User talk:Dkriegls/Archive 2015

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

You are not a scientist, but a politcal idealogue, who should stop trying to falsely claim to be a scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, how am I not a scientists? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Im currently a pro wrestler in indiana. Im originally from Joliet Illinois. I've been doing it for 10 years. Im currently trying to get into WWE Tough Enough.I grew up with the guys from Five Pointe O. Thank you for the pointers. --Scarecrowfelson (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fun! Well, feel free to ask me anything about Wikipedia editing. I don't bite and I'll try my best to help. However, if you want to know more about the community of editors that are into professional wrestling, check out this Wikipedia user group, here we call them WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Maryann Krieglstein, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dkriegls. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Maryann Krieglstein".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Maryann Krieglstein}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just curious why an experienced editor would use the AfC process and not your User space/sandbox? Not having a go at you but AfC is usually used by more the more inexperienced. JMHamo (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

AFC is the best process on Wikipedia for creating articles where you have a big Conflict of Interest. Editors like myself and User:WWB are big on trying to systematize COI editing so that it isn't done under the radar and is properly flagged and reviewed. The demonizing of COI edits has caused a lot of shadowing controversies. This article is about my Mom and is one of the reason's I am taking it slow and trying to incorporating all the feedback from the editors who reviewed the article. But more importantly, I wanted go through a fully open COI creation so I could understand the process better and create a guide page for people. But my job took off and I was putting bigger editing project on the back burner. I'm not at all annoyed that drafts get deleted, even this one. It was just the lack of leg time on the Talk Page (and thus email) warning. Trying to figure out how to fix that. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that so well. I understand now. I look forward to reading about your Mom when the article is accepted. JMHamo (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Dkriegls, thanks for your patience. Having reviewed again, the conclusion I keep coming back to is that there might well be a reasonable stub (or much shorter article) to be written here, but the sources simply do not support an article of this length or detail. For example, I spot-checked one listed fact: having lived in Morocco, sourced to a document authored by Werner Krieglstein. This isn't mentioned in the document and, besides, your father, her husband, would not count as an intellectually independent source. I would be happy to review this if rewritten solely from sources not written by a Krieglstein, and very strictly adhering to information contained in said sources. Looks like you have received similar advice on the draft page, and I do agree with it. I totally get why you would want to write an in-depth bio of her, as she's quite an accomplished lady—however it seems as if Wikipedia is not the place for this treatment, at least not at this time. Let me know if you do write a shorter version. Best, WWB (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look this over. While I understand the need for a conservative review due to the primary author's familial relationship with the subject, I am not sure I understand your critique. First: I understand that to WP:STUBIFY would suggest "an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research, self-published, or primary sources". There are no self-published references, and I'm fairly sure there is no original research. ("Morocco" should have been referenced to my dad's book, while the rest of that sentence was properly referenced to the journal article). That leaves only primary sources. While I accept that I may be wrong, it is my opinion that the only content wholly reliant on a primary source are factual listings of her publications; and the first two sentences under Academic that mentioned her degrees with only the PhD dissertation itself as reference. The dissertation is behind a paywall, but lists all three of her degrees and graduation dates on it, for which I believe I only stated the facts of dates and locations received. I'm fairly confident the rest of the article is referenced to at least one source published by independent third parties.

Second: In regards to citing references written by the subject or their spouse but published by independent third parties (i.e., your critique of citing my dad's journal article). I understand this to not only be acceptable when used for non-contentious biographical information, but widely practices on Featured Articles. While I don't know of a Wikipedia policy directly addressing this, I do know that WP:BLPSELFPUB allows for this type of citation for non-contentious biographical information from self-published materials; so I can't imagine materiel published by independent third parties would be more restrictive. WP:ABOUTSELF may be more apt, but allows for generally the same use for non-contentious material that isn't the primary focus of the article. I looked for Featured Article examples to make sure I hadn't been misunderstanding this policy with all my other editing. After reviewing just five biographies I found two that cited only the subject as a primary source for biographical information. J.R.R. Tolkien's Featured Article widely cites his personal letters throughout the article. Specifically, all four sentences of the Family section were solely referenced to a collection of letters he wrote and illustrated for his children. In Ronald Reagan's Featured Article, his 1990 co-authored auto-biography and his memories as recorded on The Reagan Diaries are the sole citation on several pieces of biographical information throughout the article; specifically this quote "At Gorbachev's request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at the Moscow State University".

I would love your feedback, specifically: A) do you think I am being too defensive about these points due to my COI; B) would you mind giving more specifics regarding what you think should be deleted and why (since I'm not seeing it); C) or should we just consider this a difference of editing opinion on policy and leave it at that (perhaps taking it back to the article for creation page). Always a pleasure; cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey again, sure, let me keep the focus on sources and material included because I'm best qualified to discuss that. So yes, I'm afraid I still have major concerns about sourcing: the Personal life section includes her birth date, but that doesn't appear in your father's book that I can tell. It does say she was born in Chicago, but it doesn't say "South Side". Perhaps I am being overly stringent on the latter point, but it's representative of other issues. For instance, I couldn't follow all of the sources later in the section, but I'm skeptical that these includes her children's and grandchild's names and birth dates. Even if verifiable, I'd lean against inclusion unless one or more were notable figures themselves. Other details selected are unverified or off-topic, such as the use of the gym and auditoriums as presentation spaces for her work. I'm sure you're not making it up, but it doesn't strike me as significant information, and I'm even more sure the Chicago Tribune story linked does not go into that much detail. Meanwhile, I see a lot of incidental coverage in local and student pagers—here and here—and many first-party sources such as the College of DuPage, GuideStar, Family Shelter Services. Perhaps I was too extreme in suggesting that it should be a stub, but I do think the article needs to be less detailed, more conservatively sourced, and then it would have a much easier time at AfC. Let me know what you think, WWB (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Daniel – I have some serious reservations about the above article, which I have aired in two separate discussions on the talk page. I notice you seem to be quite active on the WikiProject Lists page, so I wondered if you could take a look and add your opinion, and whether the article could be improved – I note this page has been nominated for deletion once before, but it was decided at the time to keep it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been on a short hiatus from Wikipedia. I very briefly scanned the comment section. An initial thought is that all sourcing should be from press releases published by established accounting firms like Nielsen, not general news sources. That should limit the debates about methodology. Where two firms disagree, list the disagreement. But you seem to agree anyways. Is there something specific you need me to weigh in on? Sorry I can't read through the whole talk page right now. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, thanks for getting back to me and I appreciate people don't spend their whole lives on Wikipedia... I think you'd go mad if you did! It isn't a specific problem as such, I just find the whole article unsatisfactory, really. For instance, you mention Nielsen so I assume you are immediately thinking of the US (or Canadian) charts... I would agree with you about using an official source, but normally Nielsen only tell you when a record has passed a particular sales level, platinum or double platinum or something similar – you don't normally find articles in Billboard giving a total sales figure. So I thought the only thing to do was to list the US singles by girl groups that have passed the platinum mark, as it's relatively easy to find that info from the RIAA certifications and other official sources. And I got complaints that the article had been "ruined" and that only records for which we have sales figures should be included in the article, which to me makes it immediately redundant. And that's just one country, the one that's easiest to find information for... and then there's the absurdity of splitting best-selling groups into two tables of physical sales and digital sales – where on earth can you find the information that shows what percentage of sales of the Spice Girls or Pussycat Dolls records are in physical format and what percentage are in digital format? We also have the problem that most of the sales figures given for Japanese or Korean groups are from sources in those languages, which makes it difficult to verify them. Richard3120 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

So there is no easily attainable "current sales count"? Because if that exists, I suggest you track it down. Having that to back you up will really make for a strong argument for change. Even if only for US/Euro acts, it would make for a stronger argument. Perhaps asking over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music for such a reference. Because the referencing for this list is borderline Wp:Original research. Citing sales amounts in popular news sources that were published in differing years and then claiming that means one group out sold another...is not very convincing. Especially given that the top seller "Spice Girls" is referenced to celebrity tabloid Reveal from an article that doesn't even give a hard sales number for the album, just a "more than" estimate. And the tabloid said the album Spice was the biggest selling girl group album. That claim was specifically not made about the group. I agree on some of your other points as well, but I would start with finding a consistently reliable source for the singular thing that this list is supposed to be about. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I just looked over at List of best-selling music artists and they don't seem to have a single reliable source either. Though, they have managed to avoid celebrity tabloids. And they even seem to report conflicting numbers from differing sources. I'm not familiar enough with handling music sales reporting on Wikipedia, so it feels like OR. But they do consistently reference allmusic.com for all information except the sales total. The site also seems to be the source of ranking. If that's the case, that might be a reliable source for ranking without relying on the unclear reporting of sales numbers. Maybe start there and see if you can at least verify the ranking. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You see now why I have such concerns over the validity of this entire article... numerous unreliable sources, conflicting claims, leaps of logic that are not supported by the cited sources. I've looked at the sources cited for 2NE1's digital sales, for instance – one (sourced from a blog with no reference as to where those numbers came from) is used for the 65.8 million figure given in the article... another more reliable source from Forbes magazine quotes only 27 million – that's a huge discrepancy!

Regarding reliable sales figures, I can tell you as someone with a long-time interest in the charts that these aren't as widely available or definitive as you might think. Even now there are arguments over exactly how many records groups like the Beatles and ABBA actually sold during their career. And in ABBA's case we're not talking small amounts, either... the difference could be as big as 300 million records. If we can't get agreement over the biggest-selling groups in history, then we are unlikely to get definitive sales for some of these smaller groups from the 1960s, 70s and even 80s.

Speaking as a Brit, there have been year-end UK singles and albums charts based on sales since 1970, but the first year in which actual official sales figures for those year-end charts was provided by the chart compiler was 1994... before that they just published a top 100 for the year and nothing else. And the UK sales figures for all records from 1994 to 1998 are now considered highly suspect (that's another story which I won't go into here). So really the only official, verifiable sales figures for the UK are from the turn of the century onwards. For the US, Billboard published year-end sales figures from 1993 onwards but we haven't been able to find anything before that. And these are the two countries that have had official charts and the most robust methods of calculating sales for the longest time: other countries' charts are far more recent. As a result, the whole article is heavily skewed towards records and groups from the mid-1990s onwards. Nobody in the US doubts that the Supremes were enormously successful and sold millions of records there in the 1960s and early 70s, but how do you definitely prove that "Baby Love" sold more or fewer copies than Spice Girls' "Wannabe"? You can't, which is why I think trying to "rank" sales in order is a waste of time. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a clear example of Original Research. I would suggest the best way to move forward is to organize a change of focus for these lists as a whole (i.e., Top selling such and such type of musician). It would take some organizing but I bet you could get some experienced editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music to help you out. I'm not sure if trying to fight for this one list is the best way. If you get a consensus of how this type of data should be presented, that will carry more weight for changing this list. However, I can't think of a presentation style that might reach consensus. I do know strong citation always helps. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I did put up an RfC and posted on a few relevant WikiProject boards, but only got a reply from an admin and a fellow Brit I've worked with before on correcting the UK decade-end best-seller charts (again, a surprisingly complicated job... the original official 1970s chart is now completely discredited, including by the official chart compilers; no 1990s chart was ever produced; and the 2000s chart was subject to major revisions just a couple of weeks after being published). Trying to go by "types of music" opens up a whole new area of debate, as people constantly argue over "correct" genre definitions ("they're not hip hop, they're R&B"). I think we have decided that to start with we will merge the physical and digital sales lists, as there is no reason to separate them and most official figures only provide an overall total, and then work on each country to order lists into "records that have been certified platinum", "records that have been certified double platinum", etc. and forget about trying to rank them no. 1, no. 2, etc. – it seems to be the only reasonable way forward. Many thanks for all your help. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Maryann Krieglstein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that with this edit you gave the edit summary "There's no violation in this comment. No need to white wash a user's existence."

1. There certainly was a "violation": there was a violation of the community decision that this editor was to be banned from editing the English language Wikipedia.
2. Wikipedia:Banning policy states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason". You may not agree with the policy, but you have no right to stand in the way of other editors who choose to implement the policy. (I don't agree with all Wikipedia policies, and those I disagree with I take no steps to implement or enforce, but if another editor chooses to take steps in line with a policy that I personally don't like, I never take steps to prevent them from doing so.)

You may like to revert your edit, which was an attempt to interfere with implementation of Wikipedia policy. Although the edit I made could have been made by any editor, I made it in the course of enforcing policy in my capacity as an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I had that wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)