User talk:Andrew nyr/Archives/2021/January

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

Prentice Women's Hospital

Hi Andrew,

You've raised a WP:CSD for Prentice Women's Hospital. What article is required to go here? It currently lists the article that is already there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Oops, I'm publishing the article from my sandbox, User:Andrew nyr/sandbox/Prentice Women's Hospital. Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

PogChamp delete image

The fair use image for the PogChamp article is about the origin of the popular emote, not about the person who is involved in the PogChamp emote. Even if we had a free image of Ryan Gutiurez, it does not mean anything in regards to illustrating the original PogChamp emote origin. It's not he himself who made the emote popular, it was the people popularizing his "funny" face, which there the emote exploded in popularity. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000, Still, this could be recreated because the subject is alive. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you could make the PogChamp face then. Perhaps a decent photo of yourself doing the PogChamp face could do. Simply purge your lips forward, raise your eyebrows, and feel happy. This is basically the gist of what the PogChamp face does. Or you could contact someone to make a free photo of someone doing the PogChamp face. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, This doesn't change the fact that the photo is easily replaceable. Please do not remove the deletion tag. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I am suggesting a possible way to replace the photo. And to reiterate, it is to get someone to imitate the PogChamp face. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, either way, this does not satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure. If you think it can be easily replaced, what do you specifically suggest is a suitable replacement of this PogChamp screenshot? I can't see anything else that would be suitable other than what I just said. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I could upload the emote of the variant used in the Twitch emote, but I thought you said there is a suitable replacement for the PogChamp emote. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, The subject is alive, therefore it can be replaced. "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." - Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
But what I suggested is specifically possible to make a free image from. Which is to imitate the PogChamp face. If you can find a free image of someone doing the PogChamp face (and not necessarily Ryan Gutereiz doing the face based off a screenshot), then that is quite easily possible. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, Exactly, you could take a picture of even yourself doing the face. It is easily replaceable. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a template specifically for a talk page that depicts "this article needs a free image" and where I can write "a free image of someone doing the PogChamp face"? If you can find that talk page template, that should be doable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, Wikipedia:Requested pictures, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
That works. Speaking of which, I am attempting to do the PogChamp face on myself at the mirror, but I simply couldn't quite get the facial expressions correct, nor could I get the centering correct. I'll keep trying though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
One more thing, please make a comment at Talk:PogChamp regarding this talk about the PogChamp face. Your input about requiring a free substitute of the PogChamp emote is important, with a suitable replacement being any person doing the PogChamp face. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my information

Why are trying to defend Lebanon in the matter of state sponsored terrorism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:304:8DC1:50A1:9521:10AC:D145 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not. The addition did not seem to be WP:NPOV and I reverted it. Please convert away from the format "blank was accused by United States and Israel" and instead say what is actually happening in Lebanon. Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed Edit

It seems proper to use last name instead of first name. This minor change got reverted because I "didn't provide a reliable source". I don't really care about the article, this was just a drive-by improvement, but the reason given for the revert is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:BC49:D000:E0F0:5151:62BA:946D (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am on vandalism patrol right now and have made many reverts, if you can give me a link to the article I can go into detail of why I perceived the edit to be vandalism. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 00:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angband_(video_game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:BC49:D000:E0F0:5151:62BA:946D (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you, sorry for the mistake. Many of my reverts have to do with people putting in fake names to articles and I made the assumption that this was the case. I apologize. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 01:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for the explanation. Some false positives are to be expected. Your reversion isn't reverted yet, but I assume you will come back to that. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:BC49:D000:E0F0:5151:62BA:946D (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add more inline citations

Hi Andrew,

At Draft:Big Ten Football Statistical Leaders, you wrote "Please add more inline citations".

I think this is not good advice. The draft already has many references, and it takes only two or three good independent secondary sources to pass. More references just make it harder to find them. Also, inline citations are only required for contentious information in a BLP.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.


Please read the GNG to see why I said what I said. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 07:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


Andrew, I think you are responding as if I am criticizing you for not accepting the draft. No, I would not accept the draft. It has many sources that do not meet the GNG. My question to you is: Why ask the author to add even more? I think more just makes the review by someone else later even harder. Also, why ask for inline citations?

Have you ever read WP:THREE?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I have read WP:Three, however I asked him to add more sources so the article could pass GNG, we have to remember that policy always supersedes essays because "Essays have no official status." I didn't mean to come across as hostile, I like working at AfC because I like helping new editors learn some of the ropes before allowing their submissions. I feel as I could have said that better sources were needed instead of more. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 07:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to help at AfC because I feel they need a lot of help. I think I did a simultaneous review of Big Ten Football Statistical Leaders. I think what is needed is just a few good sources on the "Statistical Leaders", not so much the "Big Ten Football", or on any individual mentioned. I don't see any, but they could exist. I fear that if he tries to add more inline citations, he will add overly narrow sources. Inline citations are liable to focus on a single fact and not even mention the topic as a whole. Anyway, good luck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I completely agree, If you would like you may take over the review when they resubmit the draft. If not I'd be happy to go into further detail as we have discussed here. I love discussions on Wiki that turn out like this: mutual understanding. Thank you, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 07:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, but I’m afraid I find drafts like that depressing, how someone has done so much work, and I’m pessimistic that it will ever pass. I wish they hadn’t started by expanding the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
  2. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  3. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
  4. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
  5. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Your GA nomination of UPMC Presbyterian

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article UPMC Presbyterian 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 HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Review completed, nicely done . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
HickoryOughtShirt?4, I will work on it, please allow 24 hours. Thanks for the preliminary review! :) Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no rush, as long as it's done before the first round the of the Wikipedia:WikiCup ends. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lurie Children's Hospital

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lurie Children's Hospital 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 HickoryOughtShirt?4 -- HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/UPMC Presbyterian at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Baloch people

hi andrew, I haven't had time to improve my quote yet, you managed to delete it, I ask you to return this quote and give me time so that I can improve it with reliable links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali banu sistani (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_nyr/Archives/2021/January&oldid=1013460087"