Archives: Index • 2023, 2024 • Barnstars Archiving period: 14 days

Click here to leave me a new message. Let me know if I've done something silly.

Hi, can you please give me a couple of examples of what is not written in an encyclopedic format so I can address the issue? Everything I included is taken directly from the source material and I do not understand how it can be written any more objectively or dryly. I will remove the links in the headings. 2603:8000:753F:71F7:9977:FF64:5323:641B (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2603:8000:753F:71F7:9977:FF64:5323:641B: the article expands on a lot of content in a puffery manner. Each section expands on a case or fact that isn't relevent to the subject of the article. Take, for example § Demonoid Phenomenon (Rob Zombie) case, where Goldman represented recording artist Rob Zombie, who sued automaker Mazda and its advertising agency for the unlawful use of his song, Demonoid Phenomenon, from his album Hellbilly Deluxe, in a truck commercial. cites to a source that includes the subject of the article, Goldman, in the source. The section continues The case settled in 2002. Zombie stated that he brought the case to preserve his musical integrity and credibility with his fans. "I don't want to play that song live and see the kids go, 'Hey, it's that truck song!' Corporate America doesn't understand that some people actually have values about things." That's okay: it adds context but doesn't really focus on the subject of the article.

Let's examine § In Da Club (50 Cent) case. Goldman was retained to defend 50 Cent in a suit for copyright infringement in a suit alleging that the phrase "Hey shorty, it's your birthday" in his #1 hit In Da Club did not infringe the 2 Live Crew song It's Your Birthday owned by the plaintiff.^[1] This would require a ((failed verification)) tag as Goldman is not mentioned in the source. The section continues In 2007, Goldman obtained summary judgment for 50 Cent,^[2] (primary source, not eligible for establishing notability) the court finding that the phrase "Hey ___, it's your birthday" was not original to the 2 Live Crew song.^[3], where again Goldman is not mentioned in the source.

The same thing occurs in § Mixtapes, § Counterfeit CDs and tapes, and especially § Myxer ringtone case; and at this point, most reviewers have given up.

Each of these instances alone might provide context, but when the entire biography is instead founded around paragraphs of promotional content and does not instead focus on the subject of the biography with WP:reliable and WP:secondary sources, it does not assist in demonstrating WP:notability and does not adheare to an overall WP:NPOV.

The biography would be better suited to one or two good sources showing that the subject participated in the trial, and in some instances may benefit from context, as opposed to an entirely promotional piece. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain why did the session of the progressive list of 3p% in the article of List of National Basketball Association career 3-point field goal percentage leaders violate the WP:SYNTH? 爨龘龘 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@爨龘龘: I don't see where the list was published independently (WP:NLIST), or the sources for each time the record changed. Instead, the section cited to one category record^[1] and as far as I can tell, the editor who wrote the section simply tracked changes throughout the years and added them to a table, therefore original research. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus But there is another reference in the season which is above the list.^[2] 爨龘龘 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus So it is not an original research? 爨龘龘 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the layout of the inline citation there but yes, feel free to revert. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From when Paying tribute have became inconclusive !? Kasra hp81 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly you moved User:Fjnovoa/Ricardo Armando Novoa Arciniegas to Draft:Ricardo Arciniegas. Could you please rename the new title as Draft:Ricardo Armando Novoa Arciniegas, which is the complete name of the subject. Thank you in advance. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjnovoa:  Done. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcus,

Wonder if you can offer advice because I'm struggling here...although I think I am getting closer to having it accepted.

My article has been declined by you, first, because of referencing - I've now put in many references - and, currently, because of 'Missing or Empty title'.

Two questions:

1. Does 'Missing or Empty titles' refer to the actual headline of the source material, for example, a newspaper headline?

2. Assuming the 'Missing or Empty titles' does indeed refer to the actual headline of the source material, into which box do I put the headline when the pop-up window 'Web Citation (RefToolbar)' appears?

Thanks for your invaluable help.

Ross EdinburghRoss (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above pages were swapped to place the former unsourced Draft:Ross Smith to User:EdinburghRoss/sandbox and the draft at User:EdinburghRoss to Draft:Ross Smith. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EdinburghRoss: couple questions, but I'd be glad to help you in bringing the article up to mainspace standards.

1. I hope you don't mind my asking, but I need to based on the topic of the draft and your user name: Are you Ross Smith?
   • If you are, that's fine. There is an essay you should consider titled An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and you'll also need to review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest rules. You'll need to make a declaration on your user page. You can replace the redirect that is currently there with ((Template:User COI|Ross Smith)). You are correctly following the rules by submitting the article through the AfC process.
2. Have you reviewed Help:Referencing for beginners? There's a helpful video there, File:RefTools rework.ogv. You can see that when you open up the reference toolbar, you can enter the author's name, the name of the article, the url, the website name and other fields.
   • Take, for example, the current first reference on the draft article: thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2021/12/06/ross-smith-on-his-book-about-the-reality-of-working-in-the-creative-industries/. This would be formatted as: <ref name="Fleming 2021">((cite web |last1=Fleming |first1=John |title=Ross smith on his book about the reality of working in the creative industries |url=https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2021/12/06/ross-smith-on-his-book-about-the-reality-of-working-in-the-creative-industries/ |website=SO IT GOES — John Fleming's Blog |access-date=2 February 2024 |date=6 December 2021))</ref> which would produce this^[1] inline citation and the appropriate reference at the bottom of the page.
3. Have you ensured that the content of what you're citing actually backs up what you're writing? Take, for example, the draft statement Cinema 2^[2] (BBC Radio 2) was a weekly magazine show. Smith contributed to 51 episodes, including interviews with Keanu Reeves, John Lithgow, Thelma Schoonmaker, Michael Winner, Terence Stamp, Mickey Rourke]and Martin Sheen. The only citation you have in that section is to the page for the show, but nowhere can I find Ross Smith on that page. This would require a ((citation needed)) inline tag and makes it look like your writing Puffery. Ensure that your subject passes WP:NOTABILITY and is discusses in the sources that you're using.

Let me know if you have any further questions, I'd be happy to help. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC) microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On verge of giving up

Hi Marcus,

Thanks as ever for your conscientiousness and speed of reply. I am indeed Ross Smith, the subject of the article. I'd like, if I may, to provide feedback on my experience of uploading. It's definitely nothing personal, you are great.

Alas, I have to give up on this page. I cannot work out Wikipedia's methodology for uploading a new entry. It's ironic, actually, because the beauty of Wikipedia, as a user multiple times a day, is that it is crystal clear. You get the information you want in a heartbeat. Compare and contrast, for example, with the cluttered layout of IMDb, drowning in adverts etc. However, my experience of attempting to upload a simple biography is akin to - I dunno - computer programming in 1987. It isn't intuitive, it's unfathomable. (And I'm a very intelligent, career-orientated person with initiative).

I wonder: does Wikipedia have a team who might be able to upload the page on my behalf, albeit editing whatever they wish? Although everything in the entry is true, I respect and appreciate the fact that things must be cited and referenced properly and, to that end, if certain parts of the page didn't meet the correct criteria, I would have no problem with the relevant text being removed. I would also be happy to liaise, if required, with the editor should they need certain points clarified.

It's frustrating - very frustrating - that I am unable to upload this page; I've seen hundreds of other pages devoted to others with far fewer credits than myself. Being so near, yet so far, to completing the entry, I wonder if there is a way round this problem?

Best wishes,

Ross EdinburghRoss (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above messaage has been grouped with the earlier message of the same topic. To reply to messages, you can click the reply button. For more help, see Help:Talk pages. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 13:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EdinburghRoss: sorry to hear about your frustration with writing your autobiography on Wikipedia but we have some general advice about why it is hard to do and generally not a good idea. Review WP:Autobiography. Since your last comment here, the draft article's sources have been improved by another editor, you can see the correct templates for the sources in the article now, and how that results in proper citation style in the references section.

In general, Wikipedia's content policies and particular style of syntax can make it hard for newcomers to adapt to the writing style and creating your first article about yourself will naturally result in very steep learning curve as you try to follow the WP:Verifiability and WP:COI rules. Again, I'd stress to review the WP:Autobiography guideline for more information, more than I can put here.

Yes, while your peers may have articles and you may feel that your work should entitle you to an article here, those pages have been created because other volunteers have created the articles about them. There is no group on the project were you can ask someone to write an article for you. Keep in mind that other articles which do not meet our content policies may be deleted via our deletion consensus forum at WP:AfD (see also WP:Other stuff exists).

Per the guidance at WP:AUTO, you are more than welcome to continue to contribute to the draft about yourself in the draft space but keep in mind that once accepted and moved to the main article space, you can only request changes on the articles talk page (see WP:Edit requests).

You should also ensure, per my advice above at point 3, that the content you are citing backs up the claims made in the article. This will ensure both verifiability (as previously mentioned) and notability, the other major hurdle that articles must demonstrate to remain on the project. Remember that Wikipedia is not originator of information, but the documenter, we only collect information otherwise published.

If you are looking for more specific help as you write your autobiography, I would suggest the WP:Teahouse, our in house "help desk" where volunteers are happy to provide more specific advice in a timely manner, it is more closely watched.

Note that I've also gone ahead and placed a ((User COI)) tag on your user page with the edit summary pointing to the message you left here. If the draft article is moved to mainspace, it will need a disambiguator (i.e.: Ross Smith (author)) and then your COI declaration on your user page will need to be updated.

To your final point, there is no way "round" this problem. While the project does it's best to monitor for vandalism and some may slip through, you will find that there is groups of volunteers who perform different tasks. The WP:NPP is a group of editors who review new pages to ensure that no spam is being added to the project. It's best to follow the guidelines because repeated efforts to circumvent them often have the reverse effect and annoy reviewers (see the essay And the band played on...).

It's best to take your time (WP:DEADLINE) and ensure that the article meets proper content policies, remember the article can only get better (WP:DEGRADE).

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions Shazback (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shazback: Thanks for starting this, appreciate the heads up!! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 01:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MicrobiologyMarcus,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia page titled "Baltic Chemistry Olympiad" which was deleted on [14.12.2023] for the second time. It is not funny that some wiki-enthusiasts decide that BChO is a minor event. You are obviously unaware of the history and traditions of scientific olympiads. Let me explain that there are only four international chemistry olympiads with a significant history: International (since 1968), Mendeleev (since 1992), Ibero-American (since 1996), and Baltic (since 1993). Most importantly, the problems of the Baltic Chemistry Olympiad are in English. Most of them are publicly available, and I am currently working on digitalizing the rest of them. Thus, not only is it a regionally important event, but it is also a significant source of problems for the whole Olympiad community.

I have thoroughly reviewed the deletion policy and believe that the page meets the criteria for inclusion based on the reasons mentioned above. I have also ensured that the content adheres to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability.

I kindly ask for your consideration in reviewing the circumstances of the deletion and considering the new information provided in this request. I am open to feedback and willing to collaborate to address any concerns. For more details, please get in touch with me directly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Olunet (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Olunet: the article was deleted following the consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Chemistry Olympiad which ran from 30 November to 14 December, where it was found to be not notable in part due to it's lack of inline citations.

I am not able to reverse the deletion. You are welcome to request the deletion be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review or request that the deleting administrator place a copy in your sandbox or draft space such that you can continue to work on it, but keep in mind, if the article is not improved to meet article guidelines it will be summarily deleted again (WP:G4).

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]