User talk:Trevj/Archives/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

I was wondering if you actually had a chance to review the references which were added to the article on 22 April. The reason I'm confused is because you said you "found" (three references) - but one of these is just a job posting (?), and the other two were already among the 21 others which had been added to the article already.

Especially why http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19386389.2011.545006 doesn't count as interesting is of concern to me, because our own research group has built a slightly more advanced workflow for evidence-based ontology & term building in bioinformatics applications using Foswiki which we are considering publishing. What would you consider a more 'important' reference? Publication in a higher impact-factor journal? More of these types of journal articles? Or journal articles more specific to Foswiki itself, instead of just being mentioned as the enabling platform for doing work/research?

This talk entry is my first contribution to wikipedia in years, so it doesn't affect me if Foswiki has a wikipedia article or not - but I am curious as to what counts as notable; notability is a problem we also deal with at work when compiling community or discipline-specific information synthesized from literature, but I guess that's quite different to encyclopedic problems.

I should disclose that I am a Foswiki user who has been sucked into being a Foswiki developer (as with other open source software that I support our group in using).

For what it's worth, I agree that the Foswiki article content itself was quite lacking in substance, but it would be useful to clarify which of the 21 references you think are 'interesting', which are useless, and roughly what & how many additional sources you'd like to see.

Cheers, Paul Harvey Csirac2 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing the situation with one of your own articles which you rescued from deletion. I note that this article (with half the number of references) receives [1] on the order of 1/3rd - 1/10th the traffic the Foswiki redirect received [2].

Now, I'm not saying that this means Cyber_Chess deserves deletion, or that Foswiki doesn't; I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you voted for delete without any feedback (from you or the original delete votes) on the new references which were added, which was the thing that prompted the whole AfD in the first place!

Csirac2 (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the message.

1. I did have a quick look through the refs in the article at the time. They seemed to be insufficient, which is why I referred to WP:NSOFT.
2. Sorry if there was duplication in 2 of the refs I linked to, but I didn't spot it. The job ref was simply to demonstrate that an employer placed value on experience of the software, suggesting notability - but (as you've identified) it doesn't demonstrate notability itself.
3. Regarding Marrying Local Metadata Needs With Accepted Standards: The Creation of a Data Dictionary at the University of Illinois at Chicago, it's behind a paywall. The title doesn't suggest that it addresses the subject directly in detail.
4. Notability was not demonstrated by reference to adequate secondary sources, as commented more than once by TenPoundHammer in the discussion.
5. For examples of suitable references, I suggest looking at some some high quality software articles, if you've not already done so.
6. Or journal articles more specific to Foswiki itself, instead of just being mentioned as the enabling platform for doing work/research? I think such articles would be potentially useful.
7. having trouble understanding why you voted for delete I !voted merge not delete. A merge would have retained the content in the history, for possible future use - as I suggested with reference to WP:TOOSOON.
8. I think your questions to the closer are a good starting point. Dependent on the outcome there, it may be appropriate to request a copy of the article via WP:USERFY or WP:INCUBATE. The article could then be improved by adding further refs, and perhaps submitted via WP:AFC. There's also WP:DELREV, if you feel you have a robust case to present.
9. Regarding Cyber Chess, that discussion closed with no consensus (which defaults to keeping the article) and I'd say that it was rescued by the influence of the provision of appropriate sources in the deletion discussion. The amount of traffic to an article is an indicator of interest, not notability.

Hopefully you'll find the above to be at least a little informative. I'm sure that anyone experiencing the deletion of an article they're interested in probably feels somewhat aggrieved. It's a funny place around here, but we're all (supposed to be) here to build an encyclopedia. I hope you can have some faith in that. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback!

1. The title doesn't suggest that it addresses the subject directly in detail. - That's unfortunate; paywalls suck. It discusses their Data Dictionary, built with Foswiki.
2. Notability was not demonstrated by reference to adequate secondary sources, as commented more than once by TenPoundHammer in the discussion. - as I mentioned, TenPoundHammer is not one of the people who commented on any of the references. Only yourself and User:DGG (who *did* think they were adequate) made any comments after these references were added.
3. For examples of suitable references, I suggest looking at some some high quality software articles, if you've not already done so. - Well, shooting through the 'B' articles Eg. TextMate & Cron have only (fewer) web-only references. Perhaps my mistake is confusing in-line citations with "further reading" references; the latter sources are what was significantly expanded, and perhaps that was misguided (maybe these should have been referenced in the main article so that voter(s) such as yourself would take note of them? Or something).
4. I think such articles would be potentially useful. - FWIW, that's what the data dictionary article is about: a data dictionary built using Foswiki. I don't think that if our research group published our Foswiki-based workflow, that it would have 'Foswiki' in the title either (but at least we'd shoot for an open-access journal).
5. ... The amount of traffic to an article is an indicator of interest, not notability - thank you for this important clarificatoin.

Hopefully you'll find the above to be at least a little informative. I'm sure that anyone experiencing the deletion of an article they're interested in probably feels somewhat aggrieved. It's a funny place around here, but we're all (supposed to be) here to build an encyclopedia. I hope you can have some faith in that. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive feedback is all I asked for, and it was polite to boot. Thank you!

Csirac2 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello...please kindly send me the link where I can change the username for kenyabankers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyabankers (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you should follow the instructions at Changing username/Simple. I'm not familiar with the process but it should just be a case of following the instructions. Don't forget to use 'Show preview' as necessary before finally clicking 'Save page'. I hope it works OK. -- Trevj (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Castle technology ltd 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. File:Castle technology ltd logo.png has been superseded by File:Castle Technology.png (another user's upload). As it would probably have been preferable if the new logo had been reuploaded under the old name, in place of the original, I've retagged the old file with {{db-f1}}? I hope that's OK. -- Trevj (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I've moved File:Castle Technology.png to File:Castle Technology logo.png, under what CSD criterion should the former be tagged for deletion? G6? -- Trevj (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccinium Cyanococcus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- Trevj (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we've both had a dabble at it, it looks a bit messy. Any objections to deleting both your and my edits and changing the RFC to a simple "Should the Psygnosis phase of the company's life be split out into its own article?" ? - X201 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good idea; no objection. I hope the bot doesn't get confused. -- Trevj (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think in one of your posts you mentioned something about me being around awhile, and that's true. I have seen a lot of stupid vandalism and POV pushing and personal attacks in my day, and I think its fair to say that has left me a little jaded and cynical on the whole wikipedia thing. As a result, I think I overreacted to your initial work on the Psygnosis stuff. Don't get me wrong: I still think my point of view is correct based on the relevant policies, but I succumbed to negativity in the discussion when I really should not have. Your more recent posts indicate to me that there was not an agenda behind your edits and that I was too quick to judge and retaliate. While I still respectfully disagree with your actions and your policy interpretations, I apologize for some of the more strident statements and hostility. Indrian (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Indrian. That's very welcome. We can "agree to disagree", and who knows - some future explanations may result in my opinion being changed. I apologise for overreacting too and hope you sleep soundly (it's 10.30pm here now - dunno about you). -- Trevj (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse reaches two month mark. The Teahouse has been live on English Wikipedia for two months now and evidence of the project's impact is beginning to show. Thank you to the hosts and Wikipedians who have helped make the Teahouse the valuable place for new editor's to seek help and feel welcome.
• April metrics report has been posted on meta! Some relevant metrics from April’s report include:

• In April, Teahouse averaged 45 questions per week.
• An average of 20 new editors visiting for the first time were served at the Teahouse, in addition to repeat guests.

• Many guests are repeat visitors: the average guest asks 1.5 questions and 22% of guests ask more than one question.

• Reports show that the Teahouse is having a positive impact on editor engagement! Comparing a sample of 75 new editors who participate in the Teahouse with a control group (of equivalent size and similar first-day editing activity) shows:

• New editors who participate in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles than the uninvited control group.
• New editor participants also make an average six times more global edits.
• Average Teahouse participants add 26 times more bytes of content that survive on Wikipedia (meaning content that isn't reverted or deleted) than the uninvited control group.

• More Teahouse participants remain active on Wikipedia at least 10 days later. Among the 224 editors in our three experimental groups, 28 percent of new editors who participate in the Teahouse were still active on Wikipedia at least ten days later, compared with 12 percent who received an invitation but didn't actively participate in the Teahouse, and only 5 percent from a similar uninvited control group.
• Teahouse visibility is a challenge, as we try to make the Teahouse visible to new editors, invitation has been the the main way of informing new editors about the Teahouse, and while that is a powerful tool, many new editors go uninvited. Input on Teahouse link placement is welcome! (Join in on the conversation here.)
• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done above. -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received your welcome message, thank you. Minutes later I learned that an article I created Pulse Recording had been deleted, which is disappointing considering the effort I made to address all concerns by other wiki users. What really concerns me now is that wiki users have gone and proposed deletion of many other Music publisher articles, with the question of notability being proposed. Does this concern you? It certainly concerns me to think that wikipedia is in the business of deterring the creation of articles, specifically from the entertainment industry where client success always dictates company success, and independent sources are going to cover the client (not the company) 99% of the time.

Being optimistic that this experience will create a discussion with wiki editors like yourself, and maybe affect the general opinion on questioning notability to entertainment industry related companies, can you offer me advice as to when and how I can propose the re-creation of the Pulse Recording article? Could you also let me know where I can propose my topline concern (about all of these articles being deleted) to the wiki powers-that-be? Thank you for your help (Jpoindex (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your message. I see that a similar event has been previously discussed.

1. WP:PROMO states Do not make a new article for your own product or web site. If you wish to list such companies in a directory, it's worth considering alternative outlets.
2. I believe that there are numerous industry magazines which discuss companies, their successes/failures and technologies/strategies etc. employed. If companies are extensively reported on in such reliable sources, they may meet WP:ORG. Note that we need secondary sources.
3. This is an encyclopedia and exists to inform readers, rather than promote editors' own interests. WP:COI has some information on the latter.
4. Without such notability safeguards, the information may be less reliable to readers. For instance, if articles basically reproduce companies' PR material, there is no critical analysis or evidence that anyone except the companies themselves consider them to be noteworthy.
5. You could ask for the article to be userfied again, if it differs from User:Jpoindex/Pulse Recording.
6. Articles should be deleted based on the consensus of opinion amongst editors, with reference to Wikipedia's policies. There seems to be no indication that the notability policies are likely to have support for any substantial changes. So rather than seeking to complain about the policies, it's probably advisable to work within them instead.

I'd also suggest reading around at WP:COMPANIES and familiarising yourself with other policies and guidelines here. Next time you wish to submit an article, it's probably worth considering WP:AFC. Thanks and I hope that this is some help. -- Trevj (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done (belatedly). Thanks for the continued work on this. I think it's turning out to be a valuable resource

• What kind of work do you generally do on Wikipedia?

  Adding references, adding images, creating new articles (so far only a few), tagging articles to WikiProjects, occasionally introducing sections into unstructured articles, welcoming new editors, AfD debates.

-- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm confused. The first debate was closed as no consensus with a comment WP:NPASR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer). As NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination", I renominated it without paying attention to time. What is the issue? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - you're right. I didn't notice the WP:NPASR, as it almost blends in with Scottywong's sig at a glance. I'm undoing things so the discussion can continue. I hope that's better! -- Trevj (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete on 2nd nom. -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electoral Calculus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral Calculus until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John F. Ashton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton -- Trevj (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist? Seriously? No, no, no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your closure, some 48 hours after the relist, now seems appropriate: a good faith chance has been given for additional info to be added. It wasn't forthcoming. -- Trevj (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I reversed your non-admin closure of this AfD debate [3]. There was no input to Keep the article, but there was one Delete call and two calls for Merge. As I understand Wikipedia's rules, non-admin closures can only be done if there is a unanimous consensus to Keep an article. Since that did not occur here, the closure is being left for an administrator to handle. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I must be missing something. You seem to be implying that I could have only closed that as keep, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that I closed as merge. As for the unanimous support thing, that's not stated at WP:NACD. Are you sure there's an issue with this? What do you judge a valid closure decision to be? Also, if it's necessary to reverse the closure, I'm pretty sure it'll need relisting in the appropriate log too. (Still in Log/2012 May 22.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist with this, please don't forget to tidy up at Talk:University of Nebraska–Lincoln too. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is a good chance that I am in error. I noticed another of your non-admin closures and I asked for clarification on the administrator's noticeboard [4]. After a while, it can difficult to keep up with all of the rules on this website. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - no worries. As you may have noticed, there's a bit of a backlog. If you search through, you should find a number of non-admin closures undertaken by editors other than myself. I see you've rectified Talk:College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln) but there's still Talk:University of Nebraska–Lincoln to consider: it may trip up the next closer in its present state. I found a couple of yours, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Ashmore. You can be bold and branch out too... a key word in the guidelines is contentious. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and you have another one that has now made it to WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Already inconspicuously notified above. -- Trevj (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was quite a discussion. All I needed was a simple Yes or No answer! LOL! And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the answer depends on who you ask. -- Trevj (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for re-listing and my apologies for being tardy in getting the updates done. Was very tied up with a huge case. Anyway, it was deleted before the 7 days was up. Can you tell me what the process is for appealing that decision? I am relatively new to Wiki so I greatly appreciate your help. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're all busy in real life too, but it would've possibly helped if you'd been able to leave a quick note in the discussion explaining the delay. As for the deleted article,you could either take it to deletion review (as mentioned at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryse Selit), request incubation or that the deleting admin userfy it for you. In all cases, it's probably advisable to be able to explain what further sources you have, although for userfication that may be less important. -- Trevj (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Too slow, archived to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/Archive 4#Teahouse Host Lounge - Your feedback is needed! -- Trevj (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)