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.
if I may quote you: "I can see that, while the sources are probably reliable, not a single one of them is independent of Stossier"...
So if I list the sources I used:
1) Registry of the Austrian Medical Association -> it is an Austrian governmental institution which administrates all Austrian physicians. it would be comparable with
/info/en/?search=Medical_Board_of_California -> therefore I think this source is reliable and independent?
3) Website India Today -> based on the size of the organisation and the date it was founded it would assume it is considered as well-established. ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"
4 and 5) Union Registry of the Austrian Ministry of the Interior -> it is an Austrian governmental institution which administrates all Austrian unions and their registration. i would also assume that this source is independent?
now i would say at least 4 out of 6 sources are reliable and independent according to wikipedias guidelines?
Yet another IT guy I'm sure the AMA and the Ministry are reliable at storing and presenting the professional data provided by the subject, or his institution. That does not make them independent. (I also presume that they are little more than directory entries, but I can't tell since in each case you have linked to a search function, not to an entry). India today is no doubt reliable, but that article is an account of the presentation made by Stossier and others. This is not independent.
What we require is an article substantially based on what people unconnected with the subject or their institutions have chosen to publish about the subject. Directory entries can be used to support the statement that the person holds such and such a position, or is in such and such an institution, but cannot contribute to notability. Articles based on interviews or presentions by the subject can support statements about what the person has said, but not about the content of what they said, and also do not contribute to notability.
Let's also look at this another way.
Hell in a Bucket said they thought sourcing needed to be improved vastly. You asked for guidance, saying "in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines"; I replied with my opinion that they were probably all reliable, but none of them independent.
Cullen328 agreed with me. Now you come back questioning my judgment on four of the six sources.
It is, of course, possible that Hell in a Bucket, Cullen328, and I are all wrong, and other editors would disagree. But if you look at our contribution histories, do you think it is likely? (Hint: I've been here a lot longer than the other two, but I'm the baby, with less than 15000 edits) --
ColinFine (
talk)
22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
In order to establish notability, sources must be independent and reliable, and must devote significant coverage to the topic. All three are required. Directory listings are not significant coverage and often are not independent, so they do not contribute to notability.
Cullen328Let's discuss it23:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine thank you for the explanation. Of course I do not question your judgement. It was just not clear to me how I can improve the sources to fit all guidelines and get the article approved. It was not an attempt to argue with you or doubt you in any way! Based on the reviews I had no idea how to improve the sources, but thanks to you I think I got it.
Another question to
Cullen328 would be about your comment "is that
Applied kinesiology is pseudoscientific" (again, I do not question your judgement!). Does this matter, since the article is about a person and not about the profession he performs? In my draft I did not make any statement about these topics itself. Does it matter if
Applied kinesiology is pseudoscientific or not, if I just state for example that Dr. Stossier president of the International Medical Society of Applied Kinesiology.
Hi
Thanks for the feedback on Teahouse but the news links (i think?) are eithe broken or don't include the video of the execution .. also the reverting user mentioned is Not Available so still don't know why my addition was reverted ...
Hello,
G6cid.
Mélencron has made seven edits in the last hour, so I don't think they are taking a Wikibreak at present, even if they say they are on their User page. As you say, the Times reference does seem to be broken (and I can't seem to find it on archive.com). But I don't understand why you think it is important to link to a video of the execution. Videos of events are generally
primary sources, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. --
ColinFine (
talk)
00:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok I had no knowledge about primary, secondary and tertiary sources, but I've now read the Wikipedia page re this, HOWEVER the whole section is about the execution.. surely a link (LiveLeak) in the form of a video is relevant? Otherwise it's Buckingham Palace without a picture of the palace! Mainstream media are unlikely to show the video (as it's graphic) and surely a news team's video is relevant, even though it's primary? Pls understand I'm simply trying to learn Wiki procedures here (I'm new to content creation!), not to argue! 😀
As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at
m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us.
Thryduulf (
talk)
23:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Colin…
Just as well that I was sitting down with my breakfast coffee when I checked my emails for Tue. 19 Feb…
I'm quite shaken by these revelations about the use of images on my proposed page/s for List of South African women artists!
Feel I've been conned by Creative Commons to part with US$15; and, after some prodding, to extract a sliver of info from them—and then that turns out to be incorrect!
OBVIOUSLY I'm no lawyer, and so all the legal jargon about licenses is gobbledegook to me…
David in Adelaide, South Australia
```` — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
David Desmond (
talk •
contribs)
23:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
David. I'm sorry you've had a problem. I've never heard of anybody paying Creative Commons before - in fact, I didn't even realise that it was an organisation (though I suppose I'd have realised if I had thought about it). In keeping with the principle for which they exist, anybody can copy their licences at no charge (for example, I've used them on my songs:
http://fine.me.uk/songs.html). But they can't enable you to grant a licence on something to which you have no rights, I'm afraid. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Colin, I didn't pay Creative Commons as such; rather it was a donation—an orange box with $15 reversed out in white; i.e. a 'suggested' donation…
Incidentally, re my comment on 'legal jargon about licenses'. I was alluding to the various types of licenses being 'gobbledegook to me'. I meant 'to a high school dropout like me'!
David Desmond (
talk)
00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty first
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,522 last month to 14,683 on 27 February 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,161 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The March 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered March 2019 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.
00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello
Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.
We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to
participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.
We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty second
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,683 last month to 14,745 on 29 March 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,169 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Recent changes
As some of you will know the script for generating the list of project articles for use with the Recent Changes utility stopped working a couple of years ago so the list was way out of date. The good news is that I have managed to find a convoluted way of creating a new list using
AutoWikiBrowser. The link for using the new list is
Watchlist of recent edits. If you are not interested in talk pages then use
Watchlist of recent article edits or for talk pages only
Watchlist of recent talk page edits.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered April 2019 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.
Hello,
Sufi519. Please look at the message
Nick Moyes left after my reply. I simply gave what I thought was helpful advice (though Nick has explained that it might not be very helpful). I have no interest in the subject, and will not be doing anything with it. There is therefore no point in you leaving those references on my talk page, any more than leaving them in the Teahouse. Beyond the suggestions that Nick has made, all I can suggest is that you see if anybody in
WP:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir is interested in working with you. --
ColinFine (
talk)
17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
As you know, many posts on the
WP:HD are from people trying to create an article about themselves or their employer and it's difficult to make a constructive reply without sounding repetitive or disgusted. The way that you responded to Silvia's post today was particularly clear, informative and helpful without being too aggressive. As a long-time reader of the Help desk, thank you for wording your reply as you did. --
Thomprod (
talk)
16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty third
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (down from 14,745 last month to 14,729 on 28 April 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,177 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The May 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered May 2019 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.
23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear Colin
Dear Colin
Thank-you for your help Colin, regarding navigational templates, I am still learning about how to develop one about Archaeology.
Archaeologist02 (
talk)
08:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Colin,
I'm seeking your approval to remove the 'multiple issues' notice on the page for
Mozart the music processor.
I was advised on
Talk:Mozart the music processor that you had placed some of the alerts - though I still have no idea how else I'd have found that out - and that I should contact you about it. And some of the 'multiple issues' seem to have changed since I last looked an hour or so ago. So I'm not sure where I am. (I'm very new to Wikipedia contribution, and ascending a steep learning curve.)
Continuing anyway, my rationale is as follows.
Appearance as an advert: I checked similar pages (
Sibelius (scorewriter),
Finale (software),
MuseScore) and I don't seem to have anything that isn't also included on those. But this point seems to have been removed now.
Original research: I am a theoretical physicist and have spent my life doing original research. I can assure you that there's none on this page.
Citations needed: Almost every sentence contains links to other Wikipedia articles, and I've added a couple of references to books about some of the topics (now complete with ISBN numbers), to Mozart's concerto, as requested, and to assorted common file formats. But the only way I can support the veracity of statements about
Mozart the music processor would be to link to the program's own web site. And I understand too much of that might be considered an advert. So I'm not sure what more I can do here.
Close connection with the subject: yes I have, and it is because of that that I was able to see that some of the old article was out of data and no longer true. I have now declared my interest with the appropriate templates. And I've trued to keep the wording neutral.
Personal reflection etc: I can only assume this refers to the reasons why the program was named after Mozart. This is a statement about the origins of the program and the idea to include it came directly from
Sibelius (scorewriter) - it was named Sibelius as a reference to the brothers Finn who wrote it (Sibelius was a Finn) and because they liked his music. So there is really no difference between that and why Mozart was called Mozart.
In conclusion, I hope you can now see your way to allowing the removal of the multiple issues box.
The 'advert' issue (a point you made in 2013) has reappeared. In view of the similarity with the other sites (above) may I remove it?
Dave Webber (
talk)
19:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Dave, and welcome to Wikipedia. Looking at the article's history, I see that I did insert two of the tags, {{advert}}, and {{refimprove}}, in 2013; the others are from other editors. I'm conflicted answering you, because you know that I have always been a staunch supporter of Mozart; but with my Wikipedia hat on, I don't believe that article is suitable for Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that the product meets Wikipedia's criteria for
notability. I suspect that, but for my own COI, I would quite likely have nominated the article for deletion in 2013, but I wimped out and just tagged it, hoping somebody else would take a look.
It doesn't require permission from the original placer to remove a tag: that is just a courtesy; but I'm afraid that the tags all apply. Please read
verifiability. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliably published source, and most of it from a source wholly unconnected with the subject of the article. Nothing about the author's intent or inspiration should appear, unless that has already been published by a reliable source (though I suppose for that purpose a
self-published source would do). Anything which does not come from a reliably published source is considered
original research, and not accepted. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in what the subject of an article, or people closely associated with it, say about it: it is only interested in what people unconnected with it have published about it.
The features section is far too long for an encyclopaedia article - that is part of what makes it read like an ad - and wholly unsourced. In fact the big problem is that the article has almost no independent sources - the Review is the only one. A single independent source is not enough to establish
notability.
In my view, if it is to be saved, this article will probably need to be rewritten from bottom up, based almost entirely on independent sources (if they exist - I haven't looked).
Hello
ColinFine Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your views, but I'm getting confused.
Until yesterday I'd had very little to do with that article - I may have made some minor changes some years ago. But yesterday I realised that it reflected Mozart 10 from 2009, and much of it was no longer true. Probably few others would have realised this, so I set out to correct it myself. I was trying to keep it as factual as possible. And I've been on a steep learning curve from others about COI declarations, but they're now in place.
The reason from my confusion comes from sources like
Sibelius_(scorewriter). That page has a 'Features' section longer than that of
Mozart music software so I assumed that updating the existing section of
Mozart music software - written by others - would be OK. (I actually removed some points as well as adding a couple to make it more balanced, and dividing it into subsections.)
Finale (software) doesn't have 'Features' but it has sections on both 'Functionality' and 'Abilities'. So I feel just a little upset that it appears to be all OK for Sibelius and Finale, but not apparently for Mozart - even to the extent that you might have deleted the Mozart page but not theirs. Now they spend a lot on advertising; Mozart spends nothing. But Mozart does have thousands upon thousands of users around the globe: after 25 years it adds up. So I'm not happy with the idea that Mozart isn't 'notable' (although Wikipedia obviously has its own sense). It is difficult to cite independent reviews of Mozart. There have been a few magazine reviews over the years and one radio interview which went out somewhere in the USA but I haven't kept track of them. A mistake, I now realise. So an article based entirely on independent reviews would not be feasible, unless of course you include the independent efforts of the people who wrote the original (day-before-yesterday)
Mozart music software article, on which today's is based. Which would militate against a complete rewrite - by me anyway.
But the bottom line is that Mozart does undeniably exist, has done for 25 years, and the Wikipedia page has been around for 12 years. So it would seem fair that Wikipedia should continue to acknowledge its existence. And a page of roughly the same structure as that of
Sibelius_(scorewriter) was, I thought, the safest approach.
The thought which troubles me more than most is that I could have left it as it was 2 days ago - full of what have now become mistakes as the program has evolved - and no-one would have worried about it. By trying to put it right I've opened a can of worms. (I've been talking to others on
User_talk:Dave_Webber and
Talk:Mozart_the_music_processor about these and other concerns. Still trying to find my way around!)
Anyway in conclusion, I'd really appreciate it if you could suggest what can be done (within the realms of possibility) to make the article acceptable, and allow it to supply information which is not too different from that of
Sibelius_(scorewriter) and
Finale (software).
Dave Webber (
talk)
21:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
HI,
Dave. On looking, I think that
Sibelius (scorewriter) probably has far too much detail, and should be pruned; but a difference I see immediately is that it has 66 citations. Many of them (probably too many) are to the company's own material; but it immediately gives a different feel. See
Other stuff exists. --
ColinFine (
talk)
21:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, This makes it very difficult to know what is acceptable. It appears that
Sibelius (scorewriter) can get away with dozens of references to their own material (something which I thought was bad and avoided) and
Finale (software) (also with many references to the developers) can have a much more extensive release history (which reads far more like an advertisement) than
Mozart the music processor's completely without criticism. All three are essentially the same kind of computer program; all three have been around for decades. And yet I'm not allowed to argue that
Mozart the music processor should receive equal treatment! If one can't use existing pages, which have gone without criticism, as a model, what on earth can one do?
Dave Webber (
talk)
23:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Guestbook
Hi,
Just wondering if you wanted to sign my Guestbook, which is located on my
User Page
This is an invite to/reminder of the Manchester Meetup on 9 June 2019. Starting at about 1pm on Sunday 9 June in the Sir Ralph Abercombie, 35 Bootle Street, Manchester. Full details are on the Meta page at
m:Meetup/Manchester/36. It would be useful if you could say whether you're likely to be coming so we have a rough idea of how many to people expect and how large a table to reserve. Thanks, and hope to see you there.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty fourth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,729 last month to 14,757 on 28 May 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,199 articles.
Currently we have forty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The June 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered June 2019 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.
Thanks for your response to my question in the Teahouse. I posted a reply there, but your response prompted another question, and I didn't want to clutter the Teahouse post with a separate discussion. Would you mind telling me how to link articles to Wikidata? Frequently after I have created an article, I am notified that someone has linked it to a Wikidata item. I would be glad to create such links myself, but I haven't found out how to do it.
Eddie Blick (
talk)
23:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Teblick. You have to get to the Wikidata page, and add the article into that. An easy way to get to Wikidata is to go to an existing Wikipedia article and pick the "Wikidata Item" if there is one - if not, look for another article. Once you're in Wikidata, you can search for the subject.
More cunningly, if there is an existing article about something closely associated with the topic of the new article, and you go to the Wikidata item corresponding to that, there may happen to be a link within that Wikidata item to the one you want to link. For example, suppose you had just written an article about George Aislabie, father of
John Aislabie, and you wanted to link that to the corresponding Wikidata item, you could go to
John Aislabie, pick the "Wikidata Item" link which would take you to
d:Q6218368. Half way down that you will see a link "father" which takes you to
d:Q41980796, a Wikidata item for his father George. You could edit the section labelled "Wikipedia" to add a link to the new article in English Wikipedia. (Of course, often if you are working on a new article, there won't yet be a Wikidata item, but in this case there is one even though it is not yet linked to articles in any other project.)
Do be careful though to make sure that the scope of the Wikidata item and the Wikipedia article are the same, or you'll create exactly the problem we had with
Mask and Wig. --
ColinFine (
talk)
23:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will explore Wikidata a bit and find my way around in it. Then I will apply your advice. I appreciate your help.
Eddie Blick (
talk)
23:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)