User talk:Girth Summit

Talkback

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

Veriff deletion template

Hi. I'd like to see some actual arguments and analysis for the deletion of Veriff I just put up. I'm certain the article can be improved but I'm also quite sure the enterprise is notable. I've been a Wikipedian since 2004, have written thousands of articles and hence I think I might perhaps have some idea of the notability, although my work has been mostly in other projects, not English Wikipedia, and I've noticed it has become customary here in late years to suggest deletion for practically everything. I'd still prefer arguments over templates, if you please. --Ehitaja (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, thanks for reaching out. The subject might well be notable, but to my eye, the content in that article looks unambiguously promotional. Your suggestion that we aim to delete practically everything is hyperbolic - but we do delete marketing material, which is what that looks like to me. Do you have any connection to the subject? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Haven't even tried their service. I have had an initial contact and asked for the names of the people who could give OTRS permissions for a couple of photos, though. Concerning deletions, well, I've seen quite many times subjects that were clearly notable for me nominated for deletion, and I know quite a lot of people who say they have to fight tooth and nail for anything that isn't mainstream for large English-speaking countries (smaller cultures, women scientists, you name it). I've worked with economic coverage in Estonian Wikipedia long enough to have deleted a lot of promotional articles, but also had to explain notability in economy a lot just because most people don't take much interest in it, and what they don't know seems non-notable. Anyway, what exactly seems promotional for you? I tried to tone down the general enthusiasm in the tech journalism and avoid direct quotations which tend to include vocabulary like "we're offering the best value". A decade ago or so, I was a business journalist, so I thought I could be critical enough in English, too. But evidently, I haven't kept up with the editing practices here very closely. --Ehitaja (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, OK, I'll take what you say at face value, and expand. What jumped out for me when I looked at the page was that within the first few sentences of the lead, we were already describing what the CEO sees as 'potential application areas' - that's not the sort of thing Wikipedia normally discusses. We then start listing the countries where they have clients, how many types of documents they can read, how many countries they have clients in, how many languages they offer services in... it's like we're trying to impress the reader with the company's significance and capabilities. And phrases like 'according to CEO...' always set me on edge - we shouldn't be interested in what the CEO has to say about his own company, we should focus on what independent, secondary sources say about it. Why are we reporting on the appointment of non-notable executives that have previously worked for notable companies? Why is there a 'Media attention' section - that's something I've never seen in an article about a company.

I realise that I'm not being very pleasant in writing this, and so I apologise for the tone of this message - I don't want to be offensive, but I really think this article is too promotional in tone to be retained. I haven't clicked through (and Google-translated, where necessary) all the sources either, but all the ones I have looked at are soft-soap interviews with company executives - if there are proper secondary sources discussing the company, I'm sure that a neutral article could be written about it. To my mind though, this isn't it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, as for "potential applications", I thought it might be interesting to show the difference between what they initially thought they'd do and where they ended up (as for now). It's a detail, sure, but in my mind, such things say something about a company. Usually, when you write about an enterprise, you can't find any statements about where they went wrong. Maybe you don't see it as characterization.

The same, probably, goes about all the facts concerning the spread of their activities - if there was no data about it, I'd see any claims about their international reach as unproven. But maybe there really is too much. I tried to gather everything I could and then left out 9/10 of the sources, perhaps that wasn't enough.

For the "according to the CEO" - well, if a secondary source does an interview with the CEO who claims something, then I could just say it is so, but I'm more skeptical than that, so I'd rather keep the claim and mention that it relies on the CEO's word, letting the reader judge its worth. If you think it is better to just keep the statement and not mention it comes from an interview, it's fine by me.

The appointment of executives made headlines repeatedly and at least one case I thought to be relevant because it was connected to the establishment of a foreign office in New York. They can probably be omitted while keeping that statement in a better wording.

Concerning "Media attention", well, I used Transferwise as a template. (Just search for the phrase, you'll find plenty.) Presence in rankings is a relevant indicator for tech (or really, any sort of) companies, and I thought it made sense to keep them under one heading. Do you think they should be placed elsewhere, or have a different heading, or do you suggest such things shouldn't be mentioned at all?

As for sources in general, well, the softer stories are in English. I could have relied on small news stories in Estonian only, there's a wealth of coverage, but I've seen articles attacked for the sole reason of having not enough sources in English, so I put the stress there. I'm rather scrupulous about keeping correspondence between statements and sources, which might have been one factor for having too many minor details in the text.

Okay, looking back, it probably would have been better if this discussion would have been on the article's talk page so if anyone might be interested, it'd be easier for them to participate. Still, all in all, I'd say most of the weaknesses you pointed out are relatively easy to mend by diminishing the amount of details, rephrasing and perhaps slight restructuring, and about some I'm not sure everyone would see them your way - maybe yes, maybe no. If you look at your own criticism, doesn't it look a bit like saying the article should be deleted because there is too much data for proving notability, yet if it wasn't there, it could be nominated for lack of proof for notability? Kind of a Scylla and Charybdis situation. --Ehitaja (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, briefly - a source quoting the CEO isn't secondary - if it's reporting his words, it's primary. WP:INTERVIEW discusses this. I wouldn't include anything the CEO said - we're just not interested in what the company, or its executives, say about it, we're only interested in what independent secondary sources say about it. If the information is coming from the company, whether that's via press release, interview, their own website, or whatever, we're not interested (except for basic details such as office holders, street address and the like). The reason I nominated it for deletion is that I think the entire article would need to be rewritten from the bottom up to achieve a neutral tone; however, the reason I nominated it for deletion, rather than simply deleting it myself, is that I agree that it's close enough to the border to want a second pair of eyes on it. If another admin sees the template and agrees with my assessment, it will be deleted; if not, the template will be declined, and we can go forward from there.

FWIW, your Scylla and Charybdis analogy doesn't work for me. If I come across a neutral article, with two or three decent independent sources (in any language, provided I can run a translate), I'm happy to mark as reviewed - I don't need companies to be famous or important, just notable per WP:NCORP. Promotional articles, which seem to latch onto any piece of coverage in an attempt to put across the awesomeness of the company to the reader, are what catch my attention. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't consider Scylla and Charybdis to be the same person. You may not think a company (or person) from a small country needs a lot of proof from English sources to demonstrate its notability but I've seen people who do. So, I can try to run a makeover tomorrow and see whether you'd consider it for an improvement, but it all might end in having to put some of the deleted stuff back because it doesn't fit someone else's vision.

As for interviews, a lot of articles use those as sources. I'm used to considering them acceptable in two cases: when there is really just data included which won't be better in other sources (if a company states it provides service in X languages for Y types of documents, I'm yet to see a journalist tries to use it in all those just to check the claimed number) or when it shows the interviewee's viewpoint (that's where the comparison of statements made in early interviews with the later reality comes in). If we throw most of those out, the relevance of the interviews in the article will fall sharply, and most likely, some of the remaining references can be replaced by strict news pieces (which, alas, won't be in English - yet another bone to pick for some).

I still consider there to be enough raw material to make a passable article by your criteria. The thing that makes me worry and a bit weary of it all is, I have seen very different views amongst English admins throughout these years, so I'm far from being sure that what pleases you won't be an abomination for someone else. Oh well, I can but try. --Ehitaja (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, I'm an admin, but before I was an admin I was a new page reviewer. I think I've got a fairly decent handle on the general standards that are expected. If you were happy for me to draftify the article, as an alternative to deletion, I'd be happy to review a revised version of it at a later date? GirthSummit _(blether) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it. Thanks. --Ehitaja (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I went over the draft several times, tried to trim the language, restructured a bit and changed a lot of references. There are some points where I wasn't sure about your vision, e.g. whether you think than any kind of enterprise prizes etc. are noteworthy or not, or whether you see the comparison of an API to another as promotional or technical. I haven't gotten rid of all the soft sources entirely but reduced the reliance on them, and those references should mostly concern technical details now. In your eyes, is it any better? I wouldn't want to start any kind of official review yet but some feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Ehitaja (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, hi - sorry for the slow response, just a note to say that I will try to get round to reviewing the draft again shortly - it's been a busy week... GirthSummit _(blether) 07:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, I took a look at your draft just now. I think the language is a lot less promotional now, thank you for that. You've got two options at this point - you could submit it for review via AfC, or you can move it into article space and another new page reviewer will look at it in due course. I'll leave it for another person to review, to get a 'second opinion', but certainly my initial concerns about the promotional language have been assuaged. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I was hoping for a little bit more detailed comment, but okay. Which option would you recommend? --Ehitaja (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ehitaja: option two (id est moving into mainspace) seems to be not legal in this case. Moving can be legally done only by a reviewer or a higher person (eg an admin).--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Legal"? The bureaucracy on English Wikipedia has become ridiculous. An encyclopedia no one can edit. --Ehitaja (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Estopedist1, you are mistaken. The only reason I can think of that would prohibit Ehitaja from moving the draft into article space would be a COI, but they assert that they have no connection to the subject of the article; that being the case they are free to take that option, unless you know something I don't. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, it's all moot now anyway, as I put up for it for AfC. Nothing more to do but wait. --Ehitaja (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ehitaja, well, just so long as you know that AfC is optional for established accounts. As for the 'Encyclopedia no one can edit' stuff, you know that I see things like that differently, but I accept that people's experience of the site will likely differ depending on the subject they are writing about; our spam filters, both automated and human, are sensitive. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, having been a minor state and local government official, as well as having once run several NGOs, including a Wikimedia chapter, I appreciate the necessity for formal procedures. I've done legal analysis and edited a statistics journal for a living, so I realize quite well that correct methodology and clear rules are important. The thing is, in my eyes, the rules in English Wikipedia have left the "clear" far behind long ago. I remember the time when they were a lot less complicated and we got much more done. We did things, we occasionally got them wrong, then we made them better. One of the rules used to be, 'Be bold!' Now, that's ancient history. The sheer amount of rule pages here is staggering, and people who deal with them a lot more than I do are still confused by them and disagree (see above, e.g.). Also, a lot of rules that are not formally necessary are sometimes presented as final arguments, or at least relied on much more than they theoretically should be. And what's worse, this overgrown ruleset tends to be exported, explicitly or semi-unconsciously, into other projects whose circumstances and foci were not considered when these rules were written, while on the other hand, smaller projects tend to fall off the sight of everyone. (When was the last time anyone seriously analyzed the copyright situation on Wikiquotes across languages, or ran a user experience study on Wiktionary? We just copy the habits and rules from en.wp because that's easy to do.) I don't think it's a good idea to copy that culture. But there's been a lot of change in the Wikip/media culture during these years, and while a lot is good, there is also a lot I wouldn't approve. Not that anyone necessarily cares much about my approval, or should. :) --Ehitaja (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

CVU

Hey. I was wondering if you had time to adopt me for CVU training. --Hillelfrei^{• talk •} 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei, hi - sorry for the delay in responding, it's a busy time. I think I'll be able to make time for this, although I should say that I'm a bit busy at the moment, so there may be a bit of a time lag between you posting responses and me giving you feedback. If you're OK with that, I'll set up the training page at the weekend. In the meantime, give WP:VANDALISM a thorough read, and while I see you already use Twinkle a lot, perhaps just make sure you're familiar with everything at WP:TWINKLE. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: That would be great, thanks. For sure take as much time as you need between replies, there's no particular hurry and I can perform other tasks in the meantime obviously. I've looked at those WP pages before but will review them. Hillelfrei^{• talk •} 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei, I've created the page - hopefully you received the ping, it's at User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Hillelfrei. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Got it - I'll answer the first question soon. By the way, can you include curriculum about Rollback in my course? Thanks again for doing this. Hillelfrei^{• talk •} 01:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2020

Delivered May 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time

Hi Girth Summit,

Wanted to thank you for your time on the Weng Weng article. It's a gong show that never got resolved. Once I said yes, I avoided the article for two days. On day three, I noticed mistakes I had done, WP Weasel, tone, etc.. I started trimming the text, not adding anything. The user eventually returned two or three days after I restarted editing, the user took offence, I told I wouldn't edit once he reverted, and seems to have abandoned the article.

I won't go in the exchange, at this point it's not interesting, and you can read the talk page...

I milked a book and a documentary for what it's worth, I have nothing to add to the article. While the legacy version still needs work, and I have to find citations I lost while trimming.

I did my best on my own. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article, to give me general feedback. Obviously if you have the time or want to take the time. Thank you. Filmman3000 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Girth Summit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Thanks for your message. Any editing would have been a mistake. My apologies. I'm a little confused where you say that I have been editing other comments, Do you have any examples? I have only removed a personal attack from another user. Simmo86 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Simmo86, the edit of yours that I reverted at ANI is another example - you can check the diff for yourself, you somehow managed to change SN's signature.

And it's not correct to say that you removed a PA from another user - you've been told by at least six admins, including on serving Arbcom member, that it wasn't a PA. Drop the stick. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Racial Views of Donald Trump

Hi pal, I saw you reverted my edit on the Trump page. You asked me to gain consensus, how am I supposed to do that? I posted a comment on 3 April 2020 saying that if length was a concern priority should be given to Trump's words, two people agreed with me, nobody disagreed with me for a month. I made an edit which addressed length concerns and included both sides. What more do I need to do?

I also added a POV tag which you removed. Could you explain why you did that? There are three recent editors who've disputed the POV of the article. FYI I have re-added it. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo Apocalypse, hi, thanks for reaching out. So, I'm not seeing a discussion about that specific verbiage on the talk page, but I am seeing various forms of it being added and removed, which isn't ideal. Start a section on the talk page saying 'We should insert "blah blah blah" into such and such a paragraph, based on these sources', and discuss it with other editors there.

With regard to the POV tag, I would strongly advise you to self-revert before your account is blocked from editing. That page is under 1RR restriction - your reinstatement of the tag, earlier today, was a revert of someone else who removed it yesterday. In reinstating it again, you have reverted me - that's two reverts, you are in breach of 1RR. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo Apocalypse - actually, I just noticed that the page is under a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction - see the top of the talk page for more on that. You should self-revert before anyone else notices. (As for why I removed it - again, I'm not seeing evidence on the talk page that it is contested by any editors in good standing apart from by yourself.) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I did start a section saying we should include the quote, there was some disagreement. I suggested Trump's words should be given priority, nobody disagreed and two people agreed. I took into account the previous concerns (re: length) in keeping with the recommendations and someone just reverted it. There's not much I can do when people don't answer.

As far as the 1RR rule goes, I don't think I'm in breach because it's a point of fact that the POV is disputed. Even if I am in breach, I'm not sure what difference it makes. What's the difference between being blocked from editing it and people constantly reverting any edits I make and requiring me to get consensus from people who don't reply to reinstate them? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo Apocalypse, hi - to be clear, you are in breach of it, whether or not you think you're right. Self-revert immediately. The difference it makes is that your account won't be blocked from editing if you self-revert.

When I look on the talk page, I see multiple editors discussing the content. I initially overlooked the IP address and the brief comment from JFG, so I concede that it isn't just you arguing in favour of your position - however, two voices amongst half a dozen isn't a consensus. Make a specific proposal, and start an WP:RFC if you aren't getting engagement. What you mustn't do is edit war about it. Now go and self-revert before you are blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Username

Hi Girth, this is just to inform you that I've changed my username to Antila. Antila (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Antila, thanks for letting me know. I think that's a better choice myself - easier to remember without the numbers. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth, I was just looking at your current student's CVUA training page and saw that you've missed the usernames, dealing with difficult users and sample work section. If it was intentional then it's ok, I was just trying to remind you if you've forgotten. Antila (✉) 04:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Antila, why would you be looking at someone else's training page? I don't mean to be rude, but it has nothing to do with you - don't look at other people's training pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Antila I'm sorry if that seemed a bit harsh of me. You are right, I had accidentally skipped that section, and I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful in letting me know. Seriously though, I can't think of a good reason why you should be reading through other people's training pages - please don't in the future. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth, I didn't actually had the intention to look at your other student's training pages, actually I came across this afd which was nominated by Hilelfrei, the subject was clearly notable and Hillelfrei nominated it for afd without providing proper explanation, due to this I checked their controls and found that they were one of your student and then I looked at the training page, it wont happen again. Antila (✉) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Antila, thanks - yes, that AfD was a bit of a rookie error (although I was pleased to see them asking about how to avoid the mistake in future rather than doubling down). Thanks for the explanation, and for confirming that it won't become a habit. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions on References

Hi Girth, In your review you mentioned forum discussions such as Reddit can not be used for references. However, I have seen article(D-MER) that cited Reddit as references. Since the topic does not have many published resources, such discussions are important references for this case. Please let me know your thought. Thanks.04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Dr.Xiaofan (talk) Dr.Xiaofan (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Xiaofan (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Xiaofan, hi, thanks for reaching out. I'm afraid that a lack of published sources is not a reason to use unreliable sources - it's probably an indication that the subject isn't notable enough for us to have an article about. I haven't looked at D-MER before, but thanks for drawing it to my attention - if there are biomedical assertions there sourced to Reddit, they will need to be removed. Please do read WP:MEDRS carefully - that's the guideline you need to work to.  GirthSummit _(blether) 06:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me some advice

I've seen you discussing on the blond talk page. Currently I have a problem with wiki user User_talk:Hunan201p. The biggest problem is the blond Asia section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia ) which includes mythical god figures like Huangdi as a real life person with blond hair. Another problem is the inclusion of real life figures like Bodonchar Munkhag as blond, but the origin of his blond hair is according comes from a controversial story of Alan Gua, which is also mythical figure.

I started a discussion and gave my opinion. Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak than supported me that I should remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond ) and I agree aswell. Should Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag be removed from the blond wiki page ? Please tell me you opinion.Queenplz (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Queenplz, hi, and thanks for reaching out. Let me start by saying that I don't know a great deal about Huangdi, so I hope I don't say anything stupid. If our article about him is accurate, he is a legendary figure in ancient Chinese history; your contention is that he shouldn't be mentioned in our article about blond hair, because there is no evidence that he existed? I'm not sure that quite follows - I don't see why we couldn't have famous blond characters from mythology (or indeed fiction) mentioned on the page, if it's relevant; whether or not it is due weight to mention him would be another question of course, but I don't see why they likelihood of him not having existed would be a bar to inclusion, if the sources support the idea that the texts about him say he had blond hair. Would a compromise position be to describe him as the 'legendary king' or 'mythological king', and explain that scholars have interpreted ancient texts about him as saying that he had blond hair? Or have I misunderstood? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the mainstream view is that Huangdi is considered a deity, mythical, god being. There is no mainstream view that he was ever considered blond and indo-european in any history, only a few scholar modern interpreted it that way but the vast majority claims him to be a god and mythical being with powers. Also in the blond wiki page there's already cultural perception which mentions all the mythical, gods and historical figures percieved as being blond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Historical_cultural_perceptions) which means it shouldn't even be in the Asia section to begin with. Also, if you take a look at the blond section of Europe, Africa, Oceanic, it makes no mention of any unconfirmed mysterious ethnic groups or mythical figures like in the Asia section. All the edits of Hunan201p is in the blond section of Asia, and they all appears to be mythical figures and historical ethnic groups that can't be trace back to modern day ethnic groups. So I believe we should remove Huangdi and other unconfirmed figures.Queenplz (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Queenplz, I'm afraid this is a subject I have very little knowledge about, and no strong opinion on. You'll need to thrash it out on the talk page - if you have consensus to remove any mention of him, go ahead and do it; if you aren't getting engagement from others, you could consider an RfC? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CVU

I'm up to date on my CVU. Did you get the ping? I didn't get a notification that the ping was sent, not sure why. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei, hi - I didn't get the ping actually. I can't see an obvious reason why not from looking at the diffs, you seem to have correctly typed the template and signed the post, so not sure what happened. Thanks for letting me know anyway, I'll take a look as soon as I have time (making dinner just now). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Girth Summit, The same thing's happening again. It's just for you - any other ping I send goes through. I'll ask on VPT and see if the issue is solvable. In the meantime, I finished the latest section on my CVU. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't work on my sandbox either. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked on VPT and that ping went through. I'm so confused. Hopefully they can figure it out but if not I'll just leave a message here whenever I complete a section. Sorry about this. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillelfrei, hi - personally, I find the ping stuff a bit confusing. My understanding, though, is that for a ping to work, you need to insert it on a new line, and sign the post - if either of those doesn't happen, the ping doesn't work. However, one other possibility is that they are being sent, and I'm missing them. I get quite a lot of pings (I just logged in again after taking the dog for a walk, and had six pings and a thank waiting for me), it is possible that I have looked at one and forgotten about it. I wouldn't worry about it too much - if a couple of days goes by and I haven't responded to something, feel free to ping me again to remind me. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just finished the exam by the way. Hillelfrei ^talk 19:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Cullen House

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cullen House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lewis Grant-Ogilvy had the entire village of Cullen demolished and rebuilt so that he could improve his garden at Cullen House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cullen House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cullen House), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 12:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Q9

Q9 cracked me up - voice in my head does the same thing! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I have to say, I wish my wee voice spoke with a Welsh accent. Have you ever listened to Under Milk Wood? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't; although I just looked it up. I didn't know Dylan Thomas was Welsh. Also, I realize I don't know what a Welsh accent sounds like. This just sounds like an "ordinary" upper-class British accent to my American ears. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, no, no, no, no, no. Don't listen to Dylan Thomas reading his own work, that way madness lies. He's like Yeats or T S Elliott - read it, or listen to an actor reading it, but never listen to a poet of that era reading their own stuff. No, you want to listen to the BBC Radio version, with Richard Burton voicing the narrator. Bliss. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

here you go. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

CVUA Task

Hey Girth! I finished my CVUA Task and I'd love if you could help me from there. I ping you as well but it must have been buried in your notifications so I thought I should let you know here. Have a lovely day, Flalf^Talk 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flalf, hi - good to hear from you again. I'll head over to the training page and take a look, as soon as I have time. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of Adore Models

I wanted to check on why the page was deleted ? Even if the company has a relationship with me , It doesn't mean that the page can be taken off , There can be edits but deletion of my hours of work just makes me wander if it is injustice that is prevailing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant jadhwani (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishant jadhwani, hi, thanks for reaching out. Another editor nominated it for speedy deletion according to our WP:G11 criteria - they deemed the content to be entirely promotional. I agreed with their assessment, which is why I deleted it. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion - indeed, as the founder of the company, you should not be writing about it at all. Please review COI and PAID, which explain why this is problematic. I'm sorry your time has been wasted. If you still wish to get an article published about your company, it will have to be a lot less promotional in nature, you will need to demonstrate that it passes the WP:NCORP guidelines, you will need to declare your connection with the company properly, and you will need to submit it through the AfC process rather than publishing it yourself. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rodger Young

Hello, I hope all is well with you. I was wondering if I could take you up on an offer you made a couple months back - for a while now I've been doing some light work on the article Rodger Young, in potential preparation for a GA nomination. I was wondering if you could take just a quick glance at it and let me know what I need to especially focus on before a nomination. I've put it up for a peer review, but I don't know how long that will take to be picked up. I don't want to encroach to much on your time; just a quick look would be great. Thanks a lot. By the way, CVUA training has been going great, I do love doing it. -- puddleglum^2.0 00:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, hi, great to hear from you. I took a look at the page just now, it's an interesting article, and I'm sure it could be knocked up into GA shape with a bit of polishing. Thoughts:

• The lead could be expanded a bit - it's fairly short, I'd suggest beefing it up so there are at last two decent-length paragraphs.
• There are a few words in their that are leaning too heavily towards subjective judgements made in Wikipedia's voice. Things like 'his courageous deeds' - obviously his deeds were courageous, but it's not the kind of thing we normally say. This could be tweaked by slightly rewording, saying that they song praises his courage or something like that.
• I haven't read through the sources, but make sure that they directly support assertions like 'Young was one of the shortest men in his company; despite this and the fact that he wore glasses, he was considered a good soldier.' - does the source use the word 'despite' or similar? If it supports the assertions separately, but doesn't have any language suggesting that there is a contrast between them, then the 'despite' bit would be WP:OR.
• There are a few words I would change to improve the formality. gotten worse --> deteriorated, that kind of thing.
• The legacy section has quite a few unsourced bullet points - I'd suggest going through and looking for sources for all of them, and removing them if they can't be sourced.

That's about it - good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it! I'm hoping to get the GA review done in time for a July 31 DYK for the anniversary of his death, we'll see how that goes. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 17:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it to GA! It's waiting for a DYK review now. Thanks again for your help! -- puddleglum^2.0 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, awesome! Congratulations, that's a real achievement. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI on Broadway Boys

Here's the deletion log here for reference. That page has been deleted 3 times in the past few days. I don't know about the first time, but for the second time I submitted the CSD and the article that went live this morning that you deleted were identical. Unfortunately I forgot about salting until Dps04 reminded me. Not sure if you can, or want to, but I'll leave it to your experience whether blocking it's recreation might be appropriate. Thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, good call - done, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Just a quick note, you might also want to delete Talk:Broadway Boys per G8. Thanks! --Dps04 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dps04, yep, thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello. Someone needs to stop Ip 69.138.18.168 urgently. He/She is promoting edits war in Julio Anguita. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A.WagnerC, looks like another admin blocked the IP and protected the page already, but thanks for drawing our attention to this. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

I added neutrality to "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", and the neutrality was removed in favor of non-neutrality, and the non-neutrality was claimed to be neutrality. Pursuing the citations indicates making the claim shows that the authors of the works are not neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1327:46A7:A594:1EDF:56F2:67F (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. So, the way the article is worded reflects what the sources say. If you think they are wrong, and have alternative sources we could use that would support your wording, you can suggest them on the article talk page. What we don't do is write prose that we feel to be correct, but that doesn't accurately represent what the sources say, because we think the sources are biased - that is not permitted. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi Girth, Thanks for your email and feedback. Please could you advise why the World Ski Awards article appears to have a conflict of interest so I can address accordingly. No problem to update, however I am new to Wikipedia so any pointers would be most helpful. Kind regards, Travel Industry Insights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travel Industry Insights (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Travel Industry Insights, You have created two drafts - World Ski Awards and World Golf Awards - which both look quite promotional - I'm wondering whether you have any connection to the company/ies behind these awards. Please confirm whether that is the case. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey Girth, from time to time I keep coming to your talk page for advice, this time I've some questions about archiving. I've ClueBot III archive my talk page and at first I set the format as Y/F which means it will set the the archives in a date format and I already have two archives on my talk page. But now, I wanted to change my format to a a numbered format so I replaced the Y/F with %%I but still its showing the date format, can you help me to fix it. Antila (✉) 07:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Antila, hmm - I'm not an expert on archiving - it was actually PaleoNeonate who kindly set up the archiving on this talk page for me. I'll take a look later on when I get a bit of time and see if I can figure it out though, it would be interesting to teach myself how to do it... GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Antila - so, from what I see in your talk page history (which isn't super-easy to navigate, because you didn't use edit summaries...), it looks like Cluebot III hasn't done anything since you changed the configuration. I am not a Cluebot III expert, but I don't think it will change your existing archive structure - it'll probably just start archiving things in the new manner in future, you'll probably have to tinker with the old archives manually to get them into the right format; alternatively, you could dump to contents of the old archives back onto your talk page for now, and just wait for Cluebot to archive it in the new format? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antila: Yes you would have to move your existing/old archives and/or merge them manually if they are too tiny, to User_talk:Antila/Archive_1 , etc. You'd also have to set the |numberstart= parameter to the right number (i.e. 4 if you had Archive_1-3 already). The |prefix= parameter would become User_talk:Antila/Archive (without trailing slash). The index shown is automatic and will show the numbered archive pages if they are present. If you then have old redundant archive files left, you could request that they be deleted using {{Db-u1}}, however WP:U1 stresses that it's not for talk pages (maybe acceptable for redundant talk archive pages, but I can't confirm that). As GirthSummit suggested, merging all dated archive pages back to the main talk page and letting the bot then rearchive them would also work, other than leaving dangling old archives if they're not deleted. I'm not sure if the displayed index will work properly with both numbered and dated archives, if not, the old ones could alternatively be moved under another prefix if admins refuse to delete them. If small archive pages are not a problem, you can simply move them to numbered archives. —PaleoNeonate – 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it can be useful, you can see what's under your Talk prefix using: Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:Antila/. —PaleoNeonate – 00:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Yapperbot (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Girth Summit, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Over-active editor

Hello. Could you look at [1] and remind the editor not to make such a series of changes, one after the other, without first getting general approval from the community? What he or she is doing can be mighty disruptive, it seems to me. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, hmm. This is a case where I'm going to have to do some reading before I'd be willing to take administrative action. I can see that making such widespread changes, if there is not a strong consensus to do so; I'd need to look around to see whether such a consensus exists though. I'm making dinner just now, and am not going to be in a position to look into this properly until tomorrow. Can I suggest that you engage with the editor, tell them that these changes are contested, and discuss it with them? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe consensus is emerging on the use of the singular they. See, Wikipedia's manual of style MOS:GNL, Wikipedia Commons prefers the singular they to "his or hers." Similarly, a 2017 RfC on gender neutral language was supported by nearly 60% of participants, suggesting most editors are supportive of moving toward gender neutral language. I'm ok with rewriting sentences to be more inclusive, but as an interim step, I believe improvements to this community involves removing "his or her" where appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that the Manual of Style WP:PRONOUN encourages gender neutral language. --Enos733 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been in contact. Have a good meal! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, Enos733 I've taken a bit of time to look at these edits, and to review the links. My take on it is this:

• WP:GNL indicates that gender-neutral language is preferred - fair enough, but it doesn't specificy which form of gender neutral language to use, so it doesn't support a change from 'his or her' to 'their'.
• Preferred style at commons isn't relevant here, so I'm not going to get into that.
• The 2017 RfC was closed as no consensus.

So, unless there is other stuff I haven't looked at, I see no consensus to support these changes. Having said that, there is no consensus in favour of alternative forms either, and Enos733 is permitted to make bold changes to articles. So, my advice to Enos733 would be as follows: make such changes prudently, being sure to check that your change makes sense. If you are reverted, do not reinstate your change. Be aware that in making the change you are not implementing an established consensus, rather you are imposing your preferred form of words - other editors, such as the original author of a sentence, may disagree with you. If reverted, you will need to establish either a local consensus on the talk page of each article to support the change, or you will need to go back to another community level RfC and try to establish 'their' as the preferred variant. That's my advice anyway - do with it what you will. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. It does make sense that a community wide RfC might soon be in order. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I join in thanking the Admin! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:100mcxtips

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Cahk, thanks - done. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated creation of promotional page via IP account

Hi, Girth Summit, The user User:Monomousumi has been recently blocked for creating promotional content Draft:Monomousumi. The user is back in disguise as an IP editor User:103.221.70.26 with a slight modification Draft:Mon-o-mousumi. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, yes, I see that Creffett blocked that account as a username/promo violation. I don't know that there's anything more to do at this point other than decline the draft, as you have done - they can't publish an article as an IP without going through AfC, and they won't get an article like that accepted without significantly better sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Ok, Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is block evasion - I'm going to G5 the article (it's word-for-word identical to the previous version) and block the IP for a day or so for block evasion. Also, Amkgp, for future reference - I see you tagged the original article for G5 deletion; please keep in mind that G5 only applies to things created after a block (while evading it), not to creations by a blocked user. creffett (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, that's fair enough, no argument from me. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Ok, Thanks for the correction. ~ Amkgp ✉ 16:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:William Dick of Braid

Hello, Girth Summit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "William Dick of Braid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review request

Hello. John Milburn recently did a peer review for the article on the Biblioteca Marciana (WP: Peer_review/Biblioteca_Marciana/archive1) and suggested that I contact you for further guidance prior to nominating the page for FAC. The article is currently a Good Article.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. My goal is to have the article promoted to FA and then nominate it for TFA on 25 March 2021 when Venice will celebrate its 1600th anniversary from the date of its legendary foundation on 25 March 421. The Marciana Library is ideally suited to commemorate the event since it is the only institution founded by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.Venicescapes (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your broad based efforts and great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Puddleglum submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Girth Summit to be this weeks Editor of the Week for his hard work in various areas, including but not limited to counter-vandalism, article creation, and most recently, the featured article nomination process. In the field of counter-vandalism, Girth Summit has done fantastic work not only reverting and blocking vandals but also training other users to do the same at the CVUA. In article writing, Girth has written many, many articles, mostly about obscure Scottish buildings, and some of which he has brought to GA status. Finally: Featured Articles. Girth Summit has been working relentlessly the past couple months to bring the article Margaret Macpherson Grant to FA and through the nomination process, and just recently it finally passed. Through all of these tasks, Girth Summit has shown unfailing civility, even to those vandals he reverts. Generous, patient and forgiving:an exceedingly worthy recipient that is deserving this award. Gog the Mild and Barkeep49 seconded this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)