User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_11

Regarding the Deletion Review mentioned in the Subject

The admins mentioned failing WP:ACTORBIO and WP:NACTOR. Both links pointed to notability. So I thought notability was the issue.

As for secondary sources, I have already added 2 links directly referencing the actress and 1 link referencing an award winning movie of hers, as well as a link to the IMDB page. I can add a few more sources if required. Please restore the page. ScienMaster (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Notability of the actor is the issue. Notability of her films is irrelevant. The notability of her films doesn’t transfer to her. Notability comes from third party coverage, not from association with something else that received coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. But the two links directly reference the actress. The IMDB page directly references the actress. And I can add further links as well with direct coverage of the actress.ScienMaster (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • IMDB, as a site hosting user supplied content (like Wikipedia), is deemed an unreliable source and cannot be used for any purpose. Reliable sources that "reference the actress" are not good enough, the reliable independent sources must say something about the actress. Something qualitative, not mere facts, like "she acted fantastically and brought life to the film" or "she was wooden and a waste of space", things that the independent author's opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Stephen Maitland-Lewis

Per your comments re: “no substantial improvement” and “no independent coverage”, please note that the current draft re-submission reflects a newly revised Reference section with published, reliable articles and sources including the NY Journal of Books, Kirkus Book Review, Historical Novel Society, Midwest Book Review (all four of which have their own Wikipedia pages) and links to numerous newspaper articles in New York , California and Louisiana. In addition, in the revised draft, there are many newly provided book reviews and links to interviews with Mr. Maitland-Lewis from various print publications and from the NPR radio stations in New Orleans, LA and San Bernardino, CA. Thank you. 

Booklover213 (talk)Booklover213  —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Please tell me the two or three best sources for demonstrating Wikipedia-notability. They need to be independent, in a reliable publication, and make direct comment on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Stephen Maitland-Lewis Edit. Some sources.

Here are a few links. Please let me know if you would like me to provide more. Thank you

1. http://mybuenapark.com/international-award-winning-author-to-speak-at-muzeo/
It’s an interview. It’s promoting his book. For both reasons, I consider it non-independent. We are looking for independent critical commentary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
2. http://www.qchron.com/qboro/stories/a-novel-full-of-lessons-and-history/article_52ffb240-0799-5088-bdc1-e9f9e4a8b436.html
Sime Wikipedians would approve of this source, but I consider it non-independent due to it containing interview material and the thrust being to promote his book. Is there a published critical review of any of his books? —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
3. https://www.timesledger.com/stories/2013/16/maitland_2013_04_19_q.html
No, it’s an advertisement for the subject’s attendance at a reading. It mentions again that he won a Benjamin Franklin Award for historical fiction. Maybe that award is notable, it is mentioned at Independent_Book_Publishers_Association#Benjamin_Franklin_Awards. If the award is the best thing in the way of recognition, I advise first fleshing out the awards as a topic, which means losing all awardees. Is there even a reliable source to verify that he won one? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
4. https://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/jetsetting-author-home-to-give-talk-1-6681184
Weak. I think it is independent enough, but the commentary is very thin, too thin. Lacks depth of coverage. Note, with a secondary source, the secondary source material is commentary, analysis, criticism etc, it is not repetition of facts. It see it is repeating facts from the author’s website “owned a luxury hotel and a restaurant in Palm Springs”. What hotel? What restaurant? Did anybody ever comment on them?
5. http://queenstribune.com/2014-louie-award-recipients-announced/
The source itself is a mere mention, not coverage. It is a reliable source for winning the “2014 Louie Award”, but what is this award? It is a notable award? Is there a list of the awardees? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


Booklover213 (talk)Booklover213 —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • It’s not a matter of quantity. More like this won’t help. It’s a question of whether somebody independent has written about this person. Commentary is required, not facts. Facts exist on everyone, but only the notable have others commenting on them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisting

You disagree that a !vote is more useful than a pointless relist? Shuffling the pointless amounts the fresh is a negative, worse than pointless. You are right, a lot of pointless even nuisance occurs occurs in many deletion fora, have you ever wondered why people do it? At TfD, RfD and CfD in particular, relisting leads to a copy-paste of the discussion defeating the purpose of watchlisting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I disagree that "In the time taken to decide it can’t be closed yet, surely you could more helpfully make a comment?" It would take more time to make a helpful comment, but that is not relevant. Please do not mischaracterize my statements (I do not think you meant to). I am not required to !vote but am allowed to relist discussions in accordance with the relisting deletion guideline. If you do not like relisting, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process is the proper place to raise concerns about it. I believe we have discussed your shuffling view before; I still believe moving discussions to the top of the list draws more attention to them. It provides a lot of benefit and very little (if any) harm. I do not believe relisting is pointless or a nuisance. I know relisting does not mesh well with your personal style of combing through MfD discussions, but alas. Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The relisting guildline says it “may” be appropriate. Sometimes it is not. A decision is needed. Some discussions should be left to close “no consensus”, especially where extremely unimportant busywork. If you decided that this one needs relisting, I think you should say why. I at least would then appreciate it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bamni should not have been relisted. However, I believe the discussion in question deserved a relist because the nominator preferred deletion and you preferred userfication. Discussions usually get one relist when only two opinions have been offered and the opinions conflict. I do not think such obvious cases need a relisting comment. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't recall that discussion. I might have made some !vote tying its outcome to the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Additionally, perhaps your non-standard meh !vote is the root of this … perhaps misunderstanding. I interpreted your opinion as userfy. Had you used comment (if that was your intent) instead of the ambiguous "meh", I likely would not have relisted it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Don't you understand my "meh". OK, I will endeavour to be more articulate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, User:Godsy, I think you are relisting simply because the discussion appears to have been missed. That is quite arguably a problem deserving some action. Maybe there is a better way? I don't mind being pinged to contribute to an mfd discussion needing a comment, in which I have not yet commented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I think pinging MfD regulars to comment in discussions would be a good idea, but that opens the door to rubbish accusations of vote-stacking (e.g. "Godsy pinged SmokeyJoe because of his known [inclusionist or deletionist (depending on whose making the accusation)] opinions"). Maybe a WikiProject MfD with a place to list discussions that need more input or an opt-in bot (similar to the one that solicits input for RfCs i.e. WP:FRS) would be something to consider. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. I agree. I try to be consistent, which means you can probably predict my !vote. Maybe ... let discussions go 2 weeks, and then post a note at WT:MFD? MAybe it doesn't really matter? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Maitland-Lewis

Yes -they are many reviews in the References including NY Journal of Books, Kirkus Book Review, Historical Novel Society, Midwest Book Review (all four of which have their own Wikipedia pages. http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/botticelli%E2%80%99s-bastard https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/botticellis-bastard/ http://www.midwestbookreview.com/sbw/feb_12.htm https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-maitland-lewis/ambition-oYdrRzag/ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-maitland-lewis/hero-on-three-continents/

This article in the references lists past awardees of of the"2014 Louie award" including Quincy Jones. Here is an article from the References. https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Louis-Armstrong-House-to-Honor-Dick-Cavett-Stephen-Maitland-Lewis-Andrew-P-Jackson-20141106

Re: Benjamin Franklin Award. Is there even a reliable source to verify that he won one?

Yes – Here is the link to the Benjamin Franklin Awards Page/website which states that Emeralds Never Fade won the Historical Fiction Award. http://ibpabenjaminfranklinawards.com/2012-ibpa-bfa-winners/


Booklover213 (talk)Booklover213 —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Maitland-Lewis

Here are others: http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2010/12/13/louis-armstrong-house-museum-names-author-and-armtrong-pen-pal-stephen-maitland-lewis-as-board-trustee/ http://queenstribune.com/2014-louie-award-recipients-announced/ http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=1937 EUROPE – Best Regional Fiction – Bronze Award http://freshfiction.com/review.php?id=45543 http://www.conniemartinson.com/CMTB/063.html https://www.nola.com/festivals/index.ssf/2012/07/satchmo_summerfest_2012_semina.html http://www.sheffield.towntalk.co.uk/news/d/43396/international-author-to-attend-westbourne-prize-giving/ http://highlighthollywood.com/2014/07/beverly-hills-resident-award-winning-author-stephen-maitland-lewis-guest-of-honor-at-westbourne-schools-celebration-in-u-k-highlight-hollywood-news/


Booklover213 (talk)Booklover213 —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


Discussion about The Sun

There is a discussion about retargeting The Sun from Sun to a disambiguation page. Because you have participated in the previous discussion, I am inviting you to participate in the current discussion here - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_25#The_Sun. The editor whose username is Z0 07:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stringing

I think that this edit of yours was replying to this edit of mine but the stringing doesn't show that very clearly... can we improve on it? Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than edit others' comments I've now posted an explanation there, please comment there if I've got it wrong (and if it matters). I found it confusing as it was. Andrewa (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear to worked it out and sorted it out. Thanks. I am not sure how I happened to do that. Sorry for the bother. I think your edit to the close of Talk:Indian_Army_operations_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Requested_move_4_July_2018 makes a confusing story easier to review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree about the (re)close being an improvement, I generally have done that in the past and will try to be more consistent in the future. All good. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
😁 —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

NPA violation warning

Please do not comment about editors or their behavior on policy/guideline talk pages, as you did here. --В²C ☎ 02:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

go ahead and delete these two

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Media839 (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Dear SmokeyJoe, Curtis J King is apart of our acting agency SASS Management, which is a national talent agency based in Australia. We are experimenting online to build up his portfolio and online presence to attract more casting directors towards his profile.

/* Roy Johnston (artist) */

Hi @SmokeyJoe: Its ErinCrisp, I recently submitted Roy Johnson (artist), for consideration for an article. You created a draft and I replied to your post on my talk page about further questions you had. Just wondering if theres any progress on creating the article or if you need additional information or help, looking forward to hearing from you ErinCrisp (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)ErinCrisp

Fixed your link, hope that's OK

I think I've fixed your link, hope that's OK and please revert if not (or I will if you prefer). And thanks for the comment, agree, but I felt a bit too involved to say that. Andrewa (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh thanks. I have on my userpage an open statement of permission to fix my typos and misstatements. I could spend more time composing, but I find when I do that I have not actually posted until the discussion has long died down. I am starting to use text-to-speech for reviewing my writing, but only on pc. Thanks again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Operation Hope Not

An article that you have been involved in editing—Operation Hope Not—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

I saw someone link to WP:NC in a discussion, and I clicked the link and it took me to WP:Article titles, and I was confused because there was no mention of the WP:NC abbreviation anywhere in the article or in the shortcut boxes that could explain what NC stands for in this case (though now I realize it's "Naming conventions"). So I thought it would be helpful to those like me who were wondering what "NC" means or what it had to do with article titles if the redirect were included in the shortcut template at the top of the page. But apparently we shouldn't be telling users about this redirect because it's not the best one to use. Is there some policy regarding this sort of thing that is the reason you reverted my edit? IntoThinAir (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:LINKBOXES, and specifically "do not list everything". In 2010, the policy page was renamed, see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_21#RFC_on_proposed_rename. Before that, WP:NC was the obvious shortcut. This itself was a problem. NC is more frequently used to refer to the concept of "No Consensus". Accordingly, since 2010, the use of WP:NC to point to the WP:Article titles is actively discouraged. The policy already contains the hatnote: ""WP:NC" redirects here". The purpose of a LINKBOX is to encourage use of the accepted shortcuts. Instead of helping people understand why WP:NC was used to point to WP:AT, it would be better to tell that someone who wrote the WP:NC shortcut in discussion that this is a discouraged shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My reversion of your comments at DRV

I'm not sure what happened here. Based on the timestamp, I was on a mobile device at the time. I suspect I generated some accidental clicks which resulted in that. Thanks for fixing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • No worries Roy. I thought an accidental undo was most likely, but I fixed a problem at the same time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello SmokeyJoe,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SmokeyJoe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:13:58, 19 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by JeffreySarnoff


You asked me to give you two independent reliable sources commenting about Jeff Bezanson.

Chris Stokel-Walker is an independent journalist; this article of his comments on Jeff Bezanson https://increment.com/programming-languages/goldilocks-language-history-of-julia/

GPCE 2018 - 17th International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts & Experiences posted this about Jeff Bezanson https://conf.researchr.org/profile/gpce-2018/jeffbezanson

Please let me know if something more or different is needed.

Thank you, Jeffrey Sarnoff JeffreySarnoff (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, apologies for the delay in responding. It is a tough one. The first source your offer, https://increment.com/programming-languages/goldilocks-language-history-of-julia/, is good for attesting Wikipedia-notabilty. You need a second, but https://conf.researchr.org/profile/gpce-2018/jeffbezanson is not good enough. It is a directory-style profile, I confidently presume it is not independent of the subject, and I point to the lack of authorship information for the few sentences of commentary.
Checking in Wikipedia, I find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Bezanson. Basically, the decision was already made. Redirect to Julia (programming language)#History. This means, although unstated in that discussion, that it is decided to be a case of WP:BIO1E. JB is known only for one thing, and that is Julia (programming language). To reverse this decision, I strongly recommend against re-drafting, and recommend instead to add more content about JB in the article Julia (programming language). To overcome the prior decision to redirect, there needs to be a new consensus, at Talk:Julia (programming language), in support of a WP:SPINOUT of Jeff Bezanson from the article. A precondition of that is that there is so much material about Jeff Bezanson that it is starting to not fit.
I am not going to redirect the draft, matching the old mainspace title, to Julia (programming language)#History. I recommend that you get out of draftspace, and work to improve the mainspace article.
I note that you, JeffreySarnoff (talk · contribs), have only ever edited this one topic. You are a WP:SPA. This immediately makes us suspicious of you having a WP:COI, and makes us quick to assume that you don't really understand Wikipedia. My advice is: Edit mainspace articles. Find multiple articles associated with your topic(s) of interest. If Jeff Bezanson is worth of a stand alone article, he will be worthy of mention in multiple other articles articles. Doing so will also give you experience, and credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Favor

Hi Smokey,

I'd appreciate a sanity check.

Does this close seem reasonable, or like a supervote to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaggi_Vasudev#Requested_move_20_October_2018

Thanks --В²C ☎ 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Could be a supervote, it contains some of the signs. I will need to read it carefully. It looks like another COMMONNAME vs MOS. My gut reaction on a skim is "no consensus" and I am not seeing the closer's statement as a resonating opinion in the discussion, but that was just a skim. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • В²C, it is a tough question. My reading of the discussion is that Cpt.a.haddock presented persuasive argument that persuaded a lot of the other participants. He argued reliable sources, which the closer refers to. I will not jump to call a supervote, and if it went to WP:MR I would wait to read what others wrote first. My reading of the discussion was that it was a "consensus to not more" to a "no consensus". It could not have been reasonable closed as a "consensus to move" over Cpt.a.haddock's argument and the number of people who agreed with him.
I would also say that the spelling variations, satguru vs sadguru vs sadhguru weaken the argument that one of them should be the title. Jaggi Vasudev is a fair title. I would let this go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It's a messy one. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 17:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Passion

I appreciate your passion but personal attacks like this ("years of sneaky undiscussed page moves") do not belong in open discussions like RMs. If you have an issue with someone's behavior, take it up on their talk page or some other appropriate forum for discussing editor behavior, not in an RM. Please. For the record, I disagree with your characterization and it's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF ("sneaky") for you to express your criticisms like that in an RM discussion. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 21:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes they do. "Sneaky" page moves, and "undiscussed" pages moves, quietly, alongside little edits that obscure the watchlist, following the 2010 clear failure to on the noticeboard to shorten place names, against consensus, by mostly one, maybe one or two others, it is not obvious to find, because it was sneaky. It is the necessary point that must be made very time someone suggests "consistency" for the short form of Australian place names. It was dishonest, sneaky, and is particularly offensive when people who know continue to ignore what happened as cite "consistency". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    WP:NCAUST specifies "however, the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name". Probably we should clarify that so that it specifies that it should not be disambiguated if it does not need it. Anyway like places in most other countries they probably don't need preempt DABs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    That weak "can be" language is the compromise, ensuring that no one would use NCAUST to perpetuate the stupid battlegames. It obviously didn't work. It was also to recognise that many articles *were* first author created at short form names, and for the sake of sanity, leave them alone. Probably people should live titles alone unless there is a good reason to change. People like you, for sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    A guideline that's unnecessarily vague encourages battles since there are multiple "correct" outcomes when the same logic applies to most places than are unique or primary. And you're statement at the end is borderline a personal attack, I agree with В²C there's no need to make those comments just because you disagree with someone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I am not here for B2C's appreciation, and I am long-term deeply irritated by his deep ambition to damage the Encyclopedia by removing meaning from page page titles. Every weak and convoluted argument he makes is anchored to the one thing: make titles shorter. You appear to me to have an incomplete appreciation of policy, and sometimes attempt to explore your confusion by throwing up ill-consider RM proposals. That is disruption, and it is a direct violation of WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't care about title lengths, SmokeyJoe, I care about title stability and predictability, which go hand in hand. Like it or not, concision in titles, and avoiding unnecessary disambiguation, are effective measures for reducing ambiguity in, and conflict about, titles. Title stability was my goal at Yoghurt (seven years now! after eight years of idiotic turmoil!), and at most other title discussions I've been involved in, before and after. My record, not to mention my user page, speaks for itself. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    В²C, I like stability too, and avoiding time wasting in shallow arguments at WP:RM, and I think the answer to that is greater respect for TITLECHANGES. That was a comment to Crouch, not to you. I do not associate you with unjustified nominations.
"Unnecessary" is an extreme word. Many good things are unnecessary. I agree with removing excessive disambiguation. Comma-state is not excessive, and is very common in all the ex-colonial English speaking nations.
I have a slightly different take on yoghurt, all well enough discussed. Many unfortunate things happened in its history, but I am sure "concision razor" was not the answer. Your observation about stability and the wrong title is good, but it is not justification for creating instability for the purpose of citing instability as a reason to rename.
Across the US, Canada, NZ, and Australia, town and city name consistency cannot be achieved with short names, but it can be achieved with the long names, which have commonname basis, and recognisability advantage. Sometimes a huge recognizability advantage, sometimes not so huge. But consistency is good.
Concision is good, but if greater concision involves removing information, then the word is brevity. Concision is about saying the same information with less words. I think you have not been on board with that, but you have made personal style changes in recent years, so I am not sure about the present tense.
My current beef with you among a group of ongoing title minimalists is that you keep repeating empty words like "unnecessary disambiguation" and per VAGUEWAVE and disengage when challenged to articulate the benefit to a reader. Talk:New_Norfolk#Requested_move_20_November_2018, for example (you were not there), where some other enthusiastic minimalists are routinely lying in asserting the "no reason" statement, as there are reasons, and they themselves are giving no reason of substance to a reader. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Title stability facilitated by consistent rules about titles (including no unnecessary disambiguation) benefits readers indirectly by allowing editors to spend more time on improving articles rather than bickering about titles, but the main benefit is to editors. It's about reducing the RM backlog. It's theoretically true that if all editors committed to a conservative interpretation of TITLECHANGES that would accomplish title stability too, but I don't believe that is realistic: give editors room to argue and weight in with preferences, and they will. Much more realistic, I believe, is tightening up the rules to make them more consistent and less ambiguous, so titles are more predictable and less contentious. Avoiding unnecessary disambiguation is an important principle that, if followed, would eliminate a majority of the silly title disputes we have; probably the bulk of them. The problem is a few editors who seem to think titles matters more to readers than they really do, and often prefer a more descriptive title rather than the more concise one. Hence the conflict. --В²C ☎ 01:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I would say the problem is editors who think titles are just url handles. They are not. And if an editor thinks titles don't matter much to readers, the obvious thing to say to them is to go look for something that does matter.
You have occasionally made that argument about "consistency of rules" as opposed to "consistency in the result". I don't think that is a good argument, what matters is the reader, and reader convenience outweighs editor convenience. When I looked to the earliest discussions to learn about the origins of "title minimalism", the ONLY think I discovered was editor convenience in wikilinking. Are you aware of anything else? Is it a philosophy based on something so dubious? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a matter of degree, SmokeyJoe. Nobody thinks titles are just url handles, but that is their primary purpose. That is, if titles were just random strings, most of WP would continue to work just fine.It would be cumbersome to look up the handle every time you want to link to an article and there would be other issues, but nobody is seriously proposing we do that, it's just a thought experiment, so whatever those issues would actually be are irrelevant. The point is it would generally work, but it's better to have a human readable ID than a random string for many reasons; no one disagrees with that. But once we have a unique human readable handle we are way far into the zone of diminishing returns: the cost of title instability and bickering becomes relatively significant, much more significant than the difference in value between two human readable/identifiable handles for a given article. We are better off if we have a clear and objective method to choose one acceptable handle for each article as often as possible. Adhering to concision and avoiding unnecessary disambiguation takes us a long way in that direction. --В²C ☎ 02:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It is a matter of degrees, you are making progress, but there is still some way for you to go. The primary purpose of a title is not the url. The primary purpose of a title is to be the big text at the very top of the page that gets read first for the read to know if this is the document they want to read. Following the title, the next most important content is the lede. As a simple technical feature, the title is the url, and the url endtext is the hovertext. Also, the title is what appears in categories and Special:WhatLinksHere functionality. All of these things are important. You appear to not care at all about these things, and your mission is one that damaging to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello SmokeyJoe,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Legacypac widgets

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Legacypac widgets, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


Deletion is ok

I have moved the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Exhaustive_list_of_Pufferythis page] into my userspace to work on it a bit more. See here. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Naresh Arora (Entrepreneur) page

Sir I have close connection with this page. I have declared it. I want to ask weather he passes GNG? please check. I have collected references from good websites like Money Control, Deccan Chronicle etc. please tell me and all are news releases not press release and one is interview. please check sir.--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sakastan

You might want to take a look at this. Talk:Sakastan#Requested_move_9_January_2018

Good luck!

--В²C ☎ 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

В²C, I did look, and am interested, but it will take a fair bit of reading to get up to speed. I see that since I last looked, the discussion has only made it look more complicated. Was there are particular angle you were interested in me looking at? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The complication. There are apparently two related but distinct (mostly by time/history and somewhat by geography size/location) topics, and the participants don't seem to agree which topic is the topic of that article, and that seems to be the source of the disagreement about the title. But I'm not even sure about that. It's just not sufficiently interesting for me to take the time to dig through it all; I though it might be for you. Thanks. I am interested in what you unearth. --В²C ☎ 23:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RE:move review SmokeyJoe

Per this comment, should I do that? Who should be the one to notify them? Is there a template I could use? My apologies, but I am new to the move review process. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 01:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MattLongCT, as you are the DRV nominator, you notify them. How many are there, I am assuming the number is manageable. I suggest pinging from DRV discussion, as that is the least likely to lead to you being accused of biased notifications. You should notify, or ping, all of them the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, here is the list:
**<small>Pinging {{u|Mr. Guye}}, {{u|Number 57}}, {{u|Ibadibam}}, {{u|Onetwothreeip}}, {{u|Reywas92}}, {{u|Howard the Duck}}, {{u|Impru20}}, {{u|Ralbegen}}, {{u|Kiwichris}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|DGG}}, {{u|Peter K Burian}}, {{u|Cabayi}}, {{u|Nevermore27}}, {{u|SshibumXZ}}, {{u|RGloucester}}, {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Ralbegen}}, {{u|Renata}}, {{u|BD2412}}, {{u|Markvs88}}, {{U|Doremo}}, {{u|Juxlos}}, {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, {{u|Constantine}}, {{u|Jdcooper}}, {{u| Bastun}}, {{u|Ivanvector}}, {{u|The Earwig}}, {{u|Lyndaship}}, {{u|HopsonRoad}}, {{u|Scolaire}}, {{u|Bermicourt}}, {{u|Sionk}}, {{u|Amakuru}}, {{u|Gonnym}}, {{u|Wugapodes}}, {{u|Yair rand}}, {{u|Patar knight}}, {{u|Obi2canibe}}, {{u|ViperSnake151}}, {{u|Wnt}}, {{u|Tom (LT)}}, {{u|Lugnuts}}, {{u|Pythoncoder}}, {{u|Tavix}}, {{u|PrussianOwl}}, {{u|Calliopejen1}}, {{u|Sandstein}}, {{u|Laurel Lodged}}, {{u|BrownHairedGirl}}, {{u|No such user}}, {{u|No such user}}, {{u|Dthomsen8}}, {{u|RobLa}}, {{u|The Cunctator}}, {{u|L3X1}}, {{u|Galobtter}}, {{u|Spleodrach}}, {{u|Pudeo}}, {{u|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz}}, {{u|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz}}, {{u|Enos733}}, {{u|Jc86035}}, {{u|Hddty.}}, {{u|SeoR}}, {{u|Frickeg}}, {{u|Twilson r}}, {{u|Neil P. Quinn}}, {{u|PointyOintment}}, {{u|PointyOintment}}, {{u|SMcCandlish}} ~~~~</small>
Should I go ahead then? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Include a brief preamble, eg: "Pinging the participants of <the previous RfC>". Be sure to define that previous previous RfC. I am not personally familiar with it. Maybe check with its closer first, I should have thought of that before. Also check any technical limitations of [WP:Ping]], such as how many you can do at once, and I think you have to four-tilda sign the post that does the ping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, you participated in it. Also, you were right to check on WP:Ping, per #SpammingTo prevent spamming, if you mention more than 50 users in a single post, then no notifications will be sent. I just sent out two sets of pings, so hopefully it will work out. Thank you for all your help!! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

not quite

Note quite an example of a "close [of] a RM displaying a clear consensus for a longer title", but close enough? "I suggest a new proposal with specific new proposed titles that address years correctly and specify country (Bangladesh) and sport (association football) in the disambiguation, because the Independence Cup name is too vague/general." That closing comment of mine seems to have inspired this: 2018_Independence_Cup#Requested_move_29_January_2019. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Going through my history... this seems to fit your "close [of] a RM displaying a clear consensus for a longer title" criteria:

--В²C ☎ 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, check out the list of RMs I've commented on and closed recently listed at the end of the AN/I against your frequent claims about me being often out of step with consensus. You might be surprised. I wonder how my record compares to yours, and especially IIOs. --В²C ☎ 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

IDHT?

This response from you at Talk:SDCCU_Stadium#Requested_move_29_January_2019 might be construed as an example of WP:IDHT:

Yes, but the precedent for US stadiums is to use the current name. If and when this stadium is closed and torn down, the article will likely revert to either San Diego Stadium or Jack Murphy Stadium. Right now, though, it's clearly called SDCCU Stadium as evidenced by ticket websites and box scores for every sporting event that has taken place there since the naming agreement went into place. The source for the original naming rights deal also does not specifically state the facility would revert to "San Diego Stadium" at the expiration of the deal. WP:OFFICIALNAME is to avoid using obscure or rarely used "official" names as article titles. which is not the case here. "SDCCU Stadium" is widely used in third-party sources. The only use of WP:OFFICIALNAME is to not title the article "San Diego County Credit Union Stadium" which isn't used at all in secondary sources. Even the two articles you posted in the previous comment have "A local group that advocates for the historical preservation of San Diego landmarks wants to maintain the stadium in Mission Valley currently known as SDCCU Stadium" (emphasis added) and "When San Diego voters head to the polls on Tuesday, they will consider SoccerCity, a proposed development at the SDCUU Stadium site..." (emphasis added). The title of that second article from Soccer Digest, "San Diego Stadium Vote Set for Tuesday", is using 'title case' capitalization, not the "San Diego Stadium" name. With 'sentence case', the title of that article would likely be "San Diego stadium vote set for Tuesday". --JonRidinger (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m feeling alone here, but if it must be the current sponsor name, it should be unabbreviated, San Diego County Credit Union Stadium. Non standard abbreviations in titles is jargon. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, JonRidinger gave multiple reasons favoring SDCCU over San Diego County Credit Union, and your response ignores all of them and simply states "it should be unabbreviated [because it is jargon]". By the way, SDCCU is the standard well-known abbreviation for the CU. Not sure why you think it's a "non standard abbreviation". --В²C ☎ 20:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

title importance

Hi SmokyJoe. I note your comment, in part, "The title is the most important content of any document, and it frequently stands alone. Once accessed it is too late for hatnotes or the lede or the content to walk backwards from a wrong title. Titles are important." I think this is an explicit statement of an implicit undercurrent in positions taken in article titles and move discussions. This is, on the face of it, is going to be difficult to justify: that it is more important than the content for example, but perhaps you might clarify what you mean. cygnis insignis 04:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • What do you think is unclear about it? Maybe it is not clear that I mean something like "per character", or even "per unit area" allowing for the larger font and line spacing for the title. Not the whole title versus the whole rest of the content, as the title can be extracted from the content. It is a position in opposition to other's view that titles are just electronic document handles useful only for facilitating simple search methods. Titles create expectations, and are often the sole piece of information used to decide to not read any further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    That clarifies things for me, thank you, best I think about how to respond if I do. If you are interested, I might ask you again about this subject, in any case, happy editing. cygnis insignis 06:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    My pleasure. Largely I find myself motivated by a very peculiar “title minimalism” drive of some people. WP:CONCISE is good, but anything good can be taken to an extreme absurdity. I think it is important to ask why a title change improves what for what readers, and if there is no answer, be critical of the proposed change. Common chimpanzee is actually quite complicated, but Water well is a good example of where a shorter version makes for a worse reader experience. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    I remebered when I was out that I made comment on a typo, and was a little exasperated that contributors to the discussion did not seem to appreciate the taxonomy we are using. Uncalled for, and unhelpful, sorry about that. cygnis insignis 09:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi again. Something that bothers me, and it may be that I have misconstrued statements you have made or are interpreted terminology in a different way. Are you asserting that authors generally state that a distinction between the species of Pan is negligible? cygnis insignis 03:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Wow, you see to have replied at the discussion one minute after I asked :) cygnis insignis 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • (ec) Hi cygnis insignis. I am very happy to talk about this. I have had an interest in great ape phylogeny etc for a long time, although I think I have read 5x more in the last couple months than the previous 20 years. The "distinction between the species of Pan is negligible"? Did I say that? Maybe there was a context, or a rushed post? No, not negligible, although "negligible" depends on the question being asked. Out of the blue, I'd say the distinction between the species of Pan is small. The morphological and social/cultural differences at at a similar level of to that between different human races and societies, and all extant humans belong to the same subspecies. There are bigger bone-morphology differences between homo sapiens and homo neanderthals, which are classified as different subspecies (mostly). On the other hand, bonobo-commonchimp separation at ~1MY is very old, although again the modelling generating that age includes multiple cross-breeding events up to quite recently. Also important is to consider that the earliest descriptions of the bonobo, contrasting with the common chimps, we made on specimens selected with a bias towards small specimens that were easier to transport.
So, negligible compared to what? I don't know. "Authors generally state"? The 1930's authors overstated morphological differences due to sample bias, and later authors place emphasis on behavioral differences that have a resonance with old notions of differences between humans and chimps.
Genetically, phylogenetically, bonobo separation from the multiple common chimpanzee subspecies, although based on only six unrelated bonobo specimens, is quite distance, and so the distinction in that respect is not "negligible". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You did not say 'negligible', that was the word I used to place a boundary to conceptual distinctions. I meant to frame this to a threshold of notable distinctions, understand how 'small' the measured or evaluated characters of each definition is in the literature you have reviewed and used to discriminate each description. With what you term a 'species' how does the smaller distinction apply to the broader treatment of genera. Actually, shall we shift to another example, where discrepancies can be viewed in a circumstance less coloured by historical controversy. cygnis insignis 04:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Two interesting articles on this are Speciation and Phylogenetics. Speciation is to a large extent an old deprecated method, replaced by phylogenetics, but speciation is an important historical concept forever relevant due the naming of species, aka Taxonomy (biology). Speciation I think has become inherently difficult. It is difficult to maintain consistency across bacteria, yeasts, algae and animals.
One of the working definitions of species is that they do not easily hybridize. If they do breed, the offspring are typically infertile (like mules), unhealthy, or maladapted to the ecosystem of either parent (eg Grizzly–polar bear hybrid). However, this working definition breaks very quickly. Birds and insects frequently have groups where A & B breed, B & C breed, and A & C do not. For these reasons, and for the simple fact of weight of data amendable to computer analysis, phylogeny has become much easier to talk about.
I'm not sure about historical controversy. I don't think there is any actual chimpanzee controversy. Wikipedia generates its own internal titling controversies disconnected from the real world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think there is a disconnect between titles and the sources, and I prefer to seek those for information on this topic. Allying our own species to our nearest living relatives was controversial, as I'm sure you know, any loosening of classification—or perhaps none at all—would allow a generic combination the circumscribed chimps and people; that is of course also controversial. Are the bear articles something you have contributed to? their biogeography and speciation is intriguing and perhaps is analogous to this monkey business. I'm currently working on bats, microbats mainly, which are even more poorly understood than chimps. cygnis insignis 05:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think for the bears, they are all much more closely related than the great apes. No, I haven't contributed anything to bears, or even anything to apes. I am just interested. Overall, I keep finding myself impressed with the current state of these articles. I have also been interested in large cats, and donkeys asses and zebras. Bats, yes they are interesting. I was for a while interested in their possibly surprising closeness to primates. I think I am mostly sitting back and waiting for DNA work on all these species to come in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Roy Johnston (artist)

Information icon Hello, SmokeyJoe. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Roy Johnston (artist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a couple sources that verify notability and good secondary sources, the name was familiar to me and I remember his work. The draft presents an opportunity for a satisfying contribution to our encyclopedia, its perpetual discussions are engaging yet ultimately addictive and less productive; with practice getting a good start only takes an hour or two of our time. And this is the base currency in community, our time, I think about how to use my time before starting. Tonight it was to do some more on bats, but had remembered this artist and wondered where that article was going. I could have made it live, but decided to take the pages (including this one) off my watchlist and forget all about it. I will probably be reminded next time I see your signature ;-) Have a good one. cygnis insignis 13:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts

I'm confused about your purpose in keeping so many of these abandoned userpages. Can you explain? Am I going about this the wrong way? How should I be doing this? I really just want to do this right. SKay (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SKay. They way I look at it, you have the question backwards. What is your purpose in processing them? Are you doing it to find the rough gems in the dust? Are you doing it to clear maintenance categories to make it easier to continue to look for the rough gems.
Consider the costs of your processing. Many users are offended by finding their user pages deleted. If the userpage is speediable, do that, it should have never been created, but if not speediable, you can achieve your objectives in a better way by blanking. To blank, replace the entire contents with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. That will remove it from any userspace maintenance categories. Do this if the draft has no promise, or if it is junk. Policy supporting this approach is WP:ATD. Save MfD for where a discussion with several reviewers is needed, like where your cleanup is opposed by someone acting unreasonable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for being patient enough to explain! SKay (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

confusion and hopefully clarity

(A) As you know I originally moved two bullets out of POLEMIC onto their own line with shortcut FIGHTINGWORDS.

(B) Another editor later moved one of those two bullets out of the table and gave it a new section.

(C) I commented on (B) saying in bold "Disagree because..."

(D) Later I think you said you didn't know what I disagree about

(E) I tried to explain that I disagree with (B). The reason I disagree with B is because the bullet that was moved to its own section is, in my opinion, describing a variety of fighting words. I will now elaborate on that comment.

(F) STARTING OVER......

Recall Venn diagrams. Consider all material negative towards other editors. Of such material some might be intended for

(1) dispute resolution efforts
(2) preventing future disruption by seeking admin help at ANI or AE
(3) ___?____ this is a placeholder from any other cosntructive good faith reason I didn't think of
(4) Stuff that is kept "Without a good reason"

These might have some overlap.

Study the text of the bulle tin question. Does it say "It is OK to have 1-3 because such material comes with a good reason?" Of course not. IF it did, it should get moved to the main subsection of things that are OK to have. Instead, the focal point is stuff that is NOT Ok to have, i.e., number (4). Being a variant of fighting words it belongs with FIGHTINGWORDS.

I hope that clears up confusion of my point of view?

And all that said, I don't care enough to make an issue about it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Organizing the sum of human knowledge

To use a phrase added to various project pages over the years - is a fools errand. The Outlines project and the Portals project ten years later are sisters from the same stupid mother of an idea. Too bad he does not put energy into expanding or fixing articles instead of finding ways to replace search engines with pages of links and copied content excerpts. Please stop running interference on trying to clean up this mess in a more efficent way. It's going to be hard enough with X3. He broke the rules by creating 4500 pages. The community has been very clear in rejecting them. He is trying to make it as hard as possible to clean up and he does not need your help in that effort. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have never been comfortable with portals. Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines/Archive_6#Portals_are_moribund. From the beginning, portals were content forking. I dislike WP:AN for any serious discussion, it is too rushed, and completely drowns watchlists. Is there a difference between having a slightly different opinion, and running interference, when you are in a massive unstructured dramaboard discussion. Maybe a Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines subpage RfC? I see Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines is hosting serious discussions in parallel to knee jerk AN threads. I think WP:AN should be pointing to focused discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Portal_guidelines.
Alternatively, a Village Pump proposal to deleted the entire Portal Space? Before doing that, tell me why you can't simply ignore Portal space? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Step by step. Different users are taking different approaches, not necessarily how I would do things if I were king LOL. I support whatever pagh gets to the goal with the most people onboard woth it. I find the clutter of portal links and the pushy newsletters and ra ra portals story annoying. I guess why work on anything? There are more important things to do in life but this is something I can work on while having to wait for someoem in real life. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Meatbot" is a really great! I wish I had eavesdropped on this conversation years ago! Carry on, and thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Re "why you can't simply ignore Portal space?" (6th March): portals affect editors who are interested in other namespaces in various ways - for example, portals can cause talk pages to leak into article categories (which shows up during maintenance activities), newbies get confused about portals/projects (e.g. asking a question at portal talk page and hence not getting a reply), the adding/removal/changing of portal links on articles/categories causes watchlist noise, they add to the workload at MFD etc. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello SmokeyJoe,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I buy you a mop?

You're perpetually on my list of people I see active at Afd and DRV and am surprised that they're not an admin. You seem to have the proper experience and attitude. Would you mind if I nominated you? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roy. Thanks for the compliment. I’d like to, but I really need to get in with some article creation and improvement before being qualified. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I’d also support this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Ditto. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Can I close this as Snow Nominate yet? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I may able to assist with content creation, the offer is there anyway. Also, consider the option of not having a mop, focusing on other things is more rewarding in my opinion. My tuppence, here on another matter, below cygnis insignis 04:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally say anything about this but since I knew there was this thread, if you go for and get the mop I would suggest leading with statements like this which gets at the heart of the matter and provides reasonable feedback for me to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

sassenach

bagpipies to musicla instruments - bah drum stick up yours sire. JarrahTree 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

translated - thanks for your edit, not your suggestions JarrahTree 04:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi JarrahTree. I appreciate humour, even if I am not good at it myself. I like to study it. Yours, it confuses me. I think we have met before, I can't remember, but my impression is that you are friendly. I also appreciate musical instruments, although I am not good with them. I do have some opinions, such as how bag pipes are too loud, and I am not convinced that drums are music, even having sat through professional Taiko performances. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
inspired by a mixture of mainly dead comedians - radio goon show - which belies a particular age and cultural context - for my part - not a good idea to literally medically threaten damage others with the sticks - they get discarded easily enough - viz [2]. JarrahTree 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
JarrahTree, no I am afraid not. The Edinburgh Military Tattoo 2012 drumming is very impressive co-ordination, and timing, but for me it is not music. It is much better than what the kid across the road used to do with drums and half his time, but I much prefer wind instruments (more like clarinet and flute than bagpipes), strings, and voice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
elements of music are indeed culturally bound - which is exactly why the bagpipes project needs to stay - the complexity and array of the instruments area of influence and historical context is as good as the oud and its relatives - (which I have had the pleasure to have heard in damascus some time ago) - JarrahTree 11:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Supervote

Hey,

Just as a pro forma because I IAR closed the move review because I agreed with the poster's request for a relist and so did everyone else and it wouldn't have had to happen if they'd bothered to follow step one. However, I did respond to your accusation of a supervote against you, and I realise that closing the discussion at the same time means you don't have chance to respond, so I'm opening a thread here if any further discussion about that allegation is needed (both actions were done at Special:Diff/892725171). Either way, I had no opinion on the matter and perhaps it would be better to assume that the closure was just faulty instead of an abuse of closure?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey back,
A supervote need not be considered an “abuse”. Supervoting can be considered a natural tendency due to some unconscious bias. And unconscious bias need not be related to any particular opinion related to the discussion being closed. A big sign of a supervote is whether another person might have come to a different decision on how to close. I don’t believe you’ve ever done anything not in good faith. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, thanks for clarifying, apologies. I misinterpreted what that meant and probably got a bit too het up. Regards, SITH (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I also like to think the MRV & DRV are community forums for continuing education. Being taken there once or twice is good for you, regardless of the merits of the complaint and the formal outcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, exploring the subtleties of contested closures is a great way to hone one's skills. I remember that the case of Queen Anne of Romania (RM, rebuttal, review) led me to examine my thought process, and made me a better RM closer. It helped that I was totally uninvolved in matters pertaining to Romanian royalty, or Wikipedia royalty policy in general. — JFG talk 10:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

The full text of your edits have started showing up in your edit summaries. Is this intentional?

Hi User:RoySmith. An old habit resurfacing. I'll watch for it, to avoid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. My first thought was you were using some new editing software which was doing it without you being aware. No worries. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
For me, the most stressful thing at Wikipedia is the dread of an impending edit conflict. To protect myself, I copy my entire post into the clipboard, in case I have to reload and post again. It is too easy to dump that clipboard without editing into the edit summary, and doing that is a visual confirmation that the text is in the clipboard. My wish is for cleverer software handling of edit conflicts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried two-column edit conflict mode? Its first iteration was crappy, but in its more recent evolution, I have come to rely on it. — JFG talk 10:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You and User:Legacypac have frequently agreed and frequently disagreed. You might want to express your opinion on the (currently indefinite) block of Legacypac for his personal attacks against User:BrownHairedGirl regarding portal deletion. (It wasn't BrownHairedGirl who blocked him. That would have been inappropriate involvement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive_9&oldid=908195633"