User talk:John M Wolfson/Archive 3

Larry Sanger
Hi John,

I just wanted to apologise for reverting your edits on Larry Sanger. I have no idea how that happened -- I must have misclicked while looking through Recent Changes, and not realised it. Again, sorry about that. aboideautalk 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries at all, hope you have a lovely day! :) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Central Australia (territory) Part 2
Hi,

I have two comments.


 * 1) I just replace links to the Australian newspaper sources that you sourced from newspaper.com with identical links from the National Library of Australia (NLA). The latter  are better because the reader does not need to access a paid site to read the original source.  For more information about the NLA source, please refer Trove.
 * 2) RWith respect to the James Stuart which you found in The Age, I must advise that this name is incorrect. For your information, most things called Stuart in both South Australia and the Northern Territory are named after John McDouall Stuart who was the first European explorer to cross the continent in the north-south direction and to survive to return to tell the story.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the information; I have revised the article as necessary. I was thinking of bringing the article to WP:DYK and was wondering if you would be interested in that. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be interested. Cowdy001 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, I have created the nom here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Qu Dongyu
Thanks for your speedy review. However, I think you erred by linking on the Talk Page to the United States. Qu is head of a United Nations organization. Roundtheworld (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching that. I had misread "United Nations" as "United States". :P – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Master Music Publications
Hello John,

Thanks for pointing out the downfalls in my proposed article. I have made changes to address your concerns. Please have a look and see what you think. To meet notability guidelines, I have added citations from newspapers (Watford Observer & Elstree & Borehamwood Times), online articles from Georgia Today and Pianist Magazine, as well as a few smaller niche blogs, such as the cross-eyed pianist etc.

I made this article as it has been referenced on a few other wikipedia pages but never made, such as Nicholas McCarthy, Luka Okros and Jiu Liu.

Best of wishes, Cabin2015 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I have marked it as patrolled. Have a good day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
I think you're mistaken in your interpretation of NPOV. When a statement is accurately summarised from a reliable source, and there are no contradictory reliable sources, then that is precisely when we make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. Please refer to WP:ASF and consider reverting yourself. --RexxS (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well, have a nice day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description question
Hi, thank you for adding the short description tag to one of my articles. Should I be adding this tag to all of my mainspace articles? I plan on adding hundreds more unincorporated community articles this year. When I read WP:SHORTDESC it implies that all articles should have the tag. DavidDelaune (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should. For efficiency you may use the magic word SHORTDESC, like so: . If you do this please use a colon  rather than a pipe (|) as it is a magic word and not a template as such. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should be using Template:Short description, and using it like this: . It's not compulsory, of course, but it provides an editable subtitle for articles on the Wikipedia App, as a disambiguator added to search results on the mobile version, and as a description when used with the Annotated link template. The template offers some advantages over the raw magic word, and is in general preferred (to the extent that there is a bot which converts the magic word to the template when run). --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this something that could be automated? I'm a software engineer and I'm interested in learning how to automate some of my Wikipedia edits. This tag seems like it would be an easy place to start. DavidDelaune (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a Shortdesc helper available for editors. As for automating your edits in general, you can maybe look into the AutoWikiBrowser or an equivalent such as JWB and see if it's right for you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I installed AWB today and it appears that it would be able to do what I want. Looks like I could add WP:SHORTDESC to every unincorporated community in each state. I would probably want to do one state at a time. It also appears to have the ability to skip articles that already contain the template. But when I attempted to log into Wikipedia it gives me a permission error. So after reading all of AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage it appears that I will have to go through alot of WP:BRFA bureaucracy to get this thing working. DavidDelaune (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you have a need for AWB, which you appear to do, it shouldn't be too much of an issue to get it, just request it here and an admin will review your request and (likely, IMO) grant it. I've myself used it to fix the shading of presidential election tables in each county, among other things. My greatest apologies, apparently you don't yet have 500 main-namespace edits, which is what is generally expected for AWB access. Sorry to bring your hopes up! However, I still think that the Shortdesc helper should help you, and encourage you to apply for AWB access when you are able and willing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
Many thanks for fixing up the first ever page I created! Ltyl (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, although I would highly recommend you read Neutral point of view and our policy on non-neutral articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Lauren Sisler
Hey I've been trying to see what to remove and what to keep on the Lauren Sisler page. I've done some cutting and I think it's good (maybe I could cut another line). I don't want to cut too too much on the page. Dwightforrm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC) I add some references (thanks to her website) and retooled her Personal Life section. Dwightform (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, just add citations to the "Career" section and it'll be good to go. (Also, please use FOUR tildes in your signature to add the date as well). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your improvements; there are still some uncited statements regarding her awards and engagement, but it looks much better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Irkutsk Ice Truckers
Thanks John, I'll look a little more. The only places that really would be secondary sources now besides their Amazon.com author profile, a YouTube channel, and a Google Business listing would be some blogs though, but I'll look into it. Thanks for fixing the sidebar. IacobusViridis (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll see how it turns out. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for editing
Hi John,

Thanks for editing and reviewing the post on Digital Empathy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_empathy). Wanted to know how can I edit the post further to remove this mesaage "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style."

do you think it needs to be further reviewed or can i remove it?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asargana96 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Asargana96,


 * Thank you for your interest. The article feels like an essay that you would write in school, particularly with such passages as With the rise in the use of computers, the principles guiding human interactions such as empathy are being explored in the context of the digital revolution, giving rise to the concept.... I removed quite a bit of the stuff that made it feel even more like something that advanced an argument, such as the "Conclusion" section, but there are still elements of essay-like writing present, such as the parentheses in the "History" section. I highly suggest you go to our page on writing better articles. In addition, please read our policies of no original research and synthesis of sources, which mean that you may not introduce novel arguments into the article; all arguments must be clearly and explicitly made in the sources themselves, rather than by you interpreting those sources. Do not remove the tag yet, let me know once you've done the work and I'll think about it at that time. Thanks!


 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Asargana96 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Hi, Based off this comment and result of comments on deletion, I have edited the page to best of my ability. please review and suggest if there's something that still needs to be reviewed. Thankyou.


 * Hello,
 * It looks much better. I'll have to think about whether to keep it, but even if I decide to do so the deletion discussion must carry on until seven days or when a conclusion is reached.
 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi John,

looping back on this article of digital emapthy, I've noticed the deletion discusion is no longer active. Do you still want the template message of personal reflection to appear on the page. Just wanted to check the status of this page. Thanks for your contributions.

Cheers,--Asargana96 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I still feel as if that would be appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to Copyright Violations
Hi there,

Thanks for the note on copyright. I actually was sent that text from Aaron Reed for his Wikipedia page, instead of copying and pasting it. As for the image, a message has already been sent to the permissions at Wikipedia with the correct owner, copyright, etc. I've done quite a bit of research into Wikipedia and how to go about edits but am always still learning best practices. However, I appreciate you reaching out!

As for the revision message—that is something I didn't know the administrator takes care of. I will note that for the future. How do I get an administrator to see that request each time?

Thanks! Hbrennah (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Okay, I just read through the Admin rules for Wikipedia and found how they help with editing. Looks like they can assist with copyright, deletions, etc. For the smaller edit requests, I'm able to do those myself! Thanks so much! Please let me know if there's anything else I'm missing.

Best, Hbrennah (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. That's fine if you have permission from the copyright holder to post things on Wikipedia, but please note that any copyrighted text you donate to Wikipedia with such permissions constitutes a permanent and irrevocable release of such copyright per Wikipedia's terms. In particular, "just for Wikipedia" is not legally meaningful when it comes to text, as Wikipedia aims to be as freely redistributable as possible. The same applies for images, as in the case of the image you uploaded to Commons: if you wish for the image to be "just for Wikipedia" you'll need to read our non-free content criteria for images, which cannot be uploaded to Commons and which are highly discouraged for living persons, and upload it to the English Wikipedia only . If you do wish to upload it as free content, again, you may do so provided that you hold the copyright but do note that  such transfer is permanent and irrevocable, and you will cease to hold the copyright if you do so.  Apologies if this seems harsh, but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.


 * As for revision deletion, you may use the template Copyvio-revdel, and fill in the appropriate parameters. The long "diff" numbers you can find via the page's history. Welcome to Wikipedia, and if you need any more help you can ask me or go to the help desk or Teahouse. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 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)

thanks
Thank you for your kind words to the newbie. It is very much appreciated. — usernamekiran (talk)  08:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, thanks! I'm just trying to keep us collegial. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)
Hello John M Wolfson, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Article has been significantlt expanded and therefore is not CSD-G4. If you would still like to dispute the validity of this article, plkewase consider another AfD.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Digital empathy, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Central Australia (territory)
valereee (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benjamin F. Lewis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benjamin F. Lewis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benjamin F. Lewis
The article Benjamin F. Lewis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Benjamin F. Lewis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AshSkidmore Edits
Hi John - can you give me a chance to finish the patent track crane page I am working on before editing? I am fixing some of the things you listed. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshSkidmore (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I apologize if I'm interrupting anything, but I think that the article isn't ready to be in the main article space and should instead become a draft, unless you are almost finished with it. In addition, please do not copy and paste material from elsewhere into Wikipedia, even if you cite or link the source, as that constitutes copyright infringement. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Peake
i added a source. Baozon90 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Baozon90, thank you for adding a source. I think it is reliable enough, and will thus remove the BLPPROD. However, I do highly urge you to read our policy on biographies of living persons, our guidelines on notability, and Your first article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin F. Lewis
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
This message takes the place of subst:uw-biog1. Please don't add unsourced contentious material to BLP pages as you did to Larry Sanger. Your edit summary was also lacking and even if taken at face value doesn't support the material added... “Per his blog” is a joke. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for messaging me directly about this (although I would have preferred you explain the reversion in the appropriate edit summary as well), and thank you for respecting my wishes to not be templated. The blog post is here and he explicitly says that he has resigned from Everipedia and is giving back his stock. I was mistaken in not including that source, and I should have known better with regards to BLP. I understand that his blog is not the best of sources, especially since this is a BLP, but looking through the criteria I believe it passes ABOUTSELF and thus should be included when sourced. (I am aware that there is currently an RfC going on with concerns about the Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. part of CRYSTAL, but I don't believe that this falls into either.) If you believe further discussion is warranted we can take it to the talk page. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)