User talk:PamD

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2006 - Jan 2009) Archive 2 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2009) Archive 3 (Dec 2009 - Feb 2011) Archive 4 (Feb 2011 - Feb 2012) Archive 5 (Feb 2012 - Aug 2012) Archive 6 (Aug 2012 - Apr 2013) Archive 7 (Apr 2013 - Mar 2014) Archive 8 (Mar 2014 - Oct 2014) Archive 9 (Oct 2014 - Jan 2016) Archive 10 (Jan 2016 - Jan 2017) Archive 11 (Jan 2017 - Mar 2018) Archive 12 (Mar 2018 - Jun 2019) Archive 13 (Jun 2019 - Sep 2020) Archive 14 (Sep 2020 - Apr 2022 - Archive 15 (Apr 2022) - Archive 16 (?)

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, welcome, welcome PamD! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

I'm a beginner on Wikipedia and my article was nominated for deletion. Could you please help me? I put some effort into it. I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines. Here's the discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamila_Musayeva Mlody1312 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand this particular edit. I realized almost all of the "multiple references" used were, in fact, the same article posted without credit throughout the internet (so, functionally, the same reference). I found an article that at least appears to give credit, and used that in a way that made it transparent that it was the same article/reference. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses But if you reduce it all to one local paper, "Former nude Playboy model and Loughton resident ...", it gives a very different impression. And not all the detail is present in each version: the first ref (though its date looks dubious, I admit) is the one which gives detail of the two previous incidents. Given that someone wants to delete the article altogether, making this section appear as if "only the local paper covered it, no wider interest" seems a step to the section being deleted completely. The very fact of coverage in several sources (Mirror, Sky, and two separate articles in the Brighton paper), seems significant. PamD 13:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD The AfD is over now. The article isn't getting deleted. if the section were deleted, it might actually be more compliant with the BLP policy, anyways. The first article having dubious is actually a reason to not use it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD In regard to that section though, is the subject of the article really still a high-profile individual? I agree that notability has been established. But, if the subject is low-profile, then only information directly relevant to their notability should be included per the BLP guidelines. The criminal convictions aren't relevant to their original reason for notability. They may have been a high-profile individual at the time, but that can change. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." and "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". Svenska356 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svenska356 I guess I take a more moderate approach, in that a few, well-sourced sentences about a criminal conviction at the end of an article isn't going to tarnish Glovers' reputation enough to justify a potentially prolonged argument. We could, potentially, even go down to one sentence: "Glover was convicted of assaulting a DJ. [inline citation]" After all, the assault and resulting criminal issues did happen, and it's not defamation to point that out.

The problem is the apparent determination that any shortening of the article could very well result in the deletion of it. On a website where stubbification is not a form of deletion but rather an alternative to deletion*, that doesn't make sense.

(*As an aside, I'm surprised stubbification isn't listed on WP:ATD. I've used it as an alternative to deletion several times; basically, a milder form of WP:TNT). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses @Svenska356:, this discussion should be visible to all on the article's talk page not scattered around many User talk pages. But I'm surprised that editors trying to minimise the negative aspects of her story haven't done much to include the positive ( a chunk of which was recently removed). I had a go this morning. PamD 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe we should continue on Talk:Louise Glover and link to the other discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD I agree that it should be added to the talk page. Sorry, that was my bad in terms of my attempted addition. I am not too experienced when it comes to doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenska356 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context to above post: this entire section had been copied and pasted to Talk:Louise Glover with no explanation to show that it was not native to that page: I reverted. PamD 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Comedy of Terrors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Comedy of Terrors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hi Pam.

Any help you could give with the Centenary Action page would be really appreciated. Someone in California seems to have taken exception to it, but it is a genuine campaigning organisation to increase female representation in parliament. I have tried to update the references according to guidelines, and it would be great if those notices could be removed.

If you are not able to help but could point me towards someone who could, that would be great.

@Kps215 Kps2015 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 In the interest of full transparency, I'm watching this talk page and am the "person from California" you're talking about. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 I'm not clear, looking at the article, whether "Centenary Action" and "Centenary Action Group" are the same thing. Is it an organisation of individuals, or an joining-together of many organisations?

The sections on "Campaign successes" and "Media coverage" are, to be honest, a mess. Take the first one: you've linked a chunk of text as an external link, that isn't how it's done. You've duplicated the same link as a reference. That ref supports the fact that IPSA makes provision for parental leave, certainly. But it doesn't mention Centenary Action. There is nothing to support the fact that CA had anything to do with this. You need to find references in reliable independent published sources (ie not CA's own website or publications) which explicitly state that it was campaigning by CA which led, at least in part, to the change. And the same for all your other points in those two sections.

Yes, I'm sure CA is a good and worthy group fighting a necessary battle, but this article hasn't yet got much evidence of the coverage in WP:RS which is needed for it to be a worthy encyclopedia article. That's why I suggested "Draftifying" it: putting it into the "Draft" space so that you and other editors could polish it up, add sources etc, without it being vulnerable to deletion as being inadequately sourced to show notability. Whether by editors from across the pond or not.

Here's one article, for a start:

Crockett, Moya (2017). "Toxic culture is "actively putting women off" entering politics, say campaigners". Stylist. Retrieved 25 October 2024.

PamD 15:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 There's also the issue of WP:COI. Somewhere along the way you said that some text you had added to the article which was removed as copyright was OK because it had been added by the person who'd written it on their site (or words to that effect: I'm not going to chase up to find just where). That suggests that you are a volunteer or employee of CA, if you are writing their website. Please clarify your relationship to the organisation, after reading WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thanks. PamD 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pam,

I think Kps2015 said the thing about the copyright at the AfD. And thanks, I've been trying to point to notability policies (which, more or less, boil down to reliable sourcing). I'm okay with draftification, but WP:DRAFTIFY technically disallows unilaterally moving an article to draftspace more than once (maaaybe even if the person doing is has a COI? It's hard to tell). My intuition tells me this would be unilaterally moved back if I did that, anyways, so it's not worth my time. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam. Yes, that is correct, I have been asked by the organisation to put up the page on Wikipedia. Kps2015 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 Asked? Paid? Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. PamD 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pam. I have added a declaration to the talk section of the page.

Can you let me know if there is any other objection to the page than the "Campaign Successes" section. If I delete it, will the page be OK? Kps2015 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 You were told six days ago about the requirement to declare being a paid editor. If you're taking money to do something, you should learn how to do it properly and not rely on the good will of volunteer editors to clean up your work. I'm sure CA is a worthy cause but I'm finished with doing the work you're being paid to do. PamD 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD I am trying to get clarity on what particular part of the page there is objection to. Reading between the lines, it seems that it is just the "Campaign Successes" section. If that is the case, I am happy to delete that section until I have further references.

Is there any objection to the rest of the page? Kps2015 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this @PamD

The organisation is called "Centenary Action". See its website - https://centenaryaction.org.uk/.

It is a membership organisation. The members are listed on its website.

I take your point about references and I will go back to the organisation to ask for more information.

Yes, I am happy for the page to be moved to draft if that is the right thing to do. Kps2015 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 What is your connection with CA? A volunteer, an employee, or what? You seem to have said that you wrote material on their website. PamD 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Hi Pam.

I had no involvement with Centenary Action's website. They provided me the text to create their Wikipedia page. So, yes, I do have a conflict, but all I am trying to get up is a factual description of what the organisation does. Kps2015 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 The objection I'm having is lack of sourcing about Centenary Action specifically (and not just the founder), creating concern that there might be a claim of "inherited notability" from said founder to the organization. Also, the copyright violation, but that's been cleared up. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary: Kps2015 was informed on 23 October about COI and Paid Editing policies. On 29 October, having been actively editing and asking for help in the meantime, they made their first explicit statement that they are being paid to create Centenary Action. If someone is being paid to do a job they should (a) learn about the framework of rules within which they are working, (b) not expect volunteer editors to spend their time doing the work for which the editor is being paid, and (c) take note of messages about declaring COI and payment. I'm sure Centenary Action is a worthy organisation fighting and important battle, but Wikipedia will not host their paid PR. Pinging @Kps2015 and I dream of horses: for info. PamD 09:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please add db-author deletion template to this redirect page Foyles Book of the Year.

I intend to move Foyles Books of the Year there. The award has been renamed.

This might be faster than me doing a formal move request by admins Create a template (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this redirect page Foyles Book of the Year Create a template (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Create a template Any reason why you can't do it yourself? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Create a template Redirects are different and the dba CSD isn't an option. But I've CSD'd it under "required for a noncontroversial move". The page will take some careful editing, to preserve its previous description with 3 awards (archived page needed) while describing current award which seems to be just one novel. PamD 06:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, it would probably have been quicker to use "Request move" anyway, especially given the time of night! PamD 06:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, no, it's fine as is. Not just a novel, my misreading. They don't seem to offer any definition of scope or criteria! PamD 06:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323 Online events: New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost Asian content on Wikipedia each November. Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at search.creativecommons.org/ Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I don't understand your revert but on past experience, you don't get much wrong. So can I clarify?

• CE (disambiguation) is a list of articles known by that initialism.
• I know of no cases where, apart from deliberate "I see no ships", that anyone anywhere uses CE to mean Christian Era. Although that nomenclature has long provenance, in recent times it is used as a POV backronym.
• Christian Era does not redirect to CE.

So tmli5, why is it there? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF I suggest that it's a likely-enough misunderstanding of what CE stands for, to be worth retaining the link to Anno Domini. The Guardian style guide refers to "some people prefer CE (common era, current era or Christian era)". It gets a mention in Anno_Domini#CE_and_BCE if that helps. Christian Era and Christian era redirect to Anno Domini, with a hatnote there pointing to the Christian era (disambiguation) page.

The more I look at Anno Domini and Common Era, the more I wonder why we have two separate articles - but I suspect it's been a hugely contested area so am not going there.

I had to Google "tmli5": seems to be Reddit term and I don't do Reddit - but perhaps it's down to age or side of the pond.

Perhaps: Some people think that CE stands for "Christian Era", even though they're wrong (as lots of Wikipedia readers are about lots of things). Someone has decided that the most likely useful article for someone searching on "Christian Era" is the article Anno Domini. So we should help those people by offering a link from the CE dab page to Anno Domini.

But it's not a hill I'd fight over: it just seemed more helpful to leave the dab entry there. I suppose I've got a pretty inclusionist approach to dab page entries. PamD 12:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense so I won't pursue. It just looked like yet another case of proselytising slipped in. And yes, it is a sensitive topic, see talk:Common Era#Request for Comment: Christian Era. (And apologies for trying to be trendy: another editor might have regarded tlmi5 as snarky and rightly so. I didn't spot it at the time but it is obvious now.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF To be honest I had this going round in my head later and found I was disagreeing with myself, but I still think it's probably worth including in the dab page! Controversial stuff best tiptoed quietly around or left well alone. And I've increased my vocabulary learning "tmli5" etc (seems to come in a variety of versions!) Every day a school day, as they(^{[citation needed]} say. PamD 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

• Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
• Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
• Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]