Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2022
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisha Kramer
Hi Goldsztajn, I am writing to follow up about the policy basis for your close, and I am hoping you can explain which guideline or policy supports your closing rationale No convincing refutation that the preponderance of reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of the their relationship to a notable politician.
Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, would you consider relisting the discussion instead? This discussion only ran from 17:57, 4 May 2022 to your close at 00:15, 14 May 2022, and while the definition of
close calls and controversial decisions
seems open for debate, there appears to be a lot of dispute in the AfD over how to interpret the applicable WP:BLP guideline, so it seems better for an admin to close this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC) - Hi @Beccaynr. In terms of process, I emphasise, I have only looked at the discussion itself and drew a conclusion from that. WP:INVALIDBIO was a strong argument. But added to that, I think the counter-factual argument (would this person have an article not for their marriage?) gave the redirect argument substantially more weight. Neither the INVALIDBIO nor the counter-factual arguments were directly refuted by detailed source analysis (as against vague waves) which is what would have been required to counter-refute them (if possible). Further, the specific examples of other spouse-redirects were convincingly applied as similar in this case. I hope this gives you further indication of my reasoning and I'm happy to discuss further if you need. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr I was typing my reply and now see you've made a second reply asking for a relist. Would you have a look at my note and confirm your request, please? Kind regards Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I continue to think a relist and allowing an admin to close the contentious discussion would be appropriate under the circumstances - my concern is about a basis in our guidelines to ask
would this person have an article not for their marriage?
because WP:INVALIDBIO specifically rules that counter-factual argument out if significant coverage exists. Also, WP:OSE arguments are part of WP:AADD, and I am concerned about how those examples, that appear to be used to argue an exception to WP:GNG, could be considered per WP:INVALIDBIO, which only asks whether significant coverage exists. The guideline appears concerned with bare assertions of notability based on a relationship to a more-notable person, when there is no significant coverage of the individual, not with creating a subjective exception to WP:GNG. There are several current AfDs that discuss this issue, with e.g. TJMSmith (in the Marty Kemp AfD) and David Eppstein (in the Anne Geddes AfD) commenting on it, and I have pinged them because maybe they could offer us some additional perspective. I also disagree that there was a detailed source analysis in this discussion, and I would have added one if a relist message suggested it would be helpful. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)- Hi @Beccaynr Done. While I disagree with your analysis, however, I certainly acknowledge this is not without ambiguity, and as a NAC it is perfectly fair to request a relist and an admin close on the basis of, disagreement or not, what I accept as a reasonable argument. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I continue to think a relist and allowing an admin to close the contentious discussion would be appropriate under the circumstances - my concern is about a basis in our guidelines to ask
- @Beccaynr I was typing my reply and now see you've made a second reply asking for a relist. Would you have a look at my note and confirm your request, please? Kind regards Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the relist, Goldsztajn. I appreciate your consideration of my comments, especially because I have been concerned about how well I have managed to communicate on these issues (I recently injured my arm and hand in a hi-larious umbrella accident so I have been typing through a fair amount of pain lately). Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Your GAR
Hi! A bit over a couple weeks back you mentioned your willingness to review Sumitro Djojohadikusumo's GAN - are you still planning to continue it? Juxlos (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Juxlos - I'll be able to get to it this weekend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Goldsztajn,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 736 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1034 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured Content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Economic Freedom Fighters on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from Bradwss (14:59, 15 June 2022)
Hi,
I’m looking to create a page for my company, VerityStream. I’ve begun this task because all there currently is on Wikipedia is a page for Symed, which is a company that VerityStream merged with years ago. The page doesn’t have to be long, but it should have a basic description of the overview of the company and its history. I was wondering if someone could give me some insight as to how to include references to boost notability. I’ve read that press releases and links to the company website aren’t acceptable references, but they would be perfect in this case for referencing the brief content that I intend to include on this Wiki page.
Thanks, Brad --Bradwss (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Bradwss - thanks for reaching out and seeking help - it's good practice given the conflict of interest you have. Unfortunately, I suspect my answers may not be what you are hoping for, but nevertheless it's good to follow best practice. In order for a company to be considered notable (ie worthy of having an article) there needs to be independent, reliable sourcing with significant coverage of the company. Press releases are self-published and cannot be considered independent or reliable. Have a read through WP:NCORP which gives full details of what is required to demonstrate notability. I've had a look at the Sy.Med Development page and it lacks reliable, independent sourcing that shows significant coverage. Feel free to post some links here which you think might establish notability, I'm happy to continue to advise you. However, a brief, initial search for Sy.Med or VerityStream does not reveal anything obvious to me that satisfies the notability criteria. However, from what I can see, VerityStream and Symed are owned by HealthStream, which appears to be a US$200 million company. HealthStream may well be notable and perhaps sourcing exists, but I've not looked, to satisfy NCORP requirements. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Goldsztajn, I wanted to double check with you to confirm that these sources wouldn't be able to establish notability; I also want to make sure I understand the reasons why:
- VerityStream Acquires CredentialMyDoc, for $9M - FinSMEs
- HealthStream subsidiary VerityStream buys CredentialMyDoc - Nashville Business Journal (bizjournals.com)
- VerityStream Acquires CredentialMyDoc for $9M in Cash - Healthcare M&A (hitconsultant.net)
- These sources are significant and secondary, but they probably aren't reliable or independent - they come from general business sites and one of them is a local business journal.
- VerityStream, a HealthStream Company, Acquires CredentialMyDoc | Business Wire
- VerityStream, a HealthStream Company, Acquires CredentialMyDoc (apnews.com)
- EX-99.1 (sec.gov)
- These are reliable, secondary and significant, but in the AP article, the source is healthstream, and the business wire doesn't cite a particular source, so that would disqualify them from being independent and therefore notable?
- Medical Staff Credentialing Vendors Meeting New Telehealth Needs (revcycleintelligence.com)
- This source would probably qualify, but it doesn't provide any basic info about the company or its history, so it probably wouldn't be used as a reference due to the purpose of this page.
- Something that I thought would be a good summary of notability: if a company is notable, other independent sources will take their own initiative to cover stories related to that company. Let me know if you have comments on that.
- Thanks Bradwss (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bradwss The first five are all essentially the same: they are from the same company press release (the sixth). The seventh source is borderline for two reasons - it essentially repeats the findings of a report from a marketing agency and as you note, the coverage of VerityStream is trivial. None of these to me can be considered WP:SECONDARY sources. How Wikipedia defines notability can be most easily understood from the general notability guideline, note the comment at the end: "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." I recommend you focus on determining whether HealthStream, the parent company, is notable and if so, information about subsidiaries could be included there. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from IamJoarSabate (15:58, 16 June 2022)
Hello Blaze Wolf,
I'm hopefully you'll gonna helped me please create me a Knowledge Graph in Wikipedia to see in the Google Search Result with my personal information publicly named. I want to know have my personality identification to see I am in the public figures or interest.
Thank You, I'll be wait your response. --IamJoarSabate (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IamJoarSabate - I'm sorry, I cannot help you, what you are requesting is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Question from Bradwss (19:48, 17 June 2022)
Is there any way you could give me a screenshot or allow me to access the version of the page which was deleted? I want to provide my manager a copy of the progress made with this task. Thanks --Bradwss (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bradwss - I don't know which deleted page you mean. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)