This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wiae. 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.
Hi - just saw your message there. It's a shame, but I think that this editor lacks the competence required to edit here. What do you think? Doug Wellertalk14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Doug Weller. This editor looks to be an enthusiastic contributor, and I'm sure they're editing in good faith, but as you say there appears to be a competence issue here. Also, if you add up the four issues today and the warning you'd given back in March, that's five copyright problems, so I think I'll file a CCI request. As for whether administrative action is needed, that's your area of expertise, not mine :)
As for the other issue that you've raised on Diannaa's talk page, let me have a look and get back to you! Thanks, /wiae/tlk15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller Re the second editor, there was a recent cut-and-paste move from Bedrocan (strain) to Bedrocan, which, while easily fixable from an attribution standpoint, is something they've been warned about previously. Also, content recently added to Malingering seems to have been copied from both the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine (if http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malingering is to be believed) and chapter 23 of Current Diagnoses & Treatment, according to a Google spot-check. I'd say this is enough to suggest that the copyright issues persist. /wiae/tlk15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I blocked WP MANIKHANTA - a shame, but I and others have tried to help him for quite some time now to little avail. Doug Wellertalk16:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of my page : DALE ARMIN JOHNSON
Hello there, There are many articles published in Wikipedia who haven't received any awards. Also he is not partner in hanhai studio's. he has done more than 10 films in his career and everything is written as per the wiki's policy. please reconsider and help me to get his article published.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Armin_Johnson— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya57497 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Surya57497: The deletion discussion will proceed for seven days (or possibly longer, depending on the level of participation). You are welcome to leave a comment at the deletion discussion. Policy-based arguments are typically well-received in deletion discussions, so if you haven't read WP:BIO, Wikipedia's "notability" guideline for people, I would strongly encourage you to do so, and to use it when crafting your response at the deletion discussion! Thanks, /wiae/tlk15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Please help, I'm not sure what I need to do to get this page authorised? Thank you
Hi, apologies for the delayed response. My advice would be to take a good look at WP:NACTOR, which is Wikipedia's article inclusion criterion for actors. It doesn't seem at first glance that the actress in question meets these guidelines, as it seems they've mostly played small parts so far. Then, I would suggest looking at WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's general article inclusion criterion. The general rule is this—if you can find a variety of reliable sources of information that are independent of Marks (not her IMDb page or her personal website or social media pages or anything written by her manager or publicist, for example) and that offer significant coverage of her, those sources would suggest that Wikipedia is ready to have an article about her. If those kinds of sources don't exist yet, it's highly likely that the subject just doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria yet. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but sometimes it is just too soon for an article about a person whose career is just beginning. Thanks, and don't hesitate to drop by again if you have further questions. /wiae/tlk13:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
14:48:44, 15 June 2016 review of submission by Jagordon1234
@Jagordon1234: Good question! The basic rule for Wikipedia articles about politicians is that municipal politicians don't automatically merit their own article, unlike, say, provincial or federal politicians. Rather, to show that a municipal politician like Walters should have their own Wikipedia article, you'll need to find a variety of reliable sources of information that are independent of the subject and that discuss him in significant detail. Typically, newspaper articles (whether online or offline) are good enough to do the job. I see you've added some more sources, but a few of them are 404ing right now, and the CBC website seems to be experiencing technical difficulties. When they come back online, I'll take a second look and give you my thoughts.
Having said that, usually you'll want to avoid tabloids as they're not great sources of information. The Sun network (which includes the Edmonton Sun) is, I believe, seen as straddling the tabloid line. You'd be better off relying on sources like CBC, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and the Edmonton Journal. Thanks, /wiae/tlk13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@ElliottDugdale: Hi, thanks for asking. A lot of the content was copied from http://www.cancer.gov/types/soft-tissue-sarcoma/patient/rhabdomyosarcoma-treatment-pdq and other websites, so I had to remove it. Most of the text on the Internet is copyrighted and so it shouldn't just be copied and pasted into Wikipedia. Rather, a good course of action is to paraphrase/rewrite the text in your own words. Another thing to keep in mind when writing about medical topics on Wikipedia is to use high-quality medical reliable sources. According to that guideline, "ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies". I'm not too involved in medical topics but if you'd like to speak to someone who is, you could always talk to Doc James. They're heavily involved in Wikipedia's medical articles and might be able to point you in the direction of some good sources for the Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma article. Thanks, /wiae/tlk17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:MEDHOW will tell you how to reference. You can use stuff work for work from cancer.gov generally because it is under a PD license. However most other sources you need to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
15:51:59, 15 July 2016 review of submission by 197.77.8.231
Hello, IP editor. Do you have a specific question about this draft? It was declined because it seems to be an autobiography, because it is not written in an encyclopedic style, and because it appears that the subject may not meet Wikipedia's biographical inclusion criteria. Wikipedia isn't a social network, and it's not really a great place to write about oneself. If you're looking to do that, you'd have better luck on Facebook or Twitter or a blog. Thanks, /wiae/tlk02:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Hi, you might want to let Kevin169ny know about the A7 nomination (I'd do it myself but I don't want to copy and paste text bearing your signature without your consent), as he created the article. Thanks! /wiae/tlk01:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Request on 14:09:42, 5 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by EASTCOBBER
I am trying to add links that show the notability of the EAST COBBER, a successful publication that has been around since 1993. I have a link to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about the publication and publisher, but it is a preview since it is part of the AJC's archives. In order to view it, I must pay for the text. How can I link that kind of an article in the references to show that the EAST COBBER is in fact a notable publication? Will the preview from the AJC archives be enough?
There are several problems with the draft: it is rather promotional in nature, it appears to have been written by someone with a conflict of interest, it lacks references that would show whether it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and my (admittedly quick) reference check did not turn up anything of substantive value. Now an in-depth profile in a newspaper like the Journal-Constitution would be a good start to help show notability. You can link the piece itself using {{Cite web}} and indicating that it requires a subscription—just search for "Subscription or registration required" on that page for what to do. See also WP:PAYWALL; we (as AfC reviewers and editors on Wikipedia) accept paywalled sources just as much as open-access ones. (Although in general I find that it's much more convenient to find open-access sources.) /wiae/tlk15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There isn't actually many independent sources about this. I was hopping it would get some more whit time. However, allow me to disagree about OSNews and Phoronix. They are indeed independent sources! Despite all this, i believe this subject is indeed notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.115.77.97 (talk) 19:15, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
NO copyright violation
Hi there, my friend. I thank you for support. and I want to tell you something, the copied text was from this page on wikipedia, so can I recopied it again in homosexuality in DSM with referring to this tample: copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc.gen (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Doc.gen: Ah, I completely missed that. Yes, in terms of copyright it would be okay to copy some content from 1970s in LGBT rights, as long as you put attribution in the edit summary. (The attribution you mentioned above is fine for this purpose.) Now, in terms of content, I'm not sure whether all of the content at 1970s in LGBT rights is directly relevant to the DSM, so you may wish to pick and choose only the content that is actually about the DSM.
Apologies for mixing up the copyright deal and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me know if I can help you with anything at all. /wiae/tlk02:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: thank you. I already took your advise and I picked up only topics related to the article subject (homosexuality in DSM), so when will you remove this SCARY template on the top of my article :). thank you again. Doc.gen (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Doc.gen: Done. If you check the revision history, you'll see that I added the attribution. I've also removed the {{copyvio-revdel}} box from the top of the page. Sorry about the wait; I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately and only just got in from a late night out. All the best, /wiae/tlk04:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that this is the third time you've tried to add your name to the participant list this year. Please read the reviewing criteria carefully. Thank you, /wiae/tlk18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.
Just to recap:
13 July 2016: 7,000
1 August 2016: 9,000
7 August 2016: 10,472
16 August 2016: 11,500
28 August 2016: 13,158
You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tondo (historical state), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have been editing the SPC Wikipedia page for a while and my edits have been reverted. I understand that there may be a conflict of interest in this case but what can I do to add the history of the school in the Wikipedia page. I am aware that the entire history of SPC has been copied and pasted directly from the site even before I added the references, but why only delete the entire article now when the same content is found before and it doesn't even have a single citation.
I am cognizant of your experience in handling cases like this as you have been a user in Wikipedia for almost a decade. With all due respect, if possible, I would like to ask the perfect advice in going about editing the aforementioned page. SPCian Health Scientist (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I am grateful for your response. It is indeed undeniable that I am new to Wikipedia and that I am a student of the school of concern. I understand that I cannot yet have a say on the Currently discussed issue on the School History, but is it possible to add the Vision, Mission, Goals and Core Values of the school since they are nothing but neutral? I am really apologetic of my wrongdoings and I am at the same time grateful for this professional correspondence. SPCian Health Scientist (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@SPCian Health Scientist: Hi, thanks for stopping by with questions. Wikipedia can be a confusing place, what with its labyrinthine structure and Library of Babel-size list of policies, guidelines and processes, so there is never any shame in asking for clarification.
As mentioned, much of your text has been reverted because it either introduced copyrighted content into the article, or because it was unduly promotional. For instance, if memory serves me correctly, the visions, missions and goals sections you added were copied directly from the school's website. Copyrighted text should be removed from Wikipedia on sight. Note that it's not sufficient to merely add a reference; references show that the information is verifiable, but they don't say where the actual words came from. It's plagiarism to take someone else's words without properly attributing them, and it's inappropriate to add huge chunks of quoted text to an article.
I do not agree that the wording in those sections was "nothing but neutral". The tone was congragulatory and the content read like it was there to promote the school. (This is one of the problems with conflict-of-interest editing; many such editors don't even realize that the text they're contributing is promotional in nature.) I see that Mean as custard has also removed some of the text we're discussing here. I agree with their action. My advice is that you should not re-add this content, as it's not encyclopedic. (Every corporation, organization and institution has PR-speak goals and visions, but Wikipedia isn't a repository to display that kind of promotional content.) And if the text is copied from the school's website (I seem to recall it is, but I'm on my phone right now and won't have computer access for another day or so to verify), then you must not re-add it. Thanks, /wiae/tlk12:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Hassan sherwani: I'm not an administrator so I do not control whether articles are deleted. Having said that, at first glance it does not appear that Bhuvan Bam meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (basically our rules for what subjects get included in Wikipedia) and as such the article may be deleted. What would be required is a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wiae/tlk14:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hassan sherwani: That article isn't great in terms of coverage: it's not really about Bam, and it just mentions him briefly. I took a quick look for sources and it doesn't seem like there's much substantive coverage of him yet. For that reason, it may simply be too soon for an article about him, and that means it may be deleted. However, I'm not an expert in new-page patrolling so I'll let Velella give their thoughts if they wish. They're a longstanding Wikipedia editor with plenty of experience in this area. /wiae/tlk14:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally, in order to show that a subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, you should find sources that meet the following three criteria: they should be from a reliable source, they should be independent of the subject, and they should offer significant coverage of the subject. Click the links in my last sentence to read about the criteria. /wiae/tlk14:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hassan sherwani: I have no interest in this subject. If you want to write a Wikipedia article about a subject, then you really should be prepared to do the research that shows it complies with Wikipedia policy. Thanks, /wiae/tlk14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Not only is there a failure to show notability but almost all the article was directly copied from here. This is copyright violation and is wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia. You may not copy material from other sites or closely paraphrase that content. All articles here have to be in your own words supported by good quality, independent and reliable references as Wiae has already noted. VelellaVelella Talk 15:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
ApologiesWiae, we should not have used your talk page for this discussion. Any further comment on this topic I will make at the article talk page. Thanks for your patience. VelellaVelella Talk 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Velella: It's no problem! Thanks for your help. I'll keep an eye on that new account that showed up to make edits on the article before it was deleted. /wiae/tlk12:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@SilverplateDelta: That's alright, it's no trouble. Once you hit 500 undeleted article-space edits and feel comfortable applying the various notability criteria, feel free to add your name to the list again. Thanks, /wiae/tlk20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
07:29:42, 18 October 2016 review of submission by Helgsim
I have added Chad Kilgore's TV experience and cited CW San Diego morning news. Also, aren't the articles that confirm his charity work experience considered independent sources? I appreciate any further feedback that you can provide.
@Helgsim: The issue with the CW San Diego coverage is that it's a local news source, which is of lesser value when trying to show that a subject deserves a spot in a global encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with citing this source to verify the facts in the draft, but the source doesn't really solve the fundamental problem: determining whether Kilgore is "notable" (the criterion we collectively use to assess whether a subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia). Similarly, while you are correct that the articles about his charity work are independent, keep in mind that sources need to offer significant discussion of the subject from an independent perspective in order to show "notability". The sources as is are mostly blurbs about Kilgore, capped at about a paragraph in length and written in a terse style. How much text is needed to reach "significant" or "substantive" coverage is a question without a bright-line answer on Wikipedia, but it should certainly be "more than trivial". For example, the Eater source only has three sentences about Kilgore, which is fairly minimal when compared to, say, a full-length profile in The New York Times or The Atlantic or a source of that calibre. If I were to accept this article right now, I frankly don't think it would survive a deletion discussion. However, I'm just one person and I don't make the rules on Wikipedia, so if you want a second opinion, you are welcome to resubmit the draft for review and another editor will have a look. (There's a huge backlog right now, so I'll warn you upfront that it might be a month's wait.)
Now, if Kilgore is profiled in a newspaper or magazine, that would make a much stronger case for notability. It's not usually a good idea to compare your article to an existing one to see if it makes the grade, because there are a lot of crap articles on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be here. But if it might help you, you can take a look at Flynn McGarry, an article I wrote recently about a "notable" chef. There is some fluffier blog-type coverage cited in that article, but high-quality sources like the NYT and The New Yorker basically guarantee that the subject is "notable". You don't have to find triple-A sources like the NYT to have an article accepted on Wikipedia, but of course they help a lot. I hope this clarifies things; let me know if you have further questions. /wiae/tlk12:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the clear and detailed explanation. It is much appreciated and will help me in my future articles. Helgsim (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Waie - thanks for the overall tidy up -nicely done!
Regards your decision to remove links to videos if Begg's preaching: I'm not sure I understand your thinking: I've asked you question about it on the Talk page for Shakeer Begg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@CanterburyUK: I don't think the preaching videos are necessarily relevant, although I'll happily defer to whatever the consensus turns out to be regarding their inclusion. (My thinking right now is along these lines: imagine if we added links all of Billy Graham's recorded sermons—the page would become unreadably long!) There's a balance to be found: yes, we want to discuss the "canon of his work", as you put it, but we also want to avoid getting too much into the minutiae. The primary focus has to be on what the reliable sources have said; links to a person's work can be useful but I'd argue that they're of lesser importance to an encyclopedia. There's probably a compromise to be made here though, maybe a link in the external links section to his or the mosque's official YouTube channel, if they have one. (We also have to avoid linking to YouTube videos that are copyright violations. Although at first glance that doesn't seem to be the case here, I just thought I'd mention it off-hand.)
As for the summary I removed from the article's lede, I think we should be careful about venturing into original research territory. True, "the court ruling's interpretation of the word 'extremism' is likely to be used as a precedent" is often how the common law works, but we do need to make sure that we are not inserting our own opinions about why the case may be important, or how "likely" it is to be relied on in a future case. The BBC article doesn't really get into the case's precedential value. On the other hand, an op-ed in The Spectator calls it a "landmark victory in the fight against Islamic extremism". This might be a source that could be used, although it is an opinion piece, so keep that in mind if you decide to use it.
Daisyladeng (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
another wuhai article is written by me ,just coz i wait long time then i try to use another user name then make it again ,that is why
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
Hi Wiae! Thanks again for reviewing and implementing the edits I suggested for BNY Mellon. I'm not sure what your area of interest is, but I recently posted a new draft for another company called Ketchum Inc on the article's Talk page. An editor added some of the new History section I proposed, but they didn't give any other feedback. Would you be willing to take a look and let me know what you think? Also, I completely understand if you don't have the time or are focused on other things. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Heatherer: I'm not much of an expert in this area, but as there is a fairly significant backlog over at Category:Requested edits, I don't mind trying to chip away at it one request at a time. I'll be busy most of today but will try to have a look tonight. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, /wiae/tlk18:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! Are you still able to help with this? No worries if not. Just let me know and I'll reach out to others. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Heatherer: Hi, this sort of fell off my radar, so apologies for that. I hope to have time to take another look tomorrow evening; probably won't be tonight as I've got something on. Thanks, /wiae/tlk18:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wiae! Thanks so much for the work you're doing over on the Ketchum article! I appreciate the careful review and the improvements you're making to my draft. There a couple sections that haven't been moved to the live article—my guess is that you're still working through those, but I wanted to check. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about them. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Take your time! I'll get out of your way. I really am grateful for the time and effort you're putting in. You're doing a great job. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It was A LOT faster and I really appreciate it. I have a couple items that I'd like to ask you about, but I'm going to go ahead and list them out over on the article Talk page, just so others can see what we're discussing. I'll tag you over there. Thanks so much! Heatherer (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Wiae. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosfluxTalk23:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wiae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Shirt58: Hi, thanks for letting me know! I think if we can manage to keep the article, that'd be preferable. (I accepted it in its incomplete state in the hope that others with an interest would stumble upon it and help improve it more easily than if it had been sequestered in the draft space.) Do we know for sure that this article was created by a sock? I checked the deletion logs before accepting the draft and didn't see anything (although maybe it had been previously created and deleted under a different name?). Thanks, /wiae/tlk22:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
We now have 807 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. Mid July to 01 Oct 2016
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Wiae. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a
I am requesting because I have not find any concrete reference that wikipedia needs neither this village exist on any of sources that you have provided I have tried all of them. Please give me solution to that. Or suggest me some other verification sources in which I should find the village reference.
@Rustamani Kashif: Basically you will need to find a source that shows that a) Wahi Pandhi is populated, and b) that it is legally recognized. Sources seem to conflict on whether it is a village (Pakistan Today says it is) or actually an area in Sindh (so says Dawn). Here and here are two other sources to get you started; you can also find government sources mentioning the area by searching "wahi pandhi" pakistan inurl:gov.pk in Google. Cite those sources and the ones I've mentioned, following the instructions at WP:REFB, and that should improve the chance of the draft being accepted. Thanks, /wiae🎄00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
We now have 807 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
Hitting 17,000 soon
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
@Editorwcn: Hi, thanks for asking! If you hold the copyright to that text, you can theoretically license it for use on Wikipedia. The instructions for doing so are at WP:DCM#Granting us permission to copy material already online. The basic idea is that you would authenticate that you are the copyright-holder and then grant Wikipedia a license to non-exclusively use the text. Keep in mind that anyone else would then be able to come along and adapt or remix your text, as long as they attributed it to you.
The other thing to keep in mind is that as an encyclopedia, we try to rely solely on what we call "reliable sources"—sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. I'm not confident that the website you'd like to reference qualifies as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia: seems like it's a cool reference guide for collectables, but it looks more like a blog. Of course, if you'd like to hear some more opinions on the matter of the website's reliability, you could expand your question at the WP:TEAHOUSE, where plenty of regulars would be happy to offer their feedback. Thanks, /wiae🎄20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes. The site WCN has blog elements but also lots of features by some of the UK's leading antiques and collectables experts. We also used to have our own magazine. I love wikipedia and saw quite a few errors, bad links on a few pages that I have some knowledge of. I do not want to copy full content of articles etc but thought adding a what I thought was a relevant material onto the pages. I can of course rewrite material. I am still learning and do not want to go wrong to often. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorwcn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Editorwcn: Yes, often it is easiest to rewrite the material. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. You've already found the Teahouse, which is a good place to ask questions and get help. /wiae🎄22:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Request on 12:12:46, 12 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Greenrw
I want to retract any drafts made to this website re the subject of Togo the CAT, together with a request to delete the "Speedy withdrawal" notice that has appeared on the internet search engines.
This statement in its self makes me look as if I am incapable of the truth.
First I can not substantiate via `third parties` the validity of my contribution, as I am the sole owner of the photographs. This all happened in 1915!! who am I to refer too for substantiation?????
The story of Togo which `other websites` have published WITHOUT requesting proof of the Truth of the account and I submit, would rather keep it that way.
Second I am not in the habit of fabricating stories for self elevation and was merely trying to record events "Lest we forget them" for future generations.
I take exception to being asked to prove myself and would request that some of the commentators examine their trust in themselves before they question the truthfulness of others.
I shall not be using this website again.
@Greenrw: Hi, unfortunately I'm not sure if I know which draft you're talking about. Draft:Togo (cat) has already been deleted, and I browsed through your contributions here but didn't find any other drafts. Similarly, the content you had added to HMS Irresistible (1898) seems to have been removed too. If all you wanted was for that content to be deleted, it's already been done! Thanks, /wiae🎄12:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry
I'm terribly sorry to have offended the copyright rules here earlier. Where can I submit my proposed content for your consideration if I want to add it into an article? Also, am I allowed to seek for your advice before placing a content in the article? My actions earlier had offended you. Please forgive me.--Hongqilim (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hongqilim: I'm not offended at all! I just haven't been online much in the past few hours. To answer your previous questions, yes it's okay to continue working on articles. You just need to make sure you aren't copying and pasting text directly from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia. The vast majority of the content you'll find online is protected by copyright, so it's important to rephrase it—say it in your own words. Here is a decent introduction to paraphrasing techniques if you are unfamiliar with them: http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html. If you use these techniques, you will be able to contribute content to articles without falling afoul of Wikipedia's copyright policy. You're also always welcome to post here or on the talk page of another experienced editor if you have any questions about how to phrase something. Thanks, /wiae🎄19:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Where is the work that I deleted? I need to be able to access that somewhere. As far as I know all was in my own words and I don't believe that you know. Mirror site?
You abuse people. I am "old school". You stole from my website. Where are my revisions that I put on yesterday? I worked for hours and those are removed today for copyright usage without permission. That's ridiculous. I put the information together, using a computer, with a search engine. I stole from no one. Who owns Google? You're saying that no one can publish unless employed by a large software or hardware company? Or, employed by someone with a high monetary interest in these companies? Or, someone who you're related to or like their looks? What are you? Who are you? Specifically, I've had enough of anonymous. You publish anonymous information without any specifics, hurting many people. I have large contributions that could help Barco immensely. Why cut out anything that I submit. These contributions are on other pages? Are those publishings now owned by say Google, or AT&T or facebook or snapchat or etc etc etc? Look. I had enough years ago - you only have your own interests in mind and now you show that again. I'm here in the midwest where there's no one with a clue at what you're interests are or what you're name is and you can look at that and laugh.
Please show me how to recover my information and get paid for work here. You can't put me in the lion's den again and look on and laugh when the lion doesn't show interest. Stealing from a high spot is the same as stealing from a low spot. The same crime. Stealing, lying consistently with fancy phrases or using complex terms or stupid but beautiful descriptions is the same crime. Wikipedia by any other name is an encyclopedia? The only other defense is pictures worth a thousand words, and you have put social media in high popularity as well as late night. You need a four letter word? And, a blogger is out, yet, as soon as I blog, everyone blogs. Everyone must blog to be anyone to be online. And, we all use Go Daddy you see because the blogger, initially only me, uses Go Daddy and no one know what the hell you're talking about with Go Daddy and Go Daddy appears on signs at all the runs around the area held by kids who think that only Dad runs and Mom doesn't need to. You think that good practice? I would like to know and so would a whole lot of other people. Whole lots you know now. Did you get that? Willard1020 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Willard1020: The text you introduced into Barco (manufacturer) was copied from another website, one which is protected by copyright. The vast majority of text you find online is actually protected by copyright; this means it cannot be added en masse to Wikipedia articles due to our copyright policy. You are permitted to quote selectively from other websites, and to use the ideas from those websites (so long as they are reliable sources, naturally), but you must rewrite those ideas in your own words.
Since the majority of the text you added to Barco (manufacturer) was copied, those revisions have been struck from the article so that they are no longer accessible by the general public. Of course, since the text originated from http://maya-1990topresent.blogspot.ca/, you can always go back to that blog if you want to see the text. I will warn you, however: if you reinsert the blog's content into Wikipedia en masse, that would be a violation of our copyright policy. As I explained to you on your talk page, repeatedly contravening our copyright policy can result in a block, meaning you would be unable to edit Wikipedia in the future. I hope you can understand why we take copyright seriously on Wikipedia, as it has legal implications.
I will also caution you not to make personal attacks like the ones you posted above. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, and it could also result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is fine to have a disagreement, but please focus on the nature of the disagreement itself, rather than your opinion of other contributors.
Finally, I will note that nobody is "paid for work" on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers, and we contribute because we like free knowledge and enjoy building an encyclopedia. You are more than welcome to contribute here (and I think we'd all be glad for you to help out), so long as you abide by Wikipedia's core policies. Thanks, /wiae/tlk16:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 807 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
@Wiae:I am really sorry, it seems i had in mind that i exceeded 700 edits, and forgot it is total, not articles only. Please assume good faith --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kostas20142: Not a problem. You're welcome to add your name to the list once you hit 500 undeleted edits to articles. As always, let me know if you have any questions or if I can help out with anything. Thanks, /wiae/tlk17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Question from Gavin Thomas
Dear Wiae. For the Microbial Genomics article you edited, I have full permission from the Microbiology Society to add this material, and in fact am doing this voluntarily as a member of the Society with words that they provided. How do I indicate that this is the case? I am planning to setup another page for another of their journals - JMM Case Reports - tomorrow, and anticipate that the same thing will happen again.
Best wishes,
Gavin Thomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinThomas (talk • contribs) 21:58, April 11, 2017 (UTC)
@Wiae: Many thanks for explaining this. I have Emailed the Society and asked them to Email Wikipedia to grant these permissions. There also now seems to be another flag on the page for it to be deleted at any moment. I hope this can be avoided. Thanks Gavin.
@GavinThomas: Perfect. It does seem like an arcane system, I understand, but since copyright is a bundle of legal rights, we do have to play by all the rules! I noticed the CSD tags on the article; an administrator will be along in the coming days to make the final determination. In the meantime, you may wish to conduct a reference search to see if the Society's journal has been discussed in any reliable sources that are independent of the journal itself. Those are the kind of sources which an encyclopedia requires of a subject. Currently the only source is affiliated with the journal, which is a problem. You may also wish to read our general inclusion criteria (which we call "notability" on Wikipedia) for more information. Thanks, /wiae/tlk22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Peterhead Bay
Hi Wiae, I was wondering when that tag is going to be removed from the top of the article. It seems quite a long time to remain up there. The last time User: Diannaa caught some copyright material I added (which was a mistake at the time, with the source material in public domain) on the page, the whole operation was done in seconds. I thought at the time that two sentences would be under the copyright threshold, which the toolset kicks up. There is not much you could do with them, in terms of reordering, and any way you write the same infomation, in summary format, would be similar. I figured at some point that it would be quite hard to change two sentences, but I was so tired at the time, I completely forgot about it. scope_creep (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Hi, an administrator will be along to remove the tag at the top of the article. Diannaa does a lot of them, but some other admins do too, and I imagine it will probably be handled in a day or two. You can see here that the four sentences I removed were exactly copied from the source. Looks like this text could be paraphrased without too much trouble. Why not something like "by the late 1840s, Peterhead Bay was home to over 250 herring fishing boats. However, the Royal Navy commandeered the boats during World War I; the herring fishing industry never recovered. In its stead, white fish fishing became more popular"? Or something to that effect? /wiae/tlk23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hasive: Hi, thanks for stopping by. Much of the text that was added was non-neutral, including (but not limited to) "is a young, energetic and innovative political leader of Bangladesh", "is immensely popular among the general mass", "outstanding ability to perform out of the box", "Considering his potential role in the betterment of the society", "At the very young age of 26", "With his hard work and talent", "become a huge source of inspiration for the young people to become the political activist and serve the people", "As he has cherished to become a political leader since his childhood", "Palak has always been very conspicuous in different co-curricular activities", "he was well-known in his district for his leadership qualities", "which became the prime center of sports and socio-cultural activities of the young people in his locality under his leadership", "excelled in every part of it", "his passion has always been in politics and in the betterment of his country", "After 8 years hard work and significant contribution in the mainstream politics", "His re-election is an endorsement of his achievement and popularity among the general mass", "Being a Minister, Palak has taken and executed a number of remarkable initiatives", and a good chunk of the "Political career" section. A lot of this just feels like it is there to promote the subject or to paint him in a favourable light. Many of those quotes I identified come across as subjective value judgments that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to verify.
Another problem with much of this material is that it is simply unsourced. For example, the rewrite included the text "He is committed to ensure an inclusive development by leveraging ICT". According to whom was he committed to this? Other parts of the rewrite were sourced to http://www.bangladeshbd.org/people/zunaid-ahmed-palak/, which appears to be a wiki of some sort, or a repository for user-generated content. As a result, I am not confident about the reliability of that source.
You are welcome to reinsert well-sourced content about Palak, so long as it is not hagiographic in tone. Thanks, /wiae/tlk11:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Well, I'm honoured that you would suggest this! It's on my radar now; I'll stop by the candidate poll at some point to see what the community thinks my chances might be. Thanks, /wiae/tlk21:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wiae. You are a good editor and I think you would be a wonderful admin. Certainly, do take the poll sooner than later. My best wishes! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wiae, I would like to state that I rewrote all the information that I used for the page from [1]. as the grammar and wording from that site was poorly articulated. I can assure that all information from that site that were not facts (ex: people, places, things) were entirely rewritten.
I agree with the Alpine Club stuff, but have no idea why www.sikkimeccl.gov.in info is considered "Blatant copyright violations" as it was entirely rewritten. If you read the original source this should have been clear.
@The Soldier of Peace: Hi, thanks for stopping by. Here is the copyvio report that indicates the similarities between the text (before I removed anything) and http://www.sikkimeccl.gov.in/History/Monasteries/North/TholungMonastery.aspx. I do see that the wording was changed in a few sentences, but it still a very close paraphrase. I have removed some text and rephrased other parts so as not to just chop the whole contribution out of the article; I have no objection to a rewrite of the rest of the material that I had removed. Thanks, /wiae/tlk20:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed, as of just now. Thanks so much for your help lately is assessing reports! Like the other commenters above, I would love to see you consider adminship — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
University of Georgia School of Law - Admissions section addition
Wiae, as you know, you removed a paragraph added to University of Georgia School of Law in an edit of the Admissions section because you determined that the material was copied from http://www.law.uga.edu/how-apply and "was written in a less-than-neutral tone." I agree technically it was a possible copyright problem you isolated even though the edit stated the University of Georgia School of Law's NOT unusual factors in law school admissions decisions, so the material may not be unique. There are several law schools that use the same criteria. I'm not sure, also, if this is fair use, and I should have no problem obtaining the school's use permission. Nonetheless, I do not wish to get into a copyright controversy in ANY regard and I will NOT repeat its language verbatim again, will NOT seek use permission, and WILL otherwise steer away from ANY copyright questions or criticism. However, I will have to give some thought to your blanket statement that the information "was written in a less-than-neutral tone" because it expressed exactly what factors Georgia Law uses in admissions. However, if any future edit is made, I will also consciously avoid anything less than neutral tones. Thank you for bringing these issues to the fore and your efforts to make Wikipedia better. Kind regards, DBManley
@DBManley: Hi, I agree that the actual list of criteria they use could be reintroduced into the article, but the wording in http://www.law.uga.edu/how-apply surrounding the criteria was also copied into the article. (Here, I'm referring to the text beginning with "Georgia Law seeks to enroll..." and ending with "... other components of the applicant's record".) As for non-neutral content, text like "seeks to enroll an accomplished student body whose breadth of experiences and array of talents will enrich the educational experience for all students" strikes me as pure PR-speak.
This section seems like a prime candidate for paraphrasing. How about "the Admissions Committee weighs a variety of factors, including: test scores; grade points averages; applicants' character; and community, professional, scholastic, and vocational experience," or something to that effect?/wiae/tlk12:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wiae: Hi, Wiae. I completely agree with your thoughts, comments and suggestions. When I get around to it I will do a rewrite. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, experience and expertise with me and for the benefit of Wikipedia. Kind regards. DBManley 04
First, you could simply rewrite the text in your own words (paraphrasing). This is what I'd suggest, as it's pretty quick and painless. I would caution against relying on press releases too much on Wikipedia, however, as they are not considered independent sources of information.
If you are the copyright-holder of the text from the press release, you could theoretically license the text for use on Wikipedia. However, this takes time, and I don't recommend it in this instance; again, Wikipedia should be based on what reliable sources of information that are independent of the subject have said about the subject. A press release doesn't meet that description, and so the use of press releases should be very limited on Wikipedia. Again, I think it'd be much easier to just rewrite and summarize the text.
On another note, if you are affiliated with WPMobilePack, then you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. It's not really a good idea to contribute to articles where you have a conflict of interest, as most such people find it very difficult to write neutrally and objectively about a subject with which they have a close connection. And in particular, if you are being paid to edit this Wikipedia article, then you must disclose this, in accordance with Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure policy.
Let me know if you have any questions about the copyright issue, the use of references on Wikipedia, the conflict-of-interest point I made, or anything else. Thanks, /wiae/tlk14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wiae: Thanks for your suggestions. I rephrased it, hope it's better now. As for the point with the affiliation: yes, that's true, but then again I think the tone of the article is objective enough and it's not an advertisement of any sort. If somebody else would be to further edit it, would that be OK?Cborodescu (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cborodescu: You should now be fine from a copyright perspective. I've also made a bit of a wording tweak myself.
The suggested path for editors with conflicts of interest is to propose edits on the article's talk page and to flag the proposal with the {{Request edit}} template. (This puts the proposal in a queue so that other editors can have a look.) Yes, other people can edit the article, and if they're unaffiliated with the software/company in any way, then they would not have a conflict of interest.
I would also suggest trying to find more sources that discuss the subject, as the referencing looks sort of threadbare. Wikipedia articles really need good-quality sources in order to survive, and if such sources can't be found, that puts the article at risk of eventual deletion. Thanks, /wiae/tlk15:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, a few months ago I attempted to update an article not realizing Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You brought my mistake to my attention and suggested that I draft an article and have another editor review it. I have since changed my username to fit Wikipedia's guidelines and attempted to draft an updated article. This is my second attempt after getting feedback from other editors, but are you able to review and possibly update the article with the draft (assuming you approve of the content)? The draft is here:User:S201645723/sandbox/Reading Is Fundamental Draft
@S201645723: Hi, first thank you for complying with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Unfortunately this subject isn't particularly within my area of interest. I think you would have better luck if you left a note about your rewrite on Talk:Reading Is Fundamental and flagged it with {{Requested edit}} (not {{help me}}). You might also want to briefly explain what in particular you've changed since Huon took a look earlier this month and declined the changes. Thanks, /wiae/tlk14:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
