User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019-09

__NOINDEX__

Stockholm
I just figured it was an American film, it may in fact be Canadian. Vincelord (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A reply to this... Sigh more cultural imperialism...  Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margaret Visser, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mayan and HMH ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Margaret_Visser check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Margaret_Visser?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fireboats of North America has been nominated for discussion
Category:Fireboats of North America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Trialpears (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram
I think you should stop pestering. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's talk page
As Fram has made it clear he isn't interested in your advice or admonishments, and has removed your attempts to leave such commentary on his talk page multiple times, I advise you to cease such attempts, lest you be found guilty of harassment. There is no need to post on Fram's talk page offering broad criticism or advice; should you require dispute resolution, keep it to the article or project talk pages, please. Killer Chihuahua 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy requires us to inform people when we discuss their contributions and comments at WPANI, and other venues. I've found it unpleasant when I have seen people discussing me, and not informing me.  That's why I left the heads-up, that I addressed your question on your talk page.
 * Note, the face value of Fram's edit summary "Now try it without the personal attacks" is an implied invitation to try again. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy does NOT require you harass other editors. Full stop. Just stop talking about, and to, Fram. Easy peasy. Do something else. Killer Chihuahua 20:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , in this comment you wrote "as it is you're hardly in a position to  cast aspersions ." Sorry, I didn't study Latin, and I am not sure what you mean. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque was linked. Follow the link, and the article has all the information on the term you might need. Killer Chihuahua 20:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or even simpler, read what I used as the piped text - cast aspersions. Don't cast aspersions. Killer Chihuahua 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , isn't it a little more complicated than that? Did you mean to imply you think there is something wrong with my record of comments on talk pages, and other fora?  If you didn't mean that, let's forget it.
 * Alternatively, maybe you do think my comment record is problematic, but you lack the time, or patience, or interest, to explain yourself?
 * I wrote an essay Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment Short version: the people who question us, challenge us, won't learn if we don't explain ourselves, and, sometimes, while offering them that explanation, we may realize they had a valid point, after all.  I hope you take the time to read it.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Fram's made it clear he doesn't want your advice or comments on his talk page. Don't persist in posting there, that's harassment. Don't talk about Fram if you can avoid it; that way you won't need to notify him (or not) that you're talking about him. Find something else to do. Because yes, there is something very wrong with your posting multiple times on his talk page when you know your input is not wanted there. It's harassment, and that's not acceptable. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Killer Chihuahua  20:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (sigh) I am cutting and pasting what I wrote, above: "Note, the face value of Fram's edit summary "Now try it without the personal attacks" is an implied invitation to try again." If we ever interact again could you please confine your comments to the English language?   Geo Swan (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh all you like. Fram's edit summary has no bearing on whether you get to harass Fram. Killer Chihuahua 23:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Leacock
Just for the record, articles are not improved by adding the awarding organization's own self-published press release about itself as duplicate referencing for a fact that already has a proper notability-supporting media citation to support it.

Firstly, no fact in an article ever needs multiple sources to reverify it; each statement only needs one footnote that properly supports it, and if you want to add any additional references you need to either find a fact in the article that is supported by the source but has no footnote for it at all yet, or add new facts that are supported by the source but not reflected in the article at all — adding a new source that just reverifies facts that already have sources, without adding anything new, is not adding value to the article.

And secondly, even when it comes to sourcing the basic fact of the award win itself, the award organization's own self-published press release is automatically the least valuable or notability-assisting source you can add to an article, because it doesn't represent independent reportage of the fact in an unaffiliated source. Writers aren't automatically notable because they've won just any literary award that exists — an award has to get media coverage about the award before it even counts as a notability-making award at all, so the award's own press release is never even a notability-clinching source in the first place.

The press release simply has no value at all as a source in its own right. It doesn't add anything on notability grounds, because the press release wouldn't have singlehandedly clinched Cathal Kelly's notability at all if the fact had not been picked up by any real media as a news story — and it doesn't add anything on verifiability grounds either, because the article already has a proper notability-supporting source for his award win and doesn't need a second source to redundantly reverify the same fact. It's simply not needed, for any reason at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is in reference to this edit I made to Cathal Kelly, that was started in June. I started a draft, in April.  I added  a reference my draft used, that wasn't used in the article, before I retired it.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French Broad River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broad River ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/French_Broad_River check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/French_Broad_River?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)