dablink notification message (see the FAQ) Tag: Disambiguation links added |
No edit summary |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{afd-notice|List of wineries in Kansas}} [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:18, 15 November 2021
Tautomers, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Tautomers! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
You appear to have started nominating this for deletion at WP:AFD, but not finished things by starting the deletion discussion itself. Do you want to nominate it for deletion or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I withdraw that. I see that you have created the discussion now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Why article 2021–22 Rahmatganj MFS season considering to delegations? III69 (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
For prolific editor H____
Your concerns are valid, and addressed at Wikipedia:Competence is required. People can be editing in good faith, i.e., not vandalism, yet still be making messes. Between reviewers at Articles for Creation, and New Page Patrol, for articles that the creating editors skipped AfC, there is a filtering process. David notMD (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @David notMD: for this. I did not know this existed and it is good to be aware of. I ended up making a post on the ANI board after I saw the feedback there, and to me it seems like it was a decent step to make due to the track record. It has yet to get replies from anyone so there is no discussion yet, but if you'd like to see my message it can be found here --Tautomers(T C) 02:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
AfD?
Hi, I saw you did an amazing job on presenting the Mark Eberhart AfD. I was wondering what you make of this one? The article creators have done a great job dressing this up and making it look good, but at its core this person doesn't seem to pass any of the notability guidelines for academics, and seems to be indistinguishable from any ordinary PhD in history. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Ash-Gaar: Thanks for he compliment! Without even looking, I am initially hesitant at approaching the article (at least now) as history is very far removed from my wheelhouse and background, and has unique challenges that require a decent background in the academics of the history field to properly traverse. I don't think I am experienced enough (in most cases) to thoroughly analyze an AfD unless it is STEM, or reasonably close to STEM. Nevertheless, I did give it a look and from what I can tell it does seem like it's barely over a threshold (maybe), though his page (frustratingly, like many many professor articles) is WP:Resume and could definitely benefit from a trim/rewrite. Basically, history is a different beast and I don't feel confidant analyzing him (at least as the initiator) yet, maybe in the future though once I have more wikiexperience. I am relatively new at this and didn't start doing AfD stuff until a few days ago. Thanks! --Tautomers(T C) 00:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Charles Brian O’Kelley
Hello, Tautomers! I noticed that you deProdded a few deleted articles by the user Mrs. Snoozy Turtle. I believe that this page had been unfairly deleted for allegedly being “not notable”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Brian_O’Kelley
While I agree that the page might need improvement on the content, it easily passes notability for entrepreneurs. If you check the publications in the draft such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes, they cover O’Kelley in-depth. Furthermore, those publications have been written by the Staff journalists. Also, the person founded a few notable companies that are already on Wikipedia. I’d appreciate if you can take a look at the draft and let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idunnox3 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Idunnox3: I looked at this article and my takeaway this is not my wheelhouse and I am not the right person to assess for notability. I don't consider myself a generalist, and I am really unfamiliar with finance and unless it's readily obvious it's kinda hard for me to do. I try to deal with either really easy/obvious to me deletions, or deletions on STEM topics due to my background. I deprodded some things by snoozy because she seemed to be a bit overzealous with applying them, and I saw she will consider being more thoughtful, which is great. I appreciate you asking me though. --Tautomers(T C) 04:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ramona Rey moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ramona Rey, 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 "Draft:
" 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. DJRSD (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DJRSD: thanks for letting me know. Making that article was... tough, because I don't speak polish and if I am totally honest making that page was a bucket list item of sorts since like... 2009? I doubt I will touch the draft again as I don't have the needed language skills to bring it up to snuff. There is a page for it on polish wiki pl:Ramona Rey but a lot of the links there are broken. I am not familiar with draft space and how that works, hopefully someone can find it and make it good. After trying a few times I really just don't like making articles. It's a lot of work and dealing with the citations sucks the fun out of it for me. Reminds me too much of grad school. --Tautomers(T C) 04:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- For English Wikipedia, you should provide more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DJRSD (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DJRSD: Er, sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is I don't speak Polish. I can only speak English. Hence, making an article where all of the sources are in a language you don't understand is, well, really hard. Likely not gonna try that again. Google translate can only do so much. I made one successful article so far, but it wasn't an enjoyable process for me. Feels too much like work. --Tautomers(T C) 04:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I never against to publish any article on Wikipedia but that must be follow Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and there must be enough reliable references, no matter whether these are in English language or Polish.DJRSD (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DJRSD: I am sorry if I wasn't clear again; I understand that completely. It's a lot of work for very valid reasons, I simply don't enjoy doing it and if that's the case I shouldn't do it. If I do do it, like I did in my first article I made, I have and do adhere to the guidelines as much as I can. I clearly didn't meet the the second one because I was out of my depth for reasons I explained, and the fact that it was pulled into draft space shows that. As such, I know what it takes, I am capable of it if I stick to english, but ultimately I haven't found much joy in it so I likely won't do it much again. --Tautomers(T C) 05:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I never against to publish any article on Wikipedia but that must be follow Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and there must be enough reliable references, no matter whether these are in English language or Polish.DJRSD (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DJRSD: Er, sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is I don't speak Polish. I can only speak English. Hence, making an article where all of the sources are in a language you don't understand is, well, really hard. Likely not gonna try that again. Google translate can only do so much. I made one successful article so far, but it wasn't an enjoyable process for me. Feels too much like work. --Tautomers(T C) 04:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- For English Wikipedia, you should provide more significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DJRSD (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for weirdness
It may not be obvious at first glance, but the reason for the weird curt and tense atmosphere is that a lot of the editors are video-gamers, and they play Wikipedia like a game. And of course in their opinion games trump everything, As an example, check what should be a simple, dispassionate discussion allowing an official star name to redirect to its main article, or at least be a dab page. But no, there's a video game involved. See Talk:Baten Kaitos. LoL! Skyerise (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: Good lord that was painful to read! I've seen some other discussions along this vein and just, blegh nope. You are far more patient than I am. Generally speaking when someone pulls an ackchyually I will just nope out. More important things for me to care about. I mean, I get it though. When someone really cares about something it can feel weirdly personal when that thing is challenged. Yet, those things aren't part of your identity to the point where someone needs to so strongly externally validate it. The human condition is a messy one. Though when I was referring to curtness I was more speaking towards noticing a tend of people tending to rules lawyer in a way and be negligently cold or tone-deaf, and it seems to not discriminate on background or experience much at all. Reminds me of professors in grad school whom I wanted to smack because while yes, they were right, they projected the social pleasantries of a rusty garbage can and didn't care. Oof. --Tautomers(T C) 05:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I usually stay away from such things, but I've developed an interest in astronomy and noticed that every other star article has a redirect from the official name. Seems like a no-brainer, you'd think. But there you go. You'd think admins would behave better rather than try to browbeat editors with a different opinion through repetitive aggressive responses, but no. They became admin only because that was the next "level" of the Wikipedia game. LoL! Skyerise (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: Makes sense. I love space too, though more on the physics side of things. One thing I have learned as I have gotten older is the power of ignoring things/people. I get the hat collecting urge, it feels nice to have shiny badges but it can't be the primary goal or else it corrupts the rest. Though, sounds like I am preaching to the choir :) --Tautomers(T C) 05:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I usually stay away from such things, but I've developed an interest in astronomy and noticed that every other star article has a redirect from the official name. Seems like a no-brainer, you'd think. But there you go. You'd think admins would behave better rather than try to browbeat editors with a different opinion through repetitive aggressive responses, but no. They became admin only because that was the next "level" of the Wikipedia game. LoL! Skyerise (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Deprods like that are never annoying. You had a valid concern and expressed it. I disagreed, so it went to AfD. That's how the system is supposed to work. What is annoying when folks deprod without any rationale, or with the inane rationale of "As per deprod". Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 02:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment My comment was made in jest and it didn't come across right, sorry about that! I appreciate you letting me know. --Tautomers(T C) 03:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Could you?
Please drop in at Shem HaMephorash. I've got a couple editors tag-teaming to revert the article while a poll is in progress... Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: It looks like it's stabalized (I think), but I am also not sure what this is about or what the poll is? I know little about religion, don't care about it, and it has struck me as one of the most contentious subjects on wiki so I don't want to touch any of it with a 10ft poll. Thanks for pinging me though. --Tautomers(T C) 23:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Appreciation, NAUTHOR
Hi Tautomers. I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I appreciate your considered participation over at academic AfD. I try to keep my comments there on the shorter side, and things have been pretty busy here in off-wiki life. As a result, I was worried that I came across as being dismissive or something at the discussion on Sam van Schaik. I wanted to tell you that that wasn't at all my intent. The details of WP:NAUTHOR took me a while to parse also. The consensus is not absolute, but two books with two reviews each (in reliable sources, independent of the author, etc) is probably a weak pass; more reviews are of course better. (A single reviewed work likely falls under WP:BLP1E.) The JSTOR trick is a good one (which I learned from David Eppstein). The other (more obvious) tricks I use for finding reviews are doing a Google search for "Title of the book" "review", with quotes around the title and around review, and (for books with some level of general interest) site searches of kirkusreviews and publishersweekly. (I understand that kirkusreviews and publishersweekly are considered a little weak by librarians, but they do have the advantage of being relatively internet-accessible.) Anyway, keep up the good work! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- While we're listing review-finding tricks: it also sometimes works to search Google Scholar for intitle:author-name. Also there are often scholarly reviews not found by Google Scholar, or found only in a telegraphic and unlinked form from which you have to search elsewhere to find the real review. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Another thing that I often do on Google Scholar is to do a search for '"author name" -author:surname'. This picks up things mentioning the subject but not written by the subject (or, as it happens, anyone with the same surname, so it is not foolproof). That usually picks up any reviews indexed by Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Russ Woodroofe, David Eppstein, and Phil Bridger for the helpful information! I've seen you guys around on AfD stuff and have appreciated your feedback and opinions since the get go. I've seen WP:AUTHOR come up as a factor in several places now regarding professors so it's helpful to have some methods to examine that as it's liable to come up again. Truth be told I have burned myself out a wee bit going at wiki stuff so much in the past week so I'll be easing back for a while (plus, other irl stuff to do) but I do intend to keep at it for a while. I find I am most useful in AfD's if has to do with something I am familiar with and academia is one of them and I have come across a handful of pages that need some examination. I haven't take any of your feedback as dismissive and it's been useful. The only thing that can suck is when you spend a lot of time digging only to realize "oh darn I missed that" but its not the least bit personal. Thanks again :) --Tautomers(T C) 19:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Chemical Abstracts Service (publisher) logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Chemical Abstracts Service (publisher) logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lace card, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whoopee. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of List of wineries in Kansas for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.