User:Timtrent/Reviewing

The following thoughts may be helpful when reviewing, and may be placed, modified if necessary, combined if desired, in reviews

en WP

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Ideally please add links to online versions of the references. This is not compulsory, but we write for ordinary readers who like the instant gratification of being able to see what is written in the reference with ease.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. These must be replaced or removed, please. They provide an aura of faux notability which is not required and adds no value. Indeed it diminishes Wikipedia's value.

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resumé

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not notable.

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy

If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that.

Interviews with the subject of an article or the principal or staff of a corporation or organisation may be used to verify simple facts which are not susceptible to challenge, but they have no value in asserting nor in verifying notability in a Wikipedia sense. They should be regarded as primary sources, which have their place, though WP:PRIMARY shows that their deployment should be limited

This is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

Wikipedia may never be used as a reference. Please use Wikilinks instead. See WP:CIRCULAR. Those faux references must be replaced.

I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer.

Acceptance at AFC

In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish I chose to accept it and allow the community to reach a conclusion.

Commons

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT

Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.

FBMD in metadata. Unlikely to be own work. Copyvio? Correct permission is required See COM:VRT

Photographs of books, posters, photographs, or other media, screenshots, and some artefacts, are photographs of copyright material, and should be deleted unless and until satisfactory permissions are received by the process at COM:VRT

Google Lens finds one or more versions of this prior to upload here

Uploading copyright files

This is a friendly warning. There are formal processes, but most people appreciate a friendly warning first. When you upload files to Wikimedia Commons there are many items you must tick or fill out which deal with copyright ownership. By filling those out you confirm that you have the right to upload these files. But you have uploaded files which are not your copyright, which are not yours to upload. Please read Commons:Copyrights carefully. Commons takes copyright extremely seriously. Continuing this behaviour is likely to lead to removal of editing privileges here.

File copyright can introduce us to a world of pain

It's a difficult and pedantic area, but we can simplify it. The simplistic view I am about to present is not an exhaustive treatise. Commons:Licensing is exhaustive,

• Only ever upload files where you are 100% certain you have the right to upload them
• Always understand that the photographer owns the copyright unless that has been varied by a legal process. That includes heredity
• When you have been granted "personal" permission to upload a file, always present that via COM:VRT
• Never upload files you find on the web, unless onward licencig is present. Examples of onward licencing are at the foot of this page. Especially, if no explicit onward licencing is present, the file must be regarded as someone else's copyright.
• As a paradox, even if it is your own copyright picture from or found on another web site, do make your copyright ownership known via COM:VRT. Editors and admins here may delete it if you do not, citing COM:PCP. Commons always acts to protect itself.
• If you are unsure of the licencing, do not upload it here.
• Commons is not Wikipedia. You may have heard of the doctrine of Fair Use. This is unavailable to Wikimedia Commons

I hope this very brief summary is of use to you and will help you to navigate the rules better here. I do not want you to open yourself up to the loss of editing privileges by simply not quite understanding things.

When editors suggest files need permissions, etc, they aren't always correct. As humans we make errors. I can nominate items for things, but have no powers of deletion. I am not now and will never be an administrator. If I make an error I trust an administrator to correct me. If they make an error they trust others to correct them. Thus we have checks and balances, and we all learn.

Detoxifying disagreements

I note the difficult discussions you have had with and about another editor. It serves no purpose to name them here, so please do not do so yourself. I hope you will find my thoughts on ways to disagree of some use. The written word is particularly harsh, often leaving no nuances. If you are receptive, please may I suggest:

• Never lose the moral high ground by answering every point. You may leave points unanswered with no loss, sometimes with gain
• Never feel the need to make an immediate response. Time is better spent considering whether a reply is really needed. Often the editor who says the least carries the day. You will have noticed this in AfD discussions.
• Never get drawn into a battle. Present your case and consider very seriously walking away
• Never forget WP:BOOMERANG. That is almost worth restating
• Always be the person you would turn to for advice
• Recognise that every last one of us is capable of making the most enormous errors, usually with good intent. Always be sure that these errors will bite one's nether regions very hard because others love to use them as weapons
• Try very hard to have so much patience that you never fire the first shot. If that shot has been fired at you already, consider wisely whether return of fire is productive.
• Never, not ever, post when angry, impatient, or upset.
• Never seek to have the last word.

I have often guided editors who have found difficulties with other editors. Please accept this post in the spirit I mean it, one of true aiming for truce, even armed truce. If any of it offends you it is not meant to offend. If I have achieved that then I am at fault and apologise in advance. This is your talk page. You are welcome to delete my words even without this permission.