User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 11

Your draft article, Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope


Hello, SmokeyJoe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alexander Beaumont Hope".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New message from Passengerpigeon
 Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  08:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My article
I apologize for the inconvenience my article is causing Wikipedia editors, administrators, etc... As this was my first Wiki, I thought it would work in the same way as Fandom. If there is any way that I can help in the deletion of the article, please let me know.


 * , your edit here on my talk page is your only visible edit. If you want to reduce inconvenience, do the following:
 * * If you don't WP:Register, confine your Wikipedia editing to improving existing articles
 * * If you want to engage in making new pages, Register, edit articles related to your interest, and only after learning what Wikipedia is about, consider making a new page. Ask others on an article talk page bout doing this first.
 * * If you want to engage in back room discussions, including on this talk page, sign your posts with four tildas.
 * What article are you talking about?
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

 * Hi Joe, a notification about a G10 CSD (Attack page) nom landed here. I've self-removed my notification as it relates to User_talk:SMcCandlish/It. While you created it (it's a talk page), I shouldn't have let Twinkle notify you as it isn't your edits driving the CSD nom, sorry! Darren-M   talk  16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RE your post " what is relevant to DRV"
Conjectural on my part, so I won't post to the already massive DRV, but the BLPNAME issues may be related to the discussion on my talk. If so, there may be a related discussion at OP's talk page, which has a link to a related ANI thread. I have not seen the article in question. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 23:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Fault you
Why would you seek blame rather than just resolving what you see as a problem? A "Wikipedian interested in civility." Ha! Toddst1 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Toddst1,
 * "fault", "blame"? Insult not intended, sorry.
 * You nominated an article for deletion at AfD. It was SNOW deleted.  Someone complains at DRV that it should have been a "redirect".  I happen to agree with them.  The outcome was at odds with policy, WP:ATD-R  The system has a fault, when it produces the wrong result.  (NB. not very wrong, but we should make some effort along the lines of "continuous improvement").  Where it went wrong, in my opinion, is that in the AfD, no one appears to have considered a redirect to the page that mentions the subject several times.
 * WP:BEFORE, point C, subpoint 4, reads to me to put the onus on the nominator to consider redirect targets. For me, that would mean at a minimum some statement involving the word "redirect".
 * Perhaps you don't read WP:BEFORE#C#4 very often? Perhaps full compliance with every subpoint of BEFORE is more work than fixing small burrs, is that what you think?
 * I guess I pinged you because I'd like to hear what you think about the notion that you, when nominating at AfD, should be asked to mention possible redirect targets. I anticipate that you might say it is a trifling concern.  You might note that in the absence of a redirect, a searching reader will be taken to a full content search for the name, which is probably even better.  Or maybe you might half agree?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

xkcd link
Hey, SmokeyJoe. There is currently a link to "xkcd.org" on your userpage. That is probably (on the internet, you can never be fully certain that it isn't a weird inside joke) a mistake and should be "xkcd.com". Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

MfD
Hello,

I saw your votes at my MfDs and was wondering if I had missed some of the criteria before nominating. I saw that drafts should go to MfD, but that they didn't have their own criteria, so I presumed AfD criteria applied, which in hindsight I guess was wrong. In the event of a draft quick-failing GNG, should I wait for it to be rejected and then CSD it after it eventually goes stale? Or is there something else I should do ? Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 07:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Giraffer. No, AfD deletion reasons generally DO NOT apply to drafts.  Failing at AfD can mean sending the article to draftspace.  In particular, notability is not a reason to delete a draft, also because testing a draft for notability is onerous, especially for a draft where there is no expectation that it is ready to be tested.


 * The main deletion reasons for drafts are all to be found at WP:NOT. Otherwise, let the AfC process of DECLINE and REJECT be applied.  If, after a DECLINE, it is resubmitted without improvement, or repeatedly submitted with minimal changes, or is resubmitted without substantial improvement after a REJECT, then it can be taken to MfD for heavier judgement, and deletion.


 * Most hopeless drafts can be happily left for G13 to eventually apply. If there is a problem with waiting for that, then explain why waiting for G13 isn't good enough.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just what I needed to know. Thanks! Giraffer (munch) 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move
I noticed that you contributed to the George III requested move discussion. Just FYI, there is a very similar requested move discussion on George IV if you wish to contribute. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft talk:Barry James Thompson
I have been asking this of all similar articles about blps from new eds., after the example of a few other editors. . It will be interesting to see if it helps.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry
Ok, now I understand the purpose of doppelganger accounts. I haven't and will not create one in the foreseeable future. Thanks for your answers! Gioguch (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Regards from Wandering Green User
good morning.

i came here to discuss the accusations of innapropriate content that i supposedly added on wikipedia.

can you please clarify on that?

ty,

~Wandering Green User~ ✨ 〠 14:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Wandering Green User, what is it about Wikipedia that interests you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What about this page
Since your opinion was to endorse salt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25?markasread=200645887&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Draft:Manjappada_Kerala_Blasters_Fans I would like to show you a thing. West Block Blues is also a fan club that does not have enough notability as compared to that of Manjappada.Still it exists in wikipedia.Please tell your thoughts Shahoodu (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I want to get a better community view on my signature, because I don't agree with your assessment. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I was more frustrated because I don't believe that the guidelines on this are clear, something which has been shown by the discussion at WP:AN. It wasn't intended to be any slight on you for raising the issue. And I'm changed my signature now that I have a clearer idea of what colours are/aren't considered suitable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Post-Close Editing
I understand you've been here a long time, however I don't understand why you of post-close editing. After proper closing, I see no reason why, except for serious content policy violations, that comments made during !voting should be altered. WP:REDACT says nothing about this kind of thing extremely-late, post-close self-editing, merely saying it's commonly accepted for an initial 'short while'. Is there some policy or guideline I'm missing?  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing, sometimes I get impatient trying to explain something that I think should not need explanation. I like the way you explain things.  You typically think similarly, but express yourself differently.  Can you answer Gwen's question above, or otherwise give your opinion please?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for reverting SmokeyJoe I greatly appreciate that,
 * Gwen, I don't ever edit my comments post close however in this specific case I without thinking had made a stupid comment and without thinking had unintentionally offended a lot of people - It was wrong for me so say what I did as we all hold different opinions and beliefs. We should all respect people's opinions and beliefs even if we don't necessarily agree with them ourselves.
 * Many people had that MFD watchlisted and other than you nobody reverted me which to me tells me people agreed with my redaction. – Davey 2010 Talk 09:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was a good idea to remove this. Davey, you deserve a barnstar for being able to take a second look.  Wikipedia would be a better place if more people followed your example.
 * Gwenhope, I don't think that one week later is so long that it constitutes a "long while". The main concern on a page like that would be whether the comment was material to the result.  If any editor needed to know how we came to that decision, you wouldn't want them to be confused.  It seems unlikely to me that this particular bit, less than 0.1% of the page's contents and with no apparent comments or replies to it, was important enough to retain over its author's objections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:SmokeyJoe/AfC test


Hello, SmokeyJoe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "AfC test".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this draft have any chance?
Does this draft have any chance? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is redundant to Chinese virus and Chinese virus
 * The comments you have added belong at Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic
 * It is not hopeless, but I think it has little chance, and I do not support it. I am against people spinning out from existing topics in draftspace. In draftspace you are alone.  Add content to mainspace articles, especially when your title is already an article title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Your alternate flowchart
In this flowchart, you ask the question "Are there multiple reliable secondary sources?" If the answer to that question is NO, then the outcome should be "DON'T CREATE AN ARTICLE!".

If an article exists, the assumption is that there ARE multiple reliable secondary sources. If there are NOT, it should be taken to AfD.

We are trying to figure out what to do when there is no COMMONNAME that can be determined from the multiple reliable secondary sources. This is often the case.

What is your suggestion in that situation? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs.

If there is no COMMONNAME, not from any of the sources, then I query whether there are enough sources for the article at all, and AfD may be the answer.

Putting AfD or deletion or smerging aside, I think, if there is no COMMONNAME, then the title should be very conservative with regard to making assertion from the title. A title word asserting something dubious is “murder” and “suicide”, and others. “Death” and “killing” are less dramatic, they do not ascribe a judgment. “Murder”, “suicide”, “execution” should only be used with very good secondary sources showing that others have previously stated these things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we agree on "murder". "Murder" is often only used after a conviction when sources start using the word murder to describe the case. "Suicide" is also often drawn from secondary sources. I only included it because in the preliminary stage of developing the flowchart many people complained that it was missing from the chart.
 * I am only trying to solve the race-based inconsistency when it comes to choosing between "shooting"/"death"/"killing". When black people are killed, our titles often default to "shooting" or "incident" and don't even indicate that the person died. While white victims are more likely to fall under "killing".
 * However, in every case there are multiple sources that use each and every word above but we have a hard time choosing from them. We also allow our biases (read: implicit racism) to influence choosing the lesser for people of color and the more dramatic for white people. Police shooting death also often use "shooting" when non-police shootings use "killing". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * However, in every case there are multiple sources that use each and every word above but we have a hard time choosing from them. We also allow our biases (read: implicit racism) to influence choosing the lesser for people of color and the more dramatic for white people. Police shooting death also often use "shooting" when non-police shootings use "killing". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * However, in every case there are multiple sources that use each and every word above but we have a hard time choosing from them. We also allow our biases (read: implicit racism) to influence choosing the lesser for people of color and the more dramatic for white people. Police shooting death also often use "shooting" when non-police shootings use "killing". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

re draft:MWAN thanks for the weigh-ins. The work's been bolstered w/ 2 additional independent verifiable refs. With respect to tip/advice: 'improve the article section Nigerian Medical Association#Affiliates and write the biography Oludayisi Oduntan for Professor Subqat Oludayisi Oduntan. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)' An attempt to edit section was reversed because deletion discussion on article was ongoing, is one allowed to try now/again? Also your counsel that one attempt to write a bio of a living person seems like a more contentious edit than what's currently unacceptable/up for debate. Textor Alector (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

But why?
Why can't I do anything about re-listing something that's a week old, just because I voted on it? –Piranha249 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right. You are part of the discussion to be evaluated.  Relisting is an administrative declaration that consensus is not yet reached, and it is not for a participant to play that role.  Only someone qualified to close is qualified to relist.  Further, relisting should include a meaningful statement, otherwise it is just a pointless shuffling of the MfD discussion order.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But non-admins can still close or relist, as I had previously. –Piranha249 02:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if uninvolved.
 * See Non-admin closure shortcut WP:NACINV, which points to WP:INVOLVED.
 * If you have !voted in a discussion, or are in any other way involved in the matter being discussed, you should not perform admin roles such as closing or relisting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Laughing, but it stung a bit
"You appear to know something about what you are talking about, ...."

You appear to have forgotten that I'd setup both Categories for Discussion and Templates for Discussion, so many years ago.... These days, mostly only involved to help fix serious problems that have arisen.

Didn't think it worth mentioning on DRV, but wasn't sure whether that was an oversight, a slight, or a back-handed compliment. William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no stinging intended. Sorry, I don’t know you or your history. Sorry again, but I am not really up to speed with the detail of the discussion, which means you might say I shouldn’t say anything, but I did, responding to the tone of the discussion.  You seemed to be exasperated, and a little bit ranty, which tends to make one unpersuasive even if they are right.  I can see that you may well be right, but DRV is not a place likely to make a detailed decision overruling a CfD close.  Good Olfactory is usually a good guy, and I’m sure that a quiet conversation with him will get things fixed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Miscellany Draft: Direct Differentiation and Integration of Logarithms
I searched the main space and I'm sure it's not covered at all. This is from historical time point of view. Differentiation and Integration remained unsolved for a long time since 80's and before at time of big Calculus. Now a days, it is solved and referenced, and all Mathematics Scientists are using it in their university classes from the highest level to high school levels. So this is famous and important topic showing time passed (on logarithms) while incomplete topic in mathematics. No any article in wikipedia shows this perspective of logarithms and mathematics. This is posted to all voters

Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Kkmal.Hamouda, that’s nice sentiments, but useless to work with. You need to talk sources.  What sources say what that is not already covered anywhere?  You are better advised to add missing coverage, sourced, to existing articles.  New articles like these should be made by spinout out from existing too large articles.  Also, if you are seriously interested in editing, write on your Userpage who you are and what you are interested in.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's useful. I told you all this is the last time I use AFC Submission. So it's open by the editorials. This is unique I. the main space with a unique title. No article has this title and all the subject. You may fine partial paragraphs in other articles but not the main topic. If this is AFC, then these articles contain partial paragraphs can be listed in the 'See Also' section before the Sources (References). At this point I have two of them based and according to my search in the wikipedia about this topic which the first step before deciding AFC Submission. Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft Review
Hi, SmokeyJoe. Trust you are doing great. I'd like to request for a review on my recently published draft at Draft:Dremo. Thank you! Mondayudowong (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft has 17 references. Can you tell me the three best for meeting the WP:GNG. I like the advice at WP:THREE, it makes things much easier for the reviewer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding draft:Javid_Parsa
Hello Smokey Joe, hope you are doing good i saw your message on my talk page regarding previous draft of mine ; now i have improved my skills in wiki page creation and i had completed my another draft of an indian entrepreneur Draft:Javid Parsa he meet all the criteria's of notability as per wikipedia notability access please edit and make some possible improvements in the article if needed before the submission thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P has asked many editors to help her with her drafts. She has been advised to do her own work. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Move Review
 Red Slash has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it. Red  Slash  17:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash, you’re welcome. I don’t know if I’ve ever given you over-blunt criticism at MRV, but my gut long term impression is that you are very good value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ping
Yes, I',m trying to finally clean up my user talk page, and there are some or my edits that seem to ping people again.  DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was excited to get a ping from the great DGG, but sigh, it was an accident. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Scary stats

 * |Help:Introduction|Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/1|Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_Wiki_Markup/1|Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_VisualEditor/1|Help:Introduction_to_navigating_Wikipedia/1|Help:Introduction_to_the_Manual_of_Style/1 Not even 10 percent click one time to learn more. People click "learn how to edit" from the sidebar... in fact lots do...so there must be willingness to learn and join us ....but when they see the first page 90 percent give up right off the bat. Any ideas on how to get them to engage more?-- Moxy 🍁 10:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Moxy. Based on a small amount experience with real people who have edited Wikipedia, and seeing lots of edit histories, I believe that by far the best way to get new editors engaged is to let them edit mainspace.  From there, some get hooked.  I believe, with some evidence, that sending newcomers to AFC does more harm than good, because they are separated from mainspace.  As for “how to edit help”, there is little to learn that is not easily learned doing it in mainspace, so few should continue clicking.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First time creeping through this page (hello Joe), and I'm terrified! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (In case you're wondering why I'm creeping through this page at all, fear not. I was trying to scroll up through a desysopping RfC, back to my watchlist, but it was a very high wall of text between my section and my toolbar. I got sick of climbing forever, so stopped and clicked the nearest link out instead, then was instantly distracted by your table of contents, particularly this entry with the spooky header. I'm not following you or anything. And "terrified" might have been a bit much, more like "astounded", on second thought. Anyway, keep up the good work!) InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, InedibleHulk, I was wondering. Pleased to hear that I am not terrifying you.  I'm not sure what you are talking about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, I have a controller and a TV box instead of a real computer. I have to hold up and wait, instead of something easy like pressing a Home or Page Up key, or turning a mouse wheel. I don't remember if I made it to Support or Oppose, but the Talk link in your signature was wherever I gave up. I'd planned to zip immediately to the Watchlist/Contributions/Beta line once I clicked over here (maybe more "dashboard" than "toolbar"), but got curious. Probably shouldn't have said anything at all, just read Moxy's study in silent awe and left, but I'm a bit foolish. One out of ten is staggeringly low, but I agree that letting newbs learn on the job works, and it might be more prudent to just let them sink or swim, rather than devising new ways to force them to read. Sorry for the confusion, I've been working around a lot of it here recently, must've rubbed off! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ulrik Lund Andersen moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ulrik Lund Andersen, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... disco spinster   talk  16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ulrik Lund Andersen


The article Ulrik Lund Andersen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhonda Patrick Deletion Review
I have added sources. I hope this satisfies your complaints regarding my previous deletion review for "Rhonda Patrick" found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_19#19_March_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadlove5683 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Spreadlove5683, please sign your posts, with ~ , and put new posts at the bottom.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

MfD speedy keep !votes
Hi SmokeyJoe! Re this edit, this is the second time recently I've seen you articulate a very purist view of what can be discussed at WP:MfD. If you really feel strongly that the forum is not the place to propose userfication, redirection, or other deletions-that-aren't-technically-deletions, it's incumbent on you to say where else these nominations ought to be being made. If no other place for them exists, they're going to continue to be brought to MfD, and debating the forum is just going to be a distraction from the actual discussions. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Sdkb. I may not feel as strongly as it reads, but I do refer to SK#1 when a deletion rationale arrives with no deletion rational.  There are well known other forums for non-deletion proposals.  The first could be considered to be WP:Be bold, or its pointer WP:Sofixit.  If the userfication, redirection, archiving, etc, is a good idea, why don't you do it?  If one doesn't want to be bold, post a thread on the talk page.  If you get no response, consider WP:silence, or WP:3O.  If there is a dispute, consider WP:RfC.  Do you think, Sdkb, it might be a good idea to put this in an essay, instead of linking the near-match WP:SK#1?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that those alternatives would always be satisfactory. Sometimes, a page has enough history/previous discussion that it would be inappropriate to just act boldly, but also has few enough watchers that a talk discussion would be unlikely to get much participation (especially from relatively uninvolved editors). Making an RfC asking "should we turn this page into a redirect" might very well draw responses saying to go through MfD.
 * I guess my broader point is that MfD seems to be de facto used for these discussions and accepted by many as the appropriate place for them, and it works better for them than any available alternative, so why should we fight that use? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk page post --> WP:3O --> WP:RfC is a strictly escalating pathway. Going to RfC without already having established a disagreement would be bad.
 * The page in question has thousands of pageviews per month, and 55 watchers. A talk page thread is obviously suitable for the nominator's idea.  I think their idea has no merit, and it unworthy for the mandatory mfd tag on the page.
 * Note that I wrote "speedy keep"; I did not close the discussion as a "speedy keep".
 * People unfamiliar with MfD, and who don't read the page title in full, occasionally list a page for a non-deletion discussion, and when this happens, I think it is important to push back a little. If MfD accepted any discussion for any action, then it would become swamped with unimportant discussions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People unfamiliar with MfD, and who don't read the page title in full, occasionally list a page for a non-deletion discussion, and when this happens, I think it is important to push back a little. If MfD accepted any discussion for any action, then it would become swamped with unimportant discussions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Ilyas DRV close
Since you changed your vote from endorse to overturn on this, and mentioned the potential need for another RfC on GNG v SNG, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the reasoning for the close. It seemed like a pretty clear-cut case of guideline misinterpretation by most of the endorse voters, despite a) the guideline explicitly clarifying the intent of the second sentence of NSPORT in its FAQs (and the first sentence stating presumption of GNG), b) an RfC affirming the relationship, and c) actual recent AfD practice leaning very heavily toward GNG>SNG (several more such closes have occurred in the interim). One of the criticisms I've seen of a) is that "it's just the FAQs, not the guideline itself"; I'm wondering if that's why people are discounting it? There also seemed to be misunderstanding as to what NSPORT does do if not assign notability (which SportingFlyer and I addressed in the responses to ThinCat and Hobit). I felt the endorse arguments were all rebutted without any counter-rebuttals, which demonstrated there weren't any guidelines or RfCs supporting endorse beyond the misreading. Basically, I just want to know how an 11-7 DRV could have gone NC given the relative strength of each argument. Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought of your opinion when Roy closed the disucssion as well. You left a hostage to fortune when you wrote Noting the late run of "endorse" !votes at the end, clearly it is not clear consensus that not meeting the GNG irregardless of meeting the SNG means "delete". If this ends as "no consensus", then another RfC is needed. - is that something you intend to go through with? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is something I mean to pay attention to. It may be an exercise in futility to find a consensus between two diametrically opposed camps. I don’t intend to start the RfC, no.  If there is no RfC to settle the issue, I don’t think DRV can overturn any “no consensus” on a NSPORTS vs GNG case.  Unfortunately, that will mean the results at AfD will depend on who closes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm really hoping someone starts an RfC on this soon -- I feel very unqualified because I only recently got into sports AfDs, so my opinion holds very little weight in there. On the other hand, apparently RfC consensus and AfD precedent and a guideline's text itself don't mean anything if a minority of editors and admins who disagree with/misunderstand the guideline's intent can muddy individual AfDs/DRVs. Before I ever !voted on a sports bio I spent a few days (re)reading all the relevant guidelines/policies, ~50 of the most recent major (>10kb) AfD discussions, and all the current NSPORT/NFOOTY/NOLY/NCRIC talk page threads, and felt I had a pretty good grasp of where the community stood. But then there were those three AfD closes that I just couldn't bring myself to update my priors with since they seemed to arise from a straightforward misreading of NSPORT/N rather than diversity in interpretation. This was really what I wanted your feedback on, since you seem MUCH more amenable to changing your opinion based on evolving information -- how do we weigh the input of users who have an incorrect take on a PAG's intent when they make up a large minority? Especially when there's a mix of editors within it who do understand the intent and are aware of the consensus but just ignore them because they disagree? JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Study of history
I wonder if I could get your view on the description at the top of Q1066186. It says that the Study of history (for which we have no separate article here) is the "methodically secured exploration of past human actions based on critical-tested tradition under a specific question". That doesn't sound quite right to me. Doesn't that just mean "research about the past (done the right way)"? I would have guessed (from the title alone) that "Study of history" would be more like "Research into the academic field of history", akin to History of science or Art history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * > "methodically secured exploration of past human actions based on critical-tested tradition under a specific question"
 * My first reaction: Tortured English. Next developing reaction: maybe it is smart, but it is tortuous to decipher. In the social sciences, you get some people who like to impressed on the reader that the writer is a great wordsmith, more great than they really are. I dislike this, I prefer simple sentences, although I do love an unusual word that mean exactly what I want it to say. I dislike this sentence because if you understand historiography, if you already know what it is, then you can decipher the description and start to understand what the writer was thinking when they wrote it.  But, if you are new to the concept of historiography, this sentence is not easy to interpret and is probably not “helpful”.
 * "research about the past (done the right way)". That’s a bit too simple. “the right way” lacks substance.  It means that there are ways, some are right and some are wrong, but it doesn’t help if you don’t already know. “Research about the past” is a bit too simple to be right. One thing that I find Wikipedia astoundingly successful at is in the production of simple English good explanations, including the lede sentence of historiography, which is (today) “ Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline...”.  Historiography is not the study of history, but is the study of the study of history. Every traditionally accepted fact is doubted and every historical historian is considered at risk of bias.  The historiographer asks “how did they know that that?” and “why did the writer choose the write that, like that”.  A good example is a law against a certain thing.  A simple interpretation is that if there was a law against it, then it didn’t happen.  A deeper interpretation is that if the community took the trouble to agree on a law and write it in stone (literally) such that we have primary source evidence, it means that the outlawed thing was so common as to be a problem as to motivate a heavy response.  An example is the conclusion that the Bible tells us that the ancestors of the Israelites practiced child sacrifice. A study of history would include a study of the practice of child sacrifice, frequency of occurrence versus time, and studies of examples known in evidence. The historiographer studies the reasoning and logic by which one deciphers the evidence and infers better interpretations.  Historiography is not the same thing as the “study of history”.
 * I have noticed wikidata introductions and [WP:short description]]s, and I am uneasy with both. Usually they are ok, which is good enough when they are barely interesting, uncontroversial, and unnecessary. What happens when there is dispute?  They are kind of influential, but are not subject to any-editor, meaning every-editor, revision. I much prefer article titles and article ledes, because if they read or feel wrong, they get edited, and somehow, more editing by more people seems to lead to better text.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with Wikidata's community processes, but my impression is that when there's a disagreement, there's sometimes a discussion between the parties (maybe more likely on the individual user talk pages rather than the "article" talk pages) and sometimes the bolder editor just imposes a preferred version and it sticks. d:Wikidata:Project chat is the place for general discussions, and if problems are discussed there.
 * In this case, there are multiple related Wikidata entries:
 * Q309 – history ("past events and their tracks or records, studied by various branches of human sciences of history")
 * Q1066186 – study of history ("methodically secured exploration of past human actions based on critical-tested tradition under a specific question")
 * Q50675 – historiography ("umbrella term comprising any body of historical work and the history of historical writing")
 * Some of these align with English Wikipedia articles, and some of them don't. In this case, there's a German-language article about all three, but we only have two of the three articles.
 * The descriptions at Wikidata are meant to serve the same purpose as a hatnote or parenthetical disambiguation, e.g., "Tomato (food)" vs "Tomato (plant)". The tortuous one likely exceeds the recommended length significantly, but I'm not sure what it actually is, so I don't know how to fix it.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I am not impressed.  These descriptions are clumsy, not wrong, unimpressive, unlike Wikipedia article lede sentences. The German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichtsstudium lede sentence translates to “The history course prepares students for the final examination in the university subject history and later work as historians”, which I find humorously off the mark from what WikiData means by “Study of History”.  Similarly, I am unimpressed by Wikipedia’s affection for hatnotes.  Sometimes they are necessary, but often they reflect inadequate imprecise or otherwise poor titles. Their presence or absence depends on hatnote aficionados, not the normal editor, and this is a weakness.  So often, many hatnotes are pollution in the highly valuable headspace of an article, sitting under excessive whitespace where a not so short, but still one line, title would fit.  Wikipedia’s affection for the parenthetical title is something else I note, but they work well.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So maybe that German-language article is a "university class about researching history"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, the description doesn’t seem right. I put the root of the problem at Study of history being a clumsy close-enough redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
If it happens that you've been wishing for an automagic edit-conflict avoidance system today, then I recommend going to Special:Preferences and trying out "Discussion tools". It'll give you a little inline [reply] button for each comment. I somewhat prefer the visual mode myself, but the wikitext source mode will let you add templates. And, when you click the blue button, it almost always resolves any edit conflicts silently and perfectly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had "Paragraph-based edit conflict" turned on, but not "Discussion tools". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I turned on "Discussion tools" and now I see "[reply]" links, and am trying one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It glowed dark yellow for a bit. I like how I don't have to sign. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty happy with it. Ping me if you run into any problems with it; work-me is dealing with the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I mostly really like this tool, especially in avoiding edit conflicts. However, I continue to be frustrated with its behaviour when I want to introduce links. A linking tool appears, and it is hard to understand what it wants from me, and I wish I could make it go away, I am perfectly able to enter "[" "]" characters myself, and I end up always having to re-edit the section to remove completely unwanted and unasked for "nowiki" tags.  I wish this linking tool had an "X" button for me to make it and its unwanted cleverness go away.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What it wants from you is for you to tell it the name of the page you want to link to, so it can look it up and make sure that it's linking to the right name. This is handy if you want to link to a page by its whole name, but just want to type the shortcut, or if you can't quite remember the spelling.
 * But if you just want to type wikitext, you can click the 'Source' tab and switch to the wikitext source mode. It'll remember the mode that you used last. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I’ve been trying to work with it, but I am reporting that it is frustrating. frustrating . SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I closed the box, because I do not want it, but I do not like the nowiki code inserted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [[fjfjf
 * In source mode I cannot see a cursor, which is uncomfortable.
 * uncomfortable SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your web browser and operating system? The cursor should be visible in both modes (it is for me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cursor came back. Things are better in source mode, if I stick with source mode and don’t switch back and forth. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cursor is fine in source mode.
 * cursor is fine in visual mode
 * Cursor is fine back in source mode.
 * When in source mode, “Source” is bluelinked, and “Visual” is black text. This is not standard, as the black “Visual” is clickable, but the blue “Source” is not clickable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't make up my mind about the blue/black thing. I agree with you in theory, but it also has to indicate which thing is being used and which is not.
 * Let me know if the cursor disappears again. Someone else had this problem a few weeks ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me know if the cursor disappears again. Someone else had this problem a few weeks ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you review this draft
This draft was submitted 18 days ago but no one reviewed it. So, if you have time then review this. Thanks. Draft:Gaurav Taneja Trap133 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Trap133, YouTuber, 26 references, most of them obviously unsuitable. YouTubers usually aren’t notable.  Try the advice at WP:THREE.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Article Discussion
Hi, i hope you are having a great time. i have created article: Nick DiGiovanni i created this article because the person is a harvard graduate chef, Master Chef season 10 finalist, In 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 in Food Drinks but some editor asked for Rfd. Saying its not Notable enough. Need your help.  Brascoian    (talk to me)  07:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

P2P foundation
"endorse" means endorse the deletion acording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review --OlivierAuber (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

False accusations in KOAD-LP
Hi. I do not appreciate your false accusations against me in the page's DelRev. I never ever ever accused MBisanz for anything. I only accused SportingFlyer of having a bias. No one else. Even Neutralhomer and Astig, both whom you accuse of, know that. SBKSPP (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi SBKSPP
 * I responded to your edit here
 * You had written: “The closing of this discussion is fair unlike the similar discussion which should've been closed as NC, but the nom insisted the closer to have it relisted”
 * I can see now that I neglected to look into the clause “, but the nom insisted the closer to have it relisted”. I thought you thought that the AfD should have been closed as NC when MBisanz closed it.  I see that you were referring to the state of the AfD when User:Ritchie333 closed it, which he reverted on appeal at his talk page.
 * I apologise for this error.
 * —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm glad that this conflict has been sorted out. :) SBKSPP (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Deletion review/Log/2021 July 7
re C:Terrorists. Would you recommend CfD or giving up? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Piotrus,
 * I think I said: Not DRV, but CfD; and at CfD I would say follow the mainspace article titles. On further reflection, I think this is my very strong advice. Take the debate to mainspace.
 * The mainspace issue is the non existence of an article Terrorist or its plural Terrorists. They redirect to Terrorism, which is a much more broad concept, and contains "terrorist" as a subtopic.  A problem is that Terrorism does not exist as a defined section.  I would seek to make that section, defining the term, noting the difficulty in defining the term, either because the terrorists often go uncaught and unconvicted, or die before conviction.  Another difficulty is that the use of the term for a specific person, is possibly most often, a use of the term as a poorly defined pejorative.   These complexities will kill the proposal to create a category.  I advise that you first need the section Terrorism.  This could be spunout.  Second, you need Lists of terrorists.  Only then, will could you make a convincing case at CfD for its creation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
, thanks for your advices and time (here)! The page is already in the draft space. And it seems to me that it is a good idea to install interwiki while the Wikidata is not connected. --Kirotsi (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Damed Imanov
Hello dear colleague, if you remember, in the discussion here you said that if the article is available in the native language, the issue can be reconsidered. What do I need to do to restore this article in English? ( You said in the discussion - There appears to be irregularities with the article history and deletion discussion. Sort it out on the native language Wikipedia before attempting re-creation here. --SmokeyJoe ) Can you take any steps to recover? --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Elshad Iman (Elşad İman).
 * 1. Draft:Damed Imanov.    Remove most of the external links.  One to three is OK.  So many external links make the Wikipedia page look like advertising for the external links.
 * 2. Find some sourced commentary on the subject.  Does any source use any adjective in relation to him?
 * 3. Improve az:Dam%C9%99d_%C4%B0manov.  Why should the English language article be better than the native language article?  Do you speak Azerbaijani?
 * 4. Ask the deleting admin whether he thinks you have overcome the reasons for deletion at the AfD.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jc
Hi Jc. I am pleased to see you are active again. I missed you. I hope you are well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Thank you for the note : )
 * And doing alright, I hope you are as well : )
 * (And now you have me wondering which of my eclectic edits alerted you that I was sneaking out from under my rock lol
 * Thanks again, and I hope you are having an awesome day : ) - jc37 06:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jc37, I saw you here. And then I found myself reading We are all Wikipedians here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, lol. That made me chuckle. It was nice of him to correct out of the blue like that.
 * As for WAWH, if you don't mind my asking, what did you think after reading? - jc37 06:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion/redirection
Hey SJ, sorry I was not able to respond at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of the United Arab Emirates before it was closed. Happy to participate in further broader discussion of the principles, if you want to open one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council or elsewhere. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about sourcing
Hi there, I found your feedback on Draft:Manscaped a little confusing. You mention a lack of sources discussing "the product line" when the piece makes no mention of the product line. The article only defines the company itself, as clearly presented in independent, secondary sources. This includes two dedicated Bloomberg stories, a WSJ piece, a CNBC article, and even if you consider them less reliable, two Forbes pieces - clear proof, I continue to imagine, of the veracity of the company's existence as a definable and notable entity. Conversely, no detailed "product line" information has been written or sourced, as I had assumed this would be considered promotional and not appropriate subject matter. Commercial products are typically referenced in products reviews and listicles that have less than stellar editorial credentials. Take, for example, the products section for Philips - there the only source for this information is the company's own website. However, company websites have no place in establishing notability. This leaves me confused as to what information you want about products, and how you expect it to be sourced. Are you saying you want information on products to be included? And if so, what type of sources do you imagine might support this? -- Iskandar_323 Talk 8:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar_323, thanks for asking.
 * Do you understand that this company/production is engaged in saturation promotion? Do you have any incentive to create this article?
 * The Boomsberg, Forbes, and WSJ sources look good superficially only, but they are one-eyed all glowing promotion, close perspective. I expect to see dis at the perspective writing, contextualisation of the product, comparison with other products, and all couched in the general topic.
 * There are existing articles that could use improvement. Have you looked at Hair removal or Male grooming? These are the general topic, and they don’t mention specific commercial products.
 * Why should this specific product be covered, as a WP:Orphan, when according to independent user reviews it is not even a particularly good product? The only thing special about this product is that it is being commercially promoted at saturation levels.
 * If you would like me to discuss specific sources in detail, please follow the advice at WP:THREE. The draft has 12 references. Only two sources are needed.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I do understand that the company engages in considerable amounts of promotion - that is even mentioned in the article - but I don't see how that is relevant when the page itself is based on reliable WP:RS/PS sources independent of such promotion that I have gone out of my way (sifting through that very promotion) in order to find. I still don't understand your perspective on some of the sources - both the Bloomberg pieces are straight and narrow financial news story reporting: the second states clearly that Manscaped was not available for comment, so how can you consider this promotion? The WSJ piece, meanwhile, is the perfect example of contextualisation - the article is pegged on an advert that ran featuring a sports celebrity, sure, but the article goes on to explore the subject far more broadly, citing a university professor and a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health, i.e.: heavily couched in the general topic.
 * On the subject of whether the product is 'good', I don't really see this as relevant. A company could be considered notable while selling entirely terrible products. It might even be notable precisely because it sold such terrible products. However, even so, your statements on the product seem more opinion that self-obvious fact - here are just three examples of articles that list Manscaped products among the best in their categories: this permalinkthis permalinkthis permalink ... again, I really don't think any of this is relevant to notability, but one tool has a 4.5 star rating on Amazon based on 55,000 reviews: this permalink - all of which hardly points to products that, while not referenced in the article, can hardly be outright referred to as 'not particularly good'.
 * Finally, addressing your point about linkage, this company is only an WP:Orphan because the link to it was removed after the page was returned to draft (see: Draft_talk:Manscaped) - as a company that was features on the ABC series Shark Tank, there is an obvious route for it to be listed as one of the Notable companies to have emerged out of that series. -- Iskandar_323 Talk 10:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar 323, do you have any incentive to create this article?User:Iskandar 323 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm only motivated the desire to get to the bottom of what it actually takes to pass notability criteria as per WP:CORP - I originally uploaded this page very casually, but since then, it's become something of a mission for me to understand the requirements for such a page, hence the questions. -- Iskandar_323 Talk 10:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar 323, I looked at the three examples that list Manscaped. They match my opinion that this company is not head and shoulders above the others, and so I am disbelieving that it should be covered and others not. The Amazon reviews … I am very suspicious that most of the five star reviews are fake, I’d read these reviews before. I start reading at 4 stars and move down.  Yes, I think Amazon is polluted with robot reviews.
 * I personally have no opinion, I just don’t trust commercial products being subject to company promotion, that just happen to have all positive articles about them
 * What would you think of revisiting Manscaping. See Articles for deletion/Manscaping. I see a lot of new sources on the neologism, I think that would be an easy rescue.  It think it should precede articles on products that are used for manscaping. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Manscaping has already been folded in the wider article on hair removal, after considerable debate. On the subject of product reviews as a basis for notability, my broader point was that just because a product is good, that does not make it notable, and vice versa. I shared the Amazon link, because regardless of any bot interference, 55k reviews is a substantial burden of evidence, and without being bias, you can no more discount every 5-star review than you can every 1-star review, which could equally be bot-spammed reviews by a competitor. Ultimately, any assumptions along these lines are deeply speculative. But moving on, is there any form of review that would pass muster in your view? Take this article for example: this permalink has all the trappings of an independent, secondary source from a website that clearly stakes its reputation on its ability to review things. It even discusses other reviews. Regardless of the impact of notability one way or another, would this, from your perspective, present itself a reliable source of input on product quality? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Iskandar 323.
 * I suggest revising manscaping because I can see a lot of new sourced comment on it since it was redirect many years ago. It was a neologism that seems a joke, but not anymore.
 * 55k reviews is a large number, but no number of user reviews will demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. It is my impression that many of the reviews are fake bot reviews, but that is not a relevant argument.
 * This does not impress me. An independent review will not list prices or link to sale sites.
 * This is not about me. I have already gone out on a limb to argue against deletion of the draft.  I recommend that you instead go to Draft talk:Manscaped and give WP:THREE sources.  No more.  Read WP:CORP again.  Focus on the meaning of “independent”, and know that many Wikipedians do not trust positive coverage of commercial products.  Many see Wikipedia fighting native advertising and WP:UPE.
 * I will be surprised if an article on a commercial product (Manscaped) is allowed without there being an article on the concept (manscaping). How many products are listed at hair removal? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know it is not about you, and I will go and list the WP:THREE best sources as suggested.
 * But I am left wondering what if any, review-type articles are accepted as independent sources by Wikipedia. Looking at pricing is a basic part of reviewing, and reviews can result in both positive and negative outcomes. It seems quite skewed if reviews are disqualified just for discussing pricing or the positive aspects of a product. I would expect any reviews, for example for a car, to look at both pricing and positive and negative aspects of the product. The example review I shared notably mentions the pricing, and includes criticism of that pricing as part of its negative analysis of the product. If even reviews with negative input are too positive, presumably all but outright condemnation is too positive!
 * However, having read back over your comment, I actually wonder whether I'm getting confused over semantics. You mentioned a lack of sources about the product line, but I'm wondering if, rather than looking for product reviews, you mean product line simply as in the company as a whole, i.e., you were re-iterating the general criticisms over lack of notable sourcing ... Iskandar 323 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When you have your choice of WP:THREE sources, if you want my opinion, WP:PING me.
 * An encyclopedic review will not talk prices and where to buy, but will take a much more distance perspective and even an historical approach. Imagine a comparison of grooming products from the 1990s with those from the 1890s.  Prices and availability is about right now and short term promotion.
 * An enclopedic review will not be “positive” or “negative” A Wikipedia article about a product must not be “positive” or “negative”.
 * We could well be discussing unimportant semantics. If you want to get quickly to the meat, follow WP:THREE, and let’s argue about why I say “no” to a source.  Then, if you think I’m wrong, and if you do not have a WP:COI, you may BOLDly move the draft to mainspace, and fight the real battle at AfD. I would probably stay out of the AfD, preferring to see if I am right about what would happen at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice
Hey User:SmokeyJoe, I appreciate the discourse over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades. I feel I have slightly derailed that conversation - I hope my genuine confusion surrounding some of the intricacies of AfC doesn't come off as bad faith. I've pared down the draft to retain only generally reliable sources that may lend notability to the subject, several of which have not been previously discussed. I would value input about the reliability of non-English sources such as SE og HØR Ekstra Bladet  and G1. Is the MfD page an appropriate place to address the validity of these sources? Would going to the AfC help desk be more appropriate? Mbdfar (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 1. No.  Promotional.  Puff.  Non-independent.  Close perspective writing, in the room with her.  Gives her for-profit website.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2
 * 2. No. "Porn without intermediaries: You can get exactly what you want".  This is promotion.  Comment is puff, and material is supplied from the subject.  Too close, not independent of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3
 * 3. No.  It begins promising, appearing to be comment about the industry, i.e. not straight focused on the pornstar, but it only repeats where quotes elsewhere, which is not secondary source content, and then from paragraph 5 onwards, all the content is straight interview quotes from the subject.  Not independent.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Great, I appreciate the feedback. Thanks! Mbdfar (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

smoke
smoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by The redirect creator (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Film Notability
At Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC, I suggested on 29 October that someone who supports Option 3, such as you, could provide the language for Option 3. I have taken out the language that is a copy of the Option 2 language. Could you possibly either provide draft language, or identify someone who can provide draft language, so that we can try to get this issue closer to resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Astana
Hi there, Smokey, regarding the move review. If Astana is used more commonly, than the Argument, how it is called, is less important, generally speaking, isnt it?

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A little nudging about mops
Way back in User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 9, I attempted to entice you to run for RfA, but you demurred. I wonder if you might be more amenable now? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Er...
You might want to alter or remove that comment per WP:CIVIL and WP:FOC. Platonk (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You’ve not met him before? His net contribution to Wikipedia is decidedly negative. He has peculiar simplistic views of reality, and endlessly relentlessly pushes his simplistic theories, and he does this for the reward of having others engage back, not for any actual benefit to the project.  He fits the definition of internet kook well.  Now, he wants to disrupt the RfC with a quite stupid and uninformed notion to deprecate the entire SNG!  This is disruption.  I think he should be permanently banned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There is WP:ANI for getting that accomplished. Platonk (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope that the NFF RfC resolves productively. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Smokey, I don't like to use the formal warnings, but what you said is a violation of NPA. It it does not contribute to the discussion, and tends to cause or increase hostility between editors. I have deleted it. Please do not restore it. (fwiw, I tend to agree with your views on the question being discussed)  DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

2O
Curious as to your thoughts about this AFCP request; they're on the bottom of my "borderline acceptable" criteria but I know you have somewhat stronger feelings about a lack of AFD experience. All other things considered, is that lack of experience an application-killer in your opinion? Primefac (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Primefac. Yes, I think AfD experience is important, both for experience in judging AfD standards, and for us, I.e. you, being able to judge whether he understands notability at AfD, through his comments. He has a number of RfD participations, but these don’t give much information on his understanding of the threshold for inclusion.  Zero AfDs participated.  I would ask him to participate in 25 AfD discussions.  I would be satisfied with meaningful and correct comments in ten.  I would not use the words “application killer”, it’s possible that he can demonstrate understanding of Notability in some other way, but unlikely.
 * I don’t think 25 AfDs is particularly onerous, but could be receptive to a statement as to why he wants to do AfC but not AfD.
 * His request include several thoughtful elements, so I would to make sure that any reply is encouraging. Eg “Thanks for your interest in AfC review.  Could you comment in ~25 WP:AfD discussions so that I can get a feel for your appreciation of WP:NOTE?”.
 * NB, I am less concerned about accuracy at AfD than checking for sensible thoughtful comments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert of 10:09, December 22, 2021
You gave three reasons for this revert: (1) "unwelcome," which sounds a lot like "I don't like it." (2) "Makes archive searches not work" What do think about leaving the collapses in temporarily while the discussion is active and then removing them before the section gets archived? (3) "other reasons" What are those? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC) please reply to this post. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Highlight/colors
Template:Highlight/colors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft created
Hi, sorry for the posting at Deletion Review. I have created a draft with the tips you mentioned from my own research on the net. Please check it here:- Draft:Mandar Agashe. Hope it's fine else you can delete it. Thanks 123.201.54.119 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)