User talk:SageGreenRider/Archives/2015/April

DYK

SageGreenRider, I'm disappointed that you withdrew the DYK nomination. Frankly, the article and DYK are salvagable. You just have to work on it a bit, and I'll be guiding you through with further comments. Just try, man. It's really not that hard. Also, I've contested the speedy deletion on the grounds that since I fully reviewed, I'm due a quid pro quo credit for DYK. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand, @Starship.paint. I restored the nom so you can get QPQ credit. Initially, I thought DYK was fairly automatic, but it seems to require a larger investment of time than it's worth to me, so the nom is in limbo. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, it's up to you. Do note that someone might come around and fail the nom, then you can't nominate it again as a new article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• That's fine with me. I guess I just don't get the whole DYK thing. Or maybe I'm just a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiSloth ... SageGreenRider (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Hulbert at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see 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) 02:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Starship.paint, Did you get your QPQ credit yet? This bot is nagging me to db-g7 the nom. Please let me know. Thanks! SageGreenRider (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I think I managed to archive the DYK nom using WebCite, so you can go G7 the nom. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

I LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW WIKIPEDIA'S EDITOR WORKS, I HAVE NOT EDITED A WIKIPEDIA PAGE IN MY LIVE AND I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF Getting Things Done. I SPEND MY FREE TIME EDITING TVTROPES PAGES AND WIKIS AND HONESTLY I AM VERY CONFUSED AS TO HOW THIS ENTIRE EDITOR WORKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.64.123 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @107.77.64.123. It's possible that someone else who has the same IP address as you made the edit. In any case I left some tips at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:107.77.64.123 SageGreenRider (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ViewPoint 3D project

I'm a bit surprised that you raised the question about deleting the ViewPoint 3D page because this is a project aimed at changing the way content is made that a lot of people have contributed towards without any financial reward.

The software is offered completely free to non-profitable organisations, including free support, and if you look at what the software aims to do, it is unique, very.

I have placed a comment on the discussion page you mentioned, and please get back to me if you have any reason to think that the software is not unique.

Rob

NB I will be pleased to remove any comments that are deemed incorrect to Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, @RobinColclough I replied at WP:Articles for deletion/ViewPoint 3D SageGreenRider (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I received an alert saying you had sent me a message, but finding that message on a page (where the link sent me), full of other messages and topics was really not easy! I am quite uncomfortable with the Wiki message system, its too codified for easy understanding although I am sure that experienced Wikipedias have no problems with it. Maybe a simplified messaging system would be good... I am all for collaborative efforts, I am an engineering kid at heart, so money and marketing are not my think, but sharing ideas and projects are.

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• @RobinColclough . The Mediawiki software is mainly written by open source volunteers and is quite clunky by modern standards in places. An exact link to my message is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OWNTV disambig page. (Caution: Most browsers open the top first, then a second or two later, it will locate and flick down to the actual section. Just give it time.) There is a new and better comment system called WP:FLOW in the works. hth SageGreenRider (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood, once learned its not so difficult to use, just missing, perhaps, a tabbing system to separate message as used on most community project forums, which also I think use open source code... maybe some of that could be patched in at some future point. RobinColclough (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bio-Techne

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bio-Techne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@DGG I contested it. This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a NASDAQ listed company whose notability is almost certain. See WP:LISTED Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

NYSE is notable, not just NASDAQ. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@DGG Not so. WP:LISTED says "...major stock exchanges such as the NYSE..." (my emphasis) There are two major stock exchanges in the US: NYSE and NASDAQ. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note that WP:LISTED says "...search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion..." (my emphasis). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it is an interesting question whether such coverage as [1] is indiscriminate coverage of every stock, or usable for GNG., butthat would need afd not speedy. I have removed the speedy tag, on the assumption you would add references. It'll be fairer to take it to afd after they are aded--if I do--you may be totally right, and it may not be a good example for my purposes:

"My purposes" should add perhaps that my general inclination is to try to persuade the community to interpret the rules so as to limit coverage of commercial enterprises. If the community does not support that , I will then try to change the guidelines. This is not in response to good faith editing like you are doing, of course, but as one of our only practical defenses against undeclared paid editing. In both cases, the community will decide, but this isn't the place for the a discussion.

I think you have convinced me to be more careful with my examples. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, about one-fifth of WP admins are very unwilling to correct themselves, and to avoid error, it is good to place the references on the article at the first edit, or at least to put them not just on the article talk p. in response to the deletion notice, but in the article as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @DGG! I normally sandbox, but attempted a one-shot in this case. Just a comment, your goal to "...limit coverage of commercial enterprises..." seems to me to be a blunt instrument in the worthy battle toward a workable paid editing policy. A lot of babies would be thrown out with the bath water. Better to tackle the problem directly. My $0.02 SageGreenRider (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for sharper instruments are greatly needed. the WMF has said it will not take responsibility or enforcement; I as an arb would like arb com to do so, but it's no secret that it isn;'t likely-- at least not the present arb com. Raising the standard of notability in an area that is subject to abuse may be the most reasonable thing to do; which I say with regret, having spent my first 6 years here trying to broaden the standard in general. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the existing notability standard is adequate. I think more patrolling and tagging is the answer. Non-notability and promotional language are easy to spot. It doesn't seem right to deprive readers of an article on a company just to prevent occasional abuse. That's a bit like saying "we won't have an article on xyz because it attracts vandals." My $0.02. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way @DGG, I don't think paid editing will cause the death of Wikipedia, but the steady decline in the number of editors will. See WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-24/Recent research. By speedy-ing a topic which is prima facie notable (per WP:LISTED) in a (IMHO misguided) attempt to discourage paid editors, you may create the unintended consequence of driving good faith contributors away. Again, my $0.02, although I'm up to $0.06 by now. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. As I think you realise, the balance is difficult. I'm trying to get some sense of general opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SageGreenRider/Archives/2015/April. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui ^雲_水 14:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).