User talk:Waggie/Archives/2018/May

Welcome to WP:STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Conversation on IRC
Hey, Waggie!

Just checking in per our conversation on IRC. Hoping to start editing again real soon! ~ Matthewrbowker  Comments ·  Changes 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Martin Chitwood page
Hi Waggie,

I'd love to get your knowledge and assistance in finalizing the setup for the Martin Chitwood page. He is referenced in these articles across wikipedia, so I'd like to build the connection to his own page from these articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconquered_(1989_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Bloom

I don't know if I'm doing the references correctly or not- I think it's hanging me up. Thank you for your assistance

Scott mrscottcassidy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrscottcassidy (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Warning
This AfD is extremely pointy and your unsubstantiated attacks against me are unacceptable. You may soon end up at ANI is an Admin does not block your account for this nonsense first. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry that you feel the AfD was pointy, it was not. I genuinely feel that primary sources do not establish notability, and that's generally been upheld across the project. I do understand that there is some specific discussions that ended differently regarding NPROF, but I do not see it as binding in all cases. I strongly disagree with the close on that AfD, but it is what it is. My concerns stated at WT:AFC were substantiated, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that they aren't. You're welcome to take me to ANI if you feel I've done something wrong, as I'm happy to discuss any issues you have with me. Please understand that I won't allow threats of blocks and reporting to ANI to deter me from expressing concerns when I feel there's a problem to be addressed. If someone WP:NOTINVOLVED wishes to warn me for my supposedly bad behavior, I would welcome their feedback and specific criticism. Thank you, and best wishes. Waggie (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would urge you to reread WP:PROF and if you disagree with it go discuss that. A speedy close in less than half a day justified my acceptance of a Draft that you pointed to as a reason I should not have AfCH script. Steer clear of armchair quarterbacking my editing and you will have no further problems with me. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will continue to point out concerns when I have them, I'm sorry if you feel I'm "armchair quarterbacking". I'm not stalking your contribs, I'm not harrassing you, and I'm not being rude to you. When someone else linked to your move log, I only looked through the top ten and pointed out the things that stood out to me and why i was concerned. And, perhaps I missed it in WP:PROF, but where does it say primary sources are acceptable in the absence of primary sources? Waggie (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

General Notes point 1 "However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure if you were intended to make my point for me or not, but it clearly states "... once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources...". Am I missing something here? That reads like secondary sources are expected to establish notability before primary sources are acceptable. Unless you have a different definition of "independent"? Waggie (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources did you find not independent? All we need to establish notability of a PROF is proof they meet a criteria. For example IBM is clearly independent of the employee. If IBM names an IBM Fellow and posts that on their website I accept that as fact. If Joe Blow posts he is an IBM fellow on his website that is not independant or reliable. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , "...co-leading the team at IBM Thomas J Watson Research Center..." - IBM is specifically not clearly independent of their own employee. Waggie (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IBM is not in the business of fabricating credentials for their best employees. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , the guidelines surrounding primary vs secondary sources aren't necessarily about people fabricating credentials. Amongst other things, it's about preventing self-promotion and the simple fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. Wikipedia is supposed to be summarizing secondary sources for article content, not primary sources. In addition, it seems like you're recognizing that IBM is not independent. Waggie (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)