Jump to content

User talk:S0091

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

Noteable topic i.e. others and new sources

[edit]

Hi, is there something specific that needs to be addressed for Draft:Venhue to be included along with its peers? I.e. Foxface Natural. Trying to document East Village restaurants. Venhue has been noted on The Today Show, Yelp and other major publications many sources have been provided. Nycrest (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycrest It has been explained to you time and again why the sources are not sufficient. At this point, it is past time for you to move on. Continuing will result in you being blocked for wasting the community's time. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not submitting without new sources, everytime this has been submitted, it has been submitted with new sources (credible sources from major news outlets), I am not sure why this is being met with such defensiveness. I imagine Wikipedia should revisit situations where new sources come to light.
I am just curious how many other sources are required for it to be notable? is there a specific source in mind? Right now there are 7 sources from major publications The Today Show, NBC New York, Business Insider, Yelp Business, Eater, Islands, etc.
We want our restaurants to be represented from our community, that's all. Nycrest (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 6

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 21 March. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

  • Wikipedia Library: What’s new from January to March 2025.
  • Let's Connect Learning Clinic: Missed the last Learning Clinic on "Safe Spaces, Strong Voices: Advancing Inclusion through the UCoC"? Recording is now available.


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the draft of "Holy Week in Segovia"

[edit]

First of all, I deeply thank you for your commentary on the draft, I was starting to worry that I wouldn't get any feedback, I've already started working on the pages you suggested.

Secondly about the sources: While the web page tries to promote the event, it is also the official page for the Holy Week in Segovia, being backed up by the Junta of Castile and León as can be seen in the bottom of the main page, I have used this page to obtain the data about the date of founding of the brotherhoods, which I think is something the source should be able to cover reliably. And about the book, while it is published by a local editor, the author uses the report made by the Junta of Cofradías to try and get the goverment to declare the Holy Week in Segovia as a Fiesta of National Interest, as one of the main sources. If you want I can post a photo of the page of the book that contains the bibliography (it is in spanish, tho)

And finally: I have tried searching for other sources, but most of them are either personal blogs or very short traductions from official sites, so I would say that the sources I've used for the article are the most complete available.

Again, thank you very much for your commentary and allowing me to improve my articles, every single possible commentary and critique are welcome. Mateo MD (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateo MD I have to honest with you, if all the sources you have are based on those promoting it in one way or another, whether that be to get the event recognized as a Fiestas of National Tourist Interest of Spain or once it was to continue to promote it, both of which is about tourist money rather than historical accuracy and significance then I'm not sure it can meet the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, the reason I left a comment rather than a review, which would be a decline, is in case another reviewer might see it differently. On top of that, I thought it was unfair you did not get a response from the initial reviewer which was a concern you rightfully noted at the AfC helpdesk. S0091 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thanks for the reply. I also thought that is was quite unfair that I didn't get any explanation, but since I'm not that familiar with the English Wikipedia's procedures I prefered to wait a month just in case the editor that reviewed the draft was taking their time.
While the Fiesta of National Tourist Interest does (obviously) have the objective of promoting the event in a turistical way, it also takes into consideration the history and cultural value of the event (as explained in the BOE-A-2019-11573, Article 4) therefore, the work memory must include a section detailing the history of the event which is then reviewed by Ministry of Industry and Tourism, taking this into consideration, I would say that the data provided by the book should be reliable.
Unfortunately the Holy Week in Segovia is overshadowed by other Holy Weeks of Castile, but it still has a lot of cultural and historical heritage, it is also the biggest economic event of the city as (according to the City Council) around 30.000 people visited the city during this time (to put it into scale, this is more than half of the city's population). Since Segovia is quite a small city, most of the historical investigations and data collecting were done by the Junta of Cofradías with the purpose of using that data to promote the event and while that information is being used to promote the event, it doesn't mean that is unreliable.
Again, thank you for your interest, I'm hoping that another editor can also review the draft and give their opinion on the sources, since it looks that all of the complains come from them. Mateo MD (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateo MD I think the book and likely the website are reliable so that, at least to me, is not a concern. It's if they establish notability, which requires sources meet several criteria as outlined in WP:NEVENT and also WP:GNG. What I suggest doing is adding a note a the draft's talk page explaining the sources as you did here. Once you do that, let me know and I will leave a comment on the draft letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 I cannot thank you enough for your help. I will set up the explanation in the Talk page as soon as I can.
Again, I deeply thank you for helping me in this topic Mateo MD (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Cappelluti moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Nico Cappelluti. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because See talk page, there are too many problems at the moment. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 thanks for the extra set of eyes. Sometimes I do accept drafts I think are borderline so appreciate NPP/other editor's view. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 April 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay C. Block

[edit]

Greetings. I noticed an edit and summary here where the first of three sources does in fact mention the subject. However, I think the removal is fine as per WP:WEIGHT/WP:COATRACK. The topic coverage in reliable sources is actually of another person. There was a recent WP:BLPN post about this article, so I've been watching. Thanks for your edits there. I hope you'll watch the page, too! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler, what do you think? JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first source is sufficient to prove inclusion is due, and the rest gives context for the situation. But then, I'm very cautious about erasure of critical material from that article given its history. I reverted the edit as being based on a false claim before I saw this message from you. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree this edit summary was an avoidable and problematic mistake, but WP:AGF, I think there are good reasons to support S0091's removal. The first source involves the subject, in an apparently WP:BLPSPS (written interview) format. The others follow the rabbit hole about someone else. It's hard for me to assess how much weight is due around this controversy because it appears not to have been the topic of enduring coverage or otherwise significantly impactful in this subject's life, encyclopedically. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not standing in the way of further edits, merely undid an edit apparently grounded in error. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the edit and also posted at the article talk page. It's a better forum than here. Thanks to you both for your availability (both forum and feedback). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JFHJr@NatGertler thanks for catching my error. I used control+f to search the sources and apparently I had his name misspelled. For the record Nat, you were right to revert me on those grounds. I also came across the article because it was listed at BLPN so I bookmarked it and glad others are keeping an eye on it. S0091 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reckoned that was the case; goodness knows, I've done that before myself. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken revert?

[edit]

Were you serious about making this revert which restored glorification of the subject? I already posted on the talk page but another editor is not responding. Koshuri (グ) 15:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan oops, my intent was revert the addition of the material. S0091 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you left? Participate in discussion S00991 else I have to revert your edit. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Umar Ali if you revert again, you will be violating WP:3RR and will likely be blocked. Continue the discussion. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So participate what are trying to say that you reverted my edits without justification and then shouting WP:3RR Where are you in discussion I can't even find that Koshuri guy! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will be likely filing WP:ANI against if you not participate in talk page discussion just mentioning talk page in edit summary and leaving so be prepared! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Koshuri Sultan had started a discussion on the talk page because there is a dispute regarding the content. Per WP:BRD the appropriate action to engage in the discussion rather than restoring the edits. That is what I was enforcing. Also, you posting a clip that makes it difficult to join. Give folks some time to review the arguments. S0091 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to all his points. He is not replying now. So should I revert? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Discussions take time and editors are volunteers with real lives so are not on Wikipedia all the time. There is no WP:DEADLINE here. Give it a couple days. S0091 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if he doesn't reply in few days then I could revert? I am asking this as it has happened with me many time that editors revert my edit saying they want to discuss but after a while stop the discussion. This leads to removal of my edit and no discussion so what to do in such case? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:Words to watch? I think there's some tips there that might be helpful to you. There are reasons your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Please also keep in mind that just because a reliable source states something, does not mean it belongs in an article. In addition, we must be very careful about stating things in Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:NPOV, an article should have an impartial tone. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then restore the previous lead why Koshuri have written his lead and you have restored that till the eventual outcome of the discussion? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your response ignores mine and my question. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get it. What are you trying to say? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I asked you a very specific question then went into other policies but your response ignore all of it. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We coincided

[edit]

I suspect this sandbox is going nowhere judging by the behaviour of the creating editor 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot, didn't mean to duplicate the tag. I don't mind folks using LLM as a tool in the toolbox but it shouldn't be the only tool and not a crutch. Once you know it's been used, then as a reviewer, I think you need to take extra care reviewing the content and sources ensure WP:V, much less WP:N. It just makes it too hairy and time consuming. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take a sterner few. If the submitting editor chooses to make our work harder I chose to decline the draft; I am not going to check for hallucinated references, for example. I distrust LLMs, though use them as a tool in my personal research. For Wikipedia I find them be lazy. If all articles are created with AI we may as well give up here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think new editors understand the work it takes to review a draft and I don't fault them for that because Wikipedia is complicated. But yes, it is lazy and yes, if this all we get we should just give up. I've already partially given up on Wikipedia because of UPE/socks. At this time, there is no efficient way to battle it (i.e they create an account in two seconds, it takes an AGF editor hours to prove they are UPE/sock), Add LLM to it, Wikipedia is done. There's not enough tools in the toolbox to handle it or enough editors. S0091 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any update needed?

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your help. Do I need to re-edit anything currently as have an updated version if needed. Thanks SoulGaze (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SoulGaze I just accepted it so good there. If you could fix footnote 4, which I think is suppose to be a MOJO article that would be great. Other than that, you are welcome to continue to expand/update it. Also, there's enough reviews for a stand-alone article about Humanist if you are inclined to create one. S0091 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s wonderful, thank you. I really appreciate it. I will fix that. I do have a humanist one on review currently.. SoulGaze (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SoulGaze for Draft:Humanist (UK) you need citations for the list of starred reviews. Once you do that, it should be good to go. S0091 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fantastic. New edit is published. Hopefully that is okay. You’re help is greatly appreciated. SoulGaze (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Leahy - Article Submission

[edit]

My submission was made with no connection to the person in question but as i found him through ABC News - The article has been changed to reference the correct notable sources now and should be accepted as it meets the guidelines - As someone new to Wikipedia I apologies that it came accross as an advertisement as opposed to an article of fact as relevant to this encyclopedia. 2406:2D40:4154:3410:C0C9:8B82:C0E:855B (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

  • Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia. It is the first Wikimedia project that will be able to call and integrate functions directly into Wikipedia articles. Read more weekly updates on Wikifunctions.
  • Edge Uniques: Introducing Edge Uniques, a technical approach which consists of privacy-preserving first-party cookies that will enable usability testing of features through A/B testing, more accurate counting of site visits, and a way to stop distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) with better precision.
  • Tech News: The Design System Team is preparing to release the next major version of Codex (v2.0.0) on April 29; Last week, the default thumbnail size was increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn’t previously possible due to technical limitations. More updates from Tech News week 15 and 16.
  • Outreachy: Celebrating the excellent contributions from both interns and mentors in Round 29 of the Outreachy internship program.
  • Developer Satisfaction Survey: The results of the Developer Satisfaction Survey (2025) are available. Thank you to all participants. These results help the Foundation decide what to work on next and to review what they recently worked on.


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki · WikiLearn


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:04:53, 21 April 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by VMCS83

[edit]


Subject: Request for reconsideration of Abstract Division's Wikipedia entry

I would like to respectfully request reconsideration of the decision regarding Abstract Division's Wikipedia entry. I believe their inclusion in the encyclopedia is justified, based on the following points, and I would appreciate a review in light of similar artists' entries.

Comparable Artist - Oscar Mulero:

Please review the page for Oscar Mulero, another artist of similar caliber. Despite a relatively limited number of third-party sources, such as a citation primarily from his personal website, he has been granted a Wikipedia article.

Abstract Division, on the other hand, has had more significant and third-party independent coverage, including official work such as contributing a soundtrack to the Netflix series Sense8.

Moreover, the fact that Abstract Division has been featured in reputable sources like VPRO — a Dutch public broadcaster that is a part of the public broadcasting system—further substantiates their notability. VPRO's coverage, particularly in two articles dedicated to them, should be seen as credible and substantial. Incorrectly, I marked them as interviews, but these are actually independent news articles. This I have corrected now.

VPRO as a Credible Source:

VPRO, as a public broadcaster, provides content with editorial standards that exceed those of some commercial outlets. As such, their coverage of Abstract Division should be given significant weight. It is not just a passing mention but an article that provides meaningful discussion about the artists and their work. This coverage holds more value and authority than some other sources such as Mixmag, which, though respected in the dance music industry, may not always reflect the full depth of an artist's career, especially in non-English media contexts, given that Mixmag is a London-based publisher. Dutch Media Coverage: Given that Abstract Division is a Dutch-origin duo, it is reasonable to expect that they would receive more media coverage in Dutch-language outlets, such as VPRO, rather than international publications like Mixmag. Artists (in my example, Sandwell Districts - Function & Regis) often gain more recognition in their home countries, where the media has a greater interest in local talent.

Function (musician) Comparison:

In comparison to Function (musician) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(musician)), who does not have a personal website linked for his label and whose PR agency’s website is currently inaccessible, Abstract Division’s presence in multiple reliable secondary sources such as VPRO and Netflix’s Sense8 soundtrack clearly demonstrates a higher level of notability and coverage in independent media. I hope this comparison clarifies that Abstract Division has garnered substantial recognition from sources that should be considered authoritative and independent of the artists themselves. Given these points, I respectfully request that the article's deletion be reconsidered or that additional sources be weighed more fairly in the decision-making process.

At last, I have also contacted #wikipedia-en-help for additional advice on how to improve this article that I have followed up.

There are so many other artists (that I also named above) of same caliber who have their own Wikipedia page, and their submissions have been accepted with a lot less sources.

Abstract Division appeared with their soundtrack in a Netflix series, so they are internationally a known producer duo, and there are multiple sources that are articles, written by journalists, in music-related magazines, like VICE, Selector News, Resident Advisor and Thump (NL) which have not been added yet the previous times, but most importantly, a national broadcast channel in the Netherlands, VPRO.

Again, VPRO stands for a well-known trusted national broadcaster in Holland. VPRO even has its own Wikipedia page, unlike the other sources, e.g., music magazines, that were frequently used on already accepted Wikipedia articles).

Trifec or all interview references can be removed, if that is the only thing that stands in the way of having their page accepted. There are enough other sources, written by music journalists. Furthermore, the Netflix 'Sense8' soundtrack alone should be considered a more serious contribution to the music world, than some Mixmag, VICE or Thump articles - which again, were sources enough credible for other artist page submissions.

Moreover, I have contacted after the first rejection the "Articles for creation help desk", and I was told that interviews are okay as long as they are used as references, and not as External Links, and as long as there are enough independent articles written by journalists.

Even if I delete all the interviews, there are numerous articles that have been written about this duo in the past years, and again, a lot more independent articles than other Wikipedia pages cite for other artists of similar caliber.

Hereby one more time the independent articles enumerated:

1. Verweij, Mick (5 June 2015). "Abstract Division komt met een ode aan Detroit-techno, twee nieuwe labels én een eigen avond in Het Transportbedrijf" [Abstract Division comes with an ode to Detroit techno, two new labels, and a New Night at Transportbedrijf]. Vice Magazine 2. Cameron, John (15 November 2021). "Abstract Division Deliver Sublime Hypnotic Techno". Selector News. Retrieved 18 February 2025 3. de Vrieze, Atze (27 september 2022). Article about Abstract Division at 3voor12 of VPRO 4. de Vrieze, Atze (26 oktober 2021). Article about Abstract Division at 3voor12 of VPRO 5. Peters, Jouko (16 oktober 2013). Interview with Abstract Division at 3voor12 of VPRO 6. THUMP Editorial Team (25 November 2015). "Crate Expectations: Abstract Division". Vice. Retrieved 18 February 2025. 7. Kolada, Brian. "Review of Abstract Division - Form & Function Part 3". Resident Advisor. 8. Kolada, Brian. "Review of Abstract Division - Time And Perception Pt. 1". Resident Advisor.


Again, if for other artists, less of these were enough in the past to get their own Wikipedia page accpeted.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

VMCS83 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on their talk page. S0091 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&oldid=1286741327"