User talk:Lacypaperclip

Welcome!
Hello, Lacypaperclip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference list missing
Hi Lacypaperclip, have a look at your ref list fix. You have added the template before the ref tags! --GünniX (talk)


 * Hi GünniX, thanks for catching that. Happy WPCleanering! Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Kina Grannis
Hello!

Why were all the YouTube links removed in the music videos section?

In what sense is a musician with a million YouTube subscribers and multiple charting albums not-notable?

Which content, specifically, is written like an advertisement?

Thanks!

Kinerd518 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * External links within the body of any article are not allowed. Sorry. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally you were warned about external links in body here: Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines "External links should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Wikipedia is not an advertising opportunity." Kina Grannis is a musician, and the links were specifically to her official music videos - surely that's directly relevant and meritable. Such linking also survives all 19 of the criteria listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Whether twelve links in a seven page article is minimal is a judgment call, but that's a far cry from flatly declaring external links as not allowed.

A stated reason in the warning you cite is copyright concerns. As I made explicit on my reversion, copyright is not relevant in this case. The bot also explicitly states "If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert." added emphasis mine.

I also would really like to hear your reasoning on the other two issues you painted the entire page with, at your earliest convenience.

Kinerd518 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is the policy:  Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.  Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't say that external links aren't allowed though. It says "many videos hosted on YouTube", which necessarily implies that some are allowable. For these particular videos, there is no copyright violation, because they are music videos on the channel of the artist who owns the copyright.

Since you have not discussed adding the non-notable tag after I have made multiple attempts to engage you on it, I am removing it.

I look forward to working with you to address the other issues on this page! :)

Kinerd518 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I know I'm addressing this issue about two months after the fact, but I thought I would clarify on the above concerns about YouTube videos. There is zero issue with linking to a YouTube artist's main page in the "External links" section. However, linking to every video in the body of the text is "an advertising opportunity". In such lists of publications we do not necessarily need to verify that every video exists, thus we do not need direct links to said videos. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I do still feel there's some wiggle room in that policy but it's not worth getting in a war over, and I certainly see how it's relevant to the issue at hand. Kinerd518 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User name
Thanks very much for your compliment regarding my username, but I have to admit that rather than inventing it I borrowed it from 'The Young Ones', an 'alternative' comedy sitcom in the UK in the early 1980s in which a bunch of loser students lived in appalingly squalid conditions in a rented house. They played together in a useless band which was called 'alternative car park' because it was so, like, alternative. The key character Rick, played by Rick Mayall, was loathsomely narcissistic and hypocritically pretentious, claiming to be 'down with the kids' and wanting to bring on the revolution while in fact being irreconcilably middle class. Alternativecarpark (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lawton
Thanks for your assistance on my recent Jeffrey Lawton article. It's a great help and will take note of your style for the future.Alfshire (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Please ask if you have any questions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, you just beat me to heading my talk reply - which I forgot to do. I will check out your articles as good guidelines I can use.Alfshire (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Manu Limbu. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are incorrect in leaving this message here. I declined the speedy deletion and removed the speedy tag on purpose. I left a proper edit summary. See here: Wow. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My error, somehow I thought only an administrator is allowed to remove a speedy deletion tag. That said, do not edit my thread header like you did here ; that is a blatant violation of WP:TPO. You may remove a notice you not like, but you may not violate TPO like that. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not change your talk page message at all. I adjusted an incorrect header on my own talk page. I wonder how you came across this old speedy? You must not like some other posting I made today. I will thank you to stay off my talk page altogether. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read WP:TPO. It states here,


 * It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate. Another heading was appropriate since as you stated above that you had made an error. Stop nit-picking. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers!
Thank you for your help (Artwriter99 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwriter99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Please let me know if you have any questions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you help on Vietnam Veterans for Factual History
I appreciate you helping to improve the article. If you think it's worth saving, would you mind commenting on the Afd page? Txantimedia (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Please feel free to ask any questions here. I had already planned to look over that afd, thanks for mentioning it to me. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Moates
-&#61;Eduardo&#61;- (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

04:23:09, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Km2196
Thank you for your review of my article submission, but I just wanted to point out that regarding the subject's notability: you stated that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability", but item 4(d) on the requirements for notability of creative professionals clearly calls for The person's work (or works) to be " ... (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This Artist is represented in the collections of the Museum of Modern Art; the Whitney Museum of American Art; and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York; the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, as well as the Centre Pompidou in Paris, as can be verified be the references included, on the websites of these museums, which are among the world's most significant and notable museums of contemporary art. 4(d) seems to plainly say that this in itself is enough to satisfy wikipedia's notability requirements. Please let me know if there are other problems or if any other references are inadequite. Most of the other references are also reliable, secondary, independent publications with significant reviews (not simply mentions).


 * Simply stating that the artist is represented in the permanent collections you list above is not good enough. The writer must include references to WP:RS that verify V those claims. In the lead it is necessary to put what the significance of the artist is. Please include references to WP:RS that discuss the artist with significant coverage, not just brief mentions or gallery listings or shows. I will take another look at the draft and see if I may add something more to show notability. Please ask here if you have any further questions. Thank you for contacting me. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with the article - I think I (finally) understand a bit better how to do this! I hopefully addressed the issues and have resubmitted. I included a summary describing his significance at the top, referenced museum exhibitions and inclusion in museum collections, fixed the close paraphrasing with a direct quote, and improved the referencing in general. Let me know if you find any other problems, hope this is good! Km2196 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I will take another look at this article tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for working on all the improvements. Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks so much! Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

David Buchler
Hello,

I had my article declined on 1 December, so I made significant changes and resubmitted on the same day.

I know the waiting list is long and that the resubmitted draft may be reviewed by someone else, but I was wondering roughly how long it might take. The reason I ask is because you originally reviewed the first version withion only a few hours of submission, whereas the current draft was submitted 10 days ago. Any pointers?

Thanks and kind regards...

Hydra2017

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydra2017 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

White House press corps
Due to the continued edit war, I had a lock put on the page. Now I can focus on other articles. Thank you for your help. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck. Lacypaperclip (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

list of tags on wikipedia
this is a tag we use on wikipedia since 1994 its one of the official ones listed here do NOT remove it until consensus its self explanatory read here what is written [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (December 2017) This includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (December 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal

you need to learn when to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.104.53 (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not read like an essay to me, and there are a ton of footnotes. Thus, neither maintenance tag is appropriate and I have removed them. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) You need to learn how to see that there are 16 inline citations in the article. The article in not essay like. You have mis-applied these tags several times after it was explained to you. You can keep reinserting them if you want, but that is considered disruptive editing and or edit warring to insert incorrect warning tags. Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Primefac for weighing in on this one. Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Richie Gallo page
My wiki post contains materials that I have acquired as part of my research as I  pursue a  Master's Degree at the University of Louisville. There is nothing commercial about this, I have received no money from my research and was unfamiliar with almost everyone mentioned on the page at the beginning of my research process. Also I am not a relative of Richie and have no connection to his estate. I believe there is no conflict of interest on my end. But my language could be more neutral, I will try to rectify that. Richiegallo (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to this matter. It is an excellent and detailed article. With your editor name quite similar to the subjects's name, I did feel it was important to clarify if there was any family or business connection. Keep up your good work. Please feel free to post to me here if you have any questions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you are not Richie Gallo, then you will need to request a username change here, as we do not allow usernames to be the same as living/famous individuals. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help . It looks that Richiegallo has promptly requested a change. Lacypaperclip (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Article on DorothyTanner
Thank you, Laceypaperclip. I am happy to know the article has been accepted at the starter category. As I make improvements, is the page occasionally revisited by a reviewer? In other words, how does the page move up in the grading scheme? In appreciation, Barryraphael (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome Barryraphael. I do keep a list of articles that I reviewed and accepted. I follow up with them frequently and re-assess as needed. If you improve Dorothy Tanner more, please feel free to drop me a note here, and I will look the article over. It is a quite detailed and interesting. Great job! I saw another editor but a blp sources on the article. You might want to find a few more references to add so that we may remove that tag. Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Lacypaperclip. I thought I had too many references and had removed quite a few as some were from articles from high school and college newspapers, as well as other local newspapers and magazines, but they are not well-known publications. I will look at my reference list again.

It has been difficult so far to reference articles that were written before the World Wide Web as many were from the 1950s (1) 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and the early 1990s before Mel Tanner died in 1993. I did find a digital copy from a the University of Miami that had an article from 1970 that I referenced. Some of the newspapers have gone out of business or have seen sold. Fortunately, almost all of this project's articles have been kept in very good condition and recently all digitized. Do you think if I located more of these pre-Web articles through online searches that I could cite, that would be a great improvement to the Dorothy Tanner article.

I am a member of a not-for-profit archive project, Artyve, (https://arthyve.org/ whose members include artists, museum archivists, university librarians, and educators. An important part of the project is assembling a Wikipedia page of Denver artists, and I am representing Dorothy Tanner. I have been a volunteer archivist at the Tanner Studio for over 45 years. Dorothy Tanner is now 94 (her husband Mel Tanner passed in 1993) and Dorothy is preparing for a major exhibit commissioned by the City of Denver. I thought this would be a most appropriate time to write a Wikipedia article about Ms. Tanner.

I emailed my Sandbox page this past weekend to a Univ. of Colorado librarian who is the Wikipedia "coach" for Arthyve, made suggestions, and encouraged me to have it reviewed. I will work on the references and citing if that is what is lacking.

Barryraphael (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Barryraphael, Please do understand that reference or source materials do NOT need to be available online, in order to use them as a reference in the article. Journals, magazines, newspapers and many other materials can be used also, if proper citations are used. Hope that helps. Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Laceypaperclip! Barryraphael (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Laceypaperclip, I cited approximately 21 additional references this morning to the Dorothy Tanner article. When your time permits, kindly visit the article. Thank you! Barryraphael (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good work Barryraphael! Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Lacypaperclip. As I write, my eyes are teary. Barryraphael (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 ANI Round 2
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I’ve created an ANI for JamesHarrison2014/Michael Moates. Billhpike (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In reference to my black user space on Vasantrao Madhavrao Ghatge
Hi Lacypaperclip, I am a new user. I read your message on my talk page. I have not created an Autobiography. I may have projected so by mistake since I am very new to creating an article on Wikipedia.I have used the same user name as the personality about whom I have created the draft. Will changing it help my situation? Please help me to correct this. Vasantrao Madhavrao Ghatge (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you will need to request a username change because we do not allow usernames to be the same as living or famous people. Look here for information on how to do so. Let me know if you have any other questions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have requested a new username, the approval is pending. I just wanted to know if the article is still in the pipeline to get submitted or is it deleted. Could you let me know the exact status of my article? I am afraid I feel confused and lost. Vasantrao Madhavrao Ghatge (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not worry. Your draft is not deleted at all. It is right here: You can continue to work on it. It is currently in queue to be reviewed. I will try to have a look at it tomorrow and see how it has progressed. All is well. It is good you have applied for a different name. You are doing well. Cheers! Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your prompt response! Vasantrao Madhavrao Ghatge (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lacypaperclip, my draft was recently declined. The note was about inline citations and the picture from my Infobox was deleted too. I have now added citations but I am still not sure if the draft is good to go. I need your help and your understanding about the same.The draft is under Vasantrao Ghatge. Can you please have a look and guide me? Poojak92 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for expanding the article. I was wondering if would be able to provide more details about the book Biography of Vasantrao Ghatge. Is it in English or in Marathi? Does it have an ISBN? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the biography is in Marathi. We are not yet pushing the book to the retailers and wholesalers. It has been printed in hard copy by a Trust hence we do not have the ISBN number. It is published in India. The contributions of the subject have been long forgotten after his demise which prompted me to write an article. The content collaborated by me has been extracted from the book. The link to the release of the book in newspapers has been added by me at the bottom. Please guide. Poojak92 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks your for your prompt reply, . In the bibliography of an article, the title of a book should be given in the language in which the book is in: either in its native script or transliterated, but not translated into English. Is Vasant Vaibhav the title of the book? Also, would you be able to double-check that the link to the newspaper announcement is the correct one? The description says it's from 4 December, but the link goes to the newspaper issue from 4 September instead. – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again,, thank you for pointing the title issue. I had totally missed that. I have changed the title to it's exact name in Marathi now. And there was a mistake while entering the date by me. I have corrected it now. Does the article look good to go now? Poojak92 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

White House press corp RFC.
There is an open RFC on talk:White House press corps Billhpike (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

14:21:30, 26 December 2017 review of submission by Itisandy
Hello, Thanks for your review. I'm wondering if I should just delete the life/work details and make this article a short paragraph. JFK's life's work has been chronicled by notable news sources (DetroitNews, FreePress, HuffPost, PrideSource, NetworkJournal, Ballotpoia, others) in more so than many other people who've had articles written about them, and he is documented as running for public office right now. I'd like to know if there are any suggestions for cleaning up this article.
 * Running for public office does not usually confer notability. I will take another look at the draft today to see if I can offer more suggestions to improve it. Thank you for contacting me. I will try to help as best I can. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Inserted a link to new Wikipedia site for Alfred Edward Rodewald
I am sorry to trouble you and hope that I am asking a question in the right place. I find the instructions far from clear. I understand that my page as above was accepted on 18/12/2017 and there does appear to exist when logged into Wikipedia. However, using a search engine such as Google does not find it. Could you please clarify the status of this Wiki page?

I am currently working on a page for Robert Ernest Bryson and hope that, as my second contribution, I can process this more correctly and efficiently.

Alan Jones Alan.jones.ski (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * After the article is published at AFC, it has to also be reviewed at NPP. (New Page Patrol) Until the NPP is done the article is not indexed with google. There is a backlog for reviews at NPP currently. As soon as they review it, the article will appear in google. Looking forward to the new article you will be creating! Lacypaperclip (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

12:19:25, 1 January 2018 review of submission by SubjectIsDead
Dear Lacypaperclip, first of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my article. I've tried my best to improve the article with more independent sources. However, I'm not really sure if I've done everything correctly. Would you be so kind as to look at my article again and, if need be, inform me of what needs to be improved? Thank you once again for taking time out of your day to help a new editor get into the world of the English Wikipedia. SubjectIsDead (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at the draft a little later today. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you want me to resubmit it for evaluation, or is there no need? SubjectIsDead (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No need. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked over this draft again, and I am afraid I am just not seeing the notability. I am open to listen though. Please tell me what you thinks makes the subject notable? Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Lacypaperclip, I have taken another look at the page on general notability guidelines for biographies as well as the specific guidelines for academics and I feel like Draaisma meets the criteria stated there. First of all he was inducted into the Order of Orange-Nassau, which is roughly the highest decoration anyone can earn within the Netherlands, fulfilling the requirement "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". Secondly, I have tried to show that Draaisma is mentioned in a number of independent Dutch newspapers, such as NRC and AD, both being nationally recognized independent newspapers, as well as Contact Zutphen-Warnsveld, a local Dutch newspaper (I can understand if this last one doesn't count as being notable, but the other two definitely are). Finally, I'd like to point out that Draaisma holds the Heymans Chair at the University of Groningen, which makes him eligible for a biography according to the notability page for academics ("5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)" (however, I am uncertain how to source this differently than through the website of the University of Groningen itself). I feel like all of these things combined should be enough to make Draaisma eligible for his own biography on Wikipedia. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read through all of this. SubjectIsDead (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Published and ✅. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

15:20:25, 1 January 2018 review of submission by 2606:A000:112A:C05D:7C81:AE5B:12BD:E33C
Hello! I'm just stopping by wondering why this article was rejected. I'm a big fan of Netflix Originals in general, and the upcoming TV series is a major, multi-million dollar production which she so happens to be a prominent character on. Scrolling through the Wikipedia pages in association with the upcoming TV series, she remains the only one without a Wikipedia page, and the current one submitted by the writer is even more detailed than most of them! I beg you to reconsider your stance on this subject, and while I understand that cranking through so many of these backlogged drafts is priority here (most of them are pretty terrible, to say the least), I hope you can take a more detailed look into Sundwall and her situation because it does include the necessary sources required to establish her notability, and she does have a social prominence that highly recommends her addition to the largest encyclopedia on the planet.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to this bright community of volunteers, -Jake
 * I will take another look at this draft on tomorrow. Thanks for writing me. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I am not going to be able to accept this draft for publishing. It is really WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps when the subject does more in the future she may become notable. Simply having roles in several shows or films does not automatically confer notability. You would need to find references that contain significant coverage not just brief mentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

5 January 2018 review of submission by Wingazing
Hello Lacypaperclip I am new here to wikipedia and very excited to learn as much as I can. I cut off the fat, or what could potentially be a peacock from what I learned and only stated the facts for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lola_Langusta This draft is only stating facts and hoping it is closer to being correct. Again, I am newbie and if not even sure if this is the right place to reach out - if it's not I apologize. Looking forward, Wingazing (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 5 January 2018
 * Welcome to wikipedia ! It is fine to contact me right here. I will check out the draft again later on today. Thanks for updating it to be neutral. If you have any questions you are welcome to ask here anytime. Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I a had no idea about grading scales and will study how to improve! This is an exciting world and excited to get learn as much as I can. This response is going to a test in learning for myself. Also, thank you so much for sharing Teahouse with me and Happy New Year! Wingazing (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kaya Jones - Legal Action
We have extensive proof, birth records, etc, Kaya is not claimed by any federally recognized tribe or any tribe for that matter and are willing to bring legal action as we are already in the process of serving Kaya. I am new at this and I am thankful for your willingness to help us publish these facts to Kaya Jones Page.

http://www.nv1.org Monday, January 8, 2018 — Native American ambassador…Kaya Jones? The appointment of Kaya Jones as the Native American representative on a diversity panel ignited a firestorm of pushback, especially on social media. In her role she will ostensibly offer advice on reaching Native voters for the National Diversity Coalition for Trump, a private organization working on behalf of the president. Jones claims to have Apache heritage, but no Apache tribe claims her and her lineage is otherwise unconfirmed.

http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/monday-january-8-2018-native-american-ambassadorkaya-jones/ The appointment of Kaya Jones as the Native American representative on a diversity panel ignited a firestorm of pushback, especially on social media. In her role she will ostensibly offer advice on reaching Native voters for the National Diversity Coalition for Trump, a private organization working on behalf of the president. Jones claims to have Apache heritage, but no Apache tribe claims her and her lineage is otherwise unconfirmed.

https://www.acast.com/nativeopinion/what-will-you-do-when-your-rights-are-gone Kaya Jones, who has a problematic relationship with the truth, claimed to be Apache and newly appointed Native Ambassador. The first problem, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, she is not Native. The second problem, for her first act as an "ambassador to Indian Country — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApacheNation (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Róbert Kreutz
Many thanks for your work on the new Róbert Kreutz article. David e cooper (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I was happy to help. Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Anusha Rai
Hi,

I had my article declined on 30 December, so I made significant changes and resubmitted for review.

I know the waiting list is long and that the resubmitted draft may be reviewed by someone else, but I was wondering how long it might take. This current draft was submitted 10 days ago. Any pointers? Below is my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusha_Rai

Thanks and kind regards... Kirapz
 * I do try to follow up on drafts I have reviewed. I will try to have another look at it tomorrow. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

HI,

Did you get any chance to review my article.

Regards, J.Lohith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

note
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately&#32; on James D. Zirin. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. 'Please note that there is a consensus that BLP violation removal is always 3RR exempt. Continuing to insert non-BLP compliant sources is not advised. Please open a discussion on the Talk page first.' Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are editing disruptively. You seem to have been upset when I had accepted an draft you previously declined. You immediately nominated the article for deletion. Fair enough. Since then you have proceeded to gut the article and strip most bits of information out of the article while hiding behind some blp rule. Your threat will do no good here. Myself and another editor have both made improvements and added numerous reliable sourcing. Then you go back through and remove the information and sourcing again and again. I have not made any reverts today. You are the one who keeps removing cited info over and over for no proper reason. After nomming an article it is frowned upon to GUT the article, and then you edit war to keep improvement out the article. The readers deserve to see the article with its references and judge for themselves for the AFD. You are disrupting the improvement of the article. Stop your edit warring! Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * of you need to knock it off. There is nothing saying that an article cannot be edited while there is an ongoing AFD. Unless I'm missing something, you're both arguing over whether the word "paid obituary" should be included. This is not a hill worth dying on.
 * Other than that, you're both (in general) making improvements to the page, so discuss the paid obit thing on the talk and leave the 3RR threats alone. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you and noted, Primefac. I've hatted the templates[edit] bombing of on[edit] my own Talk page so that we can wrap this up and move on. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no template bombing. You put one warning on my talk page, and I put two on yours for two different issues. Please do not come here and make an unfounded accusation of some fictitious template bombing. There was no need to make a snarky comment like that. Stop it! I am not interested. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't mean to offend you. I was under the impression that was just the term used to refer to back-to-back templates left with no intervening edits on the article in question, and I did not mean to invoke it as an insult. However, I have stricken that phrase to ensure there is no perception of a slight against you. Again, my apologies for any offense I may have caused. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Read. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

10:40:54, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Personman
Hi Lacypaperclip,

The current revision addressed some NPOV concerns raised by SeraphWiki. As you can see from that discussion, SeraphWiki felt that the in-depth Wired and Guardian articles were sufficient on the notability front. Can you explain in more detail why you disagree with this? It's certainly possible to find more articles about Brough, but I'm not sure that doing so would increase the encyclopedic value of the article.

You also write that it reads like an advertisement. This concern was raised by SeraphWiki as well, and a number of specific terms that felt promotional to them were removed. Can you be more specific about which aspects of the article you consider promotional? Thanks! –Personman (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see where said, I agree with you that it might pass notability, the Wired and Guardian article are in-depth, but the draft still needs some work before it can be moved to mainspace. Key word there is might. I believe there is a need for more references in order to show notability. The first sentence talking about the multiple nominations and honorable mention, at the time I reviewed the draft was unsourced. That claim definitely needs a source in my view. Also, what awards has the subject actually won? While I respect the amount of work and talent that goes into creating these games, that sentence with its multiple claims still needs sourcing to a reliable source or sources. Since you have asked about this so politely, I will be glad to have another look at the draft on tomorrow. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I've added a third major source, a design analysis from Gamasutra (a major industry source) that supports the claims about Brough's distinctive style. Regarding your claim that the mention of multiple nominations is uncited in the first sentence, that was intentional – each award for which he was a finalist is cited individually in the body, so it seemed superfluous to list those references on that sentence as well. If there is some style guideline about not saving references for later, let me know and I can move them, though I fear it will look worse to just have a big row of six refs in the first graf, rather than attached to the appropriate years.
 * As for "actually winning awards", I think this is an easy perspective to have as an outsider, but as someone familiar with the IGF it sounds a bit funny. Being a finalist is a significant honor. | Here's the page describing what you win – it's not that different from what the winner gets, aside from the money. That page lists 'exhibitor passes' which is kind of vague – what it actually means is that you get free booth space in the expo hall of the largest industry convention in the world. It is a Big Deal to be an IGF finalist.
 * Thanks for your time and attention, and please let me know if there's anything else you think needs work! –Personman (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

07:00:42, 12 January 2018 review of submission by Monkeyc128
The changes were made to the article as to not speak so much on who Jazz’s parents are. The artist has many verifiable articles published about her. Since she is a musician and tv personality, most of her write ups come from notable television networks and hip-hop sites/electronic magazines. I will make as many changes necessary because Jazz is a notable artist with a widespread and growing fan base. What would you recommend? Decreasing the amount of citations? Monkeyc128 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You did some good work trimming parts of it. Tell me what make Jazz notable? Please read over WP:NACTOR to see what requirements need to be met to show notability for an actress oo actor. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Swami Smaranananda
Hi there. I resubmitted the page Draft:Swami_Smaranananda for review. I included, on the talk page Draft_talk:Swami_Smaranananda, additional references from major independent news sources. I trust this will establish notability. Thanks, Devadaru (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd interlude dean koontz
How is an interview with author in question talking about book in question, not a verified source? Nixy1066 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain, I will quote some pertinent passages.


 * the material in an interview comes directly from whomever is being interviewed, and those people can say whatever they like.
 * Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. 
 *  No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material.
 * anything the interviewee says about himself or herself or their own work is primary. If it's primary, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.

These are from here: Please let me know if you have any further questions. Feel free to come back. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Swami Smaranananda
Hi there, Lacypaperclip,

Thanks for helping to add the references to Draft:Swami_Smaranananda. I was sure that would be enough, but it has been rejected again; I think the reviewer didn't even see the new references, since the comment was:

Comment: There is only one source, and that's to his own writings. I'm afraid, as the previous reviewer indicated, this doesn't establish Notability.

I put a note on the talk page User_talk:KJP1 pointing out the new references; hope that will be enough to release the article.

I admit it's still a stub, but of a noteworthy subject.

Thanks again for your help, Devadaru (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

ps: whoops, sorry I forgot I already started a section on your talk page for this subject. Didn't mean to add another one. Devadaru (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries I am always happy for pleasant people to open new sections here. Please stop by anytime! You are welcome for me adding your references to the article. I am always happy to help and collaborate with my colleagues here. I am not sure who rejected the draft. I  will, however, add the draft back on my to do list for tomorrow. I will check it out, and see if there is anything I can do to help improve the draft further. Have a lovely afternoon. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alas, Lacypaperclip, User:KJP1 declined the page again! I get the feeling that this is a cultural misunderstanding. No-one from India would ever suppose the the president of the Ramakrishna Mission was not a notable subject. Anyhow, I guess I'll wait a while, and resubmit later, hoping to get a more sympathetic reviewer next time (and maybe finding some more material).
 * Thanks again for your help. Devadaru (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you would like me to take one last look, re-submit the draft, and I will review it once again. I will be working the next 4 or 5 hours. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk)

ps. I love to learn and study about all different religions. No cultural misunderstanding here. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Lacypaperclip. I resubmitted the article, though by now you are probably no longer online. I added more information and references, as well as an image. Hope you will find a moment to have a look.
 * I too love finding inspiration in many different religions. :-)
 * Devadaru (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A thousand thanks, Lacypaperclip, and a bow to you! I appreciate your help and encouragement. Having the page turned down several times has forced us (I mean you and me) to improve it; so, though it was frustrating, it had a good result. I know it is still a beginner page, but I hope and think it's a good start. Now I need a break! All best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Zelgizbog
Hi Lacypaperclip,

Thanks for your review. Please find the rewritten page for SPARX Group. Please let me know if all looks in order.

Best, Zelgizbog 7:02 Jan 13th Zelgizbog (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
Thank you for your help with my first page Charles Irving Elliott....Yay!!! KlausVonVilver (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Fabulous article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Supremely Partisan) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Supremely Partisan, Lacypaperclip!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This article needs a section on content (the book itself) not merely reception/reviews. See WP:NONFICTION for guidelines."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Corey Postiglione page
Hi and thanks for your input and additions. Can you provide further guidance for improving the article to better meet Wikipedia's criteria? Using the "Start-Class" descriptions, in this case, is it a matter of 1) content; 2) prose; 3) sources; 4) MOS issues; or 5) BLP isues? Thanks again. Mianvar1 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Mianvar1
 * Are his works held in the permanent collections anywhere? Do you have any other images, perhaps of a few of his more notable pieces? More sources are always good, as long as they are from reliable sources. See: WP:RS. Some quotes (with citations) from any critical reviews about some of his works. Just a few ideas off the top of my head, I will look at the article and let you know of any other ideas I can think of doing. Happy Sunday! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks—that is helpful. I had planned to pursue a few of those ideas (collections, additional images) and could definitely pull quotes in some cases rather than paraphrase. Mianvar1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello I am Planet seed. Thank you very much for taking your time to review and help my article! If there are anymore to improve, I will appreciate your advice! Draft: Ryonosuke Hirama Planet seed (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

08:05:12, 15 January 2018 review of submission by Adams1peace
Thank you for your help. I have now added sections on invited lectures and commissions with 20 independent references. I also added reference in Scientific American about my role in the Seville Statement and reference to an article about the Culture of Peace Declaration co-authored with Federico Mayor, who was my Director-General and who is certainly a notable person with a Wikipedia page. By my count there are now 57 references. I have also refined the link to the IYCP Taskforce o the Wikipedia page on the International Year for the Culture of Peace which indicates that I was the chair of the taskforce. As far as I know, this was placed in Wikipedia from the beginning by author James Page. And if you need independent confirmation of my role, it is contained in the above article published with Federico Mayor.

Hopefully, these independent references now show sufficient notability. These are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Adams1peace (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Adams1peace (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Please do not worry. Your draft has tons of references, but they are currently not all formatted correctly as inline citations. For more information on how to format in-line citations please read WP:REFB. There are really a lot of references, so I am going to start formatting some of them in order to give you a helping hand on the draft. Please let me know if you need anymore questions,need more help, or any assistance. Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
You nominated my page as an ATTACK page? are you serious?

What an utter joke.

You call yourself an administrator and yet do not properly review my page? perhaps you should spend more time reading my references and the official court documents before getting your feelings hurt.

Cencoredme (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, I do not call myself an administrator. Again, you need to watch your tone. (second warning) First warning is at your talk page. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should read peoples comments who are indeed editors before drawing false conclusions about BLP violations that do not exist.Cencoredme (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I drew no false conclusions. I am warning you for the third time now, Watch your tone! You have already made more than one personal attack toward me. The next time you act inappropriately and personally attack me will be the last time.  Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking you, I am stating the fact that you falsely reported my article as an attack page, which it clearly is not.Cencoredme (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not falsely report anything. Times up for you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why nominate it for speedy deletion when it is not an attack page? Care to explain on what criteria you feel this is an attack page?Cencoredme (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

12:29:00, 15 January 2018 review of submission by Zelgizbog
Hi Lacypaperclip,

Thank you for the edits. Please let me know if you see any other necessary changes on the page.

Best, Zelgizbog

Hi Lacypaperclip

I made a few more changes. Would appreciate any direction to improve the page. Thank you!Zelgizbog (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Zelgizbog (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

 

Metadata on the March
From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by
 * Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton
 * From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library
 * GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report
 * Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica
 * }

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Brough (game designer) has been accepted
 Michael Brough (game designer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Lacypaperclip (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Michael_Brough_(game_designer) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Michael Brough article
Thanks so much for jumping in and helping with the creation of this page! —Personman (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I'd like to know your reasoning for reverting my edits to Murex, New York Power Authority, and Umarex, as well as the speedy deletion notices for three pages I created. Of course, I understand the tags, but these articles were created for redlinks, and have notability. I will be contesting their deletions, but I'd just like more of an explanation regarding them and the reverted edits. I'm currently working on reducing the amount of articles in a category of pages using infoboxes with unsupported parameters. The infobox is no different between my edit and the previous one, except for the fact that the page now appears in that category because I had fixed a problem in the infobox. Thanks. Potatornado (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we can spend our time much more productively by discussing this edit of yours right here. Can you tell me what was happening there?

Lacypaperclip (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Converting references? I'm sorry, I don't understand why this is bad. I understand your comment about how I shouldn't delete references other people can convert. Are pdfs convertible? If so, I'd like to know how to convert them. Potatornado (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What is really quite odd is I do not see any other edits by you there. Please explain to me how did you delete those as you term them un convertible edits? This is quite interesting. and yes pdf's can be converted. I will have to show you some time. Now, do please go on!  Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are implying. I was under the assumption that pdfs were un convertible, and therefore couldn't cite them. I'd like to understand why you have reverted my other edits. I would love to talk about those! Potatornado (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that was fun, but seriously, can we please resolve these problems sophisticatedly? Potatornado (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Natural Information Society
Hi Lacypaperclip, Thanks for all our input! "Uncut" is a UK magazine that comes out in print, checkout this link :http://www.uncut.co.uk/publication/uncut/january-2018 Thanks! (Artrainschool (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC))


 * The cited webpage is a BLOG. Look at the top right, it clearly says BLOG in red letters. It cannot be used in a BLP. Blogs cannot be used as a reference in any article, BLP or otherwise since they are considered UNRELIABLE.

Thanks for the note! Lacypaperclip (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm not seeing it marked as a blog anywhere. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The id of blog is held in the the top level header on the actual page where the blog post on the page they want to use in the article. Big RED letters BLOG. Just click on the link in history. Thanks for the note. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, my mistake. I misread and thought that the link (provided above) was the reference, but it's a reference to a section within the magazine itself, which I apparently don't have. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries!!! Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Primefac - could you clarify if that isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? John Mulvey was the editor of Uncut at the time he wrote the article. Also, I'm not 100% sure this article is a BLP, nor is the source used to support biographical data. If this doesn't fall under BLP we obviously need to be a little sensitive about the volume of reverts going on. Could you weigh-in? Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Without being able to see the actual article I cannot comment on its reliability. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive view of a retaliatory edit warring report done by user Chetsford
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

This fake edit warring report filed by Chetsford, was filed in retaliatory fashion AFTER he found out that an SPI report had been filed regarding him. Chetsford somehow found out the report had been filed with a no ping filter at SPI. I suspect that since he likely did not find the report via a ping, the other possible way he found out is he has been WP:WIKISTALKING and WP:WIKIHOUNDING me by obsessively punching refresh on my special contributions page, since the day I published the article James D. Zirin via my role as an AFC reviewer. The Zirin article was a draft at AFC, which he had previously declined to published. At that time he began a campaign of harassment towards me, one item of which caused him to retaliate by filing a vague edit warring report against me. By the way, I only made 2 reverts. He mentions in the report that, also said another editor editing the same article may also be guilty of edit warring, but he had not really looked over that editor's history or something like that. Very vague indeed. O, btw, that other editor was one of the possible multiple accounts he possibly may be controlling and using in an abusive manner. But I digress. Pinging editors that have been working to squash these multiple accounts and the harassment, WP:WIKISTALKING, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING that I have been enduring. ,, Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You should probably comment on the WP:ANEW report. --Neil N  talk to me 15:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

All Ok Babu
Hi,

I had my article declined on 16 Jan by you, I made significant changes as suggested by you and resubmitted for review. Could you please review it and do the needfull. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alok_R_Babu

Thanks and kind regards... Kirapz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 08:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I will gladly look at it, but can only give advice on making the draft better. Contact me here. I will take a good look on the 'morrow. I am staying home this week because someone has threatened me, and I am afraid. Lacypaperclip (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Hope everything is fine now.Did you manage to a have look at the article?

Thanks and kind regards... Kirapz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 05:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Block appeal section
This is the section for my block appeal statement and any ensuing discussion. My block appeal statement will be put here by me ASAP. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

 

m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub
One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier
 * The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign
 * Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by
 * Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by
 * What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018
 * }

Apologies
Apologies, and good luck with your appeal. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you read again?
Dear Lacypaperclip, Could you analyze again the current state of our article (ZenerPrize)and update your Assessment? The original START version (the first draft) is transformed in the final article: (1) the text and Tables were carefully edited and fine details appended, (2) a new unique content was added (3) bugs are eliminated, (4) the number of pertinent references increased to an optimal number. Could you pass your comments as an editor. We intend to collect a bunch of licence-free photos of laureates. Apart of this time-consuming task it sounds to me that the article arrived to the final state. Your assessment and opinion is important since this page may be soon translated into other languages. Yours, OmegaMS (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've re-assessed it as "B". If you're interested in nominating it for review for the next higher level – "Good article" – please see Good article criteria and Good article nominations/Instructions. Lacypaperclip doesn't edit any more, so please direct any further queries to the talk page of one of the relevant wikiprojects (for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards). – Uanfala (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Anusha Rai
Dear Lacypaperclip,

I have submitted the below draft for review and it was declined by you with proper reason. Now i have added the references properly. Could you please review it and do the needful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anusha_Rai

Many thanks Kiranpz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Lacypaperclip doesn't edit anymore. If you have improved the draft, you can resubmit it for review, as you have done previously. If you have any questions, you could ask them the AfC help desk. – Uanfala (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

 

Milestone for mix'n'match
Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author,, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.

Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.

These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. Mix'n'match/Manual for more.

For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.

Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite!

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018
 * WikiCite report (video)
 * Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018
 * Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation
 * Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018
 * Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017
 * Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018
 * }

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

 

The 100 Skins of the Onion
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto
 * Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset
 * Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier
 * Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions
 * The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick
 * Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson
 * }

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

 

ScienceSource funded
The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.
 * A medical canon?

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data, Wikidata's multi-lingual dictionary project gets going
 * Ordia tool, a basic search interface for Wikidata lexemes and forms
 * OpenRefine tool 3.0, May update allows wrangling of tabular information into Wikidata
 * d:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians pushes ahead with data modelling and imports
 * #1Lib1Ref Returns for a Second Time in 2018, IFLA blogpost 25 May 2018, second chance this year to participate in referencing Wikipedia
 * }

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)