User talk:Cardiffbear88

Welcome!

Hello, Cardiffbear88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	For all the great citation needed statements you have been fixing with https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en/leaderboard.html ! Super glad you are finding the tool useful! Sadads (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thank you!

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Quays you added a ivote (as they are called). As a nominator, you have already indicated your choice. It's not common practice to say again what it is unless it's changed and in that case it's normal to lead one's edit with something like 'comment' or 'note'Djflem (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem Thanks for your feedback. In this case the article had substantially changed with multiple new sources after the AfD nomination, and I made it very clear that I was adding to my original nomination rather than voting twice. Please remember I’m a newbie and not familiar with some of this detail - I’m just trying to learn the process to tidy up a huge backlog and be helpful. WP:AGF Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just a fat-finger blip on mobile! PamD 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel Cirta, I commented there about excessive commenting. It is going off-topic, so let's discuss elsewhere; here or at my Talk page is okay. I do get annoyed by deletion nominators, especially, commenting in response to every other comment which does not perfectly agree with their stated opinion. And your commenting in reply to my comments, especially the one dismissing everything i said because I pointed to a very relevant photo, is indeed a tad irritating.

About your expertise in AFDs, which you must have because you are lecturing me there about it, well, what about indenting replies? Do you have a systematic practice of never indenting? I indented one or two of your comments there already to improve readability, but you didn't notice or otherwise just disregard normal practice in your further comments. This is a real question to you: Do you understand that in Wikipedia discussions, that indenting is normal to help the discussion stay organized? Or do you have some point to make about how Wikipedia's discussion page technology is weird/bad (I would agree, but it is what we have). --Doncram (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram thanks for the message. Firstly, on indenting, I thought I was but obviously not. But thanks for calling out the new and inexperienced editor.

Secondly, please assume good faith. I genuinely don’t have an opinion on whether these articles stay or go but I’m working hard to improve the backlog of terrible articles whilst trying to stay polite on the AfD forums, which seem designed to get people’s backs up and become a place everyone shouts each other down. My only interest is to improve the encyclopaedia. I read your user page with interest and am inclined to agree that WP has a horrible bullying culture. I don’t think I’ll be editing much longer personally, but good luck with you and your quest for perfect indentations. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touche', your reply makes me laugh. :) Maybe/probably i am/was acting a bit jerkish. I actually didn't really understand you were a new editor; I think there is another editor with "Cardiff" in their name; i hope/believe i have helped newish editors more than ever driving them away. I do hope you will stay around. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And okay, i do see you are contributing significantly on the side of AFDs towards removing unsuitable articles. Do you know about the wp:AFDSTATS tool? It's an imperfect tool but interesting. See stats about your AFD performance: AFD stats for Cardiffbear88.

Corresponding stats about me take longer to load, and show me to be, i suppose, an wp:inclusionist (as opposed to be wp:deletionist or wp:exclusionist). I do recognize that the other side is needed, but when i consider participating on AFDs I usually prefer to look for ways to save articles that can be saved, particularly about historic places or other places. Sometimes i get out of my depth in other AFD topics. Otherwise, i mostly work on positive articles about U.S. National Register-listed or other historic places. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram thanks for the link to AfD stats - really interesting! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Your AfD nominations looked manually done to me. Are you aware of TWINKLE, a tool that helps automate a number of tedious tasks such as creating an AfD? Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool thank you! I will give it a go next time...Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie sheds a bit of light on your engagement there, and I'd probably have explained this earlier if I'd realised.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It does not say - and isn't generally interpreted as "...that every editor has access to" or "are freely available on the internet". The sources have to exist - you do not personally have to be able to see them (general you, not specific you). This comes up much more often than it used to with newspaper coverage in particular, as more newspapers institute paywalls and/or deindex their articles from Google in the belief that it's costing them ad money. There are states of Australia where there are now no newspapers that don't have a 100% restricted paywall.

This means that if you don't have access to key sources (and I'm not directed this at you specifically but more as a general rule), you're probably not in a position to assess notability in a conversation with someone who does. If you want to have an opinion anyway, fine, nobody is likely to care very much. But if you're going to insistently argue with people who do have access to the sources, don't be surprised when they get the shits with you and start to wonder what you're playing at. That is a really good time to just stand back.

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a great way to get access to many databases. It's also not the only way - your local, state or national libraries might have access to e-resources that can be very useful. (Also, if you're a university student, you're set - and some expand their e-resources access to alumni.) I have access to a worldwide news database through the National Library of Australia that's extremely useful in assessing notability (newspapers.com is incredibly thorough for North America but only has bits and pieces elsewhere) and you may find you've got something similar through one of your own libraries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added reliable sources as requested. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblepack (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see WP:BLPPROD as external links count as references prior to the prod so BLPPROD should not go ahead in those circumstances even if the external links are unreliable such as IMDb. This has been confirmed many times in RFCs, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AllMusic is a reliable source. This is the list of reliable and unreliable music sources here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about the situation for a little while. I am assuming that you are acting in good faith, but despite your good faith efforts, you have not been able to find sources that others are finding easily. Therefore, you have been recommending for deletion articles that are clearly about notable topics (although those articles currently are poorly sourced). This has happened more than once in recent days. This means that you should work on other areas of the encyclopedia, rather than AfD. This is not something to feel bad about; there are plenty of other things to do at Wikipedia. All the best, and happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ssilvers I will take your feedback on board but note that you have only contributed to 2 of my 30+ current nominations. On both occasions, you managed to find sources, which is great, and have been added to the article on the second occasion, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t complete WP:BEFORE. I will take your feedback on board but continue to nominate articles for deletion as I see fit. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a quick look at some of your recent edits, I see that you are adding a References section to articles underneath the External links section. But References should go above External links. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I dePRODed Grace McKeaney as I found some refs to show she satisfies WP:WRITER #3, as she has written multiple episodes of both Roseanne and St. Elsewhere. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dorothy West (actress) caught my eye. She allegedly appeared in 123 films all between 1908-1916. In The Guerrilla she was the female lead apparently. That was a 15-minute 1 reel film, and we have it sourced to IMDb and a cite that basically compiles the credits for silent films. It looks like Love Finds a Way a 5-minute film may be more representative of West's work. She is listed 13th of 13 cast members and had the role of "Lady-In-Waiting". Lacking a name for a part often means it is non-notable, Into the Woods notwithstanding. That film article has the same two sources as the other. West lived from 1891 to 1980. IMDb says she was also a writer, although I have yet to see evidence of that. There was a writer named Dorothy West, but she was born in 1907. I did fond this [1] BFI article about the work of Grace Elliot, where the author draws on IMDb as a source, instead of seeking primary sources, which is its own issue. She has a photo of "Dorthy West giving an interview" as herself. What remains unanswered is is this the same Dorothy West. Could that even be a picture of a 49-year-old woman? I am thinking this is another Dorothy West but do not know. It is not the writer I mentioned above, she was African-American. Still, if West stopped appearing in film in 1916, appearing as herself in 1931 seems odd. If someone lived for 64 years after appearing in films we need to be able to say something on it I would think. Then there is tis source [2] which uses the photo that Wikipedia has of the writer on an article about the film actresses. Then there is this website [3] which has what it claims is a picture of Dorothy West with Dorothy Peterson. That is Mae West. Here [4] is a book that includes a brief summary of the Golden Super, a film we do not have an entry for. This is The Moving Picture World Vol. 28. It was published in 1916, and seems to be an attempt to catalog all films being made. On futher investigation it was a trade journal of the motion picture industry. I am not sure that counts as a 3rd party source for film roles. It does not look substantial to me. Even my good search for "Dorthy West" with actress added showed up more mentions of the author than the actress, and no indication that anyone took any notice when she died. I might go to the trouble of nominating it, but I am limited to one nomination a day, and that would have to be late today or even tomorrow. I will see about this, but it is an article I seenot having enough sourcing to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another pet peeve of mine, editors who created cast lists and just linked every single entry. In the case of Subway Express a 1931 film, I have deleted 8 links that went no where and now 2 links that went in one case to a maybe semi-legendary woman who fought in the American revolution and another to a musician who was born 7 years after the film was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have to have multiple sources acknowledging one's existence for them to have a Wikipedia page, and not just an IMDB page. The notability guidelines are faulty, and that's a huge issue when it comes to documenting actors. --2601:199:4181:E00:6544:D7B2:88E2:98E9 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not really sure what your point is? IMDb is not a reliable source, and so the article is not sourced with any reliable sources. This is against Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living people WP:BLP. If you can find any additional reliable sources to the article, please do so and the proposed deletion tag can then be removed. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Lemport was only in 3 films. Of the two listed with the article, only maybe one was a significant role. I am so tired of the constant bpush back, and in the case of Dorothy West the unchallenged false link, that I think I will just do nothing. You might want to take a look though. The only source listed in the unreliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll take a look! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardiffbear88, I am just getting into AfD and am trying to learn more about patrolling new pages before I think about applying to patrol myself. I have thoroughly read the page on WP:Notability (people), but I am still unsure where to draw the line on "significant coverage", and I am a little unsure of how deep "intellectual independence" runs. I was wondering if you could answer some questions or point me to someone who could answer them.

I have recently commented on two of your AfD proposals that with additional links I think were both not significant coverage, and I recommended deleting the articles. Do you think extra e.g. TV guide pages can ever count as significant coverage, combine with imdb, and make a subject notable? or does this type of source almost always have insignificant coverage?

And how deep does Intellectual Independence run? If IMDB and TV Guide are both in the TV entertainment business, is that intellectually independent? What about if they both make TV shows? What about if they both make the same kind of TV shows? Etc. I'm sure it always depends on the situation, but a guide or some examples on this topic would be a nice thing to add to the notability page (same with the above question).

Thanks for any help, or for pointing me towards help, Ikjbagl (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl hi, thanks for getting in touch. Generally I would say that, in the case of actors for example - significant coverage might include substantial mentions in reviews (at least a sentence or two, not just a name check), interviews in major publications (not just blogs), news reports, that sort of thing. WP:SIGCOV gives a really good overview.

We generally don’t accept IMDb as anyone can edit it, so it’s not a reliable source. Other sources like TV listings might be useful to confirm facts, such as a transmission date or a plot point, but it isn’t normally significant coverage. The notability policy above should say a bit more about this difference between verification and notability.

For independence, this is more about who wrote something rather than the subject matter. Going back to the actors example, we are actively looking for coverage written by knowledgable people, and edited independently - so TV websites, newspapers’ TV columnist, etc are ideal. The problem is where an actor or director could potentially edit the sources themselves and so produce a potentially biased source - things like IMDb, blogs, press releases, an agent’s website etc.

And finally, especially in AfD, you cannot possibly check every single source on the internet when contributing to AfD - you just have to make sure that WP:BEFORE is covered. I nominate articles for AfD quite often whilst going through a particular backlog, and quite often I’ll get a torrent of slurs saying that I can’t possibly have bothered even Googling the name, just because an editor has found a particularly obscure source, or they’ve done newspaper clippings or whatever. At this point I try and be gracious, point out that, yes, I did complete WP:BEFORE!

I hope this helps, but don’t be afraid to reach out again if you need any more guidance. Happy editing! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha - from Wikipedian to Wikipedian, I couldn't help but laugh at: "We generally don’t accept IMDb as anyone can edit it, so it’s not a reliable source." The irony is kicking me in the teeth!

Section D of WP:BEFORE seems to be what I was looking for, thank you! Ikjbagl (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl I know what you mean! However, Wikipedia has far more robust policies for independent editing and accuracy that IMDb does... Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88 Oh absolutely, but try explaining that to someone who has never edited Wikipedia! Cheers, thanks for the tips. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you had submitted a Deletion on Mateusz Molęda. I'm sorry that I did not learn of this until now. I wanted to add my vote to say 'Yes' on deletion. Where can I add my 'Yes' vote to delete, or has a decision already been made? Hope you're safe & well, & cheers, DJRafe (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJRafe, thanks for getting in touch. The article was initially nominated under WP:PROD, which is meant for uncontroversial deletions and means that any editor can object, and that article can’t be nominated under WP:PROD a second time. This means it’s no longer nominated for deletion.

If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, you could nominate under WP:AFD instead, which takes the article to a 7-day discussion based on current policy. I don’t believe that this is necessary as there have been lots of sources added since nomination, but if you do and would like assistance nominating, just let me know. Thanks and happy editing! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Joost Rietdijk with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think IMDB is not a reliable source, and seem to have a reputation of deleting pages related to television/film industry persons just because only one source was cited.

I'd like to see Wikipedia open a tribunal into whether or not your page deletion nominations were fair or not.

--2601:199:4181:E00:8023:8C3F:EB92:D2BD (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]