fit all guidelines and get the article approved. It was not an attempt to argue with you or doubt you in any way! Based on the reviews I had no idea how to improve the sources, but thanks to you I think I got it.


 * Another question to would be about your comment "is that Applied kinesiology is pseudoscientific" (again, I do not question your judgement!). Does this matter, since the article is about a person and not about the profession he performs? In my draft I did not make any statement about these topics itself. Does it matter if Applied kinesiology is pseudoscientific or not, if I just state for example that Dr. Stossier president of the International Medical Society of Applied Kinesiology.

I just try to avoid further mistakes and I am thankful for any suggestions!Yet another IT guy (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you add the reference in the Angola article please
50.68.237.196 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I suggested ask at the Talk page, and I see you have done so. I don't choose to take on that job. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversion to new link added to page etc
Hi Thanks for the feedback on Teahouse but the news links (i think?) are eithe broken or don't include the video of the execution .. also the reverting user mentioned is Not Available so still don't know why my addition was reverted ...

Article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceaușescu

I'm new to all this you see .. most of my edits have been typo corrections!

Thanks!

G6cid (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . has made seven edits in the last hour, so I don't think they are taking a Wikibreak at present, even if they say they are on their User page. As you say, the Times reference does seem to be broken (and I can't seem to find it on archive.com). But I don't understand why you think it is important to link to a video of the execution. Videos of events are generally primary sources, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok I had no knowledge about primary, secondary and tertiary sources, but I've now read the Wikipedia page re this, HOWEVER the whole section is about the execution.. surely a link (LiveLeak) in the form of a video is relevant? Otherwise it's Buckingham Palace without a picture of the palace! Mainstream media are unlikely to show the video (as it's graphic) and surely a news team's video is relevant, even though it's primary?  Pls understand I'm simply trying to learn Wiki procedures here (I'm new to content creation!), not to argue! 😀

Thanks again. G6cid (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup 36 - 9 June 2019
As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Colin…
Just as well that I was sitting down with my breakfast coffee when I checked my emails for Tue. 19 Feb… I'm quite shaken by these revelations about the use of images on my proposed page/s for List of South African women artists! Feel I've been conned by Creative Commons to part with US$15; and, after some prodding, to extract a sliver of info from them—and then that turns out to be incorrect! OBVIOUSLY I'm no lawyer, and so all the legal jargon about licenses is gobbledegook to me… David in Adelaide, South Australia ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Desmond (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I'm sorry you've had a problem. I've never heard of anybody paying Creative Commons before - in fact, I didn't even realise that it was an organisation (though I suppose I'd have realised if I had thought about it). In keeping with the principle for which they exist, anybody can copy their licences at no charge (for example, I've used them on my songs: http://fine.me.uk/songs.html). But they can't enable you to grant a licence on something to which you have no rights, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Colin, I didn't pay Creative Commons as such; rather it was a donation—an orange box with $15 reversed out in white; i.e. a 'suggested' donation… Incidentally, re my comment on 'legal jargon about licenses'. I was alluding to the various types of licenses being 'gobbledegook to me'. I meant 'to a high school dropout like me'! David Desmond (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2019
Delivered March 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Chinese language
Hi, Can you translate this Chinese sentence into English and Arabic language? The sentence is: 概要 於2004年4月至2006年10月在Comic Bom Bom連載. 東京電視台以漢字表記《韋駄天翔》，在2005年10月1日至2006年9月30日每週的星期六早上9:30開始播放、全52話. السورميري راسلني (☎) 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) محمد ماجد السورميري محمد ماجد السورميري (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I speak neither Chinese nor Arabic. Why on earth did you think I could help? --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2019
Delivered April 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir Observer
I can wait for the approval and process

This is its page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kashmir_Observer.jpg source epaper.kashmirobserver.net

here i am adding some of the references for the page

Sajjad Haider is the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Kashmir Observer.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Kashmir_Observer.htm

REFERENCE LINKS

https://scroll.in/author/12581 https://www.exchange4media.com/industry-briefing-news/kashmir-observer-to-launch-business-supplement-47494.html https://rsf.org/en/news/discriminatory-use-official-advertising-kashmir https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kashmir-newspapers-publish-blank-front-pages-to-protest-govts-decision-to-stop-ads-to-two-dailies-5619019/ https://cpj.org/tags/kashmir-observer https://www.newslaundry.com/2016/07/11/kashmirunrest-the-difference-in-what-delhi-and-kashmiri-media-saw https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/06/19/kashmir-woke-up-to-blank-editorials-in-newspapers-today-in-memory-of-shujaatbukhari


 * Hello, . Please look at the message left after my reply. I simply gave what I thought was helpful advice (though Nick has explained that it might not be very helpful). I have no interest in the subject, and will not be doing anything with it. There is therefore no point in you leaving those references on my talk page, any more than leaving them in the Teahouse. Beyond the suggestions that Nick has made, all I can suggest is that you see if anybody in WP:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir is interested in working with you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your response to Silvia on WP:HD today
As you know, many posts on the WP:HD are from people trying to create an article about themselves or their employer and it's difficult to make a constructive reply without sounding repetitive or disgusted. The way that you responded to Silvia's post today was particularly clear, informative and helpful without being too aggressive. As a long-time reader of the Help desk, thank you for wording your reply as you did. --Thomprod (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the appreciation, . It is hard, isn't it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2019
Delivered May 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Mozart the music processor
Hello Colin, I'm seeking your approval to remove the 'multiple issues' notice on the page for Mozart the music processor. I was advised on Talk:Mozart the music processor that you had placed some of the alerts - though I still have no idea how else I'd have found that out - and that I should contact you about it. And some of the 'multiple issues' seem to have changed since I last looked an hour or so ago. So I'm not sure where I am. (I'm very new to Wikipedia contribution, and ascending a steep learning curve.)

Continuing anyway, my rationale is as follows.

Appearance as an advert: I checked similar pages  (Sibelius (scorewriter),  Finale (software), MuseScore) and I don't seem to have anything that isn't also included on those. But this point seems to have been removed now.

Original research: I am a theoretical physicist and have spent my life doing original research. I can assure you that there's none on this page.

Citations needed: Almost every sentence contains links to other Wikipedia articles, and I've added a couple of references to books about some of the topics (now complete with ISBN numbers), to Mozart's concerto, as requested, and to assorted common file formats. But the only way I can support the veracity of statements about Mozart the music processor would be to link to the program's own web site. And I understand too much of that might be considered an advert. So I'm not sure what more I can do here.

Close connection with the subject: yes I have, and it is because of that that I was able to see that some of the old article was out of data and no longer true. I have now declared my interest with the appropriate templates. And I've trued to keep the wording neutral.

Personal reflection etc: I can only assume this refers to the reasons why the program was named after Mozart. This is a statement about the origins of the program and the idea to include it came directly from Sibelius (scorewriter) - it was named Sibelius as a reference to the brothers Finn who wrote it (Sibelius was a Finn) and because they liked his music. So there is really no difference between that and why Mozart was called Mozart.

In conclusion, I hope you can now see your way to allowing the removal of the multiple issues box.

Dave Webber (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The 'advert' issue (a point you made in 2013) has reappeared.  In view of the similarity with the other sites (above) may I remove it?  Dave Webber (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Looking at the article's history, I see that I did insert two of the tags, advert, and refimprove, in 2013; the others are from other editors. I'm conflicted answering you, because you know that I have always been a staunch supporter of Mozart; but with my Wikipedia hat on, I don't believe that article is suitable for Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that the product meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suspect that, but for my own COI, I would quite likely have nominated the article for deletion in 2013, but I wimped out and just tagged it, hoping somebody else would take a look.
 * It doesn't require permission from the original placer to remove a tag: that is just a courtesy; but I'm afraid that the tags all apply. Please read verifiability. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliably published source, and most of it from a source wholly unconnected with the subject of the article. Nothing about the author's intent or inspiration should appear, unless that has already been published by a reliable source (though I suppose for that purpose a self-published source would do). Anything which does not come from a reliably published source is considered original research, and not accepted. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what the subject of an article, or people closely associated with it, say about it: it is only interested in what people unconnected with it have published about it.
 * The features section is far too long for an encyclopaedia article - that is part of what makes it read like an ad - and wholly unsourced. In fact the big problem is that the article has almost no independent sources - the Review is the only one. A single independent source is not enough to establish notability.
 * In my view, if it is to be saved, this article will probably need to be rewritten from bottom up, based almost entirely on independent sources (if they exist - I haven't looked).
 * I'm sorry that this is not what you wanted to hear. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello ColinFine  Thanks for your reply.  I appreciate your views, but I'm getting confused.
 * Until yesterday I'd had very little to do with that article - I may have made some minor changes some years ago.  But yesterday I realised that it reflected Mozart 10 from 2009, and much of it was no longer true.  Probably few others would have realised this, so I set out to correct it myself.  I was trying to keep it as factual as possible.   And I've been on a steep learning curve from others about COI declarations, but they're now in place.


 * The reason from my confusion comes from sources like Sibelius_(scorewriter). That page has a 'Features' section longer than that of Mozart music software so I assumed that updating the existing section of Mozart music software - written by others - would be OK.  (I actually removed some points as well as adding a couple to make it more balanced, and dividing it into subsections.)    Finale (software) doesn't have 'Features' but it has sections on both 'Functionality' and 'Abilities'.   So I feel just a little upset that it appears to be all OK for Sibelius and Finale, but not apparently for Mozart - even to the extent that you might have deleted the Mozart page but not theirs.  Now they spend a lot on advertising; Mozart spends nothing.   But Mozart does have thousands upon thousands of users around the globe: after 25 years it adds up.   So I'm not happy with the idea that Mozart isn't 'notable' (although Wikipedia obviously has its own sense).    It is difficult to cite independent reviews of Mozart.  There have been a few magazine reviews over the years and one radio interview which went out somewhere in the USA but I haven't kept track of them.  A mistake, I now realise.  So an article based entirely on independent reviews would not be feasible, unless of course you include the independent efforts of the people who wrote the original (day-before-yesterday)  Mozart music software article, on which today's is based.  Which would militate against a complete rewrite - by me anyway.
 * But the bottom line is that Mozart does undeniably exist, has done for 25 years, and the Wikipedia page has been around for 12 years. So it would seem fair that Wikipedia should continue to acknowledge its existence.  And a page of roughly the same structure as that of  Sibelius_(scorewriter) was, I thought, the safest approach.
 * The thought which troubles me more than most is that I could have left it as it was 2 days ago - full of what have now become mistakes as the program has evolved - and no-one would have worried about it.  By trying to put it right I've opened a can of worms.  (I've been talking to others on User_talk:Dave_Webber and Talk:Mozart_the_music_processor about these and other concerns.  Still trying to find my way around!)


 * Anyway in conclusion, I'd really appreciate it if you could suggest what can be done (within the realms of possibility) to make the article acceptable, and allow it to supply information which is not too different from that of Sibelius_(scorewriter) and Finale (software).  Dave Webber (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * HI, . On looking, I think that Sibelius (scorewriter) probably has far too much detail, and should be pruned; but a difference I see immediately is that it has 66 citations. Many of them (probably too many) are to the company's own material; but it immediately gives a different feel. See Other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, This makes it very difficult to know what is acceptable.   It appears that Sibelius (scorewriter) can get away with dozens of references to their own material (something which I thought was bad and avoided) and Finale (software) (also with many references to the developers) can have a much more extensive release history (which reads far more like an advertisement) than Mozart the music processor's completely without criticism.  All three are essentially the same kind of computer program; all three have been around for decades.  And yet I'm not allowed to argue that Mozart the music processor should receive equal treatment!  If one can't use existing pages, which have gone without criticism, as a model, what on earth can one do?  Dave Webber (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Guestbook
Hi, Just wondering if you wanted to sign my Guestbook, which is located on my User Page

many thanks, - JJBullet  ( Talk ) 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup - 9 June 2019
This is an invite to/reminder of the Manchester Meetup on 9 June 2019. Starting at about 1pm on Sunday 9 June in the Sir Ralph Abercombie, 35 Bootle Street, Manchester. Full details are on the Meta page at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. It would be useful if you could say whether you're likely to be coming so we have a rough idea of how many to people expect and how large a table to reserve. Thanks, and hope to see you there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2019
Delivered June 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A question about Wikidata
Thanks for your response to my question in the Teahouse. I posted a reply there, but your response prompted another question, and I didn't want to clutter the Teahouse post with a separate discussion. Would you mind telling me how to link articles to Wikidata? Frequently after I have created an article, I am notified that someone has linked it to a Wikidata item. I would be glad to create such links myself, but I haven't found out how to do it. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, . You have to get to the Wikidata page, and add the article into that. An easy way to get to Wikidata is to go to an existing Wikipedia article and pick the "Wikidata Item" if there is one - if not, look for another article. Once you're in Wikidata, you can search for the subject.
 * More cunningly, if there is an existing article about something closely associated with the topic of the new article, and you go to the Wikidata item corresponding to that, there may happen to be a link within that Wikidata item to the one you want to link. For example, suppose you had just written an article about George Aislabie, father of John Aislabie, and you wanted to link that to the corresponding Wikidata item, you could go to John Aislabie, pick the "Wikidata Item" link which would take you to d:Q6218368. Half way down that you will see a link "father" which takes you to d:Q41980796, a Wikidata item for his father George. You could edit the section labelled "Wikipedia" to add a link to the new article in English Wikipedia. (Of course, often if you are working on a new article, there won't yet be a Wikidata item, but in this case there is one even though it is not yet linked to articles in any other project.)
 * Do be careful though to make sure that the scope of the Wikidata item and the Wikipedia article are the same, or you'll create exactly the problem we had with Mask and Wig. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I will explore Wikidata a bit and find my way around in it. Then I will apply your advice. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)