Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Epm98f (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Why is the ultimate impact of her scientific findings not stated in the article? It doesn't go into any more depth than besides saying it's for diabetes. I also think the first paragraph should be restructured to mention what she is most known for, which is her work with Vandium. Her current job at Colorado State is not what she is known for.Epm98f (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. More details are available on the re-assessment page. Please ping me if you need anything as my watchlist is already quite large and I'd prefer not to add seven or eight more wikiprojects to my watchlist on top of the ones that I already have. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Fede Pistono could possibly be a recreation of Federico Pistono. - Brianhe (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Same guy, text is different - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

From a spot check of the sources, and the subject's own official website, Federico Pistono is the WP:COMMONNAME. - Brianhe (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:First Spouse of the Philippines#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Megan Marcks#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if he should be a protected article or not. But I've watched a number of IP editors cause vandalism, then revert their own vandalism. It's a bit strange at times. Maybe an admin can add the article to their watchlist to monitor it. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I added it to my watchlist. Maybe more eyes on the article will help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

His page doesn't credit him with his appearance in "Rent-a-Cop" in 1987...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0752636/?ref_=nv_sr_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojazz40 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedians! I'm hoping editors experienced editing biography articles can review a discussion on the Walmart CEO Doug McMillon Talk page.

A brief history: This article was badly outdated so I, as one of Walmart's representatives on Wikipedia, prepared a new draft and posted an edit request in March. Editor Checkingfax implemented my proposed draft the next month. In August, editor HighKing posted an {{autobiography}} tag atop the article. On the Talk page, HighKing wrote that the article contains "too much detail that has nothing to do with the reason Doug is notable".

While I disagree and believe the information is important to Mr. McMillon's role with Walmart, it is also my understanding that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are for whether a person or topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article, whereas the content of an article is governed by other policies, such as Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

I would appreciate another view on this. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, JLD at Walmart (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would say that it has too much detail, but it certainly paints a rosy picture of Mr. McMillon, almost as if it had been written by Walmart's PR department. I can't dive in to this myself but it could use some attention. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone from this WP:BIOG would mind taking a look at Sarah Tiana. I've been trying off and on to find better sourcing for the article, but haven't had much luck. There was discussion at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Possible sources of the possibility of a redirect to another article, but AfD is also another alternative. Any suggestion or other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that this move discussion is currently listed at the top of the talk page, but I'm highlighting it here as well: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Joachim Helbig, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.

The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Babji2000 (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC) The following page is a duplicate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=49049903

Original page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=49067882 is better and updates should go to this page.

October 2016
	Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello, Please note that List of German painters, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

There is a move request on the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey page to move it to Death of JonBennét Ramsey. Another suggestion is to simplify it to her name, making it JonBenét Ramsey, which was the article name until November 2012.

Would you mind weighing on the discussion at Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016 regarding this and any standard that this project may have for naming articles when someone has been murdered or died?

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is the ideal forum for seeking assistance on this question because JonBenét Ramsey is not a biography. The question is one concerning titles. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool! I was just about to post that the request has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Murder of JonBenét Ramsey. If someone here, though, is familiar with standards that the Biography group has about naming articles of people that have died or been killed, that would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have worked on the biography of musical theatre performer Jason Graae, taking it from an unreferenced stub of 2127 bytes to the current 20327 byte version. I'm about to nominate it for DYK so would appreciate an assessment of its current level. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of someone looking at the Jason Graae article and assessing it for me? I re-wrote it so can't assess it myself. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know why this picture shows up in the Italian article but not the English one (Mauro Piacenza) please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in the "image" field of the infobox. To make the image appear, you either need an interwiki link to it in the image field (I don't know how to do that), or (better) you need to copy the image to Wikimedia Commons. If you can't figure it out and no one else chimes in here, try Wikipedia:Village pump or WP:Help Desk. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There was--but it was reverted.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

An image hosted on the Italian wikipedia cannot (as far as I know) be used by adding its filename in an infobox on the English wikipedia. The image needs to be copied to wikimedia commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/ - and then a link of the sort which you used in your 19:29, 4 October 2016 edit will show the image, and will not be reverted. (i.e. it was reverted because it did not work - did not display the image.) I'm not very comfortable with doing the image move for lack of understanding of the italian licences found on the image. I can see it is PD, not not why. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Where could we find an editor who could transfer it to Wikimedia Commons for us?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, lazyness break over. I put the page into a translation software, and it turns out it's PD-self. So, all now sorted, Zigzig20s. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But can you spot a difference in the "image" line here?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The image line looks the same to me. I added the alt & caption. Feel free to amend to your taste. It really should have an alt. Don't care if it has a caption of not. On you boldly go :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

But why wasn't the picture showing up when I first put it in, if it's the same text in the "image" line as now?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Because the image was neither on the English wikipedia nor on Wikimedia Commons. It was on the Italian Wikipedia only - it might as well have been on the moon. English Wikipedia can only see files on English Wikipedia and Commons. :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, problem and mystery both solved. Thank you.

I thought it should be possible to display it with something like [[File:it:Card-piac3.jpg]] but nothing seems to work. Probably because of the copyright issue you noted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup. What may well be usable in one jurisdiction may not be usable in another; especially the case with fair dealing / fair use. So inter-language file sharing is not enabled. Commons was created to make good that problem by providing a central location of files that should be good for all jurisdictions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Would you say this reference is reliable or not? It's in the Huffington Post, but it looks like it's a blog. Lots of useful information if I can cite it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The following list is full of more sources on Lottie "the body" Graves that I deemed useful for this article.

1. Jones, Tiffani. "Secret History of The Black Pinup: Lottie "The Body" Graves." Coffee Rhetoric:. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

This source recounts Lottie “the body” Graves upbringing and her history as a burlesque dancer. It talks about how the notable black burlesque/ vaudeville dancer danced in white clubs at the peak of segregation. It even goes as far as her mingling with Aretha Franklin and famed others.

2. Klein, Sarah. "Paradise Regained." Detroit Metro Times. Metro Times, 03 Aug. 2005. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

This source notes Lottie “ The Body” as the muse behind the pink poodle, and friends with notables like Billy Holiday and Fidel Castro. She’s noted in this source as Detroit's Gypsy Rose Lee.

3. Doherty, Serena. "This Is How You Burlesque." Burlexe. Burlexe, 30 May 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

This source let’s us know where Lottie was born and the age she began her Burlesque career. It also takes snippets of quotes from authors who wrote on Lottie.

4. "Legend: Lottie the Body." Red Hots Burlesque. Red Hots Burlesque, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

This story talks about how Lottie could’ve been the inspiration for “Brick House” by the commodores. It also reiterates the same information found in other sources.

5. "Lottie 'The Body' Graves | Wikiwand." Wikiwand. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

This source had no more useful information.

6.Clements, David. "LOTTIE THE BODY - "Built like Two Stacks of Pancakes": There Is a Lot of Lottie Online." Detroit Dissolving::. N.p., 13 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

This source gives a view on Lottie Graves’ life currently.

There are some problems with this article, I think. For instance the awards section. Do any of the awards there deserve mention, and is there a guideline or something about that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This article looks like an AfD candidate. The subject does not appear to be notable per WP:AUTHOR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone started an AfD discussion for a certain webcomic because the majority of its sources are based on a single event that has been described as a 'mental breakdown', and because its author requested the article to be deleted. I think there is consensus to keep the article in place, as there are multiple sources for the work or its author not about the specific incident, but now there is a question for how to deal with the situation. I hope someone could have a look at the discussion. I recommend reading from

Comment This is the author of "Pictures for Sad Children."

onward. That's when the discussion took its current form. Are there ways to deal with this low profile topic that we haven't thought of yet? ~Mable (chat) 15:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• A friendly word of caution Please be careful when posting notices about ongoing AfD discussions to avoid editorializing. I am not questioning anyone's good faith. However, when posting an FYI notice alerting editors that a discussion is taking place it should be worded in a neutral "just the facts please" manner. Anything more could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING. Any discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of an article at AfD belongs there. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'm sorry if I came off as canvassing. I merely tried to communicate the worries that have come up in the discussion. I don't know if the current situation is even related to the AfD process anymore, actually. It's a fairly awkward situation. ~Mable (chat) 17:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • No worries. I didn't think you were trying anything improper. Sometimes we get a bit carried away in discussions. But yeah, these kinds of notices are best limited to "There is an AfD discussion that may be of interest to editors which can be found here(link)." or similar. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The BLP on Élizabeth Teissier has an UNDUE tag. She is an astrologer and former model and actress and author. She was given a PhD for a thesis which defended astrology, causing a substantial controversy – and which is a substantial fraction of available sources – and she also unsuccessfully sued the WMF over her BLP on the French WP. I have been working on the article and seek input on balance and undue issues. Please have a look and comment. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies has removed the "works" section from Jacques Follorou twice, with an edit summary suggesting that it makes the article look like a "resume". No, it does not. It is perfectly normal to add a list of works/books published by a journalist/author. We are not in the habit of actively removing information because we don't like it. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and what can we do about this please? This is the very first time I have seen this in ten years. The books had ISBN and OCLC.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's not "perfectly normal" and adding ISBNs doesn't make it better. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

We are in the habit of removing information because it is irrelevant, trivial, throws the article out of balance, of minor importance, or otherwise makes the text of an article less useful to readers. I am not saying that Drmies is correct, and saying that I am also not saying that you are correct. However, it is not sufficient merely for some bit of information to be true or even verifiable; verifiability is a necessary but insufficient condition for inclusion of some bit of information. If you're only rationale for including some fact or bit of information is "I can verify it", than that's simply not enough. You'd need to have reasons based on the quality of the narrative about a person's life. Wikipedia articles are, after all, supposed to contain well-written prose and not merely random and unconnected collections of true things, like complete collections of works, no matter how small or insignificant. Instead, as a compromise, try a bibliography of selected works; such as those that have reliable reviews or which have won significant awards. Such a list would be more in line with WP:IINFO, which notes that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Instead of an indiscriminate list of works, why not an annotated list of works which have shown recognition by others? Also, instead of focusing on the list of works, why not expand the biography. If a person's entire life story can be summed up in one sentence, I'm not sure we need to waste an article title on them. Try writing a comprehensive biography first, then add the summation of their major works second. --Jayron32 03:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

He has published eight books. Why is that too many? I would understand if it was 100 books, but this seems bizarre and unconstructive. The article says, "He is the author of several books". Now that they have been removed, the reader will wonder, "which ones?" and leave Wikipedia to find out. Is that what we want--to take readers away from Wikipedia and discourage them from reading Wikipedia?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And it's a stub; anybody can expand it. But the question here is the redaction of the "works" section.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I should note that on the guidelines for article creations from this WikiProject, it says, "Consider adding a list of works (bibliography, discography, etc.).".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you started as discussion at the article talk page indicating why you think the books should be there? Have you asked Drmies to participate in the discussion? Have you waited for his response there? Have you asked other people unconnected to the page to also comment on the article talk discussion you started? The first course of action is ALWAYS to engage in civil discussion with the person whose editing you question. Please don't run to others first to build an army of support for yourself; it never looks good. Vanishingly close to 100% of all discord could be avoided at Wikipedia if people had the common courtesy to talk with others rather than running off to some noticeboard to "get help". Everything you say about your preferred version of the article could be right (I'm not saying it is, merely positing it as a possibility) and even if it were 100% correct it means nothing because you've taken no action to have a nice conversation with Drmies to ask him what he is doing nor have you ever explained your position to him. You're first response was to instantly revert them and your second action was to run somewhere else to get help. Whatever happened to just talking with other people?!? Seriously. Just talk to him. In a nice way. Very friendly and cordial, not demanding. Point out what you just told me here. Direct him to the style guides. Ask him for his comment on that. You did NOTHING like that. You didn't like what he did, never talked to him, then ran for help from someone else. That rarely yields satisfactory results in a collaborative project. --Jayron32 03:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. This WikiProject has a guideline for a "works" section. Why are we suddenly no longer following this guideline? There is no need whatsoever to personalize this; editors don't change guidelines by themselves randomly.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you intentionally ignoring me, or are you incapable of reading what I wrote? It has nothing to do with whether or not you're right or wrong. You've never once engaged Drmies and started a direct, personal discussion with him over the matter before coming here. Let me make it simple, and with few distractions so you don't miss it: Don't ask for help from others if you never made a good faith effort to solve the problem yourself by talking directly and civily with Drmies. That's all. I don't give two shits about whether or not you think you're right. You can be right if you want to be. Don't come asking for people to intervene on your behalf, however, if you can't talk directly to someone and explain to him directly. If all you had done, before posting here, is explain exactly what you've explained to us, but instead did it directly to Drmies, i'm close to 100% sure you would have already solved your problem. That you continue to refuse to do so speaks volumes about how important it is for your to fix the article... Just freaking talk with him already! Stop dragging others into it... --Jayron32 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I am intentionally telling you that there is nothing personal about editing Wikipedia. It is not about talking to complete strangers online; it's about improving content. My sense is that by removing the "works" section, the edit (probably unintentionally) failed to meet the WikiProject guidelines and failed to improve content. Can we please restore it and make sure we focus on improving content on all articles as we move forward?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not a guideline. It's an advice page. It seems like good advice to me, but nobody is under any obligation to follow it. As far as lists of works, I generally like to include them. However, like any other content, consensus can determine that it doesn't add any value. If you feel strongly about it, you could always start an request for comments. Generally, when I create an article, I like to do what Drmies said you should do: discuss it in prose and include a secondary source. Once I've done that, I often – but not always – list the works. Why not try doing it that way? It'll satisfy Drmies, and you'll have what you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Because are we going to discuss every single "works" section on every single article about every single author/journalist who has written books, or could we just save time and agree to include it (as the vast majority of such articles have them and the guideline here suggests we should)? If we save time on this, we can spend the rest of our time adding more content productively.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The list of eight books looks fine. The issue is the lack of prose in the article. It really needs a paragraph or two talking about who this person is or why they are notable. I understand that the list of works, as the article is now, makes the whole thing a bit unbalanced. We could temporarily move the list of works to the talk page until a bit more prose has been added to the article? ~Mable (chat) 12:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is a stub. As far as I know, we encourage stub creations, as they often lead to longer articles over time. But we also have a habit of adding a "works" section, as this WikiProject guideline suggests. I don't see a good argument here for hiding the "works" section in the edit history or even on the talkpage, especially as the text mentions his "several books". Stubs are often unbalanced; we could come up with a new policy to ban stubs entirely, but this is not the right place to discuss this. User:Maplestrip: Would you mind restoring the "works" section please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I note the complainant is actively going out of their way to avoid discussing the issue with the editor they have a dispute with - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I pinged them at the beginning of this thread. But we do not need to personalize this whatsoever. This is not a personal matter. Let me be clear: I have zero time for any attempt whatsoever at Wikidrama. I am busy in real life. This is a matter of WikiProject guidelines and this sets a precedent for all other similar articles. I have never seen this in ten years of editing and if we suddenly decide to do this, it needs to be discussed.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Tagishsimon, for reverting the deletion, under the rationale that "It is conventional and useful to have a works section for authors.". I just hope this doesn't happen again for other articles. And I do hope someone likes the stub and wants to expand it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be the most useful outcome. Would that the article even approached the length of this thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The page has been blanked.Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Page blanked, allegedly by Callum Morton.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Yamla just removed the imdb citation on Charisma Carpenter since when did IMDB become unreliable? It works on the same principles as wiki. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#User-generated_content. IMDB has been explicitly listed there since 2010, but it's never been considered a reliable source, exactly for the reason you give. Wikipedia, too, isn't a reliable source. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup for the same reason Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It is user generated material. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, never new about this, I've seen plenty of bio's using imdb, should I be removing those citations when I see them then? Govvy (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The best would be to replace them, of course. Removing them actually doesn't 'help', though there's not much of a reason to keep them either, as linking to IMDb doesn't 'prove' anything. So yeah, you can remove them when used as a citation. ~Mable (chat) 17:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, in general, if a statement on a BLP is only sourced to IMDb (or another unreliable source), it should be removed. This is to keep biographies free of possible libelous content. Listing a bad film as one of an actor's roles, for example, may be an issue. ~Mable (chat) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is not reliable. So the same way Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself. Noether can IMDB be a reference to Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion taking place at the above article regarding whether or not to include a section about the Trump tapes and Liberty University students' reactions to it. Given how few people have watchlisted the page, I thought it best to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, especially because Falwell is a very politically-involved figure at the moment. I believe that this notification is as neutrally-worded as possible and that it does not violate the canvassing policy. — Gestrid (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Harold T. Martin III, please expand Victor Grigas (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
	Announcing two exciting online editathons Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

In retrospect, it seems a bit surprising that we didn't already have an article on Mark Welser, but we didn't. I translated it from the Italian version. I don't do a lot of bios, so the experts here might want to take a look.

Also, the Italian version was not interlanged to the German version (it is now, but wasn't when I started), so someone might want to take a look at the German article and see if there's anything to import. --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There has been a recent edit to add content to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article regarding sex parties for girls as young as 15 and involving drugs.^[1][2][3] The content of the alleged sexual misconduct is in this edit; It is currently commented out to investigate a dispute about this issue.

It is not widely reported at this time. The journalistic press that appears to be reporting on this at this very moment are New York Daily News, New York Post, Toronto Sun, NEWS.com.au, Times of Israel, and perhaps more sources per this query. I am not sure how many of these sources you would consider reliable sources for this content. Searches conducted just on his name at news.google.com at this very moment do not result in any stories about this issue until the fourth page, per this search.

There is an open RfC regarding whether or not to include content about a rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1994. Based on responses to that discussion in the RfC: Jane Doe content section of the talk page - I think it would be a fair assumption that since it is covered in several mainstream news sources, some editors would likely believe it should be covered in the article, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED.

Oversimplifying the extremes, those who think that an exceptional claim like this requires a major development in a case or more widespread coverage have cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BALASP guidelines. And the applicable policies seem to include WP:WELLKNOWN for Donald Trump. Due to the fact that this is a breaking story, these may apply as well, WP:NOT#NEWS, with There is no deadline and WP:RECENTISM.

There is a posted discussion at Underage Sex and Drug Parties.

Would you help us understand which of the policies and guidelines are most applicable in this situation and how that affects whether it should or should not be included in the article? And, if so characterization of the content, are there any criminal charges or terms that should or should not be used? That would help a lot!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED all apply. There is no need to give in-depth coverage to these new allegations, just as there is no need to give in-depth coverage to the Jane Doe allegations - but they do need to be covered. Coverage can be limited to the brief substance of the allegations, who has made them/reported them, and what Trump or his spokespeople/representatives have said in response, if anything. Using an RfC to prevent inclusion of verified, reliably sourced information is, I believe, an improper use of the RfC procedure. As to the question "are there any criminal charges or terms that should or should not be used", as always, we use what's in the sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those guidelines in the summary here. Rather than repeating the conversation that we've had on the article talk page (I've provided links to the "Jane Doe" and "Underage sex and drug parties" discussion), could we get input from people that haven't been involved in those discussions? Your comments are explored in great detail in the RfC: Jane Doe content and most recently at the Underage Sex and Drug Parties sections.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, two people are on the record about Donald Trump's parties: model Andy Lucchesi and fashion writer Michael Gross, who has now published two articles at The Daily Beast covering this subject, in addition to his 2000 book, "My Generation: Fifty Years of Sex, Drugs, Rock, Revolution, Glamour, Greed, Valor, Faith, and Silicon Chips" which includes interviewing he conducted with Donald Trump. The more well-known article relates to underage models and drug use ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/24/inside-donald-trump-s-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models.html ) and the older article is about Trump's illicit practice of providing fringe benefits to potential partners in deals, casino high-rollers, and prospective condo clients (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/donald-trump-used-model-parties-to-seal-deals-industry-sources-say.html). In addition to Lucchesi, Michael Gross himself is a source because of his writing and his synthesis of the facts, many of which are from sources who for clear reasons do not wish to be identified. Leaving out the material reported by the Daily Beast because of a 2009 RSN would be inappropriate, in my opinion. Besides, this article is about "allegations" and the fact of the matter is that we know that these things being alleged is indisputable. Just open the paper! 168.88.65.6 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From Amazon.com: "Michael Gross is one of America's most provocative non-fiction writers. A contributing editor of Departures, he's written for Vanity Fair, Esquire, GQ, Town & Country,the New York Times and New York, and authored twelve books--detective novels, biographies, exposes and social histories--among them, Rogues' Gallery, a history and expose of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, Unreal Estate, uncovering the secrets of the estate district of Los Angeles, and the critically-acclaimed best-sellers Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women, House of Outrageous Fortune, the story of 15 Central Park West and its residents, and 740 Park: The Story of the World's Richest Apartment Building. He's just finished his next book, Focus, a look at the sexy, scandalous world of fashion photographers. Atria Books will publish it next year. " 168.88.65.6 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Scott Kapnick is the Chief Executive Officer of HPS Investment Partners, a leading global non-investment grade credit firm with ~$33 billion of assets under management. I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia page on Kapnick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taenakim/sandbox

Thank you. Taenakim (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Biography editors may be interest to comment on the discussion started at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Where should the Iron Lady section be placed?, which deals with the placement of the "Iron Lady" section within Margaret Thatcher's article. — JFG ^talk 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Brad Allen is a rather short BLP about an NFL referee. I had some doubts about notability and attached a tag to that effect on 19 April of 2015. It was subsequently removed a few days later with an edit summary simply stating that Allen was notable with no further explanation or rational. In any event the article fell off my radar but I recently stumbled back on it and I am still not seeing a strong claim to WP:N. A Google yielded a number of hits but most of the coverage appeared to be of the trivial/run of the mill variety; i.e. announcements that he will be or has refereed a certain game or that he spoke at a dinner etc. Maybe this collectively adds up to WP:N, but I am ambivalent. WP:NSPORT makes no provision for referee or umpires and OUTCOMES doesn't touch on this at all. This pretty much leaves us with WP:BASIC and I'm just not sure Allen rings that particular bell. So here I am asking for some other editors to take a look and let me know what you think. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Bobby Harris (gridiron football)#Requested move 11 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  ^u/c 22:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor wishes to make a major rewrite to the John Sackar article and has started a discussion about whether or not to make the change. Sackar is a judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. You can find the discussion at Talk:John Sackar#Change the article? — Gestrid (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor insists on removing Lord Lucan from this article on the grounds that "a fugitive from justice has not disappeared mysteriously". He also feels that the long standing entry should be removed until those who want it included (like me) an argue the case for its inclusion. What does the project feel is the right thing here? Britmax (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

From which article, Britmax --16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Britmax (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A list for which there are not clear inclusion/exclusion criteria is always going to be a boxing ring. One might hope that RS would win the day, but it seems editors of the list know better. I'd advise you to give up hope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want these tatty lists in the encyclopedia anyway, I didn't think we were in that business. But if we have to have them, then a list of mysteriously missing people without Lucan is just daft. Britmax (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there'll be a good resolution here. The article has survived 3 AfDs. There's a discussion going on right now about criteria, but I see little prospect of consensus being reached, as one or two editors really don't want Lucan on the list and will not be persuaded otherwise. I agree that the preferential order would be a) nuke the article b) agree criteria which meet use-cases like Lucan. Depressing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jim McAllister (Irish republican)#Requested move 12 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  ^u/c 18:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user claiming to be the author of Pictures for Sad Children has appeared. They say they have gone through the recommended means to get the article changed in some manner, without positive results. I hope someone with more experience in the BLP field could jump in and help out. See here. ~Mable (chat) 21:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The proper place to put this would be WP:BLPN. Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have engaged with the user, asking what exactly is the issue. I presume there's some history here, but I'm as happy taking it from first principles with the user, supposing that he/she/it/them/whatever responds. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Elizium, I didn't know, but I'll be sure to go there next time. Tagishsimon, I could redirect you to the article's recent deletion discussion for some backstory on what is going on, but it is a lot of text and we don't know if any of the issues brought up there are relevant to the author's actual issues. ~Mable (chat) 23:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Maplestrip. I did pop in there, but thought it all a little tl;dr. Let's see what sort of a response I get direct. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A little battle going on at Angela White with an editor adding sourced content followed by its deletion by an other editor due to unreliable sources. I added my opinion, but it would be handy to have a few more independent comments please. Periglio (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at and assessing Tasha Eurich. It's a newly created article moved directly to the mainspace by an SPA. I tried cleaning up the formatting a bit, but I'm not sure if this person satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC based upon the sources which are provided. There is also a problem with the infobox image which means it's going to be deleted if left unresolved. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is well-formed spam, now sitting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Eurich. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Tagishsimon. For reference, I also asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women‎#Tasha Eurich and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#Tasha Eurich, and the reponses I got were that Wikipedia notability for a stand-alone article was not sufficiently established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.

The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I see very few biographies using image captions for lead images, like the Franklin D. Roosevelt article. Ones like Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump don't use captions. Would omission of captions mislead most readers, or would readers simply guess when the photos were taken? --George Ho (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way do you fear that readers would be "misled"? Is the date of the photo of that great importance to the mass of readers? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If an article has multiple images, I am not sure how important a caption is to reader. If an article has just one, a caption might be necessary unless readers would recognize a person's current or recent face. Readers over the years would not recognize low-profile politicians of the past, so captions may be needed. Of course, biographies of high-profile politicians might not need captions for lead images. George Ho (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be a basic rule that all photographs of people and places in anything calling itself an encyclopaedia should be dated.AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

Ah. It should be a basic rule of discussion that anyone laying down preposterous proposals should explain the underlying logic. Have you leafed through EB or any other encyclopedia recently? Have you discovered that you can click on images to inspect their metadata, and thought to yourself 'perhaps all of this metadata does not need to be specified at the point of use, so long as it is discoverable?' Or have you not done and not thought any of those things? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets check the metadata for Isaac Newton. Created: 1 January 1992 Yes, thats much better than the caption "Portrait of Newton in 1689". Periglio (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, I think adding dates to photographs is a good idea, but I doubt it needs to be a rule, especially for recent photos of certain subjects. When it comes to any historical subject, I think it is very useful for a reader to know what a person looked like in specific years. So yeah, from Obama, Clinton, or Trump, I doubt it really matters much. There's nothing particularly bad about dating either, though! Hell, writing "Donald Trump at a debate in January 2016" or whatever only gives more context. I suppose you shouldn't go to far with that. ~Mable (chat) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Does a statistical analysis on metadata of images exist? Viewership at Commons and at en wiki may differ from viewing the main article. To my calculation, the viewership on the photo page is 1% of the main article. George Ho (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain how to add an official portrait to Jennifer Velez, a former cabinet member in the state of New Jersey? I'm not sure how to ensure the proper licencing. I can find potential images here, here, and here. Can someone please provide guidance? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to find an image in the public domain or which is under a suitable free licence. None of your suggestions are. State government tends to retain copyright [1], and the private sector - your second and third links - almost always do. So, no go with these three. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tagishsimon. I guess most of the portraits I have seen were probably for federal officials. I appreciate your guidance on this issue. Knope7 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which discourages the use of public records for biographical information of living people. I'm looking at Julie Gregg, a recently deceased subject and notice this content:

Gregg was born Beverly Scalzo, in Niagara Falls, New York, the daughter of Italian parents Victoria (née Larocca) and Caspar Scalzo.[2]

The content is attributed to US Census paperwork via familysearch.org. (I don't see that the parents are indicated as Italian in the paperwork, though. Some interpretive liberty may have been taken there.) Anyhow, can we use census paperwork for biographies so long as the subject has died? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. For what it's worth, familysearch.org came up twice in the WP:RSN archives: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#need to prove familysearch.org can be used as a source for birth records on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#familysearch.org. Maybe another discussion will help resolve the issue? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Augh... I don't have the energy right now... :/ Seems like a useful resource. I could see why using it for living people might be sketchy on account of privacy concerns... Well, I'll say this, if anyone at WikiProject Biography has a problem with it, the article is linked above. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to comment:

• At the GAR: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1
• Or at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Additional_input_sought_for_a_GAR_re_sources

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  ^u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Roza Shanina.jpg December 2016
	Two new topics for our online editathons Women in Aviation and Women in the Military Our geographical topic of the month is Caribbean Women During the period of 21 Nov - 8 Dec, we are also supporting BBC 100 Women Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi! Have a look at the subject Vincenzo Langella and the opened Talk:Vincenzo Langella. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Could someone please upload this picture on Wikimedia Commons, and update the infobox? I'll then ask WP:Italy to expand the article. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have been trying to suggest more RDs from the developing world, but it is a bit of an uphill battle. Should we create a taskforce? I think it would really help if a small group of editors watched out for prominent individuals from developing nations and created/expanded their articles before submitting them to RDs on "In the news".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Giving us any sort of clue about what RD means would probably help this conversation enormously. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent Deaths - JarrahTree 05:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born 1992 in Niš)#Requested move 18 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Life's too short. I've moved the article. I live in hope the other chap was not also a Decemeber 1992 birth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the redirect page for discussion. This matter seems biography-related, so I invite you to discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The proposal retargets this to MOS:FILMOGRAPHY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link to the discussion, NinjaRobotPirate. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to combine the two lists producer and director together, I am just not sure what headings I should be using. Can someone point me to a good example format to use cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelsinw (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Kelsinw

Quentin Tarantino has acted, produced, and directed. How his articles are written might be worth a look. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Murder of Adrianne Jones about returning the article content that was copied to Diane Zamora back to Murder of Adrianne Jones through a technical move.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you'd use edit summaries, CaroleHenson :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Tagishsimon. I do use edit summaries - sorry that I missed this one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There were only two votes to my suggestion, and it seems it's a toss-up. Of the three people, I think people often remember the name Diane Zamora over anyone else's - unfortunately, including the victim. So, I'll just leave the article name the way it is and work on synching up the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Biography/Archive 60 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added a navigation box to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography main page pointing to the WikiProject Women in Red redlists at what I hope is an appropriate position, abreadt of the workgroups (diff). It points to the WiR set of circa 300 lists of 100,000+ women identified as requiring biographies on wikipedia. I've also added a sentence to the project scope which gives stats (which can be updated weekly from the indicated source) on the proportion of women to men biographies on Wikipedia (diff), which according to WHGI amounts to 16.75%, being 238,922 of our 1,426,191 biographies women. I hope this project will lend its support to addressing this imbalance by encouraging the creation of biographies for women. Finally I've listed Women in Red as a related project, since it is concerned with the creation of women biographies (diff). thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A request has been made for the article on Jadunath Singh, an Indian Param Vir Chakra recipient, to be peer reviewed. Interested editors are invited to participate in the review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Lawrence/archive1 is open for comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have linked one hundred and thirty five names of delegates in the Chart of Delegates to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850. To my delight, many of the blue links are to Virginia politicians of the nineteenth century, especially those who also served in Congress at some point in their careers. To my dismay, there are several links to bios of modern personalities. The bot has not yet notified my Talk page of names requiring disambiguation. I feel challenged to create stub bios for the omitted Virginian politicians of the nineteenth century linked in red.

My intent is to either contribute to or to establish biographical stubs for the Virginians for perhaps one hundred names with thumb nail sketches in Pulliam’s account of the Conventions of 1850, as well as using his treatment of the members of the Conventions of 1776, 1788, 1830 and 1868, then Brenaman for the 1902 Convention.

I regret that I have yet to learn how to create articles, disambiguation pages, etc. Any links to "how to" pages for biographies would be appreciated as I stumble through this project. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC to determine whether Andy Murray is a Scottish or British tennis player. Please lend a hand at the Andy Murray British tennis player or Scottish tennis player RfC. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Will editors here weigh in on a dispute about the definition of WP:NPOV and its relation to article titles and article content? It's now an RfC; see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Helena Bergström, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

This image is nomination for deletion. I invite you to FFD. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

[[3]]

I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary [4], and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link.

My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated:

• Crown Heights Riot

The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade.^[1][2]

I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words: motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph. I could use help from editors providing some reasonable framework with how to proceed. Again in reading obituaries and histories about the events, I feel the sources substantiate some link of the events to his biography. I wanted to do so without entering into the controversies of who started what or said what. That can be left to the articles on the riot itself of the murder of Rosenbaum etc. But to eliminate Schneerson from the picture altogether is not historically correct.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried, but was unable to make much progress. The article is watched over by a group of editors who resist the addition of anything that might be at all critical. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to request a new page to be created for HPS Investment Partners, which is a leading investment firm with a focus on non-investment grade credit. The firm currently manages approximately $34 billion in assets, has over 100 investment professionals and over 200 employees across 10 offices globally. I have included a link to my sandbox for review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taenakim/sandbox

Thank you for your consideration.

Taenakim (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Van Wolverton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

John B. Clopton (jurist) and Chapman Johnson, that I created directly, are tagged as a “new unreviewed article…if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup.” Samuel Taylor (Virginian), that I created with the wizard does not, and was classified by the reviewer as a Start-class article. When I created Philip N. Nicholas, the editor who moved the New article into mainspace did not so tag the article.

I propose creating articles for delegates to Virginia Constitutional Conventions of 1776, 1788, 1830, 1850, 1861 Richmond, 1861 Wheeling, 1864, 1868 and 1902. Most can be had from reliable resources by Pulliam and Brenaman. I try to add from online sources by a google search on the name, that sometimes gives me additional information from library index bios and I search for additional snippets in books.

Should I just remove the “new unreviewed article” tag when an editor moves it into mainspace? Until this tag, I understood that any registered editor could advance an article from a stub to B class. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to trade an objective GA review of an article of your choice, or some copyediting, article improvement, or other work, in return for an unbiased GA review of Tony Ahn. I can't promise your article will pass GA review but I can promise it will be fairly reviewed with suggestions given if it doesn't pass. I expect the same for the GA review of Tony Ahn. Please let me know if you're interested. ScooterSponson (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Half of that article looks to be sourced to stuff written by the subject himself. Aren't there independent sources that can replace them? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There are 32 sources. 4 of them were written by the subject and they are collectively cited a total of eleven times out of fifty nine total citations. One of the eleven citations is also backed up by an independent source (a newspaper). So to be accurate, a sixth of the article is sourced to stuff written by the subject himself, not half. ScooterSponson (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe also mention this at the GA Cup - competitors there won't even care whether or not you review an article they've written. They just want articles to review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I'm unfamiliar with the GA Cup. I'll acquaint myself with it now. Thanks again! ScooterSponson (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
	Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The article Thomas Eugene Foulks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick round of research to see if the speedy delete was justified, and I think it likely is. All I could find was an obit, and as I couldn't find much else, it seems possible the page is at least partly original research. It might help if this line could be sourced, as evidence of GNG: three-year gig for Business Radio Network's "Computing Success!"—1991 Best Radio Show award from the Computer Press Association. Yvarta (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, the article about Tom Wills, an Australian cricketer, has been nominated for a peer review. The review has been open for several months without comment, so if anyone is interested in reviewing, I'm sure that the nominator would be greatly appreciative. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Wills/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, a peer review has been requested for the M. P. T. Acharya article. Interested parties are invited to take part at the review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/M. P. T. Acharya/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The three links in the Statistics section on the project page don't work. Is this a permanent situation? Does anyone know how to fix them? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)