Some baklava for you!
You just beat me to a Teahouse answer; always good to see other users helping out newbies. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC) |
About the strange formatting in unblock requests
I noticed your comment at the bottom of the page here. I've seen the same errors in multiple other unblock requests - for instance, here's a conversation I had with another blocked editor on the issue: discussion (starts about halfway down the page). It seems to be due to copy+pasting {{unblock|Your reason here}}
(as displayed when viewing the page) into the edit window while replying in visual editor mode. I haven't been able to work out what to do about it, though. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was beginning to suspect it had something to do with the VE. I don't know what to do either, though. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did the only thing I could think of - took it to VPT. Maybe they'll have more clues about what's going on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Hello there!
Can we be friends with me? Because I wanted to help out on editing articles and help contribute to this community. My goal is to help build an encyclopedia because I want to make this articles detailed and improve on research skills. Would you like to do that as well? Thank you. --76.20.110.116 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my request
I am using the iPhone app, and yesterday I couldn’t edit a page in the Dutch Wikipedia (error message: you have been blocked), nor see messages that I had received - error message: “you are not logged in” although I was logged in. Logging out and in didn’t help. I could edit a page in the English Wikipedia.
Today I can see my messages (including your response) and edit a Dutch page. Strange, but happy that it works now. Mhcstraathof (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline problem
hi. Thank you for your comment. Could u please help me to edit the article? I was waiting about 4 month for submission. But now I received decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydan Hashimova (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- What help is it that you need? Please review my decline message and the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That Happened To Me Too 193.188.123.188 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
In re Kerrylei
I alerted them yesterday; they reverted it (and a bunch of other notes about their draft) off. I would assume high conflict of interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:WebID Solutions
Hello 331dot! Back in April 2022 you told me to contact the reviewer directly who rejected my draft Draft:WebID Solutions. This reviewer happens to be User:Hatchens, a now indefinitely blocked paid editor who apparently manipulated Wikipedia. I believe that the rejection was a bad faith edit, as I had previously improved the draft by addressing all its quality issues. Thus I would like to appeal Hatchens’s illegitimate and unfair rejection. Kind regards, Cyan2021 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cyan2021 I think that the rejection was valid. However, out of a desire for fairness, I would be willing to allow you to resubmit the draft if you have significant, substantive changes to make to it. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions/activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability.(this may be different from what the German Wikipedia requires) What are the three best sources that you have and can summarize? (three is the bare minimum needed to pass the AFC process) 331dot (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello 331dot! I suppose that I have got very unlucky with the article. It contains virtually one single source that is a press release, and no sources that are staff interviews, or announcements of routine business activities etc. – the majority of the sources that I've cited are compliant with WP:SIRS. The best three sources in this draft would be Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (citation 3), Handelsblatt (citations 9, 12), and Tagesspiegel (citation 26). I have also cited Wirtschaftswoche (citation 2, 7), Heise (citation 6), Frankfurter Neue Presse (citation 17), Börsen-Zeitung (citation 13), Rheinische Post (citations 8, 16, 20), and Bundesanzeiger (citations 11, 14, 15). The draft also doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source – I have linked the abovementioned sources in the citations. This is possibly why User:Theroadislong told me "that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source"? I guess that I can definitely improve the draft by uniformly using WP:CS1, don't you think? I also suggest that a user with a good understanding of German have a look at the sources, if that's possible. Are there any additional changes that you think should be made to the draft?
- Here are the brief summarisations of the draft's three best sources:
- FAZ: The article (citation 3) was written by Helmut Bünder, an economics and trade journalist who has been writing for FAZ since 1999. Bünder's article discusses WebID Solutions monothematically, i. e. there are no other topics discussed in his article. Bünder briefly descibes the security measures undertaken at WebID Solutions and that the firm mainly does online identification for banks. Then he discusses how WebID Solutions came to be, what their daily business is like, where and how they work, and what their plans for the future are.
- Handelsblatt: The first Handelsblatt article that I've cited (citation 9) was written by Katharina Schneider, a journalist specialised in finance and fintech. Schneider's article also monothematically discusses WebID Solutions. She briefly describes their business and focusses on their expansion into the US market. Additionally, she compares WebID Solutions to its biggest competitors on the German market and briefly explains that legal actions were being taken.
- The second Handelsblatt article (citation 12) was composed by Elisabeth Atzler, a banking expert journalist at Handelsblatt. Just like the previous articles, her article also monothematically discusses WebID Solutions. The first quarter describes that Anacap has invested into WebID Solutions, the second quarter briefly describes the firm's business model, and the last half of her article describes the firm's recent (2018-2021) history.
- The last WP:THREE-source for this draft would be Tagesspiegel (citation 26). The article was composed by Carla Neuhaus, head of Tagesspiegel's economy editorial department. Her article discusses nothing but WebID Solutions and has five sections of about equal size: The first two sections describe WebID Solution's business and what they do. The third section focusses on market competition that WebID faced; the last two sections discuss the pricing for WebID's service and compare it with the Deutsche Post's offline identification service.
- Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cyan2021 I cannot read citation 3 as it seems to be behind a paywall. I read citation 12 first- and it (based on a possibly erroneous Google translation as I cannot read German) seems to be largely based on an interview with Frank Jorga, a founder of the company and its leader(or a leader), and as such the author is just repeating what they were told and not writing what they saw themselves. Citation 26 is also largely based on an interview with Jorga. It might be notable that WebID Solutions has risen to challenge the Swiss Post Office or some aspect of it, but there needs to be a source that says this that is not based on an interview with a founder of the company- because it would be expected that the founder of the company would see it that way. So these two are not suitable, and I can't read one of them. If the one I can't read doesn't contain an interview, that might work, but you would need a couple more like that to summarize. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- These sources are actually not largely based upon interviews. The authors of the sources have spoken to the managing directors of WebID Solutions, and they have cited them, because that is common practice in virtually all reliable German language sources. But please note that, this practice is not equivalent to interviews. This practice works because the authors of reliable German language sources do not repeat "what they were told". Authors of the reliable German language newspaper-like sources decide themselves what they write and what they don't write about. And I can assure you that, FAZ, Tagesspiegel, and Handelsblatt are among the, if not the best and most reliable German language newspaper-like sources that one can cite in a Wikipedia article. I can send you or any other Wikipedia editor PDF copies of the articles that are behind paywalls. Now, you say that you can't read German – can I ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation if a reviewer who understands German wants to have a look at the draft? Maybe that would be of great help. Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The question I had in Teahouse
Hi 331dot,
In the question about Highway 99 on Oahu, the problem isn't with Google Maps. The problem is that the map the user linked to was of the wrong thing.
I am not sure how to add this to our discussion without messing the posts there up, so I contacted you instead.
Thanks for your answer before. Stormplatter (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm doing this right
Hi 331dot, amazing that you have been here for 10 years! Regarding my draft at Draft:Wellous , would like to know under what circumstances are news articles considered to be independent and reliable sources, and when they are not.
I would also like to enquire regarding the Wikipedia brands project, and whether my ayrticle qualifies to be published under it.
Thank you very much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankoh97 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Briankoh97 Regarding the brands project, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands.
- You have three sources in the draft currently. The first, The Star, is based on an interview with the CEO and is a promotional piece with no specific author; the author is the paper itself("Star Picks") and clicking on that states "StarPicks brings you an insightful, useful and informative read with relevant promotional messages across an extensive variety of topics" so that is not acceptable as a source to establish notability. The second source is the company website itself, which is not an independent source. There are circumstaces where primary sources are acceptable, but not for establishing notability. The third source is an announcement or press release type story announcing the opening of a company facility. Again, that does not establish notability.
- Any article about your company must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company that have chosen on their own to write about it, to establish that the company is notable. This means
- independent- the source cannot be affiliated with the company
- reliable- the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control
- significant coverage- the source must do more than merely report the activities of the company, and/or be more than a brief mention. It must go into what others deem significant about the company(not what the company considers to be significant about itself)
- chosen on their own to write about it- the source must not be prompted by the company to write about it, or be writing based on materials from the company itself, like its website, or an interview with a company official, or its press releases.
- If a source is not all of these things, it cannot be used to establish notability.(it might be able to be used for other things, but not that.) As you note, I've been around for 10 years. In that time, I see very few people in your position succeed in writing about their companies. It is possible to do, but the hang up most people have is that they want to tell us all about what their company does. Most of them do a pretty good job at that- but that's not what we are looking for. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with the company say is significant about it. This often differs from what a company thinks is significant about itself(which a company is free to tell on its own website/social media). It's usually very hard- though possible- for a company representative to set aside what they know about their company and only write about what others say about it- if such sources exist at all.
- Ford Motor Company and Microsoft both merit Wikipedia articles not because they do a lot of business activities like releasing new products or opening new facilities- but because independent sources have written about the influence of both companies in business, history, and society(Ford perfecting assembly lines, Microsoft software changing society, etc.)
- I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
How to watch another editor who is careless with their editing
Hi - Thanks for the Picsart edit. I noticed you’re an admin. I’m not, but tried to do some Wiki maintenance yesterday after coming across some garbled edits and going through the person’s edit history. Only two edits since April, so maybe not an issue any more with the warning I gave, but perhaps you know the best way to put this person on an anti-vandalism watch list? This didn’t seem to warrant a report on a noticeboard. What would you recommend as an appropriate action? The account is User:M.Shozab raza TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Timtempleton Off the top of my head I'm not aware of a central potential vandal watch list that any community member can view, at least WP:VD doesn't indicate there is one; I could think of reasons that might not be a good idea to have, such as people deliberately vandalizing to get on the list("hey look! I'm a top Wikipedia vandal!!"). We do have the Long Term Abuse list but that is meant to track already blocked or banned incorrigible users. There is a list of most vandalized pages but that doesn't track specific users.
- The best thing to do, at least that I can think of right now, is place the user's talk page on your watchlist, in case others warn that user for vandalism, thereby alerting you to check their contributions. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sushant Case
Let's talk about why the page should be changed and be neutral Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be changed, and is not "neutral"(but should be written with a neutral point of view). It summarizes independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Fuh1242
Their attack on my talk page was the account's first edit. Should we bother trying to figure out which troll I upset? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
User_talk:Lim_Zhi_Hang#Repeat_of_my_hope_for_a_decision_on_my_unblock_request_as_soon_as_possible_in_case_Wikipedia_administrators_missed_my_request_once_more
In case you want to say something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Intedit226's other account
Is this one.[1] which I guess should be blocked as well. I wonder if he's a paid editor. Intedit226 says "I'm working on behalf of a legal team that is interested in ensuring the accuracy of this page, and will be happy to provide official sources/references for edits that we have suggested". Not sure if that means paid, but still this is not good. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Please publish my statement
This user account is a bot operated by Cobi (talk), Rich Smith (talk), and DamianZaremba (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant request for approval can be seen here. Moheet1973 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what this is for, or why you need me to post it somewhere. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia is losing its own acceptance popularity because of Wikipedia's collaboration with some yellow journalists in Bangladesh on Channel Sixteen. My name is Wikipedia's statement about my organization as well as the statements of the corrupt yellow journalists of Bangladesh. Wikipedia will maintain neutrality and keep the basic human rights intact. Please share my views on the Wikiria page of Channel 16 TV. Thanks Moheet1973 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Moheet1973 I have no knowledge of what Wikiria is or of any collaboration with Bangladeshi journalists of any stripe. What I do know is that this is not the place to air your grievances. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia is losing its own acceptance popularity because of Wikipedia's collaboration with some yellow journalists in Bangladesh on Channel Sixteen. My name is Wikipedia's statement about my organization as well as the statements of the corrupt yellow journalists of Bangladesh. Wikipedia will maintain neutrality and keep the basic human rights intact. Please share my views on the Wikiria page of Channel 16 TV. Thanks Moheet1973 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)