User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

→

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Barbalet

I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.

While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.

They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.

As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.

Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.

I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.

Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, @Barbalet:. Wikipedia cannot host articles on topics that don't have coverage by third-parties that does satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and people in the deletion discussion did not find any. http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic may be third party, but I don't see indication that it satisfies WP:RS. Regarding Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape. we'd need some pretty compelling evidence for such a claim, and you should probably review WP:BLP before making it. I'll ping the other participants @Reyk, Skirts89, RebeccaGreen, Reywas92, Broccoli and Coffee, Laosilika, and Mu301:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, Jo-Jo. I received the same message on my talk page. Needless to say, I agree with your close of the debate. If User:Barbalet still disagrees he has the right to raise this at WP:DRV though I think that would be a bad idea and very unlikely to succeed. I'm not sure what else I can say in response to your ping. All the best, Reyk _YO! 08:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also received the same message. Obviously I agree with the deletion as neither the subject nor his projects passed notability requirements. No need to rehash this, of course. Please let me know if you need my support with any discussion on DRV on this. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply As I mentioned in the deletion discussion, I had found and added some resources. 4 other editors !voted after my comment, so presumably they did not find them sufficient to meet WP:GNG. In case anyone wants to consider them again, they were: an article in Australasian Science in 1998 [1]; an article in The Age (republished in The Guardian) in 1999, 'Boy wonder solves Silicon Valley riddle' [2]; an article in The Australian in 1999, 'Local hero hailed by gurus' [3]; an article in Internet.au in 2000, 'Tom Barbalet.' - "Focuses on Barbalet Technologies Australia founder Tom Barbalet's development projects in the field of computer graphics. Barbalet's reputation as a graphics innovator; Aims of Barbalet's projects; Notable computer graphics products developed by the company." I don't have full access to all of them, but they were all independent, reliable sources, and the one I can see in full (in The Age) is certainly significant coverage. I did not find any evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE yet. However, even if those sources were taken to meet WP:GNG, the information they provide only extends to the year 2000 - I'm not aware of any secondary sources for the subject or his work after that date. And WP:BLPSELFPUB says self-published "material may be used as a source only if ... 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." I think we would probably want more sustained secondary coverage, which we don't yet have. If the consensus had been that that was sufficient for WP:GNG, we could base an article on them, but it would not include the Noble Ape work. (And just as a BTW, Google is not our (or at least my) main source - and we are perfectly capable of distinguishing between "Noble Ape" + Barbalet and "Noble Ape" + Gaffigan/comedian, etc.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(User:RebeccaGreen) It was unclear through my review of the deletion that any review was undertaken of your sources as there is no acknowledgement by any other reviewer. The situation with the comedian makes any formal review far more difficult currently as searches even of Barbalet Noble Ape are greatly reduced (and have been explicitly reordered and discarded) through the comedian's payments. I'm actually really impressed you were able to find the articles that you did. On WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, the information in Artificial life organizations and the contents of (http://www.biotacast.org) should provide this with a basic review. This resource is also academically referenced externally.

In the context of the field of artificial life and the artificial life projects I noted (OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld), I'm unclear why I and my project seems to come underneath the spotlight of extreme notability with such a critical eye. The only noted fact through the deletion process is that one of the article authors noted I spend 18 months with Wozniak early in my career. It's not a highlight of my life but something a third party noted.

What is needed to improve both the articles sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia? In particular given the other articles I noted about projects in the field of artificial life which have not come under such focused scrutiny. If the aim of this group is to improve wikipedia's contents, there are a number of third party sources that show notability of my work in the context of other artificial life projects.

I would like productive feedback, please, on what is the standard of notability that appears implicitly agreed by this group but not present in the other artificial life projects that appear on Wikipedia? I would like to have productive feedback here not 'We all agreed for deletion with very limited information provided. Let's not provide any external facing feedback and move on.'

Barbalet (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barbalet: Sorry for not coming back sooner, but can you list some sources which are a) substantial b) talk about you and c) were not written by you or someone affiliated with you? We cannot have an article on you without them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have maintained a local archive of some of the articles noted by (User:RebeccaGreen) : http://nobleape.com/int/ - they are listed by author/publication/date not title. The project was originally called Nervana too but it's the same body of work. Would you consider the engineering staff at Apple affiliated with me? They published work on Noble Ape and their use of Noble Ape. I've never been an Apple employee - they found the work through SourceForge in 2003. Barbalet (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Here is the Apple article - again the original is long gone. http://nobleape.com/sim/shark_optimize.pdf (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the sources were posted in the AfD as noted in RebeccaGreen's comment then it means they were already judged and found wanting. Thus I am going to decline the request - it seems like GNG is not met no matter what. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't post them in the AfD, and no one commented on them specifically. I added the sources to the article, and it's not clear if the other editors who !voted after that considered them. Personally, I would have thought that 4 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage over 3 years was sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Apple source dates from 15-13 years after the sources I found. The comments about 'promotional tone' and 'name-dropping', as well as "relies heavily on primary sources", suggest that editors were focused more on the content and on the sources that had originally been used, rather than the evidence of the new sources, which were definitely not primary.

If reversal is not indicated, would it be possible to userfy the Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet articles in my name, and I could try to build a single new article based on the independent, reliable sources I found (and any that might be in those articles - I don't think I really looked at the Noble Ape one at the time)? Then any new article would go through New Page Patrol and be assessed by current standards, rather than whatever the standards were when it was created. It's not my field at all, but I have worked on articles in a few different fields, based on sources I have found. Regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I've userfied these two pages and retitled this thread to take out the URL in the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Huge thanks to you both. I really appreciate these efforts. Barbalet (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Vijay Kumbhar - restore to draft?

Greetings! At some point in the past, you closed WP:Articles for deletion/Vijay Kumbhar as delete. There was a request at WP:REFUND to restore the page, which was declined. I'm wondering if the page should be restored to draft space for incubation, to see if it can be brought up to standards. Any objections with that restore, or any other insights you'd like to provide? —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, C.Fred. I don't think that this page - or any page - should be restored to draftspace, as either it will rot there unattended - if there is nobody who is willing to work on it - or should be moved to userspace instead - if there is someone who is willing to work on it. Are there any sources that might establish GNG? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is discussion about this at User talk:PadmashreeGhangale. Part of my concern is that user's statement that he wants the article restored on behalf of the subject, so we have a COI issue. For that reason, I'd be reluctant to restore it to that user's user space, and I'm not sure there's another user wanting to take it on. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly a fair amount of coverage, but it seems to have the same issue as in the AFD; it seems to be passing mentions for the most part. I am generally less concerned about editors having a conflict of interest than I am about notability issues; I'd probably decline this until I see a source that discusses him in detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have been referred to you for updating recent coverage of Vijay Kumbhar. I am not related to him nor am I associated with him professionally. His line of work is activism and in India [4] attacks on them are more common than the coverage of their achievements. Despite the obstruction,[5] Vijay Kumbhar has been covered by English newspapers [6] which also publish online. Much of his work is covered in Marathi media in print. He will soon post scanned images of those for online readers to learn the methods of accessing their right to information. He has been instrumental in several supreme court judgments, notable among those is [7] [8] where he not only got a favorable judgment but also felicitation. His informal meets every Sunday [9] draw crowds from many cities. His recent achievement is [10] again a very unlikely event to happen in a country like India. It has begun a revolution in Maharashtra where people have begun to speak publicly about land frauds despite criminal tactics like [11]. His visibility online from a trusted encyclopedia of notable people is advantageous to the people of India more than it is to Vijay Kumbhar. I am writing on behalf of him because he is unable to contest the deletion of his own page due to technological handicap. When it was brought to my notice I decided to request the reasons for deletion and to undelete the same. There are other reliable sources through which we can ascertain his significance however, based on the above sources we may consider undeleting the same and cleaning it up. PadmashreeGhangale (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. As said before though it seems like the sources are more about his cause rather than about him specifically; in such cases adding stuff to a page about the cause - either a dedicated page or a more general one - is perhaps a better idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Ptolemy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Bobaflex

Hi Jo-Jo, in 2017 you deleted an article about the band Bobaflex. I am currently in the process of writing an article about the band for the Dutch Wikipedia. Could you tell me if the version you deleted had any sources? If yes, could you provide me with a list of the sources used? I would like to check if I can use them for the article I am working on. Thank you in advance for your time. Maartenschrijft (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Maartenschrijft:Greetings, the only source in that article was the official website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Laguna del Negro Francisco

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Laguna del Negro Francisco you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 95.148.194.235 -- 95.148.194.235 (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

TFA

This is to let you know that the 1257 Samalas eruption article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

False alarm ... the article has been replaced by Astronomica (Manilius). - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Dank: Thanks for the replacement. As I noted, I think the Samalas article is probably better suited for a future time where either we know the date of the eruption, or when the Little Ice Age, volcanic winters etc. become societally relevant. And I always thought it was Wehwait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot what I had said. Hope to run it one day though. No, it's Wehwalt. What Siegmund calls himself in Die Walküre.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that a good day will come in the next 10 years, or earlier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
275	Water bottle (talk)	Add sources
208	Gene Ween (talk)	Add sources
286	Plastics extrusion (talk)	Add sources
23	All Request Live (talk)	Add sources
445	Vanessa del Rio (talk)	Add sources
16	Paintin' the Town Brown: Ween Live 1990–1998 (talk)	Add sources
25	Overwrap (talk)	Cleanup
104	In the Still of the Night (The Five Satins song) (talk)	Cleanup
648	Biodegradable plastic (talk)	Cleanup
3,506	Marcella Detroit (talk)	Expand
750	Salar de Uyuni (talk)	Expand
276	Period 2 element (talk)	Expand
117	The Pod (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
57	Isotopes of gallium (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
204	Milk bag (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
408	Presbyterian Church (USA) (talk)	Merge
574	Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk)	Merge
174	Christianization of Kievan Rus' (talk)	Merge
41	Moistboyz (talk)	Wikify
91	Yury Luzhkov (talk)	Wikify
13	Extended core stretch wrapper (talk)	Wikify
2	Lyubov Speranskaya (talk)	Orphan
2	Heng Siew Chiang Sdn. Bhd. (talk)	Orphan
2	Annette Paul (talk)	Orphan
27	Flame treatment (talk)	Stub
50	Craters of the Sac (talk)	Stub
125	Imaani (talk)	Stub
43	Shinola, Vol. 1 (talk)	Stub
20	Z-Rock Hawaii (talk)	Stub
19	Voodoo Lady (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-21

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

The report for phase 1 of the talk pages consultation 2019 has been published. Communities are invited to start phase 2 of the consultation on their wikis.

Problems

File descriptions for files from Commons were not shown properly on other Wikimedia wikis for a few days. For example the image descriptions and license information were missing. This has now been fixed. [12][13]
Some diffs show an error message when you try to see them. The developers are working on fixing it. It could be because of some edit comments. [14][15]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 May. It will be on all wikis from 23 May (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

The content translation tool on Wikipedia can use machine translations. There is a system to stop translations where the editors do not fix machine translation mistakes. This warns or stops them if they seem to just copy what the machine translation gives them. If this system is too strict or not strict enough you can tell the language team. [16]
The Wikidata wbeditentity API endpoint will remove all aliases if the request includes an empty alias. This is how it supposed to work. It has not been working this way because of a bug. This will start on 12 June. [17]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

About this relisting you mention "Needs more input". Why does it need more input, do you have reasons for doubt? If you do, you'd better express them explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Because so far only two people have commented. I realize CFD isn't as well travelled as AFD but I'd like to see at least 3 people commenting before calling a consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Be prepared we do not reach 3 comments in quite a lot of discussions, not the least because editors don't bother providing additional support votes when the outcome is obvious per WP:OCAT or WP:CFDS. I am often adding support per nom as a second editor because I know most closers take 2 participants as a minimum, but it shouldn't be necessary to do so per WP:NOTVOTE. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't plan to relist every discussion with less than three votes. I am just thinking that for something to be a consensus it should be at least some people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Badnam Song

Just wanted to stop by and say I thought that was a very good close. You summed up the discussion well, and I agree with your erring on the side of caution and having a wider discussion (even though I !voted the other way). Thanks! – Levivich 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_townlands

Could you close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_15#Template:Infobox_townlands? 78.54.46.139 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll pass that one; today was somewhat exhausting for me and it seems like that discussion is a bit technically complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wormwood MfD

Hi, I forgot to Watchlist the discussion so I just noticed you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Use of wormwoodas G7. There are 4 new draft creations also in their userspace that were substantially identical (which I linked to the MfD), and I realise my addition was kind of last minute and not very prominent but I think they also need to be discussed as there are identical, and the GAMING and shopping concerns apply just as strongly if not stronger. I was wondering if you think it would be better to renominate the discussion or if you would be willing to relist it. Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. IMO a renomination would be a better idea here but I don't feel very strongly about it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

confusion in your AfD close

In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to Snuff the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Maxey was left open. Because there were 2 separate discussions, I had given my opinion of Maxay's notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Maxey, and expanded his article accordingly. Would you be willing to restore Mark Maxey, so that editors can assess him separately. I believe that his career may meet WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Seems like I blundered in that close. Backed out the redirect and amended my close on the Up to Snuff AFD. Thanks for pointing this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Chachani sources that do not work/are yet to be used

As well as [18] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Need also to watch http://repositorio.ingemmet.gob.pe/bitstream/ingemmet/2052/1/Memoria_descriptiva_Caraveli-Chuquibamba-Chivay-Cailloma...pdf, Nevado Casiri and Laguna del Negro Francisco. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chachani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

Big changes to the replica database will happen on 3 June. Some tools on Cloud Services will stop working if the maintainers do not update them to use the new schema. This probably affects tools that query for revisions or log entries made by a user. [19][20]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 May. It will be on all wikis from 30 May (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 29 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oukitel

Just curious but why speedily delete Oukitel? I've seen this company around and plenty of independent news sources have reported on it, I saw the stub being created and wanted to expand it but you deleted it rather quickly. The company is notable, it's just that most iterations of the article have been badly executed. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

~Greetings, Donald Trung. Because it didn't make any claims of significance despite the creator having about one hour of time between his creation and the time where I cleared the speedy deletion queue. Given that the preceding execution was a mostly empty infobox, an almost empty product table and Oukitel is a Chinese Mobile Phone firm based in Shenzhen City starting from scratch is probably a better move.

AFAIK (SoWhy might have more to say on this point) A7 deletions are only conditional on the article not making claims of significance; unmentioned sources do not disqualify an A7 speedy deletion request and from a search I didn't see any notability-establishing sources, anyway. Probably better to draft an article with good sources straightaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macdonald seamount

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macdonald seamount you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, @Lee Vilenski:. I see that you said "User requested second reviewer" - where was that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, no problem. The reviewer actually started two reviews, including a snooker one at Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/GA1, where they asked me to cover both reviews. Sorry for the delay. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Note to self

Yesterday's notes as well as http://repositorio.ingemmet.gob.pe/simple-search?query=Quimsachata, http://repositorio.ingemmet.gob.pe/simple-search?location=%2F&query=auquihuato&rpp=10&sort_by=score&order=desc and yareta. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macdonald seamount

The article Macdonald seamount you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Macdonald seamount for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Subpages of Portal:Turtles?

Is it your intention to leave or delete the subpages of Portal:Turtles? Also, should articles with incoming links to the portal have those links removed, or perhaps changed to Portal:Reptiles? Does a bot do that? I don't know how these things are supposed to work, since I don't spend a lot of time at XFD. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the subpages; that was a mere omission. I am not entirely sure what should be done with the articlespace links; I think it would be up to editors to decide whether to wholesale delete or simply change the links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The XFD suggested replacing the links with Portal:Reptiles. Maybe UnitedStatesian would be willing to do that, as the nominator. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

List of people who have had an abortion

Thanks very much for laying out your reasoning in closing the list. At this juncture, I'm interested in whether a list of notable people who publicly spoke about having an abortion (as discussed on the talk page) would survive a nomination for deletion. You wrote in your analysis, "[A]s for keeping or deleting this article it's probably the BLP issue that carries the most weight. The BLP policy establishes that we strongly value the [sic] privacy so having a list of people who underwent a still stigmatized procedure would be extremely questionable . . . " I'd like to posit, as others did during the AfD discussion, that the BLP/privacy concern would not be present if the list were limited to people who have openly discussed their abortion. As a general matter the point of discussing it is (typically) to draw attention to their abortion, regardless of whether they had a positive or negative experience, and as a legal matter anyone on the list would have waived a right to privacy by affirmatively addressing it. In light of the attention you've given to thinking this through I value your opinion on the more narrow list. Thanks again. Scribestress (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: If you'd rather not weigh in no problem at all. And if even asking this question is a violation of some kind please allow that I didn't intend anything by it and proceed to ignore it. I am aware of the deletion review process and the remedy you suggested in your analysis, i.e. adding information to individual pages where missing but not compiling a list. The truth is I've crashed through all kinds of rules with this article (codified and uncodified/norms) and I'm learning as I go. It's great to hear from those with more experience in order to save us all a bit of time and effort, and hopefully produce a better encyclopedia at the end of the day. Many thanks. Scribestress (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Scribestress. The problem I see with an article like List of women outspoken about abortions they had (OK, better name than that) is that it sounds like an arbitrary collection of people who have little in common other than an opinion about an issue. Sort of like an WP:OPINIONCAT but in list form. I am pretty sure we don't have articles in such a form because they'll have issues with inclusion standards and such an arbitrary category would arguably violate WP:NOR.

Now, if these outspoken women form some kind of organized movement (is that what ShoutYourAbortion was about?) then a list of prominent exponents on the article of the movement would work, perhaps.

One thing though that is worth remembering is that Wikipedia is an extremely public venue. Depending on where you are Wikipedia is one of the top 5 most visited websites on the Internet, and articles can have hundreds of views per day. Just because someone was outspoken about having had an abortion does not necessarily mean that they'll appreciate that much publicity, or that they might not reconsider. So I would not necessarily assume that someone being outspoken about a subject means they'll be OK with being listed on a Wikipedia page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts. For the handful of women who have WP articles that don't already discuss their abortions, but inclusion is merited, I will likely add it in. Can you provide me with a copy of the deleted article and talk page, or should I contact an administrator who self-identifies as willing to provide copies of deleted articles? Thanks. Scribestress (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Better ask one of the latter admins, IMO. Worth noting that part of the issue here with the list was that not all individuals on it are likely to publicize it, so I would not simply add mention to each biography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

For almost all the women on the list, the fact that they had had an abortion is already mentioned in their Wikipedia article. The few that I saw where that is not the case were German signatories to the We've had abortions! issue of Stern, when their articles were bare stubs. Most of the living women had publicised it - that was the point.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this was closed as Delete, but more disappointed that you did not address the arguments not to use in a deletion discussion that I mentioned, WP:IDONTLIKEIT especially, as well as WP:HARMFUL and WP:NOTCENSORED. I think that many of the deletion !votes had invalid rationales, so I do not consider that there was a policy-based consensus to delete. The delete arguments that mentioned "the American Bible Belt" and "the political divide in the United States right now" also seem to me to be examples of the US and present-time/ahistoric systemic biases that I doubt Wikipedia will ever be free from, unfortunately. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: Greetings. Well, the problem is that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and the section there known as HARMFUL is an essay, not a policy, while WP:BLP is one and it says the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.. Thus it is legitimate to raise concerns that the existence of such a list may be harmful for the people listed on it; you can't simply wave such an issue away by citing an essay. WP:NOTCENSORED is also a policy but there wasn't really anyone saying "We should not talk about abortions", which is where such a policy would be pertinent. I did note some of the spurious arguments with There are also some claims of being "unencyclopedic" and the like, which aren't straightforwardly based on policy or guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That brings us back to the fact that most of the women on the list had very publicly stated that they had had an abortion (and there was discussion on the article Talk page about limiting it to those women) - as I and some other editors said, they made that decision, independent sources have written about that decision, and now Wikipedia has decided not to reflect that decision. I do not see that as respecting privacy or preventing harm, but as another editor said, deciding to protect women from themselves. There were indeed editors saying "we don't need to know this", which surely WP:NOTCENSORED would cover. However, it was clear that, whether for valid reasons or not (and whether they had actually read the article or were simply reacting to the title), more Wikipedia editors would !vote Delete than would argue to keep it. I have since realised that the article Abortion debate has very little historical perspective, and no mention at all of the campaigns to speak out about having an abortion, either to promote liberalisation or restriction of abortion laws. I may try to include mention of them in that article, with links to the articles about the individual campaigns, which do name some of the women involved. That will not exactly be an encyclopaedic overview as other lists are, but it seems that that is not possible. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, when I looked at the list I got the impression that it was just a list of any woman who has ever had an abortion and has a Wikipedia article, with only about half of the entries detailing any publicity they sought. It's not the same thing like Manifesto of the 343 where women signed up who wanted to make a public statement. And if people read that indiscriminate list they could certainly have gotten the impression that it's a catalogue of anyone who ever has had an abortion, even of women who might prefer some discretion, and thus problematic from a BLP-privacy perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of African humid period

The article African humid period you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:African humid period for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

From the editors: Picture that

News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

Technology report: Lots of Bots

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

Essay: Paid editing

From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

TfD

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_21#Template:Infobox_Bangladesh_district - could you close? 77.13.4.53 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!! 77.13.4.53 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bangladesh district - can now be deleted. 89.14.168.20 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_22#Template:Infobox_Ukrainian_raion - could you close? 77.13.11.110 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

? 78.54.79.155 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I think we can let other people take that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you help? 92.214.168.104 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Because I have other things to do? Also, WP:VOLUNTEER, I am not obligated to do it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Because I have other things to do?" - It takes 10 seconds to close. This cannot be the real reason.
"Also, WP:VOLUNTEER, I am not obligated to do it." - It was a request for help and then a question why you don't help. That it is not an obligation does not answer the question.

It takes you only a few seconds. But you don't do it. 78.54.177.174 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, one has to take responsibility for the close as well. A request for help is not an obligation to do so; again, Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Gerneth

Hi Jo-Jo, I'm not contesting your careful and well-reasoned close, but I'm surprised that your read my !vote as somehow indicating that I wanted "the information be preserved somewhere" (even though you say "less certainly"). "Factoids beyond trivial" seems pretty clear to me that I find this "information" really not something that should be kept... Next time I just have to be even more explicit, I guess... :-) Cheers, --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Randykitty That comment was based off If all you can get from your reliable sources are trivial factoids (steep stairs, butter), then obviously you have nothing of encyclopedic interest to write about and including the few interesting facts (birth date and such) into a list may be more appropriate. as it seems like you might be talking about this article, not just a generic what-if article in a similar situation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, that's a reasonable read. Thanks for explaining! --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sonya Curry

Thanks for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonya Curry. As a keep !voter, I'm glad it was not deleted. However, I'm curious about the "no consensus" closing. I realize there are two camps, but I don't think they are equal. The deleters essentially are arguing WP:NOTINHERITED, an essay, while the keepers cite that she meets the GNG guideline. There is a guideline on family members, WP:BIOFAMILY, which some of the keepers rebutted did not apply because sources for Curry go beyond the passing mention the guideline warns against. Therefore, it seems to me that the keeps' arguments are more guideline-based (GNG + not BIOFAMILY), and add the fact that the vote count was 6–3 keep (or 7–4 if you count one very active participant who argued keep w/o ever boldfacing a formal !vote, and count the nominator as another oppose.) Thanks in advance for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. The reason for NOCONSENSUS rather than KEEP was mainly because from some of the keep arguments it wasn't clear if the coverage they mentioned did satisfy WP:SIGCOV with regards to her, and because in such cases of uncertainty I tend to go towards "NOCONSENSUS" with a "leaning towards..." note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do you mean it's not clear if they were claiming significant coverage, or you thought the claims lacked credibility? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The former. Bare "meets GNG" claims are common in deletion discussions and while I don't discount them, if they are contested it makes the status less clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a tougher standard than most closers employ, but I can respect how it could be more constructive also. By the same token, I think the opposing arguments should also be discounted some. They are not consistent with WP:N regarding importance (Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, ...), seemingly using an WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST about the importance of all mothers of athletes. Nobody rebutted the claims of significant coverage; I would respect the opposers more if they actually looked at the sources, acknowledged that they are not passing mentions, but claimed WP:IAR and explained why Wikipedia is not improved.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't plan to use this kind of strict standard very frequently. I did for a while mull on going KEEP rather than NOCONSENSUS on that AFD before falling onto the safer side as I had some remaining doubts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your responsiveness. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hells Bells

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hells Bells you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)