User talk:Onel5969/Archive 39

This 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.

Archive 39: February 2017

On 1 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Palace Restaurant and Saloon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the oldest bar in Arizona, The Palace Restaurant and Saloon in Prescott, played host to Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday in the late 1870s before they moved on to Tombstone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Palace Restaurant and Saloon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Palace Restaurant and Saloon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969

Thanks for your attention to the article on Feisal G. Mohamed. As you suggested, I removed the proposed deletion in the text of the article and started an article talk page, in which I offer some explanation for meeting [WP:GNG]. Have cleaned formatting and added references. Would appreciate you having a look and seeing if template messages can now be removed.

• Ajurisic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jovan Golić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Onel5969,

You say “Almost every single source is either by the article’s subject, or from an organization he is associated with.“ You also say “None of the sources are independent of the subject” and that I need “references … about the subject … from reliable independent sources.” I would really like to understand what is meant by these statements, but am having the following serious problems.

(1) You do not mention “wikilinks where his work has been referred to,” that is, the Wikipedia entries citing the subject and his work and “citation reports by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar” demonstrating the impact of his work and “DBLP publications list” providing a list of his publications, for which he is considered to be notable. They are clearly not by the article’s subject nor from an organization he is associated with as you claim. All of them are independent of the subject and reliable. Please explain.

(2) A reference about the subject is a reference about the PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT for which he is considered to be notable. In our case, the properties include (i) his world-recognized contributions to cryptography and (ii) his prominent role as the Action Line Leader for Privacy, Security & Trust in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) from 2013-2016. This is exactly what each given reference is about.

(3) It is perhaps arguable if a scientific publication by an article’s subject can be considered as an independent source. My argument is very simple: the source here is a reputable peer-reviewed journal or conference proceedings, not the technical content of the publication, which is a reference about the property of the subject for which he is considered notable.

(4) In the existing Wikipedia entries on similar subjects you can find the same type of references as what I used (e.g., please see Bart Preneel and Yehuda Lindell and Yvo Desmedt). Consequently, your requirements do not seem to be satisfied by similar Wikipedia articles. Please comment.

My impression is that what is really in question here is the subject’s notability, not references or sources which are just used as formalities.

I guess that the prominent role of EIT Digital Action Line Leader is not questionable (there is a Wikipedia entry on EIT). Of course, the most reliable source here is the EIT Digital itself. (Please see the Wikipedia entry on Bart Preneel, with a single source.) What other source would you like for this property? An objective way of verifying if the contributions of the article’s subject are notable is to look at the impact measured by citations of the publications of the subject. Of course, it is preferable to also understand the contributions (which is done by peer reviewing for the journals or conferences). Accordingly, with respect to the notability of his contributions and the importance of the field of cryptography, please consider the following facts.

Cryptography plays an indispensable role in the digital world for data protection and, without it, modern data communications and storage systems and online services would be unimaginable.

In particular, RC4 has been the most widely used cipher on the Internet and A5/1 has been the mostly used cipher in mobile communications. Jovan Golic was the first to cryptanalyze these two ciphers at Eurocrypt ’97.

He was also among the first to cryptanalyze Bluetooth cipher widely used for short-range communications, at Eurocrypt 2002. He found a weakness of the Japanese encryption standard MUGI, which together with a follow-up work caused it to be recently withdrawn. His results on nonlinear filter generators at FSE ‘96 had a deep impact on proprietary encryption systems. (And so on.) Existing Wikipedia entries and citations clearly support these facts and they come from independent and reliable sources.

In the nineties, he published in prestigious publications many influential papers significantly promoting the area of stream ciphers, which had been previously constrained mainly to proprietary and secret encryption used in the military and other similar systems.

Again, please help. I would really like to believe that your intentions are sincere. Please also check the following three independent and reliable references/sources to be added.

(i) https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologs/assets/files/cryptolog_126.pdf

This is an edition of a top secret NSA publication CRYPTOLOG from 1994 which was declassified in 2012. It includes an overview of the major annual crypto conference Eurocrypt 1992, addressing both the authors and their presentations, explicitly including reference to Jovan Golic who presented THREE research papers. (Very few editions of CRYPTOLOG have been declassified, so this one is a sort of exemplary for prominent researchers in cryptography according to NSA.)

(ii) http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/societies/jupim/jupim_b41.pdf

This is a weblink for the Bulletin No. 1 May 2001 of JUPIM (Yugoslav Society for Applied and Industrial Mathematics http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/societies/jupim.htm ) which asserts that the JUPIM Annual Award 2000 for the best scientific contribution in applied and industrial mathematics was given to Jovan Golic for his paper J. Dj. Golić, “Cryptanalysis of three mutually clock-controlled stop/go shift registers,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-46, pp. 1081-1090, May 2000. This is a journal version of his Eurocrypt 1997 seminal paper J. Dj. Golić, “Cryptanalysis of alleged A5 stream cipher,” Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT ’97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1233, pp. 239-255, 1997. Both references are already included in the article. Note that JUPIM is hosted by the Mathematical Institute of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (which has a Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Academy_of_Sciences_and_Arts ).

(iii) http://patents.justia.com/inventor/jovan-golic

This is an independent weblink providing a list of patents by Jovan Golic.

Ajurisic (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I posted a simple edit request at Marsy's Law last month. The request asks editors to include recently enacted Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. Can you add these new details to the article if it all looks good? As you might remember from when you assisted with this article in 2015, I have a conflict of interest so I will not edit the page myself. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You reviewed and accepted an article; Burnhamthorpe Road, for me in December 2015. I forgot how to transfer another new article I'm working on from my sandbox to the draft page for submission. Thanks. Transportfan70 Transportfan70 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Transportfan70 - towards the top of the sandbox page, you'll see a row of items, just below the row where it says Transportfan70 and notifies you of messages, and lets you click on Sandbox. In that second row you should see a tab labeled "More", with a drop down menu. Click on that drop down menu, and it should give you the choice to "move". Click move, then where it says "new title", the first box is the "space", and it shows "user". Click on that drop down box. Click on the "draft" selection. Then move to the next box, and change "Transportfan70/sandbox" to "Airport Road (Ontario)". Then click save. If you have any problems, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I got it. How do I submit the article? Transportfan70 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Transportfan70 - I didn't know how to explain it to you, so I submitted it in your username using my reviewer tool. Hope that's okay.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

And another editor has already accepted it and moved it to mainspace. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, I'm not sure if this is the correct format for querying you but I hope it gets through. You recently marked my created page for deletion due to unreliable sources; I'm guessing this means the article needs to have third-party sources to back up claims rather than first-party. However, there is evidence for claims of published writings and books (links to the book's pages), the only thing that isn't third-party is author biography, which comes from the author's website. I'm wondering what I can provide to improve the sources to avoid deletion, specifically. There is evidence for the claims of books and writings, but not for the author's biography. How can this be improved, as an author's biography is often from their word of mouth in the first place? Thank you, (Okimhyper (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC))Okimhyper

Hi Okimhyper - This is absolutely the correct way to query. It's not simply about 3rd party, but also about reliability. Witchvox is not a reliable source. Neither is the Painted cave, nor the blog site. The Create Space link is also related, since it is author generated. I did a search on google news and could find virtually nothing on this person. What you need are at least 3 in-depth articles about Shippey, from reliable, independent sources (think newspapers, magazines, books) in order to show notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I understand why witchvox or the blog site would not be considered "reiliable" sources, but I think Painted Cave counts as a reliable source for the claim of the story its backing up, as it is the only place one would be able to find the published story in question; the only way to verify the existence of the story would be there. Also the claims of the published books seem very verifiable by linking to the pages of the books themselves. I'm not sure how else to prove the existence the Austin Shippey's authorship but by linking to the authored material. I've since added a link to a newspaper mentioning Austin Shippey, showing that at least he exists as a spiritual person in Oregon. Is this a question of proving Shippey exists as a witch, or as an author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okimhyper (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. This isn't a question of proving he exists... or is an author... or is a witch. It's a question of whether or not he meets the notability guidelines. For example, the Painted Cave reference could definitely be used to show the existence of the book, but has zero weight in showing the notability of Shippey. Mentions in sources don't count, the sources have to be "substantial", not mere mentions. Take a look at

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

About your reversal I would ask you to go the talk page and explain your position in the section Is storage capacity as cited in energy parlance a obvious dictionary definition ? --Robertiki (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertiki - per your request, answered on the talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

i made it because noone eles did it could have been all ready made but i did not see it if it was allready made then can can delate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktime34 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Andria411 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yvette Simpson (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm seeking clarification on the notability requirements and how I can adjust the article to meet them. In attempting to meet the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article," I have included references from multiple legitimate local news sources that are all independent from Yvette Simpson. I have have structured and written my article based on those of other Cincinnati City Council Member pages that have already been created. According to the guidelines, "a politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I have included multiple references that clearly fit this definition. Ex: http://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/20830673/why-councilwoman-yvette-simpson-wants-to-be-mayor Ex: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/10/who-yvette-simpson/88543540/ Ex: http://www.citybeat.com/home/blog/13035094/simpson-wants-youth-job-improvements Ex: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/08/04/simpson-barricades-provided-peace-mind/13570969/

This list does not include all of the sources I have provided which fit the definition of a notable politician according to the guidelines, but they do provide examples of features on Simpson in her capacity as a Councilmember and as a candidate for office.

Please let me know what I can do to finish this article and move on. Andria411 Andria411 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Willgee (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why what?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

About your edit on 2:08, 17 February 2017, which part of

Please read the notability criteria. Mentions, routine announcements, etc. do not establish notability. Neither does having an article on another wiki. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I read the notability guidelines and I think it is notable. The existence of this single can be confirmed above sources that are believed to be a reliable as a secondary media (

WP:NSINGLE

says

- Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. (snip) Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

First part also passes as it has officially published as the group's 9th single and not a trivial work. The article has an enough materials and may be improved by the other editors in the future. For instance, personnel for the title song [7], the history and the details of the selected members and so on.[8]

WP:NSINGLE

also says

- Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)

2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

1 and 3 are clearly satisfied but 2 is currently not. However the sales record met the Platinum disk condition and it is expected to be certified by

RIAJ.[9] Either way, above two of three suggestions are satisfied. I need more detailed convincible reason why you think this is not notable. Thanks. Cutebassa (talk

) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You helped me move an article I was working on in my sandbox to drafts. But it created a new "view history" section after the move. Can I recover the sandbox contents as they were before as I had more articles on the go. Transportfan70 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:HELPDESK, someone might be able to help you. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Hurricanehink. Was unaware of the more specific standard of the cyclone project. Feel free to revert/change any of the edits I made which messed you guys up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you marked Alex Kazemi as patrolled. What do you see as establishing notability there? I see a lot of interviews (not independent), routine mentions while focusing on a movie, not the director (irrelevant to notability), and sources which aren't generally considered reliable. I also have strong suspicions that this is a paid article (note the two redlinked accounts which popped out of nowhere to create this). Before I go that route, I'm curious what you saw in the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi BU Rob13 - Interesting, I thought I tagged it with a potential notability issue. I saw many of the same issues you bring up above. My initial thought was to prod it, but I felt the claim of the first viral snapchat video was significant. Perhaps significant enough to overcome notability issues. I just tagged it for notability. I should also have tagged it for unreliable and primary sourcing. Thanks for the heads up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll follow-up on this with regard to the paid editing/sockpuppetry issue. I see a lot of red flags on this article and one related article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Just fyi, if I see a G13 tag on drafts for which I have previously declined G13 or that I posted a comment that I think it might be notable, I will probably remove them if they are within my primary field of interest (academics and academic organizations); it may be a while before I get to work on them, but they're on my list. But I did delete 2 of the ones you nominated after deciding they might not be worth working one, and I deleted Roy Schatt as a copyvio, tho he meets WP:CREATIVE.. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DGG - Probably 99% of the time when I see you, or another editor who I've come to trust their judgement over time, I'll hit "Postpone G13", even if I can't find decent sourcing. My thoughts were that you were intending to work on them. However, sometimes I'm not sure what you're seeing, and if I can't find proper sourcing, I'll hit the G13. And please, feel free (as I'm sure you do) to remove any G13 tag I put up there. It is simply one editor's opinion that it should be deleted. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, I should start to realize I cannot get to them all, but I'm still hoping others will start to help. I just hope I catch them all. But since you're one of the few editors placing G13a, I know where to check. I consider the ones you postpone/didn't postpone a reasonable rough sort, even if I try to postpone a few more.

And, good work for trying to help out with the mess at AfC. I too try to look at a few old ones from time to time. The idea was good, but when the first complaints started coming in, those working on it should have stopped the project and redesigned the system. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Draft:The Rare Book & Manuscript Library

. I merged the draft into the parent article on the Library (which was rather short), so there's no need for a separate article.

And I don't do much in AfC anymore, (same with AfD), but I do try to get in there from time to time and take a look at the older articles. Personally, I think that anyone with less than 5 approved articles should have to go through a review process. I'm trying to help out at the NPP backlog, and there is so much crap that simply gets added. Of course, there's quite a bit of good stuff as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For duplicates, where the ones where there is already an an article, and the article is clearly derived from the draft, which happens if the submitter gets impatient and enters it directly, I think there are two reasonable things to do. One is to redirect the draft to the article talk p., which is what would have happened if it had been accepted in the official way; or to delete it as G6, technical deletion. If however it's not as good, which usually means someone didn't realize there was an article, I use G6. If it's better, which hasn't happened yet, I'd replace it, by moving over the old title. (I've also seen people do various things that are more elaborate). If it needs merging with the existing article, the easiest way is to accept under a variant form of the title, and the merge or mark for merging.

I quite often come upon a draft where I have a different opinion than those who rejected it--but I look primarily for this situation. I do exactly what you do, resubmit and accept.

I'll recheck the article on the library.

Glad to have the occasion to compare notes. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on G6. Will follow that methodology in the future. And I agree, always good to compare how things are done with folks like you who are doing it right. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I have started improving the article Reform laws, adding links and sources. This is an important topic for Mexican history. The current text is not original research. I would prefer if the article were not deleted for the time being. Amuseclio (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Amuseclio

Hi Amuseclio - my issue with it was the lack of sourcing, which makes one think that it is original research. I see you've done quite a bit regarding that... nice job. In my opinion, it still needs a bit more footnotes, but my initial concern no longer holds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, would you please consider withdrawing the nomination at

Sure thing. Nice edit job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Onel5969. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you proposed the deletion of Henry Zaga. I added some references and an external link. Perhaps you could add a picture for me? I don't know exactly all the image copyright requirements. I just don't know what else to do. I've tried everything to fix the page but you all still have a proposed deletion for it. Do you have any suggestions for what I could do to save the page and make it suitable for Wikipedia? Thank you! CAO3337 (talk) 12:53, February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Just remember, if the article is deleted, that isn't a comment on your skills or effort, in this case it would simply be that the article's subject isn't notable. I think you've done a very good job on the article: it's well formatted, nice tables, footnotes are well formatted (although the last sentence in the career section needs a citation - that's the only weakness I see), and it's written in a neutral tone. Very nicely done. I could not find a pic of Zaga that's in the Public Domain (PD), so I couldn't add one to the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mlpearc - I was asked to stop assisting at that project. Which is why I haven't been contributing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

By who ? -

open channel

) 19:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't remember the whole username, just that it had Lizard in it. Sorry, wish I could be more specific. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: At no point have I asked you not to assist with ACC. Indeed, I am the admin who approved your request to return. I did send you a couple emails asking you to proofread emails you were sending to account requesters and to be more professional in their writing, but again at no point did I ask you not to contribute to ACC. I invite you to please re-read the emails I sent you. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi FastLizard4 - actually, you sent me a pretty officious and insulting email. Whenever I receive correspondence like that (which is pretty rare), I always take it to mean that any help I may be providing is no longer welcome. Especially when I responded to the email letting you know that I would no longer be participating in the project, to which you responded... actually, you didn't respond. Which I took as confirmation. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Though with all due respect I disagree that my email was insulting, if that's how you wish to interpret events, that is of course your prerogative. Thank you for your contributions to ACC, and I wish you all the best. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You may disagree all you want. You'd be wrong, but feel free to disagree if it makes you feel better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to help out at ACC all you have to do is log in and start working request, your previous suspension was only for inactivity, you have no other issues with your account. If you do not wish to continue at ACC, please let me know. Cheers, -

open channel

) 19:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Due to no response on your part, I have suspended your access for security reasons, again, if you decide to return just contact a ACC Admin. Thanx for your service. -