AleatoryPonderings

Hola!

Good Morning. Wanted to check one thing with you. This DYK thing still seems super elusive to me. I think I might have a shot with this one here Template:Did_you_know_nominations/J._Michael_Lane. But, then, I think I will fall short on the QPQ thingie. That one seems super complex. Have you encountered a dummy-fied tool or instructions to complete the QPQ? Also, if you see anything that can be edited in my submission, let me know, or definitely feel free to directly make those edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, Hey! You probably don't need to do the QPQ if you're relatively new to DYK, since you only need to do one if you've had 5+ DYKs. Doing a QPQ just means reviewing another person's DYK submission according to the criteria, so it's fairly straightforward. So long as the WP:ITNRD issue isn't prohibitive, you should be good on this one. I copyedited the first book a teensy bit, but otherwise things look good to me. You might want to find a synonym for "trek" since that's what's used in the source—maybe "took a cross-country hiking trip"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I was also thinking that I hadn't seen the particular image licence on the suggested photo before, but it looks reasonable—maybe just double check that? I've gotten dinged for weird image licensing before on DYK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, Thanks much as always! That image was a cropped image from this one. Will have a look. Hope you are having a restful weekend! Hard to believe but darn time flies by so quick and Monday is going to be here in no time! Ktin (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Lee Kun-hee

On 26 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lee Kun-hee, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Alessandro Sette

I rejected the G 12 for Alessandro Sette. I believe the source of the text is a federal government agency and therefore public domain. You think I misread it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, A slightly tricky one. That source, per the Copyright and License Information section, is apparently licensed CC-BY-NC-ND, which I'm pretty sure is incompatible with WP licensing reqs? (It's also one of several used to build the article, which would be incompatible with the "No Derivatives" CC requirement.) I don't think something that's on PubMed is necessarily in the PD or a federal government work product; they host lots of stuff there, I'm pretty sure, apparently including content licensed under various non-PD CC licenses. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I agree it's a tricky one. Looking closer, I see the you identified two sources of information, one of which was his bio here. that is clearly a problem and appears to be used in the professional career section although I haven't worked very closely. you mentioned that the NIH source has an NC and ND license, which is clearly a problem, but I haven't seen the copyright license section. I did find a section Copyright Status of Webpages which makes reference to public domain but does have a caveat about the potential for inclusion of otherwise licensed materials. This makes it very tricky in case any of that material happens to be used. I am puzzled that I was not able to find the creative common's license you mentioned. Can you point it out to me?

If you click on "Copyright and License information" at the top of this article, it reads This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I did miss that. Thanks for pointing it out. While I realize I can expect the world to organize itself based on our copyright considerations, it's discouraging to find that a site that's generally PD might be or might not be. Given that so much of the federal government's material is automatically PD, I would be happier if they decided when they wanted to incorporate material that was licensed differently, to provide a PD excerpt and then link to the material as opposed to incorporating it, but I bet I won't get my wish. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My current view is that there is a lot of material in this article that came from other places and may be acceptable. Although my general position is sometimes on the harsh side — if most of the material is problematic and I think removing it would leave a shell with not much to it, I think it's best to take out the whole thing and start over but I don't think that's the case here. I see the subsequent editor has already removed some material, not the copyright issues but for other editorial reasons. My current thinking is that would be good to take a close look at the professional career section and excise sections that are taken from the bio. (if you or some other editor chooses to rewrite it rather than remove it that would be better but that's up to you.) I would like to see the CC license as I generally work on the assumption that sites with nih.gov are pd. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Perhaps it would be best all things considered to stubbify and revdel before that? Based on this licence info I added above, I am fairly certain the copied content is not in the PD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, OK, can you stubify and I'll revdel? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, in an attempt to make lemonade from lemons, stubbifying might also cure the COI problem. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Fair point! Now stubbified. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, RD1 completed. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi I appreciate your message about COI in the di Prima page. I don't believe I have one. I'm not the one who added a reference to my interview and it doesn't matter to me if it remains there or not; I'm just trying to set the record straight. The fact is di Prima's page is woefully short of content for a major poet who was active for 50-plus years, and I'll definitely be contributing further (and encouraging others to do so) in the future. Dhadbawnik (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Dhadbawnik, If you have a personal connection with the subject of an article, you likely have a conflict of interest. You stated here that I am the person who conducted the interview with di Prima referenced above, so I was assuming that you had some sort of personal relationship with Diane di Prima. The edit of mine you reverted mentions a person whose name resembles your username, which appeared to indicate that you were in fact editing an article with which you have a personal connection. If that is not correct, or if your connection with di Prima was journalistic or otherwise arm's-length, all good, but I wanted to alert you of the potential problem in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I take this very seriously. As I said, my initial intention was to correct deliberately false information that someone posted associated with my interview (yes, I did the interview way back when). All of my edits are factually correct and sourced, and obviously open to scrutiny. I will make no more edits on the page in view of your point about COI. Dhadbawnik (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Audrey Macklin has been accepted

Audrey Macklin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Betty Dodson

On 5 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Betty Dodson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cándido Camero

On 12 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cándido Camero, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Is sos! A job is on air for other wikiprojects

Hi A question which is important

Is apropriate to create a hashtag memory article in wikipedia?(contian populars in social network/trends) Im working in another version of wiki

I asked this of you and ask of others too Cus i didnt get it in laws of wiki and Everyone has his/her option So i need to reach an agreement Thx bro Pls check it fast and if you know a source tell me about it Im await you guy Bigbang2024 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Pages automatically marked as reviewed when nominated for deletion

I've recently been granted new page reviewer rights, and I noticed that it automatically marks pages as reviewed when I nominate it for an XFD process. Is this something I should keep reviewed, or should I mark it as unreviewed, since it's up for a deletion discussion? Hog Farm _Bacon 04:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I generally keep it as reviewed, since the XFD will either establish that it should be kept (and hence meets basic policy requirements, though might need some tags, and is therefore properly marked as reviewed) or deleted (in which case it's irrelevant whether it's reviewed or not). I think you can set your Twinkle prefs to not mark things as reviewed when you nominate them, though? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Following failure with success?

A while back, you did a lot to salvage the article on failure. I just discovered that its counterpart, success (concept), was in a poor state and drastically stubbified it. Perhaps you have thoughts on how to build it back up again. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, Hmm, I will think on that. I kind of like the grab bag approach we took on failure, with "highlights" from different disciplines. Perhaps we could do something similar with success. Though I imagine we'd have to wade through a fair number of self-help guides to find the real meat of the concept … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's not a literature review that I relish. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy whitewashed?

Would you take a peek at the deletions since your last edit and undo any changes you feel merit undoing. Feoffer (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, Welp, so the page is now fully protected, so I can't do anything. Tbh there were so many changes I couldn't even read the diffs very well. I'm inclined to defer to whatever consensus emerges at WP:BLPN and/or the talk page. This has gotten so involved that I really don't know what to think anymore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy

Hi AleatoryPonderings, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Women of the White Buffalo! What do you think of the article? Right cite (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, Thanks for your note and for creating this article! I enjoyed reading it. To the extent there is more, it would be nice to get a little more third-party commentary on the film; it seems a little heavy on plot summary as opposed to critical assessment at present. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, agreed, will do more research on it over time when I next get a chance. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)