This is an archive of past discussions with User:RoySmith. 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.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Some wikis will be on read-only for a few minutes on 5 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [1]
Some wikis will be on read-only for a few minutes on 7 May. This will also affect CentralAuth. This can for example affect global renames, password changes, changing or confirming your email address and logging in to new wikis. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [2]
Changes later this week
You can get a notification when someone links to a page you created. You can soon turn these notifications off for individual pages. [3]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 May. It will be on all wikis from 7 May (calendar).
Thanks for uploading File:I Don't Always.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The discussion got archived before I had time to respond, but it is clear that Cabayi's original idea wouldn't be accepted anyway, so I'm carrying this sub-thread here instead.
I think your interpretation of WP:BOGOF is unnecessarily pessimistic and antagonistic. What you're saying is that, to avoid WP:BOGOF (so as to enforce WP:DENY thoroughly) we should punish other editors who work on a page that happens to be created by a spammer / banned sockmaster, as has happened to User:Plantdrew and me with the Job's tears redirects. This doesn't sound right, because if a troll could game this easily: go around creating redirects at promising titles, wait until other editors pick up on those topics, and then wreck havoc by outing oneself as a banned sockmaster and trigger a cascade of redlinks! Deryck C.21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19, which aims to answer questions the public may have about Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic. The event includes four speakers, all of whom are active contributors to the topic area on Wikipedia, but bring different perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. The event is free and open to the public, broadcast live on YouTube and Facebook, and questions taken from viewers on these platforms. Abstracts and speaker bios are available on the event page.
Thank you Dear user:RoySmith for your time , attention and professional edit on Article Muhammad Ashrafi and adding perfect categories to this article. you made it much better and more meaningful than it was.
your generous work was the real meaning of the following quote from persian Poet "Saadi Shirazi"
"Do the good things and throw it into Dijlah, Wait for God to give you back better in desert."
I just made a few revisions (added sentence by sentence citations, as well as added citation names), but I mainly wanted to see if you had any guidance for improving the article so I can continue to revise it? Thank you for your time and hope you're doing well. EastIrving (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The draft is quite different now from when I reviewed it, much of which is due to DragonflySixtyseven's improvements. Looking over what's there now, I think the first two sections are pretty good, but I'm wondering if the Centers & Initiatives section really adds anything. I'd suggest trimming that section back significantly, and then resubmitting to see what another reviewer thinks. -- RoySmith(talk)23:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear RoySmith,
Thank you for making time to review this article/list.
I made revisions to the article/list based on your suggestions. I hope this now addresses the issues you've raised.
I welcome any additional suggestions.
Thank you,
JQ1776 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith, thank you for reviewing this page moments ago https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Vithya_Visvendra
I had previously attempted to write for a page on a politician and this time around with COVID I had some tried to write for an International Makeup Artist and was definitely challenging as the type of sources available can be very different from the former. I was confused with the new comment left that "You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable." I was wondering if you can guide me on this, as I only used terms that were commonly associated with this individual to ensure citation is in line too.
thank you
Infohand (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Jump4130, Hi, thanks for your note. The thing that immediately jumped out at me was the first sentence where you called the subject, "award-winning". That immediately sets off my spam alarm. To be honest, most of this sounds like you're trying to sell something, or at least present the organization in the best possible light. Don't tell the reader why the subject is great. Just tell the reader what the subject has done, and let them come to their own conclusion.
By comparison, I looked at some of the other drafts you've created. Draft:Quratulain Bakhteari looks pretty good, at least from the point of view of not being promotional. I don't know if the subject is notable (based on what's there now, probably not, but I recognize it's an incomplete draft), but at least it's written in an encyclopedic style of just presenting facts without making judgements. The only place I see some hint of promotionalism coming in is the first sentence. I would change "known for founding" to "who founded". But, that's pretty minor, and I suspect you were just following a stock example outline of how to write a biography.
Hello, thank you for reviewing the draft I created (link below as requested). Would you be able to provide some specific feedback regarding the rejection please?
The rejection on notability-grounds: this was the second rejection for that reason, and I hoped that the edits since the first rejection (as per edit history and the draft's talk page) would be sufficient to cover that issue. By "sufficient" I mean that I believe that they meet the critera given at WP:NCORP#How to apply the criteria. The added references (particularly the ones mentioned on the draft's talk page) are primarily about the same topic as the draft, there's several of them, they're secondary sources etc. Could you explain specifically how those references fail to meet the critera please? I'll attempt to fix the draft or delete as appropriate.
I don't have any specific questions on the second point, which was rejection for reading like an advertisement. After a re-read, I believe I understand why that feedback was given and I will edit in an attempt to fix it, although that may be moot depending on the outcome of the references issue.
I decided to go ahead with edits to cover the second issue mentioned above, i.e. to address the additional rejection-reason of reading like an advertisement. I believe that I have removed all references to primary materials, and ensured that the language is neutral. It should now avoid the issues explained at the given rejection link: WP:ARTSPAM. If you would be willing to read the edited draft, I would be interested to find out if you would agree - but no worries if not.
Cog77, Taking a look at the current version, here's my thoughts. The first sentence should say what the company does (or did). What I see here is, "...aimed to develop", which says to me they didn't actually get there. My next thought is, "If they didn't do what they set out to do, what did they do to justify us having an article about them?"
Reading further, what I get is, "OK, this is a university biotech spinout who burned through £11M in the five years they were in business and didn't achieve anything". In other words, just like the vast majority of biotech startups. So, again, I'm left trying to figure out what they did that's note-worthy.
Looking back at the version I reviewed, at that time there was a lot more about funding, and the whole "Notable media appearances", which is all gone now. That stuff was what triggered the "advertisement" complaint, so at least progress there.
Taking a quick look at the references, I don't consider anything that has to do with funding announcements to be useful. Startups close funding rounds all the time (well, at least until they run out of money). Each time they get more funding, they send out press releases to all the industry publications, and rack up a bunch of perfunctory coverage. As a perfect example, is the Wall Street Journal a reliable source? Of course they are; they are a top-tier paper in the financial world. But, "Oxford Spinout OxSyBio Lures Investors to ‘Bio-Printing’ Technology" is basically just coverage of a press release. They got something on the PR newswire, did due-diligence to make sure it's true, and churned out this piece. -- RoySmith(talk)00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reading the edited version and providing the extra feedback. I do completely understand the "advertisement" complaint: the removed sections were originally written while going through the notability guidelines, but they were a poor way of addressing them and after re-reading the draft since your review, I agree that they looked like advertisement. I'm glad that this aspect looks better after the recent edit, and it is useful feedback for me whether or not this particular draft goes any further.
Notability: my understanding from your comment here is that the edited draft would still be rejected on notability-grounds (i.e. WP:NCORP#How to apply the criteria), and that the reasons for that rejection would be (1) sharing a similar fate with many other biotech startups, and (2) belief that all the references in the draft are just coverage of press releases. Is that a correct interpretation? Even if those points were true (which I'm not sure that they are, WSJ example notwithstanding), in what way would either of those points fail at Wikipedia's WP:NCORP requirements? I've re-read them again and I can't reconcile your comments with those criteria. E.g. the main point of the criteria page seems to be summed up in this single sentence:
"Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product"
I still feel that current draft includes sufficient references to meet the WP:NCORP requirements, including the summary quote above, the list of five primary criteria, and everything on the requirements page. Are there any further Wikipedia resourses/rules/guidelines that you could provide please? There are several next courses of action that I could imagine following on from your comments here (e.g. deletion, edit to highlight any difference with other biotechs, etc), but I feel like they would be solely based on your comments here rather than working to a set of common standards. Ideally I'd like to have some set of Wikipedia guidelines to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the draft, aid with any further editing, and increase the chance of success in any future review. Thank you again for your feedback so far. --
Cog77 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Cog77, I know this isn't going to be very satisfying, but the guidelines are just that: guidelines. Ultimately, decisions about what's notable and what's not require a certain amount of judgement.
I also want to draw your attention to WP:COI. I just looked at your user page and noticed your COI declaration. It's good and proper that you made that declaration, but to be honest, I didn't have to see the banner to know the COI existed. Everything about this draft screamed out COI. Please note, in particular, where it says, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. ... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Surely, as a scientist (or at least somebody involved with science in some way), you know about confirmation bias, which is why medical trials are done double-blind. It is virtually impossible for somebody who is involved with a company to stand back far enough to write a good encyclopedia article about it. Inevitably it comes out sounding like a marketing brochure. That is certainly the case here. My recommendation to you is that you stop here, because additional attempts to get this published are likely to be futile. -- RoySmith(talk)12:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional comments. You're right, that situation isn't very satisfying (regarding guidelines/judgement), but I understand the practical need for it. It is good to understand how things work in any case.
I had previously read WP:COI and as you say, COI editing is discouraged, but it's not banned. Personally, I agree with that allowance considering the approval process involves other people, and anyone can edit, but I don't mean to start an argument about this as I know you have a different take. I did think that the post-review edits had improved neutrality and cleared up the appearance of being an advertisment, especially after your comment above about progress, but if you are now saying that it currently sounds like a marketing brochure then clearly those edits have not left the draft in a suitable state. I will leave this alone for some period of time to think it over, and then either try for one final submission for review and stop if that fails, or just proceed straight to marking it for deletion. For what it's worth, I do think the company's technology was interesting, which is why I thought an article should exist. That opinion is, of course, very likely influenced by the COI, so perhaps I shouldn't be suprised about notability-based rejection. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and to provide all of the feedback that you have, I do appreciate it.--
Cog77 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Cog77, I agree that the technology is interesting. If your intent is to write about the technology, perhaps you could work on our existing 3D bioprinting article, or one of the related articles listed at 3D bioprinting#See also? I do feel obligated to point out, however, that if you find yourself wanting to write something like, "OxSyBio was involved in this" in any of those articles, you might want to stop and think about whether that's your COI speaking. -- RoySmith(talk)16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave this alone. Is Db-author the appropriate tag for me to add to the draft for deletion please?
I did originally consider editing 3D bioprinting to add the technology there, but I didn't feel that it would fit very well in that article's current state. It's quite broad and a bit haphazard, so I tried a new article (the OxSyBio draft) instead. I didn't think of looking at 3D bioprinting#See also until your suggestion here, but the only promising article there is 3D_printing#Bio-printing, which doesn't seem to exist (the article exists, but not the section).
For the record, I don't believe the COI influenced the draft in the way that you seem to be implying. Certainly the most problematic sections (i.e. the removed parts related to funding and media appearances) were not conscious attempts at advertising. Were they an unconscious attempt of the same? I can’t answer that, but I can say that they were conscious (and in hindsight, poor) attempts to meet notability criteria rather than advertise. So in response to your last sentence, I wouldn’t reference OxSyBio if I wrote about the technology in an article like 3D bioprinting, though I understand why you felt the obligation to add that point.
--Cog77 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Everyone can now import photos from Flickr to Commons with the UploadWizard. Before this only autopatrollers on Commons could import photos from Flickr. [5]
Problems
Commons will be on read-only for a few minutes on 12 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [6]
Several wikis including Wikidata will be on read-only for a few minutes on 19 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. English Wikipedia will be on read-only for a few minutes on 21 May 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [7][8]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 May. It will be on all wikis from 14 May (calendar).
Future changes
JavaScript scripts and gadgets can no longer check multiple keys at once via mw.config.exists() or mw.user.tokens.exists(). You can use exists() or get() to check one at a time instead. [9]
Would you please provide more specific feedback regarding the rejection? In the submission, there is a Reference section listing various published and reliable resources. For example, IBM Systems Magazine, BMC, and IntelliMagic official websites. Do you have any suggestions on how shall more references be added? Or whether the existing resources are not qualified?
Hi Roy. You deleted an article under the name Jonathan Manns in 2016. I think it may be the same person, the urbanist, I was thinking of making a page for. I am interested in urbanism and he is well-known in the UK. He appears also to speaks at prestigious institutions and events. He's referenced variously in the book "Outskirts" by Jon Grindrod. In a Government report he authored late in 2016 he was described by Dr Rupa Huq MP as of of "Britains pre-eminent urbanists". In recent news articles he has been cited as a "pre-eminent British chartered surveyor and town planner" (CIAT:https://ciat.org.uk/resource/first-global-standards-for-land-measurement-released.html). There is much content like this online - most not linked at all to his private sector 'day job' but instead focussed on his advocacy, campaigning and academic research. The website of the Patchwork Foundation, for example, states: "Widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent British Planner of his generation, Jonathan Manns leads on regeneration and place-making projects as Board Director and Head of Planning and Development at Rockwell Property. A tireless promoter of planning, he is a writer, speaker, lecturer, campaigner and founder of the APPG for London’s Planning and Built Environment. As a thought-leader, his opinion pieces have featured in the Guardian, Evening Standard and in international titles, while he has also authored and edited for academic journals including the Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal. In 2014, he edited Kaleidoscope City, an acclaimed collection of essays tackling big built environment questions through a London lens. He has advised on, and contributed to, research by the European Union, UK Government, RICS, London School of Economics and UCL." I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and this would be my first attempt at a person. There seems to be a lot of information about him on Google and I wonder whether given the passage of time it may be therefore that he warrants inclusion. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Also, assuming I'm right, it would be good to get your advice on focus and tone.
@Turningworldly: The general rule is that after some significant amount of time has passed (4 years certainly qualifies), if you believe the subject is now more notable than they were before, anybody is free to write a new article. I have no opinion on whether the subject is notable now, but don't let that stop you. The worst that might happen is somebody objects and brings it back to AfD. The way to avoid that is to make sure you have plenty of good solid sources and the article is well written. -- RoySmith(talk)15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: It may sounds stupid but I'm a little nervous about this - my first article (which I was certain to be notable) has just been reviewed and found otherwise. Could I suggest an article to you or would it be best "for review" by the general community?
@Turningworldly: Thanks for your note. Don't be nervous! I see you're a new user, so you can't directly create an article; you need to go through the draft review process like you did with Draft:Filcao. There's a learning curve, so it's expected that new editors will not get things right the first time. That's why we have the draft process. What I would suggest is reading WP:BIO to learn what we need for a good biographical article. Then try writing Draft:Jonathan Manns and see how it goes. I'm pinging User:Onel5969 who participated in the original AfD; they have a lot of experience and might be willing to give you some additional advice and/or review your draft when you write it.
On a somewhat more practical matter, good sources are the most important thing. I find the best way write a good article is to start by doing research and listing all the sources I find. I'll generally sort them into two or three groups (really solid sources, not so great sources, random passing mentions). I do all that before I start writing. I would start by doing that and listing the sources at Draft talk:Jonathan Manns. Then ping me (or Onel5969 if he's willing) to get a quick feel for the quality of the sources. Asking at WP:TEA might get you some useful feedback too. Once you've got your sources lined up, the actual writing is relatively easy.
@RoySmith: Thanks - That's really supportive and helpful. I'll do just that!
@RoySmith: I've had a go and put it for review (I tried to save it to the Sandbox but couldn't quite work out how). If you were minded to take a look and make some suggestions, that would be a huge help (if not your support so far has been great anyway, thanks!).
Fixed the Dog Puller draft article
Hi, thanks for the reviewing of my draft. I asked for help and, I think, managed to make it better. I removed the "Rules" section, deleted the phrases that might look as a toy promotion and the paragraphs that didn't have enough sources. Can you please have another look?
Thanks!
Draft: Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokuchayev
Dear Roy, thank you for reviewing my AfC (Draft:Kharkiv_National_Agrarian_University_named_after_V.V._Dokuchayev).
In your review, you suggest naming the topic as "Dokuchayev University..." and I agree with you that it will more appropriate, but it is not possible to do it for different reasons. Firstly, the name of the university in English as "Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokuchayev" is approved at a meeting of the Academic Council of the University and already registered in the Ministry of education and Science of Ukraine. Secondly, the official English forms (papers, Diplomas and Diplomas Supplements) of the university contain the name "Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokuchayev". Thirdly, the name "Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokuchayev" is linked to the different academic and scientific databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Global Research Identifier Database, etc.
I look forward to your reply
Thank you for your time and hope you're doing well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriyPopov1980 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Request on 09:12:08, 18 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Arief Salim
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
If you forget your password you can ask for a new one to be sent to your email address. You need to know your email address or your username. You can choose that you need to enter both your email address and your username. This is a preference. This is to get fewer password reset emails someone else asked for. This is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. [10][11]
Problems
There is a bug that creates problems for iPhone users with iOS 13 and Safari. If you use an iPhone to read or edit Wikipedia and see bugs on the mobile site you can report them. [12]
Several wikis including Wikidata will be on read-only for a few minutes on 19 May. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. English Wikipedia will be on read-only for a few minutes on 21 May 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance. [13][14]
Graphs will be rendered in the reader's browser. This will use Javascript. Graphs will hopefully work better for everyone who uses Javascript. It will not work for users who don't use Javascript. This will not affect diagrams in image files. [16]
Some CSS for the skins has been simplified. This affects div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces, div#p-variants and div#footer. They will have to remove div. You will have to update your gadgets, scripts or user styles. This is so we can use HTML5. [17]
Some CSS for the Vector skin has been changed. This affects #p-variants, #p-namespaces, #p-personal, #p-views and #p-cactions. They can no longer use > ul. You might need to update your gadgets, scripts or user styles. See how.
Hello Mr. Smith, thank you for reviewing my Wikipedia page. I wanted to inform you that the Mishkin Gallery is an art gallery that creates exhibitions, so the references are articles detailing those exhibitions. Therefore, the sources are providing significant coverage to the art gallery and the exhibitions it features. Also, many of the sources are from art magazines, which are reliable, secondary sources.
Can you please clarify why you rejected the Wikipedia page, if it adheres to the reference requirements?
Before I answer, please go back to the draft and fix up the references. You've got one that's just a URL (flatirondistrict.nyc), another that has the title "about" and nothing else. This makes it hard to review. -- RoySmith(talk)23:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Ameds918, To follow up on that, it would help me with the review if you could take a look at WP:NCORP and WP:THREE, then let me know which three references you believe are the best ones, and I'll review those in detail. -- RoySmith(talk)02:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Ameds918, I looked at the three sources you suggested.
The Ticker: This is a Baruch student newspaper, reporting on an event happening at the college. That's not WP:INDEPENDENT
Flatiron Partnership: This is a local business development group, reporting on a neighborhood gallery. It's also basically a WP:INTERVIEW, which we traditionally don't give much weight to when determining notability.
This is also an interview, with the gallery's director. So, again, not WP:INDEPENDENT.
So, I'm afraid none of these are very useful. The fact that other wikipedia pages reference the gallery doesn't have any bearing. Please see WP:NORG to get an idea of what we need.
As for advice on how to proceed, you'll need to find sources which satisfy WP:NORG. If you can't do that, then the draft can't be accepted. -- RoySmith(talk)21:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Ameds918, All I can say is please carefully read WP:NORG. It's not going to be a useful exercise to compare your draft with other existing pages. We have lots of pages that fail to meet our guidelines because they have not received the proper scrutiny. Using them as an argument to justify another page isn't going to be productive. -- RoySmith(talk)00:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Draft: Joe Seddon
Hello Roy, Hope you're doing well. I have re-edited the article referenced above which you previously marked for deletion due to lack of substantial edits. I think this was in part due to the fact that I wasn't giving enough comment on the minor edits I was making, and I will certainly learn from this experience before submitting my next article! Let me know if there are any further improvements you think could be made, and stay safe in these tough times. Best Wishes, Doogie.
Doogierev (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, Thank you for your swift reply, Roy. Forgive my naivety, but will the re-review still happen automatically given the article was rejected rather than merely declined, due to a lack of substantial edits? Let me know either way - and any feedback is very much appreciated! Best Wishes, Doogierev. -- Doogierev (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Doogierev, The last action taken (by me) was to reject the draft. That's the template with the red stopsign on it. I did that because, after so many trips through the review process, I had little hope this would improve to the point where it could be accepted. My recommendation at this point, if you wish to work on this more, is to click the big blue "Ask for advice" button and seek assistance from the help desk. -- RoySmith(talk)21:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roy, I’ve tried to seek help from the Help Desk and have sent a polite heads up to other reviewers of the fundamental changes I’ve made. But I haven’t received any responses - I assume given my article has been rejected? I just wondered you could take another look at the article and let me know what you think. I think I’ve taken this as far as I can now, so if it’s still not up to standard I’ll move to Articles for deletion.
I don't know if this is just an artifact of the difference in our timezones but as I started to work on the open cases this morning I see you've reserved around a third of them to yourself. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Cabayi, My bad. When I get into something, I tend to just dive in deep. I'll dial it back. Thank you for alerting me to the issue. I know WP:Sockpuppet investigations/41.210.3.16 looks like I grabbed it and then didn't do anything with it, but Callanecc asked me to be on the lookout for a case that needed merging so we can work on that together. -- RoySmith(talk)14:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That one is an ideal training case (a class I couldn't do as a trainee 'cos I wasn't an admin while a trainee). Looks like you've got Callanecc's day planned out already Enjoy! Cabayi (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As per your suggestion, I have replaced the citation that seemed to be responsible for the draft's rejection. I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to look at what I used instead and see if it meets with your approval.
Hello. Thank you for accepting my draft 1960 Cypriot by-elections and going to the trouble of reviewing it. I am interested in updating the article so that it, hopefully, reaches B-Class. I was wandering if you could give me advice on how to update the article and what flaws it has. Thanks, KnolGua (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
KnolGua, Hi, and thanks for your note. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with the details of the article rating system, and the C rating I gave your article when I accepted it was just a rough guess. My suggestion is to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for more specific advice on how that project rates articles. -- RoySmith(talk)01:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Declined Draft:FoodSmartphone
Hello. I would like to ask you for help with correct form of artice Draft:FoodSmartphone, it is my first article here in wikipedia. I still think, it is a very interesting project about using smartphones for easy detection of food quality, to bring sophisticated analytics methods near ordinary people hands. It is strictly academic project, not commercial project and I am not involved in it, I only want to inform community about it. I made some cuts in text, so I would like to ask you about some review and help with form. Is it right, that I can't use official link of this project as one of sources?
Thanks a lot, Cairek007 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to leave the re-review to somebody else, but from a quick glance, you've got something really weird going on with the reference formatting. See WP:CITE and/or ask for help on how they should be formatted at WP:TEA -- RoySmith(talk)21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The visual editor will now work in the Modern skin. The changes that needed to happen for this to work could cause problems for some scripts or gadgets. [18]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from May 26. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from May 27. It will be on all wikis from May 28 (calendar).
Dear RoySmith,
thank you for reviewing our article and for the explanations for your choice to decline it (the previous reviewer was not of help at all in this respect).
Since the glory of Kriter dates back to 1974, there are not too many sources online that tell her story except the general sources about the Whitbread 1974-74 race that I cited. I can assure you, that the books I've cited ("En course en tour du monde" and "La saga des Kriter") do tell a lot more. In fact "En course en tour de monde" is written by the skipper Jack Grout. It is only about Kriter and telling how she was built and the experiences during the race. The other one talks about all boats that were sponsored by the Kriter champagne company. I can send you some pages of the books if you like.
All what comes after the race is first hand information. We have the information on our private homepage kriter.tv but I took down the citation since the last reviewer criticized it as the homepage of the manufacturer or something like that.
My partner found her in Baltimore. He had direct communication with the Frenchman and with the architect of Kriter George Auzepy-Brenneur. I got to know Kriter in 2017 and I can guarantee you that she's a special boat. Also seeing the reactions of French sailors when they see her is just amazing. And I thought she deserves to be mentioned also on wikipedia. But if it is too complicated to get the article passed, I'll give up. It's not that important to waste more time.
It's just a bit disappointing that some other, similarly important, sailing yachts got accepted even with less references (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Great_Britain_IIhttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Peter_von_Danzig_(ship)).
There's a youtube video about the Whitbread 1973-74 race where she appears at 5min and 24min (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBBm5Xa8DeA) but I doubt that youtube videos are ok references for wikipedia.
If you can give me some hints on what kind of sources would be needed to get the article accepted, I'll see if I can find something else online.
Thanks!
SailingRegina (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
SailingRegina, There's a bunch of issues here. First, from what you wrote above, you obviously have some sort of connection to the boat. But, to be honest, I could tell that just by reading the draft. Please take a look at WP:COI to understand our policy on conflicts of interest. The short answer there is that while it's not strictly forbidden for people to write about COI subjects, the results are almost never good. -- RoySmith(talk)23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear RoySmith, sure I've had a look at the WP:COI before starting the article. However, I decided anyway to create it since it definitely is no political or personal harassment of any person or subject. Our intention was simply to share some knowledge that otherwise will get lost in this digital world. It is of no financial or political advantage for me/us. Thinking about the personal connection, it's actually right that citing the book of Jack Grout is probably falling into this policy as well, since Kriter was born after his idea and he navigate her (partly) through the race.
But never mind, I guess the wikipedia world is non of my business, I rather stay with the real world. Thank you anyway again for the time you took for the review and for your reply. Take care. SailingRegina (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yup, taken by us. Maybe an older one from the race would have been nicer but I didn't know how it works with the copyright. SailingRegina (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
For the records, SailingRegina is my private account, I am a human being and I have produced the content created under my account myself. Some information needed to produce the content has been given to me personally by other human beings. The same is true for the picture: I did not take it myself but the human who took it handed over the copyrights to me. If any or all of the above is against the wikipedia policies, I hereby apologies to the wikipedia community and will take action by deleting my account and the content I have produced. SailingRegina (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Nawab Afridi (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Being a moderator, you always checked my page List of Pakistani Peace Laureates and fixed the errors every time for which I was always thankful to you for your support and cooperation but today I just checked my page and have found some other moderator removing the descriptions and ruining my entire page. All my efforts and struggle have been ruined.
Hi. I don't know exactly which edits you feel are a problem, but it is certainly true that many different people will edit an article once it is created. I know it can feel like it's your article, but it's really owned by the community as a whole, and thus anybody can edit it. What I would suggest is that if you see an edit that you disagree with, contact the user on their talk page and discuss with them why they made that change. You might also want to read about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. -- RoySmith(talk)20:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roy, thanks for reviewing my article but im not sure what ive done wrong ?
Is it that the quotes should have their source in the article rather than just in the footnote ? Easy to fix !
Rohanstorey (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Some of the things called out are the proper names (i.e. "National Gallery of Victoria") so that's to be expected. But, as much as possible, you should be writing in your own words. For example (although this really is a minor point), a short phrase like "acquired by the National Gallery in London" could easily be re-written to use "purchased" or "bought". I'd say as long as you provide direct attribution for the longer quotes, you're fine. Keep in mind, however, that other reviewers may have a stricter view of this, so avoiding those long quotes completely would be even better.
Also note that I was commenting specifically on the quoting issue. Other reviewers may still have other issues, unrelated to that. -- RoySmith(talk)13:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi RoySmith, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
I added a note that the numbers refer to file numbers in the ÁBTL. I also went through the published references and transformed them into Template:Rp format, as per your suggestion.
Hope everything is clear now, please do let me know if it looks good to you.
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 May. It will be on all wikis from 7 May (calendar).
Thank you Dear user:RoySmith for your time , attention and professional edit on Article Muhammad Ashrafi and adding perfect categories to this article. you made it much better and more meaningful than it was.
JavaScript scripts and gadgets can no longer check multiple keys at once via 
Hello! Your submission of The Lincoln Project at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Enjoy! Cabayi (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
