Archives
Check the WP:NOTABILITY + WP:ADS
Good evening,
I would like to point out a large number of items that have been created by IONIS Education Group to be an advertising poster.
Some of these articles were removed from Wikipedia francophone (community decision) because the institutions did not have sufficient notoriety (WP:NOTABILITY).
Can you check if these articles are indeed eligible in English Wikipedia and if so neutralize them?
Institution not eligible in French Wikipedia (beaucause WP:NOTABILITY)
- Sup'Biotech
- ICS Bégué
- ISG Luxury Management
- ISEFAC
- Moda Domani Institute
- E-Artsup
- Coding Academy
- IONIS STM
- IONISx
- Sup'Internet
- ISTH
- Fondation IONIS
Eligible Institution in French Wikipedia (but Wikipedia:Advertising)
- EPITA
- ESME-Sudria
- IPSA
- EPITECH
--EulerObama (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning. Unfortunately by looking your contributions, we can see that you don’t like IONIS Education Group and try to do everything you can to delete these articles : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institut_Sup%27Biotech_de_Paris&type=revision&diff=856975514&oldid=853348118 ; Luckily our Bot had stopped you : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institut_Sup%27Biotech_de_Paris&type=revision&diff=856975522&oldid=856975514 ; Please stop doing this and remain neutral and professional. 80.12.39.237 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- You should follow your own advice, with your disruptive recreation of Fondation IONIS having content already contained 100% in the parent article. It should remain a redirect, not a fork with identical content. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I did not do this. 92.184.104.85 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Anachronist was mentioning 80.12.39.237's unneeded changing of the redirect Fondation IONIS. The reply was to 80.12.39.237. Shenme (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I did not do this. 92.184.104.85 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- You should follow your own advice, with your disruptive recreation of Fondation IONIS having content already contained 100% in the parent article. It should remain a redirect, not a fork with identical content. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Anachronist is there any specific type of school/college/university which isn't allowed on Wikipedia? I've never bothered to learn the difference between: 1 - Private schools or public schools (both of which definitions apparently differ depending on when or where you were born). 2 - The Grammar schools, academy schools , comprehensive schools, secondary modern schools, independent school etc 3 - A school sixth form, a college, a university or a school which is called a college. All I know is that I went to a free nursery until I was 4yo. Then I went to a free primary school (Which had the infant building and playground separated from the junior building and playground with a wall. Plus was called something different for the 1st 2 or 3 years before it was called a primary school, most likely first school), until I was 10yo. Then I went to a free grammar school which has a sixth form building for 16-18yo's. Today most high schools seem to be academies, and are not liked by the majority of the older population for some reason, but as I said above I don't know the difference so I have no idea why. And there's one independent free school I know of (which is apparently also an academy too), but is also a charity. So as they're next door to my cities football club, and is run by an ex player, they do a lot of charity events which are usually linked to the football club, and vice-versa. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- In this context we're talking about higher education. Generally, the institutes of higher education that get deleted as non-notable at AFD are unaccredited private institutions. There is no specific type of school that is forbidden on Wikipedia, nor is there is a type that is guaranteed inclusion. If a school is non-notable, it gets deleted. But private unaccredited schools are definitely the most likely to suffer that fate. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Changing logo of a company
Hi, this is regarding the logo of the company Britannia Industries. The logo has undergone change and am not sure how one can change the logo on the article. The article is at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Industries .Please do let me know how to change the logo.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msandeep6 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
How to respond when changes based on reliable sources are reverted?
Internet protocol suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In July 2018 I suggested several changes based on reliable sources (Internet RFCs and one university-level textbook) on the talk page, against which no arguments were presented (after lots of initial dissent, mostly related to a diagram). I incorporated those changes in July and August 2018. On August 31, my changes were reverted with this summary (the linked diff shows the removal of four pieces with references that are replaced with statements without references): "revert to correct version, diagram does not represent the concept of TCP/IP, end-to-end is the principle of the entire suite, not just a layer."
I perceive this summary to be a straw man argument: The "concept of TCP/IP" is too vague to be refutable, and my use of "end-to-end" was really embedded in "end-to-end communication services", for which I provided a quotation from RFC 1122 in the text. I did not state anything about end-to-end as principle. My textual changes were largely unrelated to end-to-end, and they were based on reliable sources.
I reverted that reversion, which then was reverted by a third editor with the summary: "please edit topics you are familiar with"
I perceive this "summary" as ad hominem assertion, no argument, no source.
The lengthy use of the talk page prior to my edits now looks like a waste of time. As more than two editors are involved, a Third Opinion does not seem applicable. Bringing this to the dispute resolution noticeboard seems daunting.
I'm largely unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures, and I may be missing something fundamental here. Any suggestion how to proceed would be welcome.
JensLechtenboerger (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Style and content rules re: /wiki/Curt_Columbus
The complete text of the article is copied verbatim from the staff biography for the subject on their employer's website. The website in question is the only external link listed on the page.
Regarding the content of the page, the veracity of the entry may not be disputable but its presentation deviates from normal formatting of articles on Wikipedia. It further suggests the question whether Wikipedia content rules permit organizations and individuals to publish promotional materials as articles. Themelancholia (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Assistance in the article move from Stir-fried ice cream to Rolled ice cream
Stir-fried ice cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to a new name "Rolled ice cream". I have submitted this move twice and it worked; however, one other user will change it back to "Stir-fried ice cream". Now I can no longer move the article name to "Rolled ice cream". I received a notification from this user saying "Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Stir-fried ice cream." I am posting here because I believe that "Rolled ice cream" does in fact make more sense than "Stir-fried ice cream" and here is why. An article/interview from 'The Splendid Table' written on July 24, 2018 refers to this type of ice cream as "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" in the title and throughout the article. The owner of a Thai Rolled Ice Cream parlor mentions that Stir-fried ice cream is a nickname to Thai Rolled Ice Cream as it is an analogy for how the rolls come to be made, but the actual end product is the rolls of ice cream. The Splendid Table From CBS News, an article from 2017 features a special, titled "Today's Special: Rolled Ice Cream". The article discusses what this style of ice cream is, the process to forming the end product and the craze of this trend that has expanded globally. This article from CBS News does not mention stir-fried ice cream, but does mention rolled ice cream and ice cream rolls. CBS News Stores that have picked up on this trend refer to this style of ice cream and rolled ice cream. A restaurant in the DMV called "520 Ice Cream and Tea" refers to their ice cream as rolled ice cream, as does La Moo, a ice cream parlor in Arlington. This title for this ice cream stretches all the way across the country to California. A store named "Cold Rolled Ice Cream Company" refers to their ice cream as rolled or rolls, not stir-fried. 520 Ice Cream and Tea , La Moo , Cold Rolled Ice Cream For these reasons listed above I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to the new name "Rolled ice cream". If anyone is able to help me make this move, I would appreciate it. Thank you! --Latte2424 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should be named for what their subjects are usually called. The name "rolled ice-cream" does appear to be considerably more widely used than "stir-fried ice-cream". I see that now Stir-fried ice cream and Rolled ice cream both redirect to Rolled Ice Cream with unwarranted upper-case letters, and non-admins don't have the power to correct this. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Table on Marachucho Spanish
Maracucho Spanish features a table which I believe is intended to demonstrate its differences from Standard Spanish and from similar varieties of Spanish. However, the formatting of the table creates an overlong bottom row of the table, and this pushes the substantive parts of the table far to the left, to the point where I believe most of the information is actually off the screen (at least in my browser, which for the record is Chrome running on Windows 7 Professional). My understanding of wiki syntax relating to tables is poor, and I could not identify the problem with the table formatting that is creating this issue. Can someone with a better understanding of tables please correct the page so the table displays correctly? (I did post this to the talk page, but given that the article is short and about a niche topic, I hoped to draw attention to this hopefully simple technical problem in a place where it is more likely to be seen by someone who can help.) Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Lockesdonkey: Fixed it - some of the rows were delimited by "pipe, space, hyphen"
| -
instead of "pipe, hyphen"|-
-- John of Reading (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Campaign Against Antisemitism
Could I request an editor for advice and assistance regarding the page Campaign Against Anti-Semitism
An editor seems to have interpreted that this rule applies
You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
and is now handing out 1RR violations on my talk page. Of course I wish to conform to all Wiki standards regarding this. However, I'm baffled why other people appear to be ignoring this revert rule including the person who keeps handing it out. Was the introduction of the rule and subsequent violations valid? I have attempted to discuss this issue, but have received no response.
On the advice of an uninvolved administrator, I'm happy to revert any changes, but of course must expect others also obey these rules and remove any 24 hr reverts they have been involved with. (Andromedean (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC))
- That editor is myself, and after alerting Andromedean to the sanctions regime, I gave him a courteous heads up regarding the potential applicability of WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction to the following diffs - [1][2][3][4][5] - all of which tie CAA's (the article) formation to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and variously describe it as setup to counter anti-Israeli activity, boycotts, and events such as Israel apartheid week. As such, this amply meets ARBPIA's standard of
"could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"
.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Help on Starting a Discussion
New Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to encourage a discussion on New Atheism Talk page, about the page's intentions. Because I feel like all the past comments about how "broad" the page is, stems from the fact that the page goes back and forth between simply describing the viewpoints that Wolf was talking about when he coined the term "New Atheism," and describing all of the atheistic view points of those people whom fit his definition of New Atheists, regardless of how unique each individual view is to just this subset of atheists. I feel like a consensus on whether the article is about New Atheism, or is about people who have been called New Atheists, would clarify what changes need to be made so the article can adequately do either task.
I've written 4-5 short paragraphs on examples in the Wikipedia article where it is implying a common secular viewpoint - even one found among deists - is being specifically attributed to New Atheism. Such as when it says that "New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity," which is certainly true but is also a viewpoint shared by roughly 70% of the world's population. I think sharing these examples will help people understand why I think the question matters to the structure of the article.
But I have two issues. One is the current Talk page is seriously in need of archiving, but I feel like archiving it before I've started what could be a potentially-long discussion feels like I'm trying hide past discussions which might have relevance to this one. And yet, I don't think a discussion gets as many participants or honest debate, if it's section 36 on the Talk page. So I would appreciate some more 'professional' input on if it should be archived before I post, or not. And two, my 4-5 short paragraphs probably shouldn't go directly on the Talk page, right? It seems cumbersome and too weighty to put there, plus some might disagree with my examples and feel I'm trying to bias people's responses. I was thinking that a simple short version of the question would go on the Talk page, and presumably I should link to my examples on my Talk page? Or is it my main page? I am open to discussion on the validity of my examples, of course, so that's why I'm thinking my Talk page is a better choice, but I don't know if there's a protocol on which to use. Thanks for any input you can offer. CleverTitania (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- On archiving, agree, someone who know how to do that should archive all threads without comment in the past year (at least). If necessary, one can refer to/link to discussions in the archive in new discussions.
- I may misunderstand you, but on talk pages the "I'd like to change X to Y (or just add X) and here's why" is often encouraged. So I see no problem with stating what you like to add, though depending on whatever a "one piece att a time" approach may be better.
- If you like, you can "advertise" your discussion at places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Something like "I've started a discussion about X at Y, your input would be welcome." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Euphoria
I wonder if the text included in the section References of the article Euphoria is not disproportionate compared to the size of the main content -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take a look for you. scope_creep (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say so. The references are beautifully constructed, with no close paraphrasing. They are summarising the papers' contents, including clarification of specific points in the article. I think it is ok. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Help, I am a volunteer for Renee Powell trying to add changes approved by Renee Powell, they have been deleted
How can I "talk" (I really don't get how to do this, I tried clicking alot, including trying to see the message sent in my Talk). Renee Powell needs an up-to-date wiki. I added valid information, as an approved volunteer for Renee Powell that is all verifiable online. Please I am really confused on how to help Renee have a comprehensive wiki. How is the person who created this, because I asked Renee Powell and she has no idea who did it and who is updating it and my question, why would they delete accurate information. Do I need to started an "approved" new wiki. You can contact Renee Powell at the email on the Clearview website. Help we need a diagnostic and not a bunch of pages to review to try and understand what is going on. You said not to give you my email, but I can't even understand how to read the notice you sent me in Talk, it's a page filled with extensive information that I don't know how to make sense of. I tried adding information 2 years ago and gave up. This is not at all comprehensible for a VOLUNTEER.
Please lay it out for me on the next steps.