Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Dairy in India (prior candidate for deletion at: WP:Articles for deletion/Dairy in India) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Roller26 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roller26! This was a fun project to work on. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following this the problem is like I described in Interplay of UPE , Sockpuppetry & Advanced User Rights, most Nigerian UPE editors are master minds & know how to mix their UPE with legit productive good work such as this Yemi Blaq scenario & it may take honest volunteers involved in WP:WikiProject Nigeria such as I,HandsomeBoy & Versace1608 to say “nahh this is blatant UPE” or to say “too bad the creator was a UPE but this actually doesn't appear to be UPE & is on a notable subject” I haven’t checked all the articles created by them, probably technical editors like DannyS712 might have, but I certainly haven’t, but if you have, & aren’t sure of something or might want to confirm anything you can definitely ask me. Thanks for taking on this daunting task of weeding out what you may consider thrash as it certainly is a difficult one. Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, Appreciate your taking the time to explain. Will definitely ask you in the future if I'm unsure about how to distinguish legit work from spam. Would certainly be a more productive use of all our time than starting apparently incorrect AfDs like that for Yemi Blaq! Thanks again. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice words Celestina007, it always motivates me to continue to do the little I can. There are still a lot of cleanup that needs to be done. Sometimes I wonder why anyone will want to collect [undisclosed] money to write a Wikipedia article, that has never crossed my mind. Sounds like blood money to me! HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Drinking fountains in Philadelphia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wilson Cary Swann organized the construction of several drinking fountains in Philadelphia, in part to stop people from drinking alcohol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Drinking fountains in Philadelphia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wilson Cary Swann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wilson Cary Swann organized the construction of several drinking fountains in Philadelphia, in part to stop people from drinking alcohol? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wilson Cary Swann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did my first NPP today at Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church if you have any suggestions/corrections, please let me know. Just making sure I'm on the right track. Hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  14:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, Yes, this looks good to me! To be honest, I usually just avoid the ones that would require tags to pass as reviewed, so kudos to you for taking on a more challenging one. Tags look reasonable and the topic looks notable so I'd say that's a good pass. Hope all is well with you too! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, hope you are doing well. I am currently working on creating a new article in my sandbox on Dr. Zlatko Tesanovic, and just wanted to take your opinion regarding copyrights before creating the article? Please notice that there's a section dedicated to quotes in the article, which may appear as a copyright violations! What do you think? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations? Thanks in advance for any help you are able to provide.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheEagle107, This tool suggests that the only concerning aspects of the draft from a copyright perspective are the quotes. I'd encourage you to think about which (if any) are genuinely useful or helpful, since it's generally not a great idea to include copyrighted material—even if attributed—without a clear purpose. Otherwise, looks good to me from a copyright perspective. If you're concerned about copyright issues in future, you can use the tool yourself—just drop in the name of the article and click "submit". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt response, kind attention and thoughtful advice on this. I have already used this tool, before asking you about your opinion. But I was concerned, and wanted to make sure that there is no problem. Anyway, thanks again and best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've started editing recently on Wikipedia, but, despite my effort to respect the criterias, I had my page Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Piero Atchugarry Gallery deleted a few days go. I would like to know if it will be possible to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement. And also, what are your advise to get the article approuved ? What I should change, delete or add ? Thank you so much for any help you could give. All my best Donà Anna (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, If you would like to request a copy of the article, you can go to WP:REFUND and submit a request. As for ways to improve, the article was deleted as promotional material under criterion WP:G11. The best way to avoid that in the future is to steer clear of a promotional tone, and simply state the facts about the subject you're writing about. When I'm writing articles, it helps me me to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: try to emulate the tone of an encyclopedia as much as possible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advices and your explications :AleatoryPonderings. I'll try to follow more strictly the "encyclopedia" rule for the future. As so, this page could be a good exemple ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_Perrotin

Moreover, it would be possible for me to edit the article in the right way ? Should I automatically ask for an editor review ?

Thank you again for all your help !Donà Anna (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, Galerie Perrotin is OK, but I think Serpentine Galleries is a better example of a neutrally worded article on a gallery (although it's not perfect either). (Forgive the ping, Vexations, but Vexations probably knows more about this than I do.) As far as requesting a WP:REFUND goes, I think you can request a refund to your userspace or to draftspace at any time, but I am not familiar with the details of the policy. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Thank you for your help and to adresse me to Vexation ! This conversation is very useful for me.

Indeed I can't submit my request in WP:REFUND. Here what is mentioned "Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here. Requests for the undeletion of pages deleted under criteria G11 these criteria will not be accepted here. Please check the deletion reason by going to the page before posting here. If you feel that an article deleted under any of these criteria was deleted in error, please contact the deleting administrator."

Can I recreate the article with the same title and in the proper way by myself ? Donà Anna (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Donà Anna I've been watching the Atchugarry article for quite a while, but I don't think I've ever made an edit. I was kind of curious where it would go. My take on art galleries' notability is a bit different from most editors, so please don't take it as representative of consensus. Some art galleries play an essential role in the "Artworld", ( I'm borrowing that term from Arthur Danto). Others are merely retail establishments. The amount of promotionalism, even among "respected", galleries is staggering, and incredibly frustrating to deal with. I've written or contributed to articles about galleries that I regret getting involved with because the galleries won't take the hint that you should not write about yourself or pay someone to do so. My own criterion for inclusion is in fact not the WP:GNG (although you can't argue with it; if something meets the GNG it's notable, but it is just too easy to buy the necessary publicity), but the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". That's difficult to quantify, but what I look for is work in the primary market, their artists' representation in museum collections, which publications discuss their shows and who takes them seriously. If I can't find a full review of a solo show for (almost) every artist they rep and not at least 2/3 of their artists already have articles (not written by the same folks, obviously) it's probably not worth the effort. You can request a refund, and I'll take a better look, if there is no conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, thank you for your opinion and your (plus Arthur Santo) words. I understand and - indeed - I mostly agree on all your points, it pushes me to reflect about what criterias define "the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". For my opinion (and without any conflit of interest), I was/am interested by Atchugarry activity for the way it invests natural environment, for the cultural connections creating by external exhibition programs, for the artistic research concerning space and architecture which involves established artists on the primary market. For now the page refund is not possible. I would like to rewrite the article and I will be grateful if you could take a better look on it. Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, Thanks for that thorough exposition. I think the general idea that galleries (or, indeed, profit-making enterprises) ought to be subject to a higher standard than GNG or even WP:NCORP is probably right. NCORP goes in the right direction, but it's quite inconsistently applied at AfD and so I'm not clear how useful it is. I think the "artworld" impact is probably more helpful in this area. Donà Anna I wasn't aware of that restriction on WP:REFUNDs. You could recreate the article in mainspace, but be very, very careful about it. Editors and administrators get suspicious when content is recreated, especially so soon after deletion. Probably best to sit on it for a while or go through WP:AFC instead. AfC is probably the best route. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings yes, I think I'll go for the AFC option first, thank you. Concerning the WP:REFUND, as deleting administrator, could you possibly do something on this way ? (Checking my last chance). Thank you(again)! Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna, I am not an administrator. I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. As for AFC, there's nothing I or an administrator can really do to help it along in the process. Subject to Vexations' cautionary note below about whether it's really a good idea to try and recreate this, all you have to do is write up a draft of the article and submit it for approval at AfC. There aren't any shortcuts as far as I'm aware. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that the article was speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, so refund doesn't apply. I managed to grab a google cache, and had another look at the sources. They're not great. Anything that begins with "... is pleased to present" is a press release. The New York times piece about Punta del Este is a nice start, but it is not specifically about the gallery. Other sources are too close to the subject, like garzonsculpturepark.com. My advice: Forget the deleted article, and do not try to recreate that. Anything that resembles the deleted version too closely will likely be deleted again. Wait until you have significantly better sources, and then write something that accurately summarizes what those sources say. Avoid prose like "an international platform threading together ... cultural fabric", "fully integrated experience", "different mediums that question the spatial and material limits of our reality", "a considerable number". There was a lot of that. Do not list exhibitions unless reviewed. And then there is this: This business is just a few years old. It's basically a start-up. With rare exceptions, an artist with less than a 15-year track record is an emerging artist. We should not write about emerging artists because they are not yet established artists with a body of work that we can write about. The same is true for galleries. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings ok thank you, I'll go with the draft.

Vexations Note everything, I'll work on it for the new version. Thank you again

Donà Anna (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christoph Hartmut Bluth, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoph Hartmut Bluth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning. Wanted to check one thing with you. This DYK thing still seems super elusive to me. I think I might have a shot with this one here Template:Did_you_know_nominations/J._Michael_Lane. But, then, I think I will fall short on the QPQ thingie. That one seems super complex. Have you encountered a dummy-fied tool or instructions to complete the QPQ? Also, if you see anything that can be edited in my submission, let me know, or definitely feel free to directly make those edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Hey! You probably don't need to do the QPQ if you're relatively new to DYK, since you only need to do one if you've had 5+ DYKs. Doing a QPQ just means reviewing another person's DYK submission according to the criteria, so it's fairly straightforward. So long as the WP:ITNRD issue isn't prohibitive, you should be good on this one. I copyedited the first book a teensy bit, but otherwise things look good to me. You might want to find a synonym for "trek" since that's what's used in the source—maybe "took a cross-country hiking trip"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking that I hadn't seen the particular image licence on the suggested photo before, but it looks reasonable—maybe just double check that? I've gotten dinged for weird image licensing before on DYK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Thanks much as always! That image was a cropped image from this one. Will have a look. Hope you are having a restful weekend! Hard to believe but darn time flies by so quick and Monday is going to be here in no time! Ktin (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lee Kun-hee, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected the G 12 for Alessandro Sette. I believe the source of the text is a federal government agency and therefore public domain. You think I misread it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, A slightly tricky one. That source, per the Copyright and License Information section, is apparently licensed CC-BY-NC-ND, which I'm pretty sure is incompatible with WP licensing reqs? (It's also one of several used to build the article, which would be incompatible with the "No Derivatives" CC requirement.) I don't think something that's on PubMed is necessarily in the PD or a federal government work product; they host lots of stuff there, I'm pretty sure, apparently including content licensed under various non-PD CC licenses. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, I agree it's a tricky one. Looking closer, I see the you identified two sources of information, one of which was his bio here. that is clearly a problem and appears to be used in the professional career section although I haven't worked very closely. you mentioned that the NIH source has an NC and ND license, which is clearly a problem, but I haven't seen the copyright license section. I did find a section Copyright Status of Webpages which makes reference to public domain but does have a caveat about the potential for inclusion of otherwise licensed materials. This makes it very tricky in case any of that material happens to be used. I am puzzled that I was not able to find the creative common's license you mentioned. Can you point it out to me?

If you click on "Copyright and License information" at the top of this article, it reads This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, I did miss that. Thanks for pointing it out. While I realize I can expect the world to organize itself based on our copyright considerations, it's discouraging to find that a site that's generally PD might be or might not be. Given that so much of the federal government's material is automatically PD, I would be happier if they decided when they wanted to incorporate material that was licensed differently, to provide a PD excerpt and then link to the material as opposed to incorporating it, but I bet I won't get my wish. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My current view is that there is a lot of material in this article that came from other places and may be acceptable. Although my general position is sometimes on the harsh side — if most of the material is problematic and I think removing it would leave a shell with not much to it, I think it's best to take out the whole thing and start over but I don't think that's the case here. I see the subsequent editor has already removed some material, not the copyright issues but for other editorial reasons. My current thinking is that would be good to take a close look at the professional career section and excise sections that are taken from the bio. (if you or some other editor chooses to rewrite it rather than remove it that would be better but that's up to you.) I would like to see the CC license as I generally work on the assumption that sites with nih.gov are pd. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Perhaps it would be best all things considered to stubbify and revdel before that? Based on this licence info I added above, I am fairly certain the copied content is not in the PD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, OK, can you stubify and I'll revdel? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, in an attempt to make lemonade from lemons, stubbifying might also cure the COI problem. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, Fair point! Now stubbified. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, RD1 completed. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I appreciate your message about COI in the di Prima page. I don't believe I have one. I'm not the one who added a reference to my interview and it doesn't matter to me if it remains there or not; I'm just trying to set the record straight. The fact is di Prima's page is woefully short of content for a major poet who was active for 50-plus years, and I'll definitely be contributing further (and encouraging others to do so) in the future. Dhadbawnik (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhadbawnik, If you have a personal connection with the subject of an article, you likely have a conflict of interest. You stated here that I am the person who conducted the interview with di Prima referenced above, so I was assuming that you had some sort of personal relationship with Diane di Prima. The edit of mine you reverted mentions a person whose name resembles your username, which appeared to indicate that you were in fact editing an article with which you have a personal connection. If that is not correct, or if your connection with di Prima was journalistic or otherwise arm's-length, all good, but I wanted to alert you of the potential problem in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and I take this very seriously. As I said, my initial intention was to correct deliberately false information that someone posted associated with my interview (yes, I did the interview way back when). All of my edits are factually correct and sourced, and obviously open to scrutiny. I will make no more edits on the page in view of your point about COI. Dhadbawnik (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Macklin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Betty Dodson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cándido Camero, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]