This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hello! :D Is there a way to discuss the merit of /info/en/?search=Draft:Lloyd_Luna Maybe if we put it up for discussion, we can significant information. Also, to defend the draft if there are questions. Thank you! AndiMaravilla ( talk) 08:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You can discuss the draft with anyone who is interested; however, all the discussion or editing in the world is not going to make Luna notable enough for a stand-alone article unless you able to provide sources showing that he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A draft can be nominated for discussion at WP:MFD, but that's typically only when someone feels a draft should be deleted. As long as you keep working on the draft, it will probably be left alone unless there are some serious policy/guideline violations which need to be addressed; however, if the draft goes unedited for six months, it will be eligible for deletion per WP:G13. Maybe someone at WP:Philippines can help you find sources or at least suggest where to look for them, or knows enough about Luna to help you work on the draft. Theroadislong is the AfC reviewer who declined the draft; perhaps he can give you some more specific advice on what it needs to be accepted. You can also ask for assistance at WP:AFCHD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Jas10010 ( talk) 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Jas10010

Thank you for doing your best to straighten out the wandering conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors .... The project and the talk page has been virtually dormant for quite some time. The only active part has been the Editor of the Week award. The health and future of Wikipedia depend on our capacity to retain editors like User:Architecttype. His ability to create quality articles is obvious to any and all. I hope he stays. Again. Thanks for bringing order to what was becoming a logistical puzzle. The WER talk page was always intended to be a place for open discussion about retaining editors. Sometimes just the capacity to purge without negative consequences gives editors the wherewithall to continue.― Buster7  ☎ 09:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Buster7: I tried to clean it up as best as I could, but apparently Architecttype felt my comment about linking instead of copying and pasting was just another example of someone being a "wiki-cop". FWIW, I think that anyone who has interacted with chitecttype has done so in good faith and I don't believe anyone is trying to drive him off the project. Just going to add that whatever points Architecttype was trying to make are now probably going to get buried in the segue that the discussion seems to have been taken by another editor trying to continue a dispute they were having somewhere else. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Archetecttype's User page now states RETIRED. Wild ride. Created good articles, but VERY resistant to guidance about Wikipedia procedures. Any useful discussions about his situation got drowned by the clamor of other editors who brindle at Wikipedia's methods. Oh well. David notMD ( talk) 04:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@ David notMD: I saw he has decided to retire. That's unfortunate, but I think that might have been his intention from the beginning: create some articles and then ride off into the sunset feeling he had done his part and been recognized for it. FWIW, I've been following the discussions at WT:WER and although I think there have been some interesting things suggested there, I don't think that any of them probably would've made a difference in this case. From the tone set in the initial Teahouse post (the chosen section heading was an indication of a BATTLEGROUND approach) and continued thoughout in some subsequent posts there and at WT:WER, I never got the impression that there was any consideration on his part that others could be disagree with him and still be WP:HERE, or that his approach might not be the best one suited to Wikipedia. I'm also not sure he would've been open to mentorship unless it was someone he truly considered to be a peer as a content expert.

It seems the approach he and some others are/were really advocating at WT:WER is that Wikipedia should be more or peer-reviewed journal type of encyclopedia where small groups of "expert" editors exclusively review and maintain articles/content which falls within their respective fields of expertise. Such a shift might actually be a good thing in some ways now that that the project is no longer trying to grow as fast as possible and is somewhat mature, but it would be such a seismic shift from how it currently functions that it would require some major discussion at the WMF board level to have any chance of success. Moreover, even with the 100% backing of the WMF board, I'd imagine there would be quite a lot of resistence from many editors to such a change. I realize the loss of editors is quite a concern among some editors, but even the Wild West grew less and less wild as time passed and the majority people started to place a higher value on order and stability over the ability to do as they please. Maybe the time is now right for a new "Expertpedia" where content experts can do things their own way since that seems to have been the goal of some since as early as 2006. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, thanks for your message. I'm a bit puzzled. The use of national flags icons in the section titles (the ones bracketed within double "=" signs) is very common in most nation-based lists on wikipedia. Same for the use of military logos before their units names in lists of military formations. Is there a way to overcame the accessibility problems you are talking about? Maybe inserting them as Files images instead od Flagicons images? Let me know. Best regards -- Arturolorioli ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's common. If it's being done in other articles, then it shouldn't be. Can you provide a link to some of these other articles so that I can see what is being done? Wikipedia is constantly being edited by people from around the world and some of them might not be familiar with its policies and guidelines; so, it's possible the images/icons were added by someone at some time to the section headings of the articles you saw. Anyway, my understanding is that no images, not just flag icons, should be used in any section headings. As to overcoming the accessibility problems, maybe there's now a way. That would be a good question to as at WT:ACCESS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you left me a note that I need to include a non-free rational of my image. I edited the image now. Would be great if you can have a look at it if I did it the right way. Thanks alot File:Logo of the software company TypeFox.png. ChristinFrohne ( talk) 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ChristinFrohne. There are two problems here: the first one had to do with their being no non-free use rationale, and the second one had to do with the file not being used in any articles. You can probably fix the first one by adding Template:Non-free use rationale logo to the file's page and then filling in all of the relevant parameters. You can only fix the second one by adding the file to an existing article in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free content is required to be used in an leat one article per non-free content use criterion #7, and those which are not are considered "orphaned non-free files" subject to deletion per F5. Orphaned non-free use images. Non-free content can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9, which means you cannot use the file in Draft:Typefox (see also WP:DRAFTS#Non-free files). So, unless you can find a lpolicy compliant non-free use for the file within seven days, it will end up being deleted. If that happens, don't panic; you can always request the file be restored at a later date per WP:REFUND once the draft you're working on has been accepted as an article or you find a policy-compliant use for the file. FWIW, whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted isn't going to depend on whether there's a logo added to the infobox; instead, you're going to have to demonstrate to the AfC reviewer looking at the draft that the company is notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); so, you should focus on establishing that and leave the logo until after the draft has been approved.

In case you weren't already aware of this, you should look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure since both seem to apply to you with respect to Typefox. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thanks for your fast answer. Now I get the problem. So I will focus on the article itself first. About the COI, I thought that I have taken care of it by stating it in my profile. Isn't that enough? ChristinFrohne ( talk) 07:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're complying with WP:PAID you should be fine. You might want to also consider adding Template:Connected contributor (paid) to the draft's talk page just for reference. Paid editors are allowed to edit articles about subjects they have a WP:FCOI with as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines, but they are given a little more leeway when it comes to drafts because it's assumed that any (unintentional) problems created by the paid editor will be fixed before the draft is approved as an article. So, as long as you try to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:CORPDEPTH as closely as possible and don't start trying to write an excessively promotional piece about the company or doing anything else which is seen as a major policy violation like a problem per WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP, you should be left alone to continue working on the draft in piece. When you believe it's ready to go, just submit if to WP:AFC for review.

Finally, I missed the non-free use rationale you added the first time. It was OK though Template:Non-free use rationale logo is a little better. I should've only re-added the Template:Non-free reduced the first time since that template is still necessary and the other one wasn't. Apologies if I confused you over the non-free use rationale. The file is, however, still an orphan and will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5; so, please don't remove that template unless you "de-orphan" the file by adding it to an article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. How do I clear up the copyright issues associated with the logo file that I uploaded? Thanks. Cusack301 ( talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Cusack301: The file wasn't removed from Draft:Richmond County Country Club (New York) because of a copyright issue per se; it was removed simply because non-free content isn't allowed to be used in drafts per Non-free content use criterion #9 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. As explained in Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts, non-free content shouldn't be added to drafts. You can re-add the file once the draft has been approved as an article ( assuming that there are no other non-free content use issues which need to be addressed).

For reference, non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those which aren't are eligible for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5; so, this file will be deleted unless it's added to an existing article within seven days. If that happens before the draft is approved, don't panic. Deleted files aren't really gone forever; they're only hidden from public view and can usually be restored at a later date per Wikipedia:Request for undeletion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I just wanted to say thank you. I only changed some minor statistical data on Kenneth McPeeks page. I did not write any articles or copy on the page. My edits were only statistical data and one photo change which i did not do myself. I understand the conflict of interest but I did not write any of the content. Only statistical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Joeywyoming: Since you do have a conflict of interest with respect to your boss, you should really only be making the kinds of edits listed advice. Adding a table of unsourced table of race wins is not really a minor edit per se, and is probably something you should've proposed on the article's talk page. Any type of statistics or content which make claims, etc. about awards or accomplishments of the subject are going to need to be supported by citations to secondary sources for verification purposes. Basically, you should really use the talk page to propose the addition or deletion of any content from the article, except when there might be a serious policy or guideline violation which needs to be addressed immediately; for example, a clear-cut violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people.

You should also disclose your conflict of interest on your user talk page. You can find out more about this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. If you've got more questions about any of this, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. With regard to the HSU external links for the 373rd Rifle Division article, and many others, the Russian website offers an English translation at a click, which isn't always perfect, but good enough to get by. This is why I don't list them as Russian language. I have a growing knowledge of the Russian language and can correct many faults as they appear. Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 05:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but you should try and link to the English version if possible per WP:NONENGEL; otherwise, the reader might not be aware of the link since it's not clearly indictated,a nd they might not be able to read Russian. Some non-English website either us a UK/US flag icon or "English" to indicate the such links. You can add a link to the English version in parenthesis if you like right after the link to the Russian version. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is something odd, then, because I just checked all those links and they immediately translate to English, so it appears that they are links to the English version. Does that not happen when you click on those links? Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

At a guess, that website recognizes my IP address and defaults to English since that's how I usually view it. If it's not defaulting for you and other users, would a note "English translation available" fit the guidelines? The URL of the site's pages do not change when they're translated, so there is no way I can see to directly link to the English version. Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 23:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

When I click on the links, I'm taken to a Russian language page. Perhaps your browser settings are set to automatically translate pages into English or maybe as you say the website recognizes your IP address. If you have a VPN, then maybe you can try accessing the site using a different IP just to check. Anyway, I think that using the language icons will at least let the reader now that the target page is going to be in Russian; they can decide for themelves as to whether they want to try and get it translated. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you are also seeing the Google bar directly above the actual articles which gives the translation option. If so, I could use the ru:icon with a note that English translation is available. Wreck Smurfy ( talk) 01:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The primary page appears to be in Russian. If there's an online English version of that page, then that should be linked instead. If the reader can use Google translate or something else to translate the page, then you can add a note in parenthesis as a courtesy if you like along with the icon. i'm not sure, however, if Google translate works with or is available for all browsers or just Chrome. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)