User talk:WhoAteMyButter/2021/December
Sup
[edit]Sup Theonararya (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Did you have a question? WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Who
[edit]Who are you and what do you do? Theonararya (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Tamworth Songwriters Association
[edit]Hi, I've added a couple of extra citations plus included some internal links to other Wikipedia pages. OK to publish now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.67.246 (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an AfC draft reviewer. You'll have to ask someone else. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 04:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!
[edit]Hi there! I have made a handful of pages but this is the first one I had flagged. I want to make sure I don't make the same mistakes again. Can you tell which articles (citations/sources)on the Christopher N. Harding page you recommend I replace? I love a challenge, and appreciate you helping me MediaExpert1979 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for reaching out to me. I advise giving a read over of WP:RS and WP:SPS. A lot of the sources in the article currently cite the subject's own website, which is not a reliable source at all. There are very strict exceptions to this rule (WP:SELFSOURCE), but they don't apply here. The notice I placed on your talk page discusses these issues and links to the relevant policies. Sources and citations should be specific and independent, simply pointing at a website and citing it is barely a source. Social media sites do not establish notability, and are also self-published. The rest of the sources do not describe the article's subject in detail. They are citations to things he's invested in or had some role in, but they do not have WP:SIGCOV of him. This includes article's about things he has commissioned, as those writings are mostly about the creator and artwork, not the commissioner.
- In its current state, if this article was moved back to mainspace without much improvement, it would very likely be re-moved to draftspace. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 23:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you please specify what exactly are you unhappy about? As you can see, every single fact in the article is linked to an independent publication. I was not able to detect anything that would be contrary to WP:GNG. If you believe something needs to be changed or removed, please point it out, and let's discuss. -- Wesha (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. The lead is fine, but the history is the one I'm concerned on. I apologize, I should've put it in that section.
- The second paragraph is a bit WP:SYNTH, and the creator stating things about their own company isn't something we generally include or care about. The last few sentences in it are not neutral; "boast", "appreciated its usefulness" asserts that it's useful, "useful commands" is POV. The company becoming profitable isn't exactly a notable event, and neither is the amount of money they have/raised. Companies gain money, lose money, and those things generally aren't important unless it's an excess amount of money (100M+) or results in bankruptcy.
- Lastly, it needs some MOS cleanup. Specifically with commas and references before a period.
- Aside from that, it looks pretty good! Nice referencing. I was simply concerned about the history overstating what might be important parts of the article's subject. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 06:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- You see, I'm a WP:Inclusionist, so I prefer to include everything that has WP:RS. Hence a bunch of things you claim "unimportant". However, if more than a single source mentions a fact, that fact is likely WP:N. And Inc. magazine, Forbes, and local newspapers are pretty good sources.
- I am not sure what you are talking about. The second paragraph of the article is, verbatim, "A number of publications, including Inc. magazine and TechCrunch, call the company "Uber for delivery".[2][6]". It's a statement of the fact, and I do not see what is being synthesized here. But, if you are not happy with and have an idea how to improve it, then go ahead and WP:BOLD. Please don't just state your opinion and leave.
- Regarding WP:MOS, I could use some help. English is my 2nd language, and I tried my best; when creating the article, I cleaned up all irregularities I could notice.
- The company becoming profitable isn't exactly a notable event — Um, in my mind, it is. It shows that the company is prooooooobably going to be around for a while. Companies that do not turn profitable are way more likely to be just a blip on the radar that soon goes away (cough cough pets.com).
- -- Wesha (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- 1. Not everything that has a reliable source is suitable for inclusion, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some information is simply not relevant for a summary of the article's subject. Inclusionism and the article creator's opinion/leanings should have no bearing on the article's content.
- 2. Except that's not what's typed. Instead, it's a quote from the creator telling us himself. That's not independent. Regardless of what reliable sources say, we still must adhere to WP:NPOV. The second paragraph can be improved if instead we use another source suitable for the text, including the ones you listed.
- 3. I'll get to that at some point.
- 4. And that's your opinion and therefore original research. That aside, that factoid isn't important. The profitability of a company is not notable. Read WP:COMPANY, § Numerical facts. While the page is about notability, the reasoning behind this specific section summarizes my point. If there are multiple reliable sources that go into detail about how much money they made and why it's important, then it can be included. But simple statistics and database is contrary to WP:NOTDB, which states
We need more than just simple stating facts like "they made $X money in Y year." or "Q3 year X saw an increase in profits by +X%". WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 23:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
- We are starting to go rounds, as in, I give you X, and you ask, "what proves X?"; I give you WP:RS Y that proves X, and you ask, "what proves that Y proves X?" and so on. Either way, if you think something is wrong, go ahead and be WP:BOLD to fix whatever you think is wrong. I am not going to do it for you, as I do not believe anything is wrong at this time — otherwise I wouldn't have written it this way in the first place. Just saying "something is bad, you figure out what it is" is not a constructive approach. -- Wesha (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've made the bold edits, and given it a once-over with the MOS. I apologize for the delay. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- We are starting to go rounds, as in, I give you X, and you ask, "what proves X?"; I give you WP:RS Y that proves X, and you ask, "what proves that Y proves X?" and so on. Either way, if you think something is wrong, go ahead and be WP:BOLD to fix whatever you think is wrong. I am not going to do it for you, as I do not believe anything is wrong at this time — otherwise I wouldn't have written it this way in the first place. Just saying "something is bad, you figure out what it is" is not a constructive approach. -- Wesha (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. I do not believe the article lost anything important, so all is well. Thank you again. -- Wesha (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)