User talk:Less Unless/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
A7 on Salman Ali Sagar
Hello Less Unless -- I've declined your A7 speedy on this article. Being mayor of a major city is certainly a claim that meets A7, and in this case might well be enough to confer notability. A very quick websearch found a Guardian article about Salman Sagar which confirms much of the content. Articles on subjects from countries where English is not the first language often require significant copy editing to get them into shape, but if our Anglophone bias is to be countered we need to accept and improve, not tag for deletion. Please be more careful in future! Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Espresso Addict! Thank you for your notice - I appreciate every possibility where I can learn from more experienced users. Let me explain my nomination. According to WP:POLITICIAN mayors of cities are not automatically notable unless there's a significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. When I was googling the subject, I have found several mentions of him that were rather passing and would not meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore I have decided to nominate it per A7. Weirdly enough 5 google pages did not show the Guardian you have mentioned (i have found it only after having combined the 2 names). I guess my decision was rather hasty and the better option would be to PROD or AfD if I believed it would not pass the notability guidelines. I have to look in my search preferences as it's not the first time I don't find something this big. Thank you for your advice! Less Unless (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Less Unless -- Thanks for the prompt response. I'm aware that mayors of cities are not automatically notable, however it is still a claim sufficient to meet A7, which is a much lower standard than notability. The fact that other past mayors have articles and there's even a category for them, suggests that this might be one of the ones that turn out to be notable. Always best to be conservative when considering deletion; AfD is rarely wrong, even if it results in snow deletes.
- The Guardian might well be my Google bubble, as I read it frequently! It came up on page 2 for me. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict Thank you, I realize that A7 was not applicable. I will be more careful. Less Unless (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Guardian might well be my Google bubble, as I read it frequently! It came up on page 2 for me. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Ganbaruby. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Aditya Basak, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Ganbaruby ! There must be a mistake as I have not marked it as patrolled - the article has too may issues. I tagged it as COI as the last name of the creator is the same as the article's subject. I am sure I didn't do anything else. Best, Less Unless (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- For both Twinkle and the Curation Tool, there's a checkbox at the bottom that asks if you want to mark as patrolled. This is (strangely) checked by default, so if you don't want to mark as patrolled, remember to uncheck it. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ganbaruby I didn't know that. And the default option is weird. Thank you for letting me know! Less Unless (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- For both Twinkle and the Curation Tool, there's a checkbox at the bottom that asks if you want to mark as patrolled. This is (strangely) checked by default, so if you don't want to mark as patrolled, remember to uncheck it. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A Barnstar for you!
|
Women in Red Women in Asia contest |
| Honorable mention ! Thank you for your November 2020 additions Less Unless - 13 articles WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
Christmas Goodies for you!
A plate of homemade Christmas goodies for you! Best to eat them quickly, or as you know Less, I may be back to help myself. :) Enjoy! — WILDSTARtalk 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- WildStar ho ho ho) Please do come and help. Thank you!Less Unless (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Less Unless,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Quality assessment of a few pages
Hello Less Unless! Thank you for your assessment of the new page Nayef Al-Fayez. Would you mind assessing/reassessing the following page if it isn't too much trouble: Mithqal Al Fayez Al-Fayez Fendi Al-Fayez I believe that an assessment for them has been a little overdue, and I'm quite unsure of the procedure to get request for them to be assessed/reassessed other than to get them to GA level, which they are far from at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINFAN01 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, @LINFAN01:. I will take a look at the articles you mentioned, however usually assessment is performed by the members of a project the article has been assigned for. People who know a lot about Jordan or politics can make a better evaluation then random users (like me, cause I'm not that much into politics). Also you can study the guidelines WP:ASSESS yourself and be bold! Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Alopecosa kronebergi
The species first described by Andreeva in 1976 was Alopecosa kronebergi, not Alopecosa cronebergi. Alopecosa kronebergi has since been transferred to the genus Bogdocosa, as Bogdocosa kronebergi, the only species in the genus.
The reference for the first description of a spider is almost always best given as the World Spider Catalog, rather than a primary source, such as a journal article, and taxonomic information should always be checked in this source. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Thank you for correcting that and pointing out some important things while editing the spider species) Best, Less Unless (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice work on Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist)! It's always good to see more articles on arachnologists, especially women. Just as another note for the future, perhaps: the presence or absence of parentheses in the authority for a scientific name is meaningful, so shouldn't be changed – see the brief explanation at Binomial nomenclature#Authority. Season's greetings! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Oh, I thought the parentheses were just missing. I have edited the pages where Andreeva is mentioned and put them everywhere there - should go back and revert those edits. Every day is a lesson! I was also thinking of creating an disambiguation page for all the Andreevas, what do you think? Best and Merry Christmas! Less Unless (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Thank you for reverting those edits! Less Unless (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- No trouble. I'm always happy to try to help when editors make a genuine mistake, and the nomenclature codes' treatment of authorities when a species is transferred from one genus to another is not obvious – and differs between the zoological and botanical codes.
- Yes, I think it's a good idea to have a disambiguation page for the name "Andreeva". There are also men with the name "Andreev"; e.g. Leptonetela andreevi is named in honour of S. Andreev, who is, I think, Bulgarian, but probably not notable enough for an article. But I'm not sure whether it's usual to mix male and female names on a disambiguation page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice work on Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist)! It's always good to see more articles on arachnologists, especially women. Just as another note for the future, perhaps: the presence or absence of parentheses in the authority for a scientific name is meaningful, so shouldn't be changed – see the brief explanation at Binomial nomenclature#Authority. Season's greetings! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK
I nominated an article that you started for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist). I also expanded the article a little bit based on one of the sources that you provided, but I didn't take any credit in the DYK since it wasn't much. SL93 (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SL93: Thank you for the nomination! I wasn't sure this one was good enough for DYK, but it's great you think differently. Less Unless (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
A New Year With Women in Red!
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Happy New Year 2021!
Abishe (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Dear Abishe! Thank you for your kind wishes! It's a pleasure being a part of something bigger together with nice, friendly people like you. I am wishing you health and a lot of joy every moment of your life! Less Unless (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
December Women in Red Asia Contest
|
Women in Red Women in Asia contest |
| Less Unless First Place December 2020 - Congratulations! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
| December winner: Women in Asia: WiR Women in Asia contest, 2020 |
Wikipedia turns 20 – Australia/New Zealand Online Community Celebration
As a fellow editor of Australian articles on Wikipedia through The 5000 Challenge, I wanted to let you know that there will be an Australia/New Zealand Online Community Celebration of Wikipedia's 20th Birthday on Friday 15 January 2021 from 7.00–8.30pm AEDT (6.30pm SA, 6pm QLD, 5.30pm NT, 4pm WA). Please register to receive the link.--Oronsay (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist)
On 7 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that arachnologist Ekaterina Andreeva wrote the first original monograph published in the USSR about Central Asian spiders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ekaterina Andreeva (arachnologist)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
February 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A Barnstar for you!
|
Women in Red Women in Africa contest |
| Less Unless Thank you for your additions January 2021 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
Discussion
Hello Less Unless thank you for taking care of the page about Stefano Fantoni. I am new to WikiPedia. Can I ask you why you removed the reference links to the Selected Works section. Also is there a limit of 15 in the number of Selected papers. And, which has been your criteria for selecting the 15 listed papers of the 45 that were listed in the previous version of the page? Finally, in the last version of the page in the "lead" I noticed that there is a punctuation mistake: "In this context he gave four main contributionsIn the seventies he has been the author ..." should read "In this context he gave four main contributions. In the seventies he has been the author ...". Can you take care of correcting it, as I cannot edit the page after the COI? Best regards Rfantoni (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, @Rfantoni:! The reason why I removed the very long lists of publications is because the references backing the information stated in the article have to be of independent, reliable secondary sources. The listed articles were primary and not independent. Please take a look here WP:RS for more information. As for the amount I have moved to the section Selected works - there's no specific rule of how many works should be, however as any other encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a database of works - there are other places for that. Please take a look here WP:NOT. Therefore I have left 15 which is more than enough.
As you have have noticed the article is tagged for having several issues - the biggest one is excessive length and overdetailed information. This said you have to understand that the article has to be shortened. Not because some information is less important or interesting, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and also because it's not backed by sources. According to WP:BLP all unsourced information about living people should be removed. This said you have to back every fact stated with a reliable secondary source. As you have COI, you can suggest the edits on the talk page - take a look here WP:COIREQ. Me or other users will review them and add to the article is everything's ok. If you think the works I have chosen are inappropriate, you can offer your version of the most important\cited works. Please while suggesting your edits, bear in mind that it's important to follow WP:NPOV - avoid emotionally coloured words. Thank you for your contributions! Best, Less Unless (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Less Unless, thank you for your clear message. Regarding the works that you have chosen I think that they are fine as long as you can add the following three:
- Benhar, O.; Fabrocini, A.; Fantoni, S. (1989). "The nucleon spectral function in nuclear matter". Nuclear Physics A. 505 (2): 267–299.
- Schmidt, K.E.; Fantoni, S. (1999). "A quantum Monte Carlo method for nucleon systems". Physics Letters B. 446 (2): 99–103.
- Smerzi, A.; Fantoni, S.; Giovanazzi, S.; Shenoy, S.R. (1997). "Quantum coherent atomic tunneling between two trapped Bose-Einstein condensates". Physical Review Letters. 79 (25): 4950.
and you could remove the following:
- Fantoni, S.; Rosati, S. (1978). "The fermi-hypernetted-chain method for state-dependent Jastrow-correlated functions". Il Nuovo Cimento A. 43 (3): 413.
Also I noticed taht the volumes numbers do not appear in bold, can you fix that. Do you think I can fix these problems myself without violating the COI? Best regards, Rfantoni (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Less Unless I have taken care of the above changes and reformatting. Rfantoni (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Rfantoni:! It's one of the Wikipedia core policies - to be bold. So it's great that your corrected the things mentioned. Even though Wikipedia highly discourages COI edits, I believe correcting technical issues is totally fine. Have a nice day! Less Unless (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi Less Unless. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 20:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Xaosflux:! Thank you for your message and the rights. It's great you provided me with the guide - I find it very useful and I appreciate your willingness to help out! Have a great day!Less Unless (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Dates
Hallo thanks for this edit but please remember not to use all-numeric dates for the date in a ref. It's allowed for the "access-date" if you really want it. See MOS:DATE. Thanks. PamD 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear, @PamD:. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. The MOS:DATE allows the use of all- numeric dates for the references, according to the table there. I have also taken a look at WP:DATEOVER where it's also stated that you can use all-numeric dates in the references. Moreover, visual editor also creates references in all-numeric style. Please, could you explain what you meant. Maybe I misunderstood you. Best, Less Unless (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Now that's interesting: I'd got it into my head that the rule was that numeric dates should only be used in tables and infoboxes, where space is at a premium, with an exception for access-date, and not remembered that "refs" is also listed as such a case. I don't see that space is at a premium for references, myself, but you're right, the letter of the MOS allows it. I've just had a look at today's featured article and the three "recently featured" listed below it on the home page (my usual way to check what's currently considered the best style if there's any doubt): three of the four use no all-numeric dates, and Bee-eater uses a mixture, both for article date and for access-date, with its refs 22-25 using all-numeric and refs 13-16 having non-numeric access-dates - while consistency is mentioned in MOSNUM! (Strange: I thought FA reviewers were very hot on that sort of thing.) So I was wrong, sorry, but it does appear that Wikipedia's best articles, from a sample of 4, tend to use non-numeric dates. They are totally unambiguous, while a numerical date may make people pause to wonder whether 2021-02-06 is 6th Feb or 2nd June. In the case of Women & Literature, the creating editor left it with exactly two detailed dates, one in each format, so hadn't established a clear style. So it seems that I've been imposing my preference, or my misinterpretation of MOS, on this and other articles. I won't revert if you change them back ... but I do think that the all-numeric dates are ugly and that there's plenty of space in a list of references, so that perhaps I can persuade you to opt for the version with the month as a word? Happy Editing. PamD 18:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- PamD I actually agree with you from aesthetic point of view that all-numeric are kind of ugly and may be confusing. However I choose to use them in references mostly because they save my time - while writing the articles or converting bare urls (which I do a lot) I prefer using visual editor as I'm not that good with coding. And the visual editor automatically creates the all-numeric version. But I will keep your comments in mind and try to be consistent with the article style. Have a nice day! Less Unless (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I had a go at Visual Editor when it first came in and found it didn't allow me to do things I wanted so haven't tried it recently. I use the Reftoolbar in the standard editor and it fills out refs pretty well from a URL or DOI, including non-numeric dates. I wonder whether Visual Editor has any options which would generate the more elegant dates? Thanks. PamD 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Does VE still produce reference "names" like ":0", which I loathe and detest, or can you over-ride it to produce ref names which make sense for the poor mug of an editor who wants to amend the article later? PamD 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think the only way at the moment to change the date display via VE is manual. And yes - there are still names. However when I just started those names were not an issue for me as in VE you can reuse the references already available and it is automatically doing everything for you. The perfectionist in me says - hey, everything should look the same and nice, but the rationalist answers - you priority at the moment is time. So for now I'm inclining towards sacrificing the beauty to the amount of the content I can add. But I think you can raise this question for discussion - maybe the programmers can improve VE to produce nicer dates or the policies can be changed. I have just imagined the amount of work to turn the all-numerics into the nice ones- that's a lifetime! Anyway, I had a pleasure talking to you. Less Unless (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Does VE still produce reference "names" like ":0", which I loathe and detest, or can you over-ride it to produce ref names which make sense for the poor mug of an editor who wants to amend the article later? PamD 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I had a go at Visual Editor when it first came in and found it didn't allow me to do things I wanted so haven't tried it recently. I use the Reftoolbar in the standard editor and it fills out refs pretty well from a URL or DOI, including non-numeric dates. I wonder whether Visual Editor has any options which would generate the more elegant dates? Thanks. PamD 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- PamD I actually agree with you from aesthetic point of view that all-numeric are kind of ugly and may be confusing. However I choose to use them in references mostly because they save my time - while writing the articles or converting bare urls (which I do a lot) I prefer using visual editor as I'm not that good with coding. And the visual editor automatically creates the all-numeric version. But I will keep your comments in mind and try to be consistent with the article style. Have a nice day! Less Unless (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Now that's interesting: I'd got it into my head that the rule was that numeric dates should only be used in tables and infoboxes, where space is at a premium, with an exception for access-date, and not remembered that "refs" is also listed as such a case. I don't see that space is at a premium for references, myself, but you're right, the letter of the MOS allows it. I've just had a look at today's featured article and the three "recently featured" listed below it on the home page (my usual way to check what's currently considered the best style if there's any doubt): three of the four use no all-numeric dates, and Bee-eater uses a mixture, both for article date and for access-date, with its refs 22-25 using all-numeric and refs 13-16 having non-numeric access-dates - while consistency is mentioned in MOSNUM! (Strange: I thought FA reviewers were very hot on that sort of thing.) So I was wrong, sorry, but it does appear that Wikipedia's best articles, from a sample of 4, tend to use non-numeric dates. They are totally unambiguous, while a numerical date may make people pause to wonder whether 2021-02-06 is 6th Feb or 2nd June. In the case of Women & Literature, the creating editor left it with exactly two detailed dates, one in each format, so hadn't established a clear style. So it seems that I've been imposing my preference, or my misinterpretation of MOS, on this and other articles. I won't revert if you change them back ... but I do think that the all-numeric dates are ugly and that there's plenty of space in a list of references, so that perhaps I can persuade you to opt for the version with the month as a word? Happy Editing. PamD 18:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed
Hello, Less Unless
Thank you for creating John Kwaku Danso.
User:Barkeep49, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Did you manage to find verification of this person existing? When I looked into this off an WP:A10 at John Kweku Danso I couldn't find verification from the sources included that this person was actually elected to parliament.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Barkeep49}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Hello! I have forgotten to correct the refs on this page - I marked it as reviewed having found the archived document from the Ghana Electoral Commisssion, but I got distracted and forgot to add it. The refs presented namely from [this] page don't include the 1992 elections. I have found [this] one, please take a look. Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, John Kwaku Danso, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Following Up on David Bawiec Wiki Page
Hi Less Unless,
Thanks for taking the time to review the article that I wrote. A few weeks ago I completed my first Wikipedia article and had it reviewed with additional updates from a few Wiki contributors. At the time, one of them nominated the article for proposed deletion (and rightfully so) due to missing references, a few outdated links, and a few minor concerns in the content. All the original comments were spot on, so I went back and fixed the article, adding more relevant references, updating links, and making sure the article follows all the guidelines. Sadly before I had time to come back and update the Talk Page to get the page re-reviewed, the page got deleted. I saw that you were part of the conversation so I wanted to follow up on it and provide a little more context in hopes of getting the page un-deleted and approved for publication.
I see the conversation regarding deletion centered around concerns of notoriety. To clarify, I believe the article's subject (David Bawiec) can easily claim notability under multiple criteria following WP:MUSIC:
Criteria for musicians and ensembles
| “ | 9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. | ” |
He has won a Telly Award, two AVA digital awards, and a BroadwayWorld Award.
| “ | 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. | ” |
He has written a song for the John Wick film franchise, which has made appearances not only in the film but is also featured on the soundtrack album.
Additionally, he can claim notability under two criteria within the:
Criteria for composers and lyricists
| “ | 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time. | ” |
He worked on the french Musical "Raiponce et le Prince Aventurier", which opened in Paris in 2014 at the l'Espace Pierre Cardin theatre, further moving for a second season at the Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin in 2015. The show was nominated for a Molière Award (the French equivalent of the Tony Award) in the Best Musical - Young Audience category. Additionally, he's composed the music for SIGNing the Song, a musical that has had multiple runs in dozens of cities and venues across the USA.
| “ | 4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. | ” |
He is a winner of the Johnny Mercer Songwriter’s Project.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the above. I hope this is more than enough to prove the subject is notable by Wikipedia guidelines.
Thanks!
Wcmartinezii (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Wcmartinezii:. Please, can you provide coverage by independent reliable sources that would support the statements you made? I tried to find those but failed. It's not enough just to say the subject is notable, it's crucial to back it with reliable sources - please take a look at this guideline - WP:RS. Hope to hear from you. Best, Less Unless (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Less Unless:! Yes, I'm happy to provide various independent reliable sources for the statements above:
- Awards:
- AVA Digital Award
- Telly Award
- Hi @Less Unless:! Yes, I'm happy to provide various independent reliable sources for the statements above:
- Theatrical Releases:
- SIGNing the Song
- Raiponce et le Prince Aventurier
- Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Wcmartinezii (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Wcmartinezii. Unfortunately the sources you provided are not enough to show the notability of the subject. Both sources from the awards section are not independent - the organizations that founded those awards. Moreover, I doubt they are major and the fact they accept everyone for a fee confirms my doubts even more. The refs from John Wick section are dubious as well. Have you read the WP:RS guideline I suggested above? You have to understand the notability should be shown by independent reliable secondary sources that talk about the subject in detail. Which means just simply mentioning he was the author is not enough. Please take a closer looks at WP:SIGCOV. Best, Less Unless (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Drafting
Hi. You may be interested in the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. It does three things that help when draftifying articles: It notifies the user, it adds a "Submit this draft" button to the draft, and it tags the leftover redirect for deletion. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Þjarkur: Thank you! I wondered if there's something that would save the time for all of us - great you helped me!Less Unless (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion on Jessica Hammond
Hello,
Hope you're having a good day.
I have started a discussion on the deletion of Jessica Hammond (politician) and I'd like to invite you to share your thoughts.
Nexus000 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging