User talk:Jake Brockman

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Jake Brockman,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. help me please add an article to Wikipedia (Draft:Dmitry Green).Thank you very much. Namerst (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Namerst Thanks for reaching out. Most of the sources seem to be in Russian, a language I am not very familiar with, so I'm not best positioned to review the article. From a formal perspective, the article does lack inline citations and some passages read like an advert, so this would need to be addressed. I'm also pinging @Boleyn: who placed the maintenance tags. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the answer! Could you help remove advertising phrases? Namerst (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Teaching Moment. Wisdom & Learning Requested.

Hi Jake,

My name is Anthony. An altruistic ex-Godaddy employee who has spent the last few years taking care of clients as a "web guy" who can help with just about anything related to their business. I got tired of hearing horror stories about past web-guys from clients I couldn't help as a godaddy-guy.

That said, when a musician friend of my clients reached out to ask for help updating his stuff, I said "yeah I can probably do that" and watched a few videos to figure out the mark-up code & templates that Wikimedia uses internally to actually make the changes he sought for his band, and it's members.

Then I learned (by reading all the resources in your reply) how Wikipedia actually works and I am humbled.

I'm also interested in learning more and helping contribute as a volunteer once I learn enough to be worth the effort to Wikipedia. I don't anticipate you have the bandwidth to under-wing a new apprentice but that would be awesome. I ask instead for a little help and guidance with the few posts that I'm working on for now. *Shrug* Baby steps.

I understand and agree that Marc Brattin doesn't have the right amount of the right kinds of visible references online. I had a conversation with him about it and his response was "That's okay I get it. I'm an old dog, been doing this since I was 15. I'm in my 40s now. Most of the waves I made are not online, they are in videos and magazines predating any solid stand alone things online. Despite that, I am the owner and manager of the signed band, I hold the Nevada-registered LLC papers and everything of that sort. I'm not worried about cramming a world of encyclopedic knowledge into a wiki page for me. Can we Just Bare-bones it to say I exist, and drum for the band Foundry instead of a redirect where the other band members have their own page?"

I told him maybe, because that's not really up to me. But I would have a conversation with you to better understand the limits of what can (more accurately "should") be done about it in the world of Wikipedia's ways.

If you would please share with me, how best can I help his situation? It's not likely the last time I will run into this situation and it seems as good a place as any to begin really learning how best to contribute to things without damaging the integrity of the Encyclopedia or my reputation around it.

Thank you so much, Anthony Kirk Mynerdywebguy (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mynerdywebguy: Hi Anthony, thank you for reaching out. Let me try and respond to the best of my knowledge and according to my interpretation of some of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and principles. Reading your message, it seems there are three subject areas to look at: 1) conflicts of interest, 2) Notability and 3) Verifiability.

1) The way I understand your message you work for Foundry and/or Brattin or have a close connection to them. This would make your edits on Wikipedia subject to WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID. I encourage you to read those policies carefully. In a nutshell, people with close connections to subject are strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia directly. Certain mechanisms are in place for conflicted editing. Those are outlined in the linked articles.

2) Notability is a widely discussed topic all over Wikiepdia. Generally, there are two levels to look at a) general notability which is the minimum bar for any subject and notability for musicians which is a specific subset of guidelines for musicians. Broadly speaking, for a subject to be deemed notable for inclusion, there needs to be sufficient coverage in other media that is independent of the subject and reliable. A threshold test I use myself is a simple question: is the stuff I can find sufficient to write and interesting and comprehensive article about the subject in question and does it go beyond what is written about associated subject, ie. the band. For a person, this would include key personal dates, something about early life and education, maybe something about parents and siblings, family and the impact a person has made throughout life. Has the person received awards or is he widely credited for having played a critical part in a team effort. I would not normally look at interviews with the subject as I generally questions their independence - even if published in independent media. A good source would be an essay about a person in e.g. NME (I'm UK centric, of course any US equivalent will be equally good). Things become blurred if a person if very connected to a certain topic, such as a band. If the wide majority of sources or media coverage is about the band and the person is mentioned as part of the band, this does not necessarily make the individual notable. This is equally true for a CEO or founder or a company. If we only know about the person in connection with the company and there is little about personal life, this is likely failing notability. At this point it's important to note that notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERITED. If a band is notable, this does not make its members or individual pieces of music notable. If other band members are notable based on their own merits, others do not necessarily follow. It may even be that those other band members fail notability, too, but no one has raised this yet. Wikipedia is not perfect.

3) Verifiability is somehow related to notability. All claims for notability - besides being independent - must be verifiable. The sources don't necessarily have to be online - they can be in print. They key is that other Wikipedia members should be able to reasonably easily check the claims made. Magazines are often available as scanned copies in archives or have library of congress entries. I personally would normally accept a mention in a book or offline magazine when dealing with people of historical interest, such as - for example - someone who was a student movement leader in the 1960's and who still is alive, but maybe just a private person now. I would be suspicious and certainly questions sources when dealing with people who are deemed to be of current interest and are part of popular media. "Fandom" usually is very strong - especially in music - so that I would expect to see historical offline magazines quoted in current online media if there is a claim for a person being notable.

I hope this helps. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:R262 (New York City Subway car) (3)

Hi Jake. Someone has tried to create the R262 (New York City Subway car) page a third time, even though there aren't reliable secondary sources for it yet. Just a heads-up if you want to file for create protection. Transit enthusiasts, especially those in NYC, can be a bit zealous sometimes epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: thanks for letting me know. I am not surprised. I'll keep an eye on it. Probably AfD the next one. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes

Hi, I have created a fresh draft of Carlos Nicholas Fernandes, a page that was nominated by you for speedy deletion. You may find the draft here. I have done my best to improve upon all the points listed by you in the AfD, specifically the ones about a promotional tone, and lack of good sources, such as that from Straits Times. I would like your help in improving the article, so that it doesn't get deleted again. Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@SerTanmay: thanks for reaching out. I appreciate your efforts, however as previously nominating editor I would consider myself conflicted. I also, out of principle, do not engage I getting articles over the line I do not believe should be on Wikipedia because of potential inherent commercial interest. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Oh, thanks anyway. SerTanmay (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I did not know that. Please tell me how can I create a new page? Bilal190023 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bilal190023: not a problem. Please read WP:YFA for some guidance on creating an article for the first time. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Pall Mall Barbers

Article now has ten sources though I would argue that the previous sources (which included The Telegraph) were more than just passing mentions. But I've included GQ Magazine, FSB, and Fashion Bug and I have plenty more sources. Also the coverage is far more significant than most retail chains of comparable size. Might be worth another look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers Thedavidshow (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thedavidshow:. Seeme we had the same thought. I left a message on your talk page, while you left one on mine. Pls see my comments on your talk page. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman:. Ah! So THAT's how you reply to someone's message!. Thanks again. Thedavidshow (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Response

(sorry, I'm not sure how else I could respond to you other than writing here) Thank you for the fast response. I am, in no way, related to Pall Mall Barbers. The only reason that I wrote the Pall Mall Barbers article was in response to the reviewer nosebagbear suggestion that there was "more than enough" in terms of references to get a Pall Mall Barbers article approved and that it would be far easier than proving notability on its founder. So that's pretty much what I did. I took the time to research how to write such an article, created all new text, and used some of the references from the previous article and a few new ones. I will expand the article soon and include even more references. Thank you for your time.

Thedavidshow (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Beer Me Now

Hi Jake,

I see that you declined my Beer Me Now page today.

Thats a shame. Can you tell me what I need to do to improve it as I thought it met the criteria?

Thanks Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.98.16 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@86.30.98.16: Hi Evan, Thanks for reaching out. The main reason why I declined the submission was for lack of notability as presented in independent sources. I used WP:NCORP as guideline, which states that for an article about a company to be considered notable, it requires significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As such, the company's website may show the company exists, but that's not sufficient (see WP:NOTDIR). Local media coverage may support the existence, but this would not normally be considered "significant". If there is more coverage, ideally in national media, it will be worth adding for reviewers can reconsider. Please note, that this should be editorial coverage. Routine corporate reporting is also discounted (e.g. details about funding rounds, new hires, new products, PR.) _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Open Destinations

Hi Jake, thanks for your review! Btw any idea why Abercrombie & Kent which I created recently got deleted? The user who deleted it says "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see WP:YFA, WP:Paid WP:RS, notability guidelines". Idk what that means because the article was written in NPOV and I'm not a paid editor for Christ's sake!! And yes I'll work on improving the article as a draft. Monumentel (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Monumentel, Thanks for reaching out. When I reviewed the Open Destinations article I did only have a very brief look at the A&K article so I am not the best person comment. I do not remember it specifically. Please reach out to the deleting admin Jimfbleak, who I have just pinged. It may be good to know if you are in any way connected with Open Destinations, a PR firm or an event manager related to them. This may be unpaid. There is a big trade show coming up in London and it is not unusual for companies to clean up their Wikipedia articles in time for something like this. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Holy moly I didn't know there was a big trade show coming up. Anyways I'll stop editing travel related articles. I'll continue the work on open destinations as I put a lot of effort into it. Might as well finish the job Monumentel (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 10:24:20, 4 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Australianfilms

• Australianfilms (talk · contribs)
  • User:Australianfilms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Jake, User:RHaworth deleted a page I spent hours creating for an upcoming Australian movie Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan after you flagged it for a copyright issue in just one small section of text. It was deleted AFTER I followed all the instructions to fix it shortly after I received your warning notification. As per those instructions, I placed a message not to delete it along with a reason that I was removing the problematic Premise text and replacing it with entirely new and original text. I had already replaced the problematic Premise section with entirely original new text BEFORE the entire page was deleted by RHaworth. I had already corrected the issue and followed the stated procedures as soon as it was brought to my attention. How can I recover the work that I did and/or have the last completely corrected and updated version reinstated? Thanks in advance, User:Australianfilms 10:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Australianfilms (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)