User talk:Waggie/Archives/2017/June

Please comment on Talk:List of pharmacies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pharmacies. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Submission declined - Please clarify
Hello Waggie,

thanks for taking the time to review the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AdvanDate. You declined it and left the following message: "Might be notable, but there's simply too much improperly sourced content here. Wikipedia articles should be summarized from (and then cited to) secondary, reliable sources." Could you please elaborate more on that, to better understand what you are asking. An example would be great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St.L. (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Sure, the entire "Modules" section isn't sourced, and doesn't really improve the article. The andrewboon.com and Youtube sources (and content sourced to them) isn't reliable (not secondary sources and Youtube is almost never a reliable source). The datingadvice.com site looks sketchy, with no contacts listed for editorial concerns in the "Contact Us" page, and with the considerable amount of advertising that takes place on the site. The Appadvice.com source isn't comprehensive or journalistic coverage. The NBC and Newschannel links are dead links. I hope this helps. I do support open source software (as an IT professional and Linux geek), so I do hope we can get this up to meeting guidelines. If there's something I can do to help, please let me know. Waggie (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

23:56:23, 5 June 2017 review of submission by A9mendoz
Is it better now?
 * Hi . It's improved, but you're really going to struggle with all offline sources. Also please do not remove comments from reviewers on the draft. I see that you've resubmitted it, we'll see what another reviewer has to say. Waggie (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Waggie
you need to assume good faith and fully educate yourself on topics before you arbitrarily and swiftly tap the delete button. Remember it is much much harder to create than it is to sit back and slash. I did not start this fracas, you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.135.36 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting work
Rather than deleting my work, could you put in a cite reference instead. Deleting good work that has taken time to write is not the way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.44.182 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The obligation is upon you, the contributing editor, to provide the source for your work. The reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summarized from reliable sources, not entirely original content. Waggie (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and that justifies for removal of content? 91.125.44.182 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, unsourced content can be challenged and/or removed at any time. Please review WP:V. I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but we have a lot of articles with poorly sourced or unsourced content and we're trying to reduce that problem. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And unsourced content can be referenced by many people, even people named Waggie. So instead of slashing and stirring up trouble [the easy and lazy road]  actually contribute by doing some of the hard work of writing and searching out references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.135.36 (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello 50.92.135.36, as I mentioned to the other IP editor, the onus is on the contributing editor to provide the source, as Wikipedia content is supposed to be summarized from a reliable source at time of creation. Waggie (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this not an idiotic policy, enforced by spurious people, and one that is destroying Wiki? I can source everything to an endless list 404 Errors as that is where half the page references end up so the whole exercise is pointless.
 * I don't see how you could possibly believe this to be an idiotic policy. Waggie has a great many talents, but I'm fairly certain mind reading is not one of them, bearing that in mind, I don't see how you can expect Waggie to magically know the source you were using when you were writing content for Wikipedia. That's the whole idea of adding references to your work, it allows other people to know what sources you used, to verify that the sources summarise a subject in the way you claim in your text, and to keep sources up to date, to incorporate material from subsequent editions or additional works from the same author, keeping articles accurate and up to date. Nick (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

20:56:45, 13 June 2017 review of submission by Recklessnell
Thanks for the feedback. I've added two more citations. However, I want to note that Harvard Magazine is editorially independent from Harvard University, so I think it may count as a secondary source after all. From Harvard Magazine's "about" page: "Harvard Magazine was founded independently by alumni more than a century ago, and is published today by a separately incorporated nonprofit affiliate of Harvard University. We have excellent access to University news and news sources, but are written, edited, and produced—like any independent news medium—with readers' interests foremost in mind. That is to say, the magazine is not published with the aim of promoting financial donations to the University, as development and other University publications properly are." Either way, I added two new citations, and I thank you for your feedback and advice!! Happy to make additional edits as needed.

Recklessnell (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)recklessnell

Draft:Ambrose Bierce as a fictional character
Hello, Waggie,

Thank you for reviewing the draft of "Ambrose Bierce as a fictional character." I appreciate your feedback.

You commented: "Ambrose Bierce (fictional character) may be notable, but the prose needs work and it seems overly long. I think summarizing a reliable source or two for the lede (it's completely unsourced right now), and making the rest into a more compact list of notable publications would be more appropriate."

I have three questions:

1) You mentioned that "summarizing a reliable source or two for the lede" would be an improvement. Exception for the very short first sentence of the lede (which states as briefly as possible why Ambrose Bierce is noteworthy), the rest of the lede is a journalism-style summary of the contents of the rest of the page. The verification is all below. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that providing citations to the text below would not be necessary. Perhaps this is not the best way to write a lede for this page; I'd be grateful for more specific suggestions for improvement.

2) You mentioned that the page seems overly long. I agree. The point of the page is to provide reference for people who want to learn more about Bierce in fiction, and to point to specific works where they can read or see more for themselves. Would you recommend that I reduce length by breaking the long page up into 3 or 4 shorter pages?

3) You said "the prose needs work." I would be glad to improve the text. My goal for each entry is to provide a brief description of Bierce's role in the work, a concise summary of the plot, and (where available) quotations from critics or descriptions of awards to give readers an idea of the reputation of individual items. I'd be grateful for specific weak prose you might point out, or suggestions for improving my prose.

Thanks again,Vince Emery 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)
 * Hi ! You are correct, you can summarize the article in the lede without sourcing directly in the lede. However, my issues with that follow with my next response. Keep it one page, but the amount of detail for each work is too much, or perhaps there's too many works there (without breaking out to the more notable works). Basically, you should only include works that already have a Wikipedia article, and just wikilink to those. If someone can click through to the article, they'll already have all they need for detail (a very short description is probably OK, but not a paragraph and certainly don't need alternative titles). I hope this helps. Just remember, less is more. Waggie (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll just delete this article and condense it into a couple of paragraphs with citations on the main Ambrose Bierce page.Vince Emery 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinceemery (talk • contribs)

Reverted edit to Salt of the Earth
Hey Waggie,

Just wondering why you reverted this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salt_of_the_Earth_(song)&diff=786226730&oldid=786226302

The youtube link that I removed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64Sn10D0bo, was taken down by youtube and says "This video is unavailable.".

71.198.171.120 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was my mistake, your removal was a good one. Thank you for catching it. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Advert" tag at OpenVMS
Greetings. You have placed an advert tag on the article OpenVMS.

I don't see "promotional content" or "inappropriate external links". It is completely unclear as to what content you're concerned with. Please participate at this talk page discussion and provide specifics. Jeh (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding National Center for Functional Glycomics page.
Hi Waggie. Thank you for reviewing the Draft for the National Center for Functional Glycomics page which I created. I took your comments and have tried to add more information to show its notability. Please review it if you get a chance and let me know how else I can improve it. This is my first attempt at creating a wiki page so would like to learn how to get it published so that I can work on more. I would love to learn about the process. Coolazxc (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Kris Degioia
Waggie, Any AFC regarding Kris Degioia needs to be directed to Mkdwtalk --Cybercrimes (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Says who? Also cc:. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Says who? Wow look at that level professionalism! Now we all know why your user name has mad in it. Fell free to ask [Mkdwtalk yourself. And please keep drama to yourself --Cybercrimes (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , we will continue to process any AfC draft as we've processed them before. Per our policies and guidelines. I don't understand why you think has any particular authority over any other admin in this matter. Waggie (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What drama? I asked a question. Your attack on my name is unwarranted and uncalled for. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Just stop. You all attacked her and those days are over. Abusing your admin controls are over also. So just stop. Not feeding into your drama yourself --Cybercrimes (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[[
 * A.) I'm not an admin and neither is and B.) No one attacked the subject. Following policy and consensus isn't an attack, however what you are doing is very much so. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like Kris Degioia is the talk of Wikipedia lately; I was pinged into a another conversation at User talk:Fastily regarding the same topic. Any AFC regarding Kris Degioia does not need my "blessing" before it is reviewed, potentially accepted, and moved to the mainspace. My only voluntary involvement would be to help assist those reviewing any AFC, re-created article, or draft to the lengthy history associated with this particular article topic so as to better inform their final decision. While the draft may meet our guidelines, our editorial conduct policies and guidelines have a high risk of being breached (such as block evasion). The long term abuse also includes several sockpuppet investigations (the latest network being connected as recently as June 25), lengthy discussions with an editor claiming to be the subject, undisclosed paid editing, and disruption of the deletion process. It's clear the individual, or vested actors, have been working for quite some time to have this article created to promote the individual. They've done so by repeatedly and willfully breaching our policies and guidelines, and it's likely that any article written would continue to attempt to do as has been attempted in the past by using a bombardment of sources that do not meet our guidelines for significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
 * , I think I understand your concerns about the article. Waggie and Chrissymad are respected editors on the English Wikipedia and I would have faith that they would complete any due diligence in regards to reviewing the article or draft. I very much doubt they would blindly accept a marginal article given its history and sheer amount of time the checkuser team has spent extinguishing attempts by the single purpose sock farms from trying to promote the subject. Mkdw  talk 16:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , no one "attacked" Ms. Degioia. You are creating this drama yourself (you started this discussion). You seem to find Ms. Degioia to be a charismatic figure. We don't have any particularly strong feelings about her one way or the other. However, our feelings about her don't really matter. The pages that were related to her were removed/declined per policies and guidelines, and those policies/guidelines were cited in the removal/decline. Do not continue to post on my talk page, thank you. Waggie (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)