User talk:Smirkybec/Archives/2015/February

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women (cis, lesbian, transgender) only. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will do :) Smirkybec (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The MfD for the Kaffeeklatsch was closed with the result page kept, and this notice re the WMF non discrimination policy was put on my page by Harej. (In a nutshell, the klatsch does not violate the policy.)

I don't know how the proposed WikiProject Women at the IdeaLab will fare, but one step at a time, I guess. Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Alice Perry
See, somebody notices your Facebook posts! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Now I have to figure out which one you are :P You might also be interested in the bit of work on Aleen Cust I did this evening :) Smirkybec (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not nominate them both at Template talk:Did you know. They appear to meet the criteria and would then appear eventually on the main page of Wikipedia. Each would get 5-10,000 views as a result. You don't have to review someone else's nomination for DYK for your first 5 DYK nominations. Check out Mary Brodrick which appeared under the teaser ("hook") "Did you know that when Mary Brodrick applied to study Egyptology at the Sorbonne in Paris, she was told, "But we do not take little girls here"?" Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I will! I was delighted to get Maude Delap one, so I will submit these two, thanks very much for the encouragement! Smirkybec (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A strong hook and a picture are the key in my experience. It's not so different to writing a headline for the newspapers really. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Smirkybec! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:40, Saturday, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Smirkybec! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:41, Saturday, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

19:18:45, 16 February 2015 review of submission by 80.195.9.42
80.195.9.42 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your message regarding my article, I would like to know why articles from Press magazines and websites are not suitable for my article? I have provided links to the articles that are online and seemingly you think this is not a reliable source? Please explain.


 * Hi, the main issue with the article is the fact that it is written like a promotional piece, it needs to be written in the neutral point of view tone. So avoid statements like "Zubari’s inimitable style gained an international following rather quickly, very likely because Zubari at that point was a talked about player from the fashion-genre of disheveled glamour.", "A straight shooter, Zubari never held back for the sake of humor or innovation usually personified in his installations and invitations" and " the use of silver buttons on denim to challenge other luxury brands that sold they garments for double the price without the use of refined material to justify the price." None of these statements are written neutrally, and as you have no inline citations, the statements are unverified. I hope that helps. Smirkybec (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC
Hi, while you aren't necessarily doing bad work at AfC, I hope you are aware that the requirements for being a reviewer are 500 edits to mainspace, which you do not have. I've removed your name from the list for the time being. You might also want to be more careful at your reviews; Lalla Essaydi isn't properly sourced in my opinion, especially being a bio (and it doesn't seem to adequately indicate notability). Someone once told me that the best AfC reviewers only accept 1 in 50 articles. Ideally, you also want to accept articles that have no risk for AfD. When you are more experienced, please feel free to return. Thanks. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood the criteria for the 500 edits (I thought I was comfortably over). As I tend to write articles my edit count is rather artificially low, and I was trying to become more active in general maintenance. I am a bit of an inclusionist (so I know we would differ on article inclusion anyway!), and I thought with work Lalla Essaydi would comfortably meet the criteria for notability. I will leave you to it so, I just wanted to help as I noticed the delay in AfC getting longer and longer!Smirkybec (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * General maintenance could be done at WP:NPP with your edit count, or even just vandal patrol. Alternatively, there's a list of stuff that needs to be done everywhere on Wikipedia. The Essaydi article is borderline speedy in my opinion (since it doesn't seem to assert notability). I think AfC has had a huge improvement in the past few weeks - going from over 2,000 pending reviews to 1364 pending at the time of this writing. (Most of them need to be declined, though...) Thanks for wanting to help! &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 22:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah sure I have my own list to be getting on with - so many Irish stubs, so little time! Not to mention My To Do List. I'll stick to my little patch for the moment. Smirkybec (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Preferably just stick to vandal patrol, NPP needs an even greater knowledge og policies andguidelines than AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well based on this I would say Lalla Essaydi is highly likely to be notable. She has had a lot of solo shows and her work is in a number of important museum. WP:AUTHOR Philafrenzy (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was attempting to learn about the general maintenance through doing, as well as reading up on all the guidelines as I go. Finding a way in seems very difficult, and a little disheartening. Thanks :) Smirkybec (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Try WP:BACKLOG. My advice (for what it is worth) would be to concentrate on what you know, not the mistakes others have made. Creating article about topics you know a lot about and everyone else has overlooked is the way in with the least resistance and the greatest payoff IMHO. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerry Humphreys
Hi, Thanks for looking over the Gerry Humphreys article. (I kicked it off so it's on my watchlist). Slightly confused by the fact that you have marked it as reviewed, some 3 months after the review tag was removed by another user? Also the correct tag for a "bio" would be "BLP sources" rather than "refimprove" as it refers to living persons and adding a stub template was superfluous as the article already had the "footy-stub" template. These points have already been corrected by a BOT.

Finding extra references for a bit part footballer from 40 years ago is unlikely and I have completed several articles on obscure Crystal Palace F.C. players using the neilbrown site (which is a go to source for career stats) and the CPFC record book(s) referred to in the article and they've been accepted without query. Anyway; no harm done (obviously) — and I've tweaked up the page a bit today so it's all constructive in the long run. Happy editing!! Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello there, it cropped up in the pages needing review actually, so that's how I came across it. Thanks for the pointers, I've been reading up quite a bit of the backend of Wikipedia so I was investigating the other editing actions, so mistakes on my part are inevitable I suppose! I know how you feel about the lack of references, half of Irish people you are scrabbling (doesn't help we only have two complete historical censuses for a start!). Thanks for contacting me, always nice when people are up for helping me out figuring it all out.Smirkybec (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm always slightly curious about the review process. Just last week I moved an article into mainspace and it was reviewed within minutes! Whereas others hang around in review purgatory for months. By coincidence at almost exactly the same time as you reviewed Humphreys, 2 other very similar articles were patrolled by the user that seems to do most of mine. Still some awaiting though. As someone who reviews articles I wonder if you have any thoughts on how articles that are just one sentence and no infobox get on to Wiki. This seems particularly true of small motorcycles and I've fettled several articles up a bit recently... do people just move them from draft and not bother tagging for review? Anyways, keep up the work (good or otherwise!). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)