Wikipedia

User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 44

< User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jo-Jo Eumerus in topic Work to do
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Question about non-free images

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Is it permissible to resize a copyrighted image that is used in Wikipedia under fair use? I'm involved in a minor dispute in the South Park article, where an editor attempted to resize a copyrighted image under fair use. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but they should be no larger than absolutely necessary. I am not sure if the edit that this is presumably about ([1]) does change the size of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
What image size do you suggest that should be inputted for it to be reasonably large? Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know that infobox template enough to make suggestions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No no, the image in that diff is not in the infobox, it's in the South Park#Setting and characters subsection. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
That image was overly large before your edit, so it should stay at the smaller size. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of African humid period

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article African humid period you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11

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

Problems

  • Some wikis will not be able to edit for a short period of time on 19 March (UTC). This will start at 15:00 UTC. It will last up to 15 minutes but probably shorter. You can see the list of affected wikis. This is because of network maintenance. You can still read the wikis.
  • Editors who use Firefox to edit with the visual editor had a problem with copying text. When they tried to select text that included footnotes, templates or block images in the middle they would often only get part of the text. This has now been fixed. [2]
  • Some maps didn't work for a while on 8 March. This has been fixed. [3][4]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Need to go back and add promoted GAs to...

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places and elsewhere. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12

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

  • When you use rollback you will be able to get a confirmation prompt on most wikis. It asks you if you wanted to do the rollback. This is to avoid misclicks. You will have to opt in to get it. On German Wikipedia it will be an opt-out feature from 28 March. [5][6]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Admins will be able to block someone from editing a page or a namespace. This already works on a few Wikimedia wikis. You can read more. If your wiki wants to be an early tester of this, you can tell the developers. [7]
  •   Toolforge will shut down the Ubuntu Trusty job grid. This will happen the week of 25 March. Tools that use this grid needs to be moved to the new Debian Stretch job grid. If they haven't, they will be taken offline. Maintainers can restart the tools later. Users may not be able to use them in the meanwhile. You can see a list of affected tools.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
654   Miep Gies (talk) Add sources
3,095   Andes (talk) Add sources
874   Lava (talk) Add sources
12   Tambo River (Peru) (talk) Add sources
10   Azorella (talk) Add sources
83   Leonardo Conti (talk) Add sources
634   Schwa (talk) Cleanup
97   Seismicity (talk) Cleanup
19   Radio Islam (talk) Cleanup
1,191   Gastric acid (talk) Expand
57   Andean Volcanic Belt (talk) Expand
46   Pichincha (volcano) (talk) Expand
35   Holocaust studies (talk) Unencyclopaedic
301   Bielski partisans (talk) Unencyclopaedic
5   Lega Zambelli (talk) Unencyclopaedic
78   Antisemitism in 21st-century France (talk) Merge
1,018   Reverse racism (talk) Merge
304   Antisemitism in Europe (talk) Merge
29   Alltagsgeschichte (talk) Wikify
17   Apta railway station (talk) Wikify
12   Lions of the Great War (talk) Wikify
2   JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc. (talk) Orphan
3   Brzesko Ghetto (talk) Orphan
4   Substantial part (Canadian copyright law) (talk) Orphan
4   Casiri (Tacna) (talk) Stub
5   Auquihuato (talk) Stub
7   Los Patos (talk) Stub
29   Lineament (talk) Stub
13   Titanomagnetite (talk) Stub
13   Camaná (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Skellig Michael

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Would you mind watchlisting this; I'm thinking of taking to PR, and as you are a resident expert on such articles, would appreciate feedback, pointers, comments, etc. I know my writing sucks, will ask a copy editor to help there, what I would like, if you have time, is opinion on coverage, use of sources, and what have you. I've not done a geography article before. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Watchlisted, but I am not sure how helpful I can be; I am more a volcano person and certainly not anything British Isles-related; perhaps Iridescent knows where to look for info on this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. But you do seem to know about islands, so if see from a glance any glaring structural issues or gaps, shout; I have thick skin! Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Over night remembered a few more things about Skellig Michael. My grandmother was apparently in Ireland and had a few general books on the subject; it seems they mainly concerned architecture and it seems like the article does discuss architecture in fair detail so I'd say it is adequate on that aspect at least. Fair warning; I am not familiar with any other source that might warrant to be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-13

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

  • The new version of the content translation tool will be used for all new translations. The older version will still be used for translations that were started with it. Most users won’t see any change. More than 80% of the published translations are already using the new version. [8]

Problems

  • There was a problem with editing with Safari on iOS. When you wrote an edit summary you couldn't save the edit. This has now been fixed. [9]
  • The editing toolbar sometimes disappears when you scroll on iOS devices. This will be fixed soon. [10]
  • Wikis can over-ride interface messages on-wiki. A problem meant that sometimes an old versions of any changed messages were shown instead. This included the sitenotice and other important parts of the interface. This was fixed at around 2019-03-22 16:00 (UTC). Logged-out users may still get the wrong message. Purging the page should fix it for them. [11]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion Decision for Gradeup

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. I would like to re-create the page for Gradeup since the company now has significant, reliable, neutral, and independent coverage. I think it now fits WP:CORPDEPTH. The page was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I will submit the new draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Let me know if you can help. Thanks! RajkGuj (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article's creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. ——SerialNumber54129 10:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The content of the deleted page is the same as the one that User:Shobhitbhatnagar18/sandbox had pre-blanking. I think I want to see evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH being met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Also calling Bbb23 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you asking me to run a check?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Not necessarily. The previous creator of the page was blocked as a sock, so I was wondering if there was any (behavioural) suspect traits seeing as I am not familiar with this sockfarm. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Other than wanting to recreate the same article, I don't see much.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08831 and Cyclonic Nino. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-14

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

  • Notifications tell you about things that happen on the wiki. You can turn on notifications about new links to pages you created. For performance reasons you can no longer get e-mails about this. [12]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tropic Seamount

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Tropic Seamount you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Tropic Seamount for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dagger (zine) (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Could I ask you to take another look at this. There's really only one person arguing to keep, the author, and the arguments are mostly to carpet bomb the same collection of poor sources that were already in the previous AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Did so, and yeah this seems more questionaly now. However, one other person did agree with the author and I am somewhat reticent to rely on a prior AfD when closing a new one as WP:CCC applies, but this one was fairly recent indeed ... I'll ping the participants of the prior one to see if anyone's changed their opinion: @Randykitty, Ricksanchez, Headbomb, Rhododendrites, NorthPark1417, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Tymon.r:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have followed the debate and if I had seen anything that would make me change my mind, I'd have changed my !vote. I didn't see anything convicing, so I didn't change my !vote. It seems like the person who produces this zine (Tim Hinely) might be notable, so perhaps a sensible solution would be to write an article about that person, cut down the article on the zine to reasonable proportions, and make that a section in the article on Hinely. But an article on the zine alone is not justified IMHO. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see enough to change my original !vote. No opinion on a Hinely article, and not opposed to userfying the article to aid transformation. It should be clearly conveyed to the creator of the article, though, that recreating an article so soon after it was deleted on notability grounds is generally a bad idea. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking another look. I leave this in your capable hands. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, if the sources were previously judged inadequate, then that changes the assessment. Reopened and reclosed as "delete". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This should be reopened, or relisted, but not deleted after being discussed on a talk page. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I am pretty certain that a close challenge can result in a plain "delete" outcome. And anyhow, the editors above are on point that recreating a page soon after it was deleted for notability reasons wasn't a good move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was expanded over three times its original length, and included new citations from reputable sources. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC) The editors above are the nominators, and the result was two keep and two delete on the second nomination, so I agree with non-consensus. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The reference bombing failed to convince me, as explained above. Thanks to Jo-Jo for revisiting this and reclosing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to the list of citations I provided in the AfD, it was requested by a voting editor, so I spent time retyping the sources, of which there are substantial reviews, with nearly twice the amount of sources compared to what was available in the first discussion. You also have not clarified Globalizations adequate sourcing, in comparison with Dagger. An equal amount of votes on both sides is no-consensus. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no information about Globalizations. I counted two delete and two keep votes. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There were 3 delete, 1 keep, and 1 weak keep. This is becoming unproductive, so I won't comment any further. Take it to DRV if you don't agree. As for Globalizations, you're free to take it to AfD if you find the sourcing inadequate. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Globalizations exists. There is no information written about it, only a listing, which could be summarized on a list of publications page from the publisher. Academic journals, in large, reprint information. Dagger contains original content, has numerous reviews and journalistic, artist and contemporary recognition. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Besides, length wasn't the issue. The sourcing was. And if the only sources you are presenting in the discussion are these which were dismissed the last time round, they won't convince people that the new sources make a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There is substantial sourcing in reputable and reliable sources. It is recognized by contemporary media outlets, journalists and musicians. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that the article Tim Hinely has been created with most of the material on the zine merged into it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-15

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

Problems

  • You will be able read but not edit most wikis for 30 minutes on 11 April at 05:00 (UTC). This is because of a hardware problem. You can see a list of the affected wikis. [15]
  • A map update caused some problems on 29 March and 30 March. It was rolled back. [16]
  • Pages on some Wikivoyages had problems with the top headline. This has been fixed. [17]

Changes later this week

  • When you add an edit summary the VisualEditor will search your recent edit summaries in case you want to re-use one. This works in both the visual and wikitext modes on desktop. It also works on the mobile site. [18]
  • The Wikimedia wikis will get a URL shortener. This will work from 11 April. You can read more. [19]
  •   The {{REVISIONID}} magic word will no longer work. This is for performance reasons. When you preview a page it will return "" (empty string). When you read a page it will return "-" (dash). For now this will only affect content namespaces. [20]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 April. It will be on all wikis from 11 April (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You will be able to preview references. This means that when you hover over the link you will get a popup that shows you a preview of the reference. It will work much like page previews. This is so you don't have to go to the bottom of the page to see a reference. This will now be available as a beta feature on German and Arabic Wikipedia. [21][22]
  •   The Wikidata JSON output will change. Empty containers will be serialised as empty objects. This is a breaking change that will affect tools that use JSON outputs and APIs. It will happen on 30 April. You can read more and see how to test your code.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Huaynaputina sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Consider filtering for -site: and wiley.com, springer.com, pubs.geoscienceworld.org, sciencedirect.com. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

huaynaputina -intitle:"Huaynaputina" -site:wiley.com -site:springer.com -site:pubs.geoscienceworld.org -site:sciencedirect.com -site:cambridge.org -site:nature.com -site:science.sciencemag.org -site:researchgate.net -site:ovi.ingemmet.gob.pe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30] and [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Work to do

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Llullaillaco, Parinacota (volcano) and San Pedro (Chile volcano). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Cumbre Vieja

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sources, some sub-sources need to be cited as well. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Thank you Allison Guyot, "a seamount in the central Pacific Ocean and part of a group of sunken mountains known as the Mid-Pacific Mountains. ... It originally formed as a volcanic island that eventually was eroded down and became an atoll or atoll-like structure. Notably, fossils of vertebrates including crocodiles have been found, indicating that during its 12-million year atoll phase. About 99 million years ago it drowned for reasons unknown and lies underwater ever since." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it looks like Allison does not have any interesting aspect, beyond the crocodile thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
i don’t think you are seeing this right. It is likely the first of its type many of the readers would have learned of. I suspect voracious teenage nerds are a large component of TFA readership. Anyway, congrats. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Crater

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Well! That's a mess of misunderstanding there. PD-Art or PD-Scan on a US Federal Government scanned work restored in Britain? No. That's just a fundamental failure to engage with the actual copyright rules - US federal government works not getting copyrights anyway - but Britain's low threshhold of originality meaning my restorations are in copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 11:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:Well, the problem is that we need to define whether a copyright arises in the process of converting the original work into the file now used in the article, and the mere process of scanning it does not (hence PD-Art and PD-Scan would apply here). In this case there was an additional component - your restoration work - that could create a third copyright. But "Restoration work" can mean different things. Some of these things may not create a new copyright. Others will. The reason why I summoned you is because I could not readily tell which category yours fell under. Also, while somewhat impolite from an ethical perspective enWikipedia only cares whether an image is copyrighted in the United States of America. I realize I was a little disarticulate there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's... Not right for Commons, which is where the tag would change. Commons definitely does care about local copyrights.
PD-Art/Scan only apply if an attempt to claim copyright is possible. Otherwise, we're stating that works like the original image, which are definitely free to use worldwide, might not be if PD-Art doesn't fit your local laws. It's adding restrictions that don't exist. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, the problem was that three copyrights can apply to that file File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Noctua, Corvus, Crater, Sextans Uraniæ, Hydra, Felis, Lupus, Centaurus, Antlia Pneumatica, Argo Navis, and Pyxis Nautica.jpg:
  • The copyright of the original drawing; since it was done in 1825 it has lapsed and that's so noted in the license.
  • The copyright of the scanning that was required to convert it into a digital image. The file page said nothing about whether that would apply; either a PD-Scan tag or some other kind of PD tag was needed and that's why I did suggest the PD-Scan tag.
  • The copyright of the restoration work.
My question about PD-Art/PD-Scan was for the Potential Copyright #2; Potential Copyright #1 was already addressed by the file page and Potential Copyright #3 is what you were pinged about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

...except the scan is by the Library of Congress an entity incapable of gaining copyright in the first place. PD-Art/Scan is misleading, as they state considering it such is an official policy, not a worldwide release by the US government. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good argument, actually. I'll remember that for the next time where more than one license statement can be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Glad I could help! I just believe in maximising reuse of images, which means getting this sort of thing right, lest people get put off. Honestly, the main reason my statement about the restortion links, but does not use Template:Attribution is because the word "request" is literal. I'd ask you do it. If you don't, I don't care, but if people need a specific formula, there you go. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 01:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macdonald seamount

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macdonald seamount you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Review Sandbox for Gradeup page

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus! I have created the new page for Gradeup on User:RajkGuj/sandbox and would really appreciate if you can take a look at it. I am reaching out to you because you had deleted it the last time. RajkGuj (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How good is The Statesman? It's the only source that wasn't already there in the old version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many more sources that talk about the brand in detail and all of these sources including ‘’The Statesman’’ are independent and reliable news links. RajkGuj (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Except that many of these sources were already assessed in the previous deletion discussion and judged inadequate. Let's see what @Atsme, Mark the train, CNMall41, and Robert McClenon: have to say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought about the educational aspects of the app but the parent company GradeStack Learning Pvt. Ltd. is a for-profit. All we've seen so far are press releases and trivial coverage of the app (inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists). I tried to find more sources that will pass WP:GNG but no luck. Maybe in the near future. Atsme Talk 📧 19:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Atsme. There are many companies in the business of online learning/coaching using PR for exposure. I'd wait for more RS with detailed coverage. MT TrainTalk 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any conflict of interest? It reads to me like a draft submitted for hire. If it isn't, then it just reflects a lack of notability. Also, is there a reason why it hasn't been moved to Draft:Gradeup? Salting, perhaps? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I have answered my question. The editor is a paid editor and has not made the disclosure with regard to this draft. I am moving it to draft space to associate the history with the title. Other reviewers can then deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - The Statesman is a reliable source, but that only means that the number of customers that was reported is reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - The current draft has more references than there were last time. These include the ones in The Times of India, The Indian Express, Business World, and The Statesman. All these are reliable sources in India. There are LOTS of passing mentions in other publications and there's also in-depth coverage. That is how information about most brands in India is covered.
User:Atsme - Some of the other companies in the same domain do exist on Wikipedia with equivalent or rather weaker coverage in the media. For example, Doubtnut, Vedantu, Etoosindia, Transweb, etc. In fact, Doubtnut is even newer than Gradeup in terms of the number of years since it has been established.
User:Robert McClenon - There's no conflict of interest here. I understand paid disclosure on Wikipedia and have done the same when it was required. I like to contribute to Wikipedia in the space of Indian startups. I have worked on the Wikipedia pages of such organizations in the past and will soon be working on more since they have in a short span of time been able to establish themselves and help the population. It was not moved to Draft:Gradeup because I am still in the process of learning the guidelines and methodologies of Wikipedia and like to be guided wherever confused. RajkGuj (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@RajkGuj: Um, no. Many of the sources in the draft were already in the article that was deleted. That is, they were judged by the participants of the deletion discussion to be inadequate. Of the new ones, they don't seem to be too different from the ones that were there before so I can't really tell whether any of them would change the assessment. The comments here are not positive either. I think you'll need to ask at WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for your suggestion of going through WP:DRV. RajkGuj (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the side effects of sometimes being a paid editor is that when you say that you are not editing for pay, but you have done it in the past and you write something that reads as if it is paid editing, no one will believe that you are not being paid. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
There is more concern here than just notability. The fact anyone would move their draft live after it was declined through AfC is skirting the AfC process. Why even go through AfC if you plan to move it anyway? Ignoring that, and the COI concerns for a moment, I just did another search for notability. This was more than just looking at the references in the draft as I went through several sources (Google Search, News, Books, Newspapers.com, etc.). Company references need to do more than just talk in-depth about a company. This is something often overlooked by those opining on company articles in Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is at WP:ORGCRIT. Using that, the references I found do not add up to notability. For instance, this reference in The Statesman (which I would consider a reliable source) is in-depth but not significant. It is simply a regurgitation of what is on the company website with no independent thought by the writer. Remember that "quantity does not determine significance" so despite that article focusing on the subject, it isn't significant IMHO. There are also many references such as this which are trivial coverage. Just because the company name is in the title of the article does not mean it isn't trivial. This one and many like it are trivial as they are "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage." Company articles are my main focus in Wikipedia at the moment and based on my experience working with them, this company does not meet guidelines for notability. With all the references available, I cannot see the current draft or even a revised draft surviving AfD in a second deletion discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you are saying CNMall41 but my concern here is that most editors and administrators on Wikipedia don't understand the nature of the news industry in India. Here, publications and journalists mostly talk about companies when there is an announcement, an interesting story, a product launch, or something that is worth noticing for the target audience. They print press releases received from the company or write about recent updates. Efforts by the media to actually step out and do an independent coverage about the company are rare. As a result, companies have to initiate different activities to remain in the eyes of the target consumers and the media to get routine coverage. It is for this same reason that notable and credible companies like BookMyShow and UrbanClap, leaders in their category are not on Wikipedia yet. I feel what makes a company notable now is the number of consumers it has, its size, its value, and the number of years it has remained active for. I put the content on my Sandbox and requested a review here on the talk page. I did not make the draft live, it was done by another editor. RajkGuj (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like the same for US media. Although rare (based on the number of articles versus ones that qualify for notability), it is done then. There has been discussion about your other contention - size of company, its value, number of years active, etc. - prior to a recent update of notability guidelines for companies. These were all rejected as criteria for notability. Until that changes, I have to opine based on the current guideline and don't see how this one would survive if it went to another AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What I'm wondering with increasing concern is how the following start-ups: Doubtnut, Vedantu, Etoosindia, Transweb got past NPP, were it not for the educational aspect of the product. None of them meet notability requirements per WP:CORP or WP:GNG and they are neither educational non-profits nor recognized as educational institutions. They are start-ups using WP to promote their products. In fact, the editor who created/was primary author for the article Doubtnut requested a self-block, asked for the block to be removed long enough for him to create the article, and then went back on the self-requested block. Does that not give the appearance of paid editing? Jo-Jo, if all of those articles were tagged G-11, they will probably be declined by an admin who isn't aware of this discussion because the educational aspect makes them appear legit when they're not. If prodded, the paid editing team and its socks will likely remove the prod. Going to AfD could result in no consensus, and will be a major time sink. Your thoughts? Atsme Talk 📧 10:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I do have much experience with spotting undisclosed paid editors, and none of these articles are eligible for G11 IMO. So you'd have to go to AFD if you think they should go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Archive_44&oldid=1184170968"