User talk:Anne drew Andrew and Drew/Archives/2018/January

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Be bold

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Be bold. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Albion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A message from 129.110.241.67

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius_Institute

A small number of people oppose CI on the belief that CI are agents of the Chinese government. This belief is false. People who believe this are typically viscerally opposed to China, and what it does. The page as it stands evidently reflects their opinion. However, the CI should be described for what they are, not for what someone who opposes them think they are. Contents about controversy belong somewhere else under "criticism of CI" but not under CI proper. Either that or change the name of this page to Opposition to CI or something like that. As written, this page describe a negative opinion on CI, it does not describe what CI are. In other words, the entry for Confucius Institutes on Wikipedia as it is now is an opinion page. This is quite is improper. Opponents of CI have hijacked the Wikipedia entry. As it is, the entry effectively denigrates the work of a multitude of honest and devoted people to the goal of educating about Chinese language and culture. People who object CI have a right to their opinion, but and opinion is merely that, they should not hijack the page to propagate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.67 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the removal of that much content just because it is negative violates WP:NPOV. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree. – by AdA&D at 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

22:02:59, 8 January 2018 review of submission by Gfilippe

• Gfilippe (talk · contribs)
  • User:Gfilippe/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The standard for academics based on wikipedia criteria includes international awards and appointment as Editor-in-Chief for an international journal. This submission documents that Dr. Filippelli has attained both of these distinctions. Gfilippe (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

​WP:PROF states, the person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. GeoHealth as a "new open-source journal" does not, in my eyes, qualify as a major, well-established academic journal. Feel free to start a discussion here if you disagree. – by AdA&D at 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent AfC approvals

Hi there, I was taking a look through your recent AfC approves, and wanted to let you know I submitted many of them to AfD, as I felt they didn't meet notability requirements, namely:

• Tai Lopez
• Macoun Developers Conference
• Frank Malaba
• PKolo

I also noticed that TonyBallioni nominated Synthea for deletion as well. I know you're new to AfC, and it's a learning process for all of us, so feel free to reach out to me or any other reviewers if you have doubts or are looking for feedback, thanks. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing to-do with PKolo. – by AdA&D at 05:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, stricken. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC, Salvatore D. Romano

Hi. I just tagged the Salvatore D. Romano article you moved to the mainspace. I realize you're new to AfC, so I wanted to explain why. Three of the 11 references are to the same New York Sun article; four are from the Cosa Nostra News, not a reliable source (and all written by the publisher of the blog), and one is from a small community paper. The first reference used is a press release, and it's cited five times. I commented on the draft as an AfC reviewer in December, and left suggestions for references -- they *are* available. Salvatore D. Romano has a book coming out, and as it stands, this article adheres to a narrative that may or may not be accurate. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm - it's great that you're reviewing -- but there's a learning curve! If I can be of any help please let me know. Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Do I think it's a good article? No. Do I think it would survive an AfD listing? Yes. The subject is clearly notable- so I brought it to main-space. Any content issues can be solved just as easily there. – by AdA&D at 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A good point. Apologies if I sound overzealous; I'm just frustrated because I was fascinated by the story and spent time looking for more references, hoping that the author of the draft would incorporate them. But...I'll be one of the editors attempting to solve the content issues. (It's late, and I'm using the new wikisource editor and can't find the tildes. SO. It's midnight in Los Angeles on January 10, and I'm still Julie).

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Youth in Africa at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A message from 71.86.118.179

The Confucius Institute Wiki page is completely biased

Extended content

The editors of this Wikipedia page on the topic “Confucius Institute” willfully act to allow mischaracterizing and disparaging the Confucius Institute. Several recent edits intended to correct the situation to make it reflect the definition of what the Confucius Institutes actually are have been made (see page history), but the editors systematically replace these edits with prior contents that is overtly biased against the Confucius Institutes and discuss a side topic that should go under “Opposition to Confucius Institutes” on a different page. Multiple suggestions to migrate critical contents onto a different page have been ignored; a clique of dishonest editors maliciously refuse to collaborate. The editors maliciously rely on technical definitions such as “quoted contents is not opinions” but, in fact, anyone can quote anybody to support any view, obviously including a biased one. Or they retort that "consensus must be gained". But what kind of consensus is possible with biased China haters ? The issues is that the page is biased and disparages the Confucius Institutes, it does not describe what they are, it describes what a few people with warped world vision think they are, or worse, would like anyone to become convinced of. Only a very tiny fraction of Confucius Institutes run into problems because they are set among predominantly non-mainland Chinese communities that, basically, more or less hate China. The editors disguise their opposition to CI under the rubric “neutral discussion” but the page is hardly neutral, it is completely biased. The page, as it is, is mischaracterizing the Confucius Institutes and the editors are willfully engaged in perpetuating this mischaracterization. To them, Confucius Institute is synonymous to controversy. But this notion is false . Confucius Institute is one thing, the tiny fraction of militants who oppose CI is quite another. Editors of the Confucius Institute page should be dismissed for willful collusion to maintain bias and they should be replaced with new impartial ones. Critical contents should be segregated as suggested and migrated to a different page such as ”Opposition to Confucius Institutes”. Please see the page history and click on one of the edited version around 8 February 2018 to see what the page should really look like. Understand this: No one wants to quell free speech. That is not the issue. People opposed to CI have the right to their opinion, even though it is blatantly wrong. But it is quite dishonest for them, and the editors who support them (they are perhaps one and the same?), to use the CI page on Wikipedia to promote their opposition, blow a side issue way out of proportion, and mischaracterize what CI are. They can discuss their childish conspiracy theory against CI on another page all they want; no problem. But they should not attempt to redefine CI to mean Opposition to CI. Thank you. An American, speaking for many many others who are not Chinese but are very familiar with CI. PS Come on guys, face it, CI is out to convert our youth to Communism? Are you kidding me? Do you have any notion of how silly this is? The Red Scare went out of style decades and decades ago already. Please grow up and get informed! 71.86.118.179 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved here. – by AdA&D at 17:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Section in The_Donald talk page

I wholeheartedly disagree when the person is an obvious "Liberal bias" troll. It's stated though multiple sources in the article that the subreddit in question is known for playing host to anti-semitism, among other things. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 17:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the editor in question is an obvious troll. Their question is harmless. – by AdA&D at 18:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Next time, look closer at the situation before throwing policy links at me. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The question as stated is completely valid. If you think it's trolling, please ignore it. – by AdA&D at 20:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, let's not give them have the time of day, and just remove it. Having it there just means somebody is going to reply, and feed them. Not really "touchy", more just perplexed that I'm being second-guessed by an editor with 2,000 edits, and 3 months of account activity. I've been doing this for three years, and I've dealt with enough vandalism to know what I'm talking about. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And we're back where we started. I'm not convinced this question is trolling. You think it is. I wish we had a policy to turn to when it's not clear whether an edit was made in good faith ;) – by AdA&D at 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ugh keep the elitism off of my talk please. It doesn't help in these discussions. – by AdA&D at 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to exert an aire of "elitism". The point of the above post is to point out that having done this for three years, I've already pretty much been there, and done that for all types of vandalism. It's the arrogance of having been told by an less experienced editor that you're wrong in a case you've seen plenty of times before, as well as you taking jabs and calling me 'touchy'. What about the above diff I supplied of the editor in question stating his clear intention to troll? Does that not count for anything? Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Youth in Africa

Hello! Your submission of Youth in Africa 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! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)