Aaron Liu

Question from AMCPhoenix (03:29, 3 March 2025)

Hello there!

Well I created A NEW PAGE!

How long before it gets published? --AMCPhoenix (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok ALL of my sources are reliable third party good standard so that is BS.

The reviewer wants my subject to have starred in a movie TV show maybe after a Netflix and is ignoring that hundreds of published photos in big pubs IS NOTABLE.

I feel this is hostile picky unreasonable untrue I am mad angry and feel I have been subjected to unjust and unreasonable standards!!! AMCPhoenix (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

The reviewer wants my subject to have starred in a movie TV show

That's not what notability means. I don't see where the reviewer said anything about that. Notability on Wikipedia means we have enough information directly about the subject of an article from reliable, secondary, and independent sources. Nearly none of the information here is actually supported by their cited source by Wikipedia's standards. You can't cite usages of her photos to say "her photos have been used in various publications"; the source itself has to say that. Pure information just about where AMC's photos were used belongs more in a photographers' database such as https://pic.nypl.org/, while Wikipedia is a textual encyclopedia. If you're still confused, WP:Teahouse might explain it better as our forum for beginner Wikipedians!
(Also, I noticed your username. Do you have a ConflictOfInterest, by any chance?) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

AMC is my husband's initials.

yes I want to know more about what consists of notability thank you! AMCPhoenix (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You can check out Wikipedia:Notability, which was linked. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I did I read over notability and that is why I have questions.

One of the standards for notability IS significant body of work that is listed and I felt and feel my subject is well qualified under that standard.

She has been worldwide not won first place County Art five times!

So apparently I missed something crucial in the reading of it. AMCPhoenix (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You actually seem somewhat combative as if you are trying to trip me up as opposed to helping me learn.

If you have some kind of issue here may I please be assigned to someone who will teach me and help me succeed? AMCPhoenix (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late response and what may have came across as combative; that is not my intention at all. The criteria for "notable body of work" is qualified and says:

such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

which your draft does not have. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

yes subject is AAC and my husband is AMC they are similar not the same! AMCPhoenix (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Malayeditz (18:30, 13 March 2025)

hello, how to improve my grammar? --Malayeditz (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You could try the free reading & writing course at Khan Academy. You could also try Grammarly, but take all of Grammarly's suggestions with a grain of salt. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from DJDiamondKuts (22:34, 17 March 2025)

I am trying to create/launch a Wikipedia page. I have the notable links/sources but it will not publish. Can you assist --DJDiamondKuts (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey!

1. As mentioned on the draft page, AfC review takes quite a bit of time as we are currently a bit short-staffed on reviewers. (It's better than a few months ago where you had to wait like 4 months.)
2. Creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion, which is different from the dictionary/common definition of "notability".

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

yumm While my bass gently weeps (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

too sour :( Aaron Liu (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Brilewo (20:23, 18 March 2025)

Hi, I edited the "fordite" wiki recently and the edit was deleted by Valfontis. The current fordite wiki contains several false and misleading statements. I contacted the editor who removed my changes and she deleted my comment to her. My intent is to correct this wiki and ensure it is and stays up to date. I have 8 years professional experience working with this material. Is there anything I should know before I continue? Thank you! Brian --Brilewo (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Brilewo, your edits were reverted here. User:Valfontis explained the revert and I agree: the material lacks proper sourcing, the second pronoun shouldn't be used--and there were also references to the article itself, along with editorial commentary ("it's important to note"). Valfontis has some rules for what goes on their talk page, which is at the top, with "READ ME" in big red letters, and those weren't followed. I wouldn't delete the comment because of that, but it's their right. And the comment, FWIW, didn't contain any references to proper secondary sourcing. We're not going to look on Facebook to see if what you think is correct. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I can reference laws passed regarding removal of lead from automotive paint to address that part. Only automotive fordite from pre 1978 contains lead per the California law that effectively removed it from the market. CA is such a huge market that manufactures removed lead based paint so that their vehicles would not be prohibited from being sold there. Lead based paint did continue in industrial applications such as painting tractors etc but was completely banned in the 90's. Basically this part about lead as it's written is misleading to the point that it's essentially false. Modern enamel does not contain lead and the info does not mention modern fordite at all. Though people intentionally lie about this often the truth is that less than 1% of fordite currently available is vintage. I value Wikipedia and it galls me when there's false or misleading info on here for a subject that I'm expert in. Especially when there are individuals who've been perpetuating false narratives regarding fordite specifically so they can sell modern fordite at a premium claiming it's "vintage." You'd be hard pressed to find a piece with lead in it today. I only know one artist who has any that's legit. Is there a help article I should read so my edits stick and are not deleted based on procedural grounds? Thank you I really appreciate your time. Brilewo (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The accuracy of information is very important to Wikipedians, so it's not really just procedure. Since you're new, as long as you cite the sources inline and only summarize what's in the sources, we'll fix it up for you! Check out a guide at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1; check whether you're in Visual Editor by clicking on the pen next to the blue arrow/save button. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  So what do you recommend when a reference is quoted in the wiki and the referenced page is in fact spreading false information? Brilewo (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which source is misinformation? Do you have a better source? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll do some source research so I can back up a sound edit. Much of the problem is that fordite.com is often where people go to find info and the owner of that domain is knowingly being deceptive. The link in the fordite wiki to that site takes you to a page where they say some deceptive things as well as this, which is blatantly false: "Sadly, the techniques that produced this great rough years ago, are no longer in practice. Cars are now painted by way of an electrostatic process that essentially magnetizes the enamels to the car bodies. This leaves little, or no over spray. The old factory methods that created this incredible material are long gone.

  The Fordite “mines” are dry, so get some while you still can!"

  The worst part is they know it's not true because they are literally selling modern fordite in their store! The jewelry gallery on fordite.com is only their pieces and it's nearly all modern fordite. I don't want to get into a fight with them. If they want to lie on their websites then whatever but wikipedia should be correct. Not all manufacturers use electrostatic painting and those that do often still do have over spray. Where used it reduces over spray but does not eliminate it entirely. For instance I've seen pictures of the jeep wrangler over spray on racks from the plat at Parkway in Toledo. It's a water based enamel that builds up in huge sheets when painting the frames due to the open roof and sunroof areas. Many of the claimed "vintage pieces" on fordite.com are this type. Oh, I also once made a bunch of cabochons for a paint manufacturer who happens to provide the paint to the big 3 auto makers so I got the chance to ask him several questions about their paint. The new stuff doesn't require baking any longer for instance. Some paints require baking others don't. There's another common type painted in Chillecothe Ohio referred to as freight liner, semi truck or Kenworth fordite. This type is hand painted due to the size of the parts they paint for manufacturers of big rigs. It's a very common type and came onto the market roughly 9 years ago. It has and continues to be sold by shady individuals as vintage. Sorry to go into all this background detail on this I just don't know how to explain what's wrong with some of the info in this wiki it without doing so. Brilewo (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from JoshWatWiki (00:36, 21 March 2025)

Hi Aaron, I'm not new to wikipedia but I am new to posting an article which is something I want to do. But I have a COI, a fairly typical one I imagine. I'm the former founder of a company that helped establish viral video marketing as a tool for advertisers. I have multiple media citations and have written a short, neutral and verifiable entry but am wondering if this connection is a non-starter for the wiki community. Any guidance is appreciated. Josh --JoshWatWiki (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Removing others' comments

Hi Aaron - I noticed that you removed TurboSuperA+'s comment at WP:Closure requests. I think this was very out of process and wanted to ask you to self-revert. The guideline you cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC says to only delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article), none of which applied to Turbo's comment. The preceding comment was encouraging inexperienced editors to close discussions, and Turbo's comment was referring to the fact that the community is can actually be quite harsh to inexperienced editors closing discussions. No matter your opinion on the comment, it was in context of the discussion and should not have been deleted, and definitely not gibberish or a test edit. Please could you you reinstate the comment and be far more cautious when doing something like that in the future. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that that it's not harmful, but since TPO says stop if anyone objects I've self-reverted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Harmful posts are described as follows: personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism, which doesn't apply. It then goes on to say This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Pm Stey'n Media (18:58, 24 March 2025)

How do I create a citation...I know brutally Nothin' about this,I'm using this as a way to begin my media house 😂 --Pm Stey'n Media (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Pm Stey'n Media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web hosting service for anything else. But as for the question you asked, you may refer to Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor! Aaron Liu (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Aaron Liu. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: LaundryPizza03
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Cresce grazie a persone come te (16:13, 2 April 2025)

Hello --Cresce grazie a persone come te (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

that's not a question :( Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from ArthurTheGardener (12:00, 5 April 2025)

Hi Aaron, would you mind taking a look at my newly-created page Blueeyedboy, please? It has been tagged by another editor as having too many primary sources, but I don't see any primary sources there at all; they are all from interviews and articles. What have I missed, please? Or am I misunderstanding the meaning? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are primary, but I don't think they dominate your article at all. I would ask @David Gerard on the article's talk page what they saw as is customary for when you wonder about something somebody says. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks: I'll do that. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Autowill script not working in an article

I can't get it to work in for the link I've added here: diff - Coś się kończy, coś się zaczyna. It refuses to change anything on that page. Not sure if it's because of the diacritics, formatting of this link, or some other code on that page. The script is ok-ish as also today I successfully used it in another article. Can you figure out what makes the script unhappy? Btw, it might be a good idea to have the script add an automatic edit summary, such as "fixing interlanguage links using User:Aaron Liu/AutowIll.js" or such. TIA, as always, for the nice tool. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ey, thanks for the kind words! It looks like the culprit here is the 2017 Wikitext editor you enabled, which I'll have to work on to get AutoEd to support; I can't even get it to edit your Chang Kiha diff. In the meantime you can disable Preferences → Editing → Editor → Use the wikitext mode inside the visual editor, instead of a different wikitext editor, after which you should get an automatic edit summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the reason is AutoEd needs to by chance (or more accurately, pray to the AutoEd gods that the page is small) have the 2017 editor finish loading before AutoEd does, which is why it worked sometimes for you. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Awesome fix (easy). Not sure what I actually lost since the "Use the wikitext mode inside the visual editor, instead of a different wikitext editor" doesn't come with an explanation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much just a different Wikitext editor (called WikiEditor) that—among other niceties—doesn't tell the scripts they can load now until it has loaded. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, I am teaching my students regularly how to edit Wikipedia, and I also require them to use interlanguage links (a lot of them translate articles from and to English and some other, usually Asian, languages). Some have trouble using the ill template. I wonder if telling them use the ":ab:article" code and running your script would be simpler, or not... (you check User_talk:Hanyangprofessor2, CTRL+F "Template:Interlanguage link", for my current advice to them; and assignment 6 in User:Hanyangprofessor2/Module/MoS; this is all still being developed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Standards for having an article

Regarding this comment: yes, I read the text, so there's no need to quote it. The contents of the standards align with Wikipedia content policies. But it's possible to lift out the notability guideline, and the content policies would still hold and be applicable. The community has decided, however, that not everything verifiable is suitable for an article, and so it's chosen to develop standards to select what subjects should be articles in Wikipedia. That's the reason (the forest) to have standards of selection (whose individual details are the trees). isaacl (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant this comment. I am saying that the community has indeed decided that not everything verifiable is suitable for an article because (as they've explicitly said) many topics can only develop into stubs when trimmed down to the verified. WhyN is not just detail for individual notability guidelines; it is the forest. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There are reasons beyond whether or not a topic can be developed into more than a stub when deciding if an article should exist for that topic. Topics with ample reliable primary sources meet verifiability, but do not necessarily meet the standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Primary means not independent and violating NeutralPoV. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That's one of the key differences between verifiability and the standards for having an article: when appropriate, primary sources can be used for verifying content. Government-collected statistics, for example, can be deemed to be reliable for purposes of English Wikipedia, and the best source for them is from government publications. But that doesn't mean all such statistics meet the standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

An article that has so little secondary verifiable sourcing to the point of failing Notability would fail NeutralPOV as well, and thus such topics don't have notability. Verifiability is not the only major content policy; WhyN is to ensure the possibility to comply with all of them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, the key point is that the content policies stand on their own to ensure that articles comply with them. Standards for having an article are not needed to enforce them. They are of course written to support the content policies, which is why they read as they do, but the reason for having selection standards is because the community wants to provide guidance on what articles should be included in Wikipedia, beyond what is described by the content policies. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the content policies are entirely self-reliant; I do not dispute that. I am not saying that content policies depend on notability, but rather the opposite. The guidance on what articles should be excluded is exactly topics where meeting content policy standards would be impossible. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from NrmMGA5108 (16:29, 12 April 2025)

Hello mentor! So, I do have a question, its probably an easy one, but I am always leery when it comes to copyrights and images. I'm updating the town's homepage, Holdrege. And there are statues made by a famous artist in the town's public parks. Can I have a friend go take photos of those, and then add them? Since they are in a public area? Or is the artist of the statue going to care? My friend won't care, but I will list them as the photographer. --NrmMGA5108 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good question! That would be freedom of panorama, and the answer for sculptures in the United States is that they are copyrighted to the sculpture's author; see the "artworks and sculptures" section of c:Commons:Freedom of panorama/Americas#United States.

However, that only means you can't upload to the shared repository for all the Wikipedias and beyond. You can still upload such a photo locally to the English Wkipedia as long is you comply with the strict-ish WP:NonFreeContentCriteria. Go to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, and click on "Upload a non-free file", select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", then carefully read and follow the text that comes up. Cheers!

(Also, I thought "leery" meant "suspicious of"?) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)