User talk:Menaechmi/2017/September

thank you + query
Thank you for providing a third point of view regarding the disagreement about significant viewpoints on Talk: Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician). Regarding that more broadly: could you point me to resources for handling continued accusations of being a bad faith actor? I'm still pretty new to editing here, and I gotta say, that interaction has been discouraging. I'd like to learn how to handle such things better. Any advice would be much appreciated. Shelfpea (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry about the late reply. I just moved and didn't have any internet access for a while. I'm sorry that you were being accusing of acting in bad faith like that I could tell that it's not your intent.
 * Please don't feel discouraged. Sometimes there are just people who get too involved in a dispute, and they start to make things personal. The best way to handle it is exactly what you did. You engaged the user, started a discussion, put your points forward logically, and when you felt you couldn't handle it alone went to get help from a (neutral) outside source. Unfortunately, unless you want to stoop to the level of bad-faith assumptions, that's all you really can do. Things just spiral out of control when you take other actions. If it happens again in the future, I might suggest editing other articles-I find that work in the WP:Recent changes patrol combating vandalism can really help calm things down because nobody can try to argue that you're not helping the encyclopedia (unless you really mess up). menaechmi (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, I'll check that out. And thanks, it helps just to hear that this is a thing, if that makes sense. Hope the move went well. Shelfpea (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC0
 * Menaechmi, I posted a response to you on Mike Johnson's article. I look forward to your response. EqualRightsToAll (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Founding of the German Empire
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Founding of the German Empire&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Roman Pearce
Why did you delete that wikipedia page? Matt Campbell (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Also another question. What exactly do you mean by Notability Guidelines? Matt Campbell (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the article, I restored the redirect (everything was still there - deletion would remove the history). As I put in my edit summary, I restored the redirect because Wikipedia is not for summary-only descriptions of works. Roman Pearce doesn't meet the general notability guideline on Wikipedia (which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), meaning that there isn't enough discussion about him in the real world to write an article about anything other than the plot of the films. Compare this to Dominic Toretto, which has some discussion of the development of the character and some outside analysis of the character. Or better yet, Nancy Drew which covers the development of the character but has next to no coverage of the plot of the books (and is a featured article).
 * Roman Pearce has one article that covers him and only him (that I could find). There's just no way that I can find to write an article about him that focuses on the real-world. If you disagree, then the burden is on you to demonstrate it. menaechmi (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Then lets work on the article together. Matt Campbell (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Affairs
Hi, Thanks for advising me that there were infringements, I wish you had not deleted the page however. The company in question has a small but significant presence in the city of Mumbai and is considered to be a leading think tank in foreign policy. There is not much information available aside from what is there on their site, so I thought I could bridge that gap by making them a wikipedia page (which was recently deleted) I don't work for the company, but they do good work, and it's sad they don't have visibility on this platform. If possible, please can you assist me in building a comprehensive and correct page for them? I am new to Wikipedia and do not know the idiosyncrasies page creation involves. PraetorianV92 (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , the problems with creating an article on the think tank are largely explained at the original deletion discussion. There isn't yet enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (that comes from our "inclusion criteria" the WP:GNG) to be able to write a verifiable article on the subject. I would suggest that you create the article at Draft:Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Affairs, and then submit it through the Articles for Creation process - which will let an experienced editor look at it and ensure it passes our standards. menaechmi (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and help with Engage:BDR
1) I first want to thank you for correcting the title of the page from Engagebdr to Engage:BDR. After all, that is closer to the companies correct name but when I tried to add ":" I kept getting an error, maybe it was something I was doing. The company name is actually spelled "engage:BDR" note the lower case "e" is there a way to change that e and make it lower case?

2) In terms of addressing the promotional tone. Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to make the article more neutral and less promotional by removing the names of the actual services they provide "OutSteam" and "State-of-Mind-Targeting". I did leave the name of some of the companies they worked with. This was to show that they are a significant company through their work with other large companies. Keep in mind the companies listed is a very short list of their clients and partnerships.

3) In terms of citations. Do you think the article is over cited? engage:BDR actually has received a significant amount of press coverage and their press page can be viewed here.

4) Can you please be more specific on how I can improve the article and make it sound less promotional? 123engage (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 Of course, that's all part of the job. I'm not sure why you would be getting an error, except that previous articles for the same company have been deleted (but it wasn't creation-protected, so I'm not sure). The mediawiki software doesn't allow for lowercase titles (I think it has to do with the fact that it allows the the wikilinks Ducks and ducks to go to the same place). Instead I have added a template, which achieves the same goal.
 * I think In terms of promotional tone, it's definitely not the worst I've seen (which is to say is quite good). For example, some problems are things like "Over time, they have grown from 85% display advertising revenues to 85% video advertising revenues and are now expanding into the smart TV and influencer marketing space." Which reads a little like something you would see a company write about themselves. "They have worked with clients ranging from politicians like Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, to big media player CNN, ESPN, Business Insider and Fox News as well as fortune 500 companies like McDonalds, and Toyota." is another example, especially the "big media player(s)". While I see this type of phrasing often on wiki, it seems always like a bit of fluff.
 * I think the problem with any citations isn't the number, but the quality. It feels a little bit like the article was written, and then sources were found to support the claims, not the other way around.
 * I think the points above should push you in the right direction, but I'm glad to help more. Getting more experienced eyes on the article is always the best step.
 * Because of your chosen username, I added a potential COI notice to the article, if you wouldn't mind reading Conflict of interest, and following any relevant advice therein I would appreciate it. I am not making a call either way, to me it seems there is an WP:APPARENTCOI and Wikipedia can be odd about conflicts of interest.
 * menaechmi (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Anal incontinence article revision
Hello menaechmi,

It has been two weeks since your [| revision on the edit of the anal incontinence article]. A section was added to the fecal incontinence talk page on [| your request], explaining why AI and FI are two seperate diagnosises. As I had expected, FI it is not a very popular topic, so activity is low. Please read the section and judge for yourself. I am no doctor either, but the source is solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had been following the page and saw no updates, so I say go ahead and do what you wanted to do originally. WP:SILENCE is a form of consensus, so be WP:BOLD have at it. Thanks for trying to start the discussion :) menaechmi (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Natural Co.
The information posted in about a start-up company from Bangalore, India with information taken from its social media page and website. Request you to please reconsider deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theyottaman (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands does not make a Credible claim of significance. There are many start-ups from all around the world, just being one does not itself count as a claim of significance especially for a company that is in the process of opening up. You might also want to check out our notability guidelines. menaechmi (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The company's own website and social media pages won't count towards establishing it as notable. Only sources independent of the company itself will be considered. A company can write about itself all it wants to, but that doesn't make it notable. The real test is, did enough other unaffiliated people think it was notable enough to write about? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Bespoke
When the first sentence is longer than about ten words, it is typically the florid writing of a promotional writer. An encyclopedic entry would sound more like this: "Bespoke Post is a retailer of men's clothing and accessories." When you hear stuff like "men's lifestyle vertical," the hair should stand on your neck.

A startup with $25K, or even $850K, is no more investment than it takes to stock a single Manhattan clothing store. Not notable, no matter whether the LA Times writes about the product (a simple review) or not. I rather liked the Fast Company reference, but I ask you, aside from telling you the company exists and that the employees drink, what does it tell you?

Have faith in your feelings. Rhadow (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User page
You finally have a user page. Congratulations. Alex ShihTalk 16:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, :) While I really liked the no user page look, it made following some links annoying and I figured it was about time to let people know a little something about me. Or something like that.  menaechmi  (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of insects
Regarding Evolution of insects
 * Edit and click "Show preview", everything is normal.
 * Edit and click "Show preview", one gets
 * Warning: Evolution of insects is calling Template:Clade with more than one value for the "1" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.

Kindly clean up your mess.

Also, at least until someone fixes it, there is a Lint error: Table tag that should be deleted in Evolution of insects that may be attributable to your edits. The Linter shows the purported offending table tag in This edit. Note the highlight of a line with just

{|

8 lines below the ==Taxonomy== heading; the highlighted line is the Linter's view of the table tag that should be deleted.

You won't be able to see this error once you or anyone else edits Evolution of insects.

Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first error is definitely fixed, a pipe character escaped me I missed the word "style" and I didn't get the error when I previewed. Sorry. As for the lint error, it wasn't mine, but I think I fixed it? I'm not sure how to check, and sorting through the 31k errors under Special:LintErrors seems unpractical. Is there an easier way? menaechmi  (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The lint error is probably fixed. Lint errors are sorted exactly or approximately in order of most recently edited last, and it doesn't show up on the two pages of this lint error when selecting only in the article space, which brings the total way down from 31k, but still a lot. Thank you for fixing the "more than one value for the '1' parameter" error and probably the lint error also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I try not to make mistakes in the first place, but they happen. The least I can do is fix them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. menaechmi  (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , it also turns out that you can use page information and it lists the lint errors near the bottom. Unfortunately it doesn't feature the handy link to fix them. It seems I did not manage to fix the lint error, or there was more than one table tag error, as you can see here. I'm not fully sure how, but I would like to help fix these errors if needed.  menaechmi  (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not know that page information listed the lint errors. Too bad it doesn't include any clue about where to find them! I have been working on lint errors for a few weeks now. One thing that wasn't obvious to me is that on each lint error page, in the upper right corner, is a help link that explains the category of error. For the "Table tag that should be deleted" error, the most common reason in my experience is that the table just above was not closed properly, i.e. is missing the . But some of these errors I find completely beyond explanation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sœureux-et-Cireux Station
Hi, this was a well-crafted hoax - it's always worth Googling new articles to check for scams. I realised when I tried to set up a Wikidata link and noticed that the picture is actually of Stockholm. Blythwood (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I marked it as patrolled-I'm not sure of notability of metro stations and the like, so I wouldn't know what makes one notable-but either way, I definitely didn't see it was a hoax, so great catch! menaechmi  (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought I'd just let you know what happened as I saw you put in a talk page. Gone and page creator blocked now, fortunately. Blythwood (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

cladogram
FYI, I am fixing many of your cladogram edits. I have no idea how many you changed, but you can see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormyridae&oldid=773835226#Classification this is what it looked like before your changes], and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormyridae&oldid=800316078#Classification this is after]. so, your edit removed the top level since you removed the top level clade. after the proper fix, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormyridae&oldid=800764526#Classification this is what it looks like], with the top level label restored. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * err, oops. I completely missed that, but I did a check and they're all fixed up. I suppose I didn't read it quite close enough, and thought Cladogram had the same first-level ability as clade to add that first level. Again, thanks, I didn't mean for anyone to have to wander behind me with a broom and dustpan. menaechmi  (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

RE:Živojin Ivković
Hello, Menaechmi. Thanks a lot for your message. I understand the situation, so it's OK. I'm afraid I can't translate more than I have already done, so I won't remove the PROD. Cheers! Alpinu (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Menaechmi, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 22:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)