User talk:Modussiccandi/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Modussiccandi. 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.

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On 4 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article François Guyet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the French classical scholar François Guyet kept his composure during a lithotomy by reading Lucan's Pharsalia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/François Guyet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, François Guyet), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neil Hopkinson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English classicist Neil Hopkinson hosted events at which only dessert was served? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Hopkinson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neil Hopkinson), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

On 16 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Kirk, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Geoffrey Kirk captained a fishing boat before becoming a professor of ancient Greek at Cambridge University? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geoffrey Kirk. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Geoffrey Kirk), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Modussiccandi; we had a dialog a couple months ago regarding a speedy deletion tag on my first-created page. The story turned well, I found your position challenging but tried to find appropriate path forward and I was grateful for the learning experience. So now I happen to have created a handful of new pages, and they're all within the same realm of my Wikipedia interest, being some mix of educator, author, researcher, etcetera. Today I've created a new page within the domain of a BLP, as a subpage according to one of the WP policies. I recently read Wikipedia:Summary_style and referred to numerous Good Article pages within separate domains where my page intersects so thought I had best of both worlds in Good Article inspiration (albeit for a new page,it's relatively sparse). Unfortunately it was tagged for speedy deletion almost immediately. So I thought I could ask you to consider this new page I've created and give me your thoughts, perhaps read my contest-deletion reasons. Maybe I'm way off, maybe I'm well within bounds. Many thanks. Tomacpace (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tomacpace: good to hear from you. I'm glad you kept editing Wikipedia after some of the initial turbulences. I'm assuming the article in question is JordanPetersonVideos. I'm now not going to respond to your defence of the article. Instead, I will give you the reviewer's perspective on your article.

The first thing one has to consider is, of course, notability. The AfD nominator brings this up in their nomination statement and it's best to address this in the most basic way possible: are there two or more good sources that describe this channel in depth? By in-depth I mean with a strong focus on just the channel. From a cursory look at the sources I'm not sure that the article demonstrates this kind of coverage. (Keep in mind that the coverage is not supposed to come from Peterson or anybody related to him.) For example, the MSN article seems, on the surface, to be about the channel but it turns out that there is fairly little information on it. As the nominator said, it's coverage of the channel, not of Peterson that matters.

Then there is another issue related to sourcing. To summarise Wikipedia's policy on the matter, every claim made about a subject needs to be backed up by an inline citation. The only exception to this are plot summaries (as you will have seen in the Better Call Saul article). Your article clearly doesn't live up to this requirement. I have a simple way to remind myself of when a footnote is needed: I never have more than a few sentences at most intervening between them. In my best work, e.g. R. A. B. Mynors, I try to have one for almost every sentence. You'll know, of course, that this requirement does not apply to the lead section.

All this brings me to the main point, the charge of promotionality. You wrote the history section with very few sources and included details that can never be included without rock solid sources. Example: in mid 2017, a Google system fault was exploited in a take-down attempt. There are lots of statements like this in the article. And, it's true, they are a hallmark of non-neutral articles. Another related issue is that you include lots of undue material, again often without a good source. Example: Growth was gradual, following from new awareness from TV appearances and social media content sharing. Yet, two events triggered major growth of awareness and subscribers and viewership. In this sentence alone, you demonstrate that you haven't figured out how to write neutrally: 1) how do you know growth was gradual? No source is given, leading readers to think that you found this out yourself and thereby violated the all-important WP:ORIGINAL. 2) The term "awareness" reeks of promotional language. Since it's unsourced, the impression arises that you took this phrase from Peterson himself. Even if you didn't, without a source you have no way to prove that this is not the case.

I could go on, but my main point is: the two people who voted delete think that you have not examined whether the topic is actually notable and believe you are biased towards the channel, which has led you to inadvertently write a promotional article. Having read some of the claims made in the article, I must admit that it is not difficult to see how they arrived at this conclusion. I believe they will consider their view confirmed when they see your lengthy reply on the AfD page; neutral AfD participants typically limit their votes to a couple of sentences while extended answers often come from those unduly invested in their articles. I'm sorry I could not give you a better assessment but I hope it helps you navigate the Wiki in the future. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I am grateful for your response, but they're really only bringing up more unanswered questions. I wrote a long detailed response which gets more into my thought (citations, notability, other promotion elsewhere on wikipedia) and dialog, but you tell me, is there any opportunity for greater understanding? Tomacpace (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tomacpace: I'm not sure I understand. The things I outlined above are fundamental guidelines for editing Wikipedia and most experienced editors will take a similar view of them. As long as they are not heeded, it will be difficult to permanently add content to the project. Try not to get to caught up in what exists elsewhere on Wikipedia; each case should be judged on its own merits and it is considered poor form to base one's defence of an article on the existence of "other stuff". I hope this helps. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: Yeah, I'm just trying to interpret how to "get along" with people and the system as such. Re: examples of other promotion as defence, I agree (I'm strongly opposed to what-aboutism, my point above was merely it exists, ... perhaps also curious, what to do about it?? but not asking here hahaha) The things I outlined above are fundamental guidelines for editing Wikipedia and most experienced editors will take a similar view of them. Exactly, yes I understand, and my long-winded response to the AfD discussion includes a bunch of references to policy sections I've read prior to creating my article, including that which you mentioned interpreting that I'm failing on WP:ORIGINAL. So I have all these as guidances in mind, which is partly why I am investigating heroe, seeking more dialog because I think something is missing. I find the lack of response to my Contest to Deletion points disturbing, but double-down on the delete (the vote to delete would be understandable if exemplars by the voter-for-deletion provided actionable responses to my Contest for Deletion... else what is the point of having a Contest for Deletion form to begin with??). If an article has a few evocative words, like "awareness", "growth", that link to subjective interpretation to the rest of the body, that's a double-whammy against. I am more looking for actionable content such as what you did provide, but more is hidden in "I could go on". I'd really appreciate as hard a critique as possible where the ideal was quality and growth.

My take-aways: Various innocuous words have an affect in readers that I'm unaware of (I don't know how to interpret "awareness" as being reeking of promotional language, that doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm looking at this abstractly). The amount of sentences between any citation should be not a whole paragraph. That's my own fault but the article does have 11 including references to RS Toronto Star, Washington Times, Fox News, The Guardian, Washington Examiner, Quillette. So, I should add maybe around another 10 citations, that would take maybe an hour or so, to support and divide up the count of sentences between reference. I have more work in draft, I just submitted the article to see if people would start editing it, I didn't expect such a response but I need constructive critique. I have more thoughts to discuss if you have any interest to continue. It is helpful to me. Thanks. Tomacpace (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tomacpace: Frist of all, let me say that I understand it can be frustrating when people don't properly engage in deletion discussions. I guess the habitual procedure is that the nominator presents their rationale and other editors are invited to add their views concisely without the nominator having to respond to everything. When I nominate for deletion, I typically answer one or two major objections but there is a point where it's wiser just to let things stand. Perhaps, for some editors, that point comes sooner than for others.

Now regarding the guidelines. Having read your last comment, I believe you haven't quite come to grips with the concept of notability (WP:N). The central guideline is WP:GNG, which many editors know by heart. You need to determine wether the subject you're interested in meets this guideline. If not, you might have a chance of it meeting one of the more specific notability guidelines for subtopics (WP:SNG). If a topic meets neither, an article should not exist on it. Now, in his first sentence, the nominator, discospinster, writes the following: [w]hile Jordan Peterson himself is notable, it doesn't seem like his YouTube account is by itself. This statement is a reference to notability, nothing else. So, to refute their point one would have to show without doubt that the channel is independently notable. In your reply, you say: this page expands the nature of a work that is notable and later [the topic] is extremely notable. Do you see that you are only asserting, and not demonstrating notability? My hunch is that the nominator did not care to get back to you because they felt their notability based argument was not answered.

Promotionality aside, any other debate leads back to notability. You are right, there are some solid sources in the article. However, that is beside the point since a non-notable topic should never have an article on it regardless of the reliability of the sources. Notability takes precedence, in other words. The charge of being promotional or, rather, non-neutral is another matter. It should only be a secondary issue once questions of notability have been addressed. But I would say that Celestina007 does express this in their comment: ...coupled with the fact that is article is a blatantly promotional. I hope I've been able to clear up at least a few things. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: You don't need to use the "reply to" bit. Since this is my own talk page, I will automatically be informed. It only works the other way around. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a free moment, would you grant me a grace and check the content as I've updated it? I bumped the reference count from 11 to over 40, and condensed the content and reformatted. Added more diverse supporting content. I don't want to impose. I appreciate what you've helped with so far. Tomacpace (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tomacpace: I've had a look through the article. Yes, the referencing has improved and I see lots of reliable sources. However, I'm not sure this will help you at all when it comes to the deletion discussion; as I described in my last reply, the key issue is for this article is whether its subject is notable independently from Peterson. Unless you can demonstrate this beyond doubt, the article should be deleted or redirected to the parent article. I am afraid you are taking away the wrong points from my explanation. The !voters will not care whether you've improved the references without refuting their point about notability. In fact, they are getting frustrated with you because you keep pretending the subject is notable (see Nate's comment). To put it concisely: if a topic is non-notable, you can have the best sources mentioning it in some way but it will still get deleted. We first decide whether something is notable, then how the details should be sourced. This explains why Nate wrote "please don't bother with a response"; they are convinced the article isn't notable and therefore aren't bothered by what you've added in the sourcing department. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I just noticed you moved the article Catherine Hurlin to main space. I focus on editing ballet articles, and I think this article seems very imbalanced as the training part was very detailed but the career part was just two sentenced and a table. If you don't mind, I would like to chop bits from the early life section and add more on the career. Corachow (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Corachow: Thank you for getting in touch. Please feel free to make changes. I merely assessed it on notability grounds and found the subject to be notable. I don't have detailed knowledge about ballet, so I'd be glad for you to improve the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to nominate the article for DYK, but not exactly sure who will get the credits. Also, do you mind checking Draft:Unity Phelan? I want to create an article about her but we have this awful draft. Corachow (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Corachow:The credits would go to you and Lvonohlen who wrote the page. It's possible to enter them as the creator and yourself as the nominator. Also, I have had a look at the draft. It has got some problems with sourcing and I've reject it accordingly, though I'm unable to get it deleted because it isn't a blatant violation of policy. You could take over development of the existing draft if you want and move/resubmit once it's ready. Or you could paste your work into the empty Unity Phelan. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, great work on all those dance related articles. I'm currently clearing out the drafts on women biographies in culture and, given the amount of dubious work there, it's good to see someone do a good job in that area. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

On 21 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article G. E. L. Owen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the philosopher G. E. L. Owen was described by Martha Nussbaum as "an alcoholic and an attempted womaniser"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/G. E. L. Owen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, G. E. L. Owen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

G. E. L. Owen, 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to create a whole article for this. I thought maybe a list. What do you think? BlackAmerican (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: thanks for reaching out. A list might be a good idea, though it would have to have a reasonable rationale for what is included. "Transgender in Japan" is too vague as a title. No matter what you decide to do, you need to back up every claim you make with a reliable source, see WP:SOURCELIST for detail. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening Mr Modussicandi, thank you very much for your work.

I am trying to correct the page dedicated to Elisabetta Campus according to your instructions and reduce the Biography from undue details.

(There is already a version of the Elisabetta Campus on wikipedia in Italian,

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabetta_Campus

but unfortunately I was unable to translate it in English with the available programs. I'm sorry. So I thought of rewriting it on English wikipedia).

You said that: ........"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".....

I used (among the others): a) the SIUSA archive - Unified System for archival superintendencies as sources. (The Archival and Bibliographic Superintendencies are peripheral structures of the Ministry of Culture)

https://siusa.archivi.beniculturali.it/#:~:text=Il%20Sistema%20Informativo%20Unificato%20per,fuori%20degli%20Archivi%20di%20Stato.

b)Nuova Agenzia Radicale 14 Novembre 2015-(Internet supplement of a political magazine born in 1977, of the Italian Radical Party. But Elisabetta Campus, was not radical, of course )

http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index.php/chi-siamo

c) The website of the Municipality of Perugia (for the library of San Matteo degli Armeni)

http://turismo.comune.perugia.it/pagine/san-matteo-degli-armeni

Unfortunately are only in Italian. I can do the translation for you (but not for the public) For example for the SIUSA archive, That are the most important.

I am available for any clarification.

Thanks you very much, for your assistance.

Enrico BartoccioniEnrico Bartoccioni (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enrico Bartoccioni: thank you for reaching out. I added the following comment to the draft: [t]oo much content comes without attribution to reliable sources. "Biography", in particular, is very scarcely referenced. By that, I meant to say that you need to tell the reader exactly where information in the text is from. I'll give you an example: in the article it says [s]ince the age of 16 and throughout her adolescence, she was a soprano in the Choir "Raffaele Casimiri" of Perugia Cathedral., but no precise source is given. This problem exist throughout the article. So my problem was not necessarily with the quality of the sources used but rather with how scarcely they were used. There is no need to translate the sources into English; they can be in any language as long as they back up the content of the article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eva Forest 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 JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Eva Forest you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eva Forest for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Burgos trials 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 JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Eva Forest you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eva Forest for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The article Burgos trials you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Burgos trials for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

		Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021
		On behalf of WP:WPWW, with appreciation for the women writer biographies you created during first quarter 2021. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Wow, thank you! I did not see this coming. I'm really grateful, let me know if I can ever be of help to your project. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ur name’s awesome so I’m curious if u hav no ordinary family on fre internet becuz I hav questions about vague events?(71.145.233.12 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)).

@71.145.233.12: Thank you, the name is from Columella's De re rustica. However, I know virtually nothing about No Ordinary Family. Sorry about that. Happy Easter anyway. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

On 6 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gera Demands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Erich Honecker demanded that West Germany violate its own constitution by recognising East German citizenship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gera Demands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gera Demands), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Mr. modussicandi, I have finished the corrections, (that I hope they go well), but I am not sure if the procedure I did to republish is correct. Can you to control? Thanks a lot and have a nice day Enrico Bartoccioni--Enrico Bartoccioni (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Enrico Bartoccioni: Well done for trying to improve the article. I've seen that you used the reference section to include "further information". This is not strictly necessary. What we need is just the exact place where you got the information from. That's all. I'm not now going to review the draft again. I'll leave that to someone else since I feel that a fresh pair of eyes needs to have a look at it. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it's not a promotional page! where do you see advertising ??????? it's only encyclopedia explanation of a company that produced watches.You can read the history here. There is not advertising! the photos that you see are about old models, just to let people know it. Those watches are produced 60 years ago !!! I checked carefully your guide , and this is not advertising. If you see that it's advertising, please explain me the difference between this page and Rolex or other companies --Matteo sacch Matteo sacch (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article has already been speedily deleted by an administrator. I tagged the page because it made no attempt at explaining its subject in a neutral and encyclopaedic style. Also, you used no reliable sources and copied a promotional description of the company. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Modussiccandi! I have a follow up question to the message you left me a few minutes ago: So it is not enough that the owner of the www.windrowgalleries.com site says the following, about the text on their site: https://www.windrowgalleries.com/presskit.html "The works and articles shown on this site serve as a press kit." Please let me know why this does not count as a "release" to use the words from the site. Thank you so much. Springfulutopia (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: thank you for reaching out. No, this would not be enough. To make the material available the owner needs to explicitly donate it to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much! I have sent the following email to the owner of the website from which I got the text:

Dear Adam,

I am writing to you at the request of Wikipedia. Specifically, they have determined that if I wish to use text from the www.windrowgalleries.com site for a Wikipedia article on Patricia Windrow, that I must get permission from you, the owner of the site. I was under the impression that your statement here was sufficient to grant permission: https://www.windrowgalleries.com/presskit.html However, this is the message I received from Wikipedia:

Hello Springfulutopia! Your additions to Patricia Windrow have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

This is the version that was redacted, because of their claim that I have violated copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Windrow&oldid=1018195560 If you give permission to use the text as I have used it in this version of the article, I have been asked by Wikipedia to do the following:

"Please ask the copyright holder to e-mail the permission e-mails for Commons uploads to [email protected] and for text permissions to [email protected] (both are volunteer response team addresses). Make sure to include in this mail: the original request and confirmation answer the source Internet URL and the Wikimedia link for the image or article as this will enable the Wikimedia information team to verify the materials."

As I understand it, this means you would have to write to Wikipedia at permissions-en wikimedia.org showing (1) my original request (the one here); (2) showing your confirmation answer (only if you wish to give permission, of course!); and (3) showing the URL from which the text is being used (that would be https://www.windrowgalleries.com/). Let me know what you think!

Springfulutopia (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: well done. May I ask you a related question: why is it that you need to copy this text into Wikipedia? Could you not summarise it? Our project generally operates by summarising high-quality sources. For example, I have never had the need to copy text directly in my time here. Unless there is a special reason, you should always opt for your own words. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a great question! I *do* plan on summarizing it and revising it, but I am an academic who is under SO MUCH PRESSURE to meet other deadlines, that I don't have time the rest of today or this weekend to fiddle with the Wikipedia article. So what I wanted to do was just get something up, and then fiddle with it later. Relatedly, the owner/author of the site gave me permission to do this, so I figured why not -- just get something up there and fiddle with it over time. I don't want to lose the old version because it already has edits that are mine, and I want to continue down that path! Springfulutopia (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: I'm in an academic job myself, so I do understand why you'd want to save time. Do not be disheartened if past versions of the page get deleted; for legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material. Should the owner of the material succeed in donating to Wikipedia, don't forget to declare this on the page/talk page to avoid further trouble. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, and will do! PS: I am not at all disheartened, I am grateful that Wikipedia has such a dedicated army of seasoned and credible volunteers who take all of this so seriously! Springfulutopia (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, The owner of the site has just emailed his permission to [email protected]. I see on the "Requesting copyright permission page" that it is recommended in the meantime to "Add OTRS pending to the image description page or article talk page (whichever is applicable). This will help an editor with access to OTRS to tag the article or image with the relevant code providing evidence of the received e-mail and clearing the status of the item in question. Providing the link to the OTRS ticket number is essential for easy verification." Where should I add this code, exactly in the page, and, which page do I add it to? (The old version or the current version?) Also, the OTRS pending page says to add the relevant code to the page, but again, I don't know where in the page, or which of the pages (old or new). Any guidance you can provide will be appreciated! Springfulutopia (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: Apologies! I forgot to sign the prior message! (And as I am sure you can tell from the way I wrote it, I couldn't figure out how to escape the "relevant code" so I just said "relevant code") Springfulutopia (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: I have placed the OTRS tag on the article's talk page. Someone with relevant expertise should get around to processing the donating request soon. You might have seen that an administrator has deleted past versions of the article and the relevant sections which you had re-added. Please do not add the text in question again until the permission is processed; this will be construed as non-constructive editing. Not much more can be done right now. I'm afraid you'll just have to wait. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I most definitely will not re-add anything; I was shocked to see that the article had reverted to the old text, and I assure you I was bewildered by that because I did NOT re-add the text. I don't understand how that happened. Is it possible that the fact that I added the "relevant code" to the old page somehow restored the text? I would like to understand how the text could've been restored. I do see in the history the following:

curprev 20:34, 16 April 2021‎ Sphilbrick talk contribs‎ 3,889 bytes −2,710‎ Reverted good faith edits by Springfulutopia (talk): Copyright issue re http://www.windrowgalleries.com/bio.html updated since your last visit thank Tags: Undo Twinkle Reverted

I don't know who Sphilbrick is, do you? That has to have been the person who "reverted good faith edits," no?

Springfulutopia (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: I see. Yes, you must have inadvertently added back the copyrighted content. It's impossible to see what exactly happened because the entry in the page history has been deleted. Anyway, this is not a big deal. Sphilbrick is what we call an admin. They are highly experienced users who have been granted advanced permission to facilitate the maintenance of Wikipedia. By saying that your edits were "in good faith" they acknowledge that you didn't intend to re-add copyrighted material. They are a member of the OTRS response team, so it's safe to assume they realised what had happened. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Phew! Okay, thank you so much, for everything! Springfulutopia (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: Just checking back in with a question: how will I be able to tell when it's safe to go back to editing the Patricia Windrow page? I don't know what form that "approval" of the permissions email (sent by the owner of the text) will take; what should I look out for? Thank you so much in advance for any pointers! Springfulutopia (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springfulutopia: I'm not an expert on OTRS approval, so I can't exactly tell you when they are going to reply. You could write an email to [email protected] and ask about the process. My honest advice, however, is this: if adding the content is truly urgent, you should summarise the information in your own words. As I said last time, Wikipedia is supposed to be built this way. If I remember correctly the length of the deleted section, it should not take you very long to summarise the website's content and your problem will be gone. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi:Thanks so much for your quick attention! I will ask. But in any case it's not at all urgent, so eventually I will find the time to follow your (correct!) suggestion anyway. Again, thanks so much for all of your attention and support! Springfulutopia (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On 18 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stinnes–Legien Agreement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Stinnes–Legien Agreement was named after a trade union leader and an industrialist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stinnes-Legien Agreement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stinnes–Legien Agreement), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 3 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The article Burgos trials you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Burgos trials for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

On 1 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Klotz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that classicist Alfred Klotz wrote a textbook promoting scientific racism that turned out to be a commercial failure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Klotz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Klotz), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Modus, if you have a moment, I wonder if you might be interested in leaving a review of Patrick Francis Healy. It hasn't gotten a tremendous amount of attention at FAC and I'm hoping it doesn't fail for lack of input. Ergo Sum 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Sure thing, will do it right away. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you so much for this. If it hadn't been for your kind words after the first, archived FAC, I probably wouldn't have had the energy to make the necessary changed so rapidly. All best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations to your FA, R. A. B. Mynors! When should he appear for TFA? Any day soon? His birthday 28 July this year? Same 2023? You'd have to reserve the first on WP:TFAR, the second on WP:TFARP. I could do that for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean that even 28 July could be nominated right away? So far I noticed only the beginning of June scheduled, but I was not really here today, so may have missed the rest of the month being scheduled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you for bringing this up! With TFA in mind, I asked his alma mater Balliol College to donate the image in the infobox. They've kindly supplied a free, high-quality version which today has cleared OTRS. I think any day soon would be great. Feel free to get the ball rolling on WP:TFAR if you don't mind the trouble. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, the TFAs for June have already been scheduled. You could probably get one of them bumped in favour of Mynors, but 28 July sounds good to me. Modussiccandi, would you like me to write a draft blurb for your consideration? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you, I would love to see a draft blurb from you. 28 July sounds great, too. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean that even 28 July could be nominated right away? So far I noticed only the beginning of June scheduled, but I was not really here today, so may have missed the rest of the month being scheduled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I marked 28 July in TWARP, - it's very informal and can always be withdrawn. Gog the Mild, in your award, could you change the "band of brothers" wording, for us sisters? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, not really. It is a quote. From Shakespeare. Words he puts into the mouth of an English king in a hopeless position. It is very famous. I would be happy to replace it with something else well known which captures the spirit of a victory against near-impossible odds. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I read Shakespeare in German and didn't recognize it as Shakespearean. I wonder how many allusions I miss ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A non-typical version which captures its universality I feel. [1] You see why I don't want to mess with it. And what else could encapsulate all of that? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat is Churchill. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And the "I too" bit. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I will, but probably not today. The day began with the shock that an admired editor died, SlimVirgin, then I was out all day, and just went over my watch list. Good to see something positive there, this new FA! Thank you for the effort to get the image cleared! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course. I had noticed the terrible news of SlimVirgin's passing; I didn't interact with her personally but reading the memories on her page shows what a loss for the project this is. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave it a start, WP:TFAR, - next time you can do it yourself ;) - You can support, and comment name, Oxford and photo dating, and change the blurb, of course. I left Gog the Mild's proposal unchanged. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your generous amount of support. I'll be sure to comment on the nomination. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

On 10 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Weimar Republic had three successive cabinets that governed only through emergency powers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential cabinets. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Modussiccandi! The article you nominated, R. A. B. Mynors, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I am giving you this to recognise your excellent work on bringing R. A. B. Mynors to Featured Article status, your work expanding other articles on classical scholarship, and your congenial manner of editing. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Noswall59: thank you so much. You know how grateful I am for all your support and feedback. Here's hoping that I'll get the chance to do the same for you one day. We do, after all, have some overlap in editing interest when it comes to figures of modern British history. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Portrait photograph of Rogers Mynors.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Sather Professorship of Classical Literature at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd add my congratulations on getting R.A.B. Mynors to FA status. A superb effort! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much,Amitchell125, it was a great learning experience which really started with your GA review of the article last year. Your review has taught me a lot about article improvement in general and I still consider myself indebted to you after all you've done to help improve Mynors. Don't hesitate to reach out if you feel there's an article I could help you with. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Thebaid (Latin poem) 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk)08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left some comments for you to consider in the article review page. It's looking pretty good. Tim riley talk 09:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Modussiccandi,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the draft I created for the Pearl Dykstra page. I've changed the page in accordance with your input. I've added several online citations (amongst others in the first paragraph of the biography) and I've shortened the paragraphs in the research sections. I'm hoping the text now meets the publication standards of Wikipedia. I'm very much looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchscholar (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dutchscholar: thank you for your dedication to improving the draft of Pearl Dykstra. I'm not now going to review the draft because I'd rather like for a new reviewer to provide a fresh opinion on the submission. Good luck with the draft and happy edition, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Modussiccandi. 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.