User talk:Primefac/Archive 2
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Draft:Raphael RJ2
Thank you for reviewing the page "Draft:Raphael RJ2" I need help in the creation of that page and since you declined it maybe you can help me fix mistakes. You wrote "After deleting a dozen references that had absolutely nothing to do with RJ2, the only sources left refer to Lil Wayne's record. Thus, there is no notability established for RJ2 himself." The sources you erased you said had nothing to do with Raphael RJ2, yet they mentioned Raphael RJ2's works and are reliable sources I see wikipedia use all the time and they had his name mentioned in there and has his Credited Works mentioned also. You erased the sources that you thought were irrelevant yet left the sources that were relevant. With that being said, That means you see he is who he is so why not Approve the page and just erase all the mistakes you see because me and the other contributes need help because we don't understand what you need when we've gotten reliable sources that have the same info already approved on wikipedia saying the same thing about Raphael RJ2 . All the sources I had were Raphael RJ2's work that he did. Also His Facebook is Verifde, most the links I got were from Raphael RJ2 directing us himself to them. Me & a couple of other contributors just thought Raphael RJ2 needed his own wikipedia page. ( I see other Artist and music producers with the same type of sources that Raphael RJ2 has yet they were approved and the artistcals didn't mention their names only their works, so I'm confused as to why Raphael RJ2's page is not approved.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.4.218 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- While I normally wouldn't do a point-by-point reasoning for my edits, this time I'll make an exception since it was a rather large volume of removals.
- http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/raphaelrj24 & the iTunes pages - sites where you can buy things are not allowed as references, as they are promotional.
- Sites where RJ2 is not even mentioned (these are the "he worked with X" references)
- http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-on-my-job-feat-juvenile-snoop-dogg-new-song.1951808.html
- http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-wonderful-song.963040.html
- http://www.ea.com/news/reknown-artists-partner-with-ea-on-the-sims
- http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.23473/title.meek-mill-signed-lil-snupe-moments-after-hearing-demo
- http://www.mtv.com/news/1709386/lil-snupe-dead-shooting-details/ (Snupe's death has nothing to do with RJ2, and shouldn't be included)
- http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/teen-rapper-lil-snupe-killed-north-la-19450867#.UcPF_vlQH54 (dead link)
- Facebook photos. The only semi-valid one is the news article, but that should be sourced as news, not linked as a photograph.
- To be completely honest, I should have removed the Lil Wayne references (half are dead links anyway) but they deal directly with Beats How U Want Em section so I left them in. At the end of the day, RJ2 needs to be referenced by independent reliable sources that talk about him in order to demonstrate notability. References that only mention him (called "name-drops") are perfectly acceptable sources for verifying facts (such as "RJ2 produced XYZ album for ABC artist") but do nothing towards the notability criteria. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
70.173.4.218 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand, I'm understanding now what you mean. I will try to find more independent reliable sources that talk directly about him, but it's hard to, when artist don't really give producers credit like that. They work mostly behind the scenes. For Example Here is a Link with Flo Rida Mentioning the Song Raphael RJ2 Produced called "Fresh I Stay" yet he didn't mention his name http://hiphop-n-more.com/2010/08/flo-rida-interview-with-hollyscoop/ Yet it can't be used on wikipedia right? Also here is a listing of the Credits with Raphael RJ2's name on it about the same song Flo Rida is talking about in the video http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781488505577_sample_255049.pdf
I'm just trying to understand how Wikipedia work. For example do you mean like this Article from a independent reliable source to where the Artist Kat Saint John is actually saying Raphael RJ2's name? http://www.parlemag.com/2013/09/kat-st-john-star-in-the-making/
Here is another one from a independent reliable source about Rapper Styles P and they mention the Song Raphael RJ2 Produced for him called Murder Mommy and also has his name listed as the Producer. http://istandardproducers.com/istandard-blog/track-by-track-review-styles-p-the-worlds-most-hardest-mc-project/
Here is another one from a independent reliable source about Rapper Hurricane Chis mentioning working with Raphael RJ2 in the artical http://www.reupspot.com/review-hurricane-chris-unleashed.htm
Here is another one from a independent reliable source http://www.kevinnottingham.com/2013/07/03/fiend-flawless-diamonds-feat-max-minelli/
I even found this article where they are mentioning Raphael RJ2 amongst other notable producers http://24hourhiphop.com/next-in-line/l-a-h-entertainment-the-movement/1346673741000/
To be honest I have to actually thank you because now I'm finding more work done by Raphael RJ2 I didn't know he even did ha ha! Also Thank you for your point-by-point reasoning for your edits. Here are some corrections you might have missed.
- http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/fiend-on-my-job-feat-juvenile-snoop-dogg-new-song.1951808.html (Currection, click the picture, his name "RJ2" is mentioned in the credits, you must have missed it)
His name is also mentioned here on a official site http://www.audiomack.com/song/straightfreshdotnet/on-my-job-remix
- A generic link to a website (http://www.cmonsontv.com/) (I understand, but I thought by RJ2's Voice and Production tag being in all the videos was some form of confirmation)
Also here is a website that Ed Love is working with that also mentions Raphael RJ2's name. http://www.comebackkings.net/about-us.html
once again (talk) thank you for your help, is there anyway you can erase or really just just reword all that needs to be fixed because everything is true, maybe I just didn't word it right? Example: You mention the Rapper Lil Snupe that Raphael RJ2 produced. Only reason I wrote that the rapper was killed was because I thought I was helping people that didn't know about the rapper dying, but I understand where you are coming from about saying "What does Raphael have to do with Snupe's Death". So what if I or you just reworded the paragraph & just took out the part about the murder & just leave that Raphael Produced his songs since Lil Snupes name is clickable so people can find out about him by clicking his name.70.173.4.218 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for rejecting the Draft of "Donald E. Harkness"
I have made adjustments to my second submission of “Donald E. Harkness” per your rejection comments, though honestly didn’t find any wording unworthy of a collegiate or WP article – including the examples provided in your comments. As I re-read my second submission, I don’t see anything that is being promoted – not even a hint of it. Please enlighten me. FYI: The non-fiction book that I co-authored is cited in the Reference section where it is not mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article, and, although necessary to include, is virtually ignored by readers. In fact, the reader would have to read my first submission or Mr. Vanita's comments to even suspect a promotional connection. Yes, I am a member of the pen-name “House of Harkness” but that should not exclude the book from being properly cited in the article. Please note that I received the criticisms of my first submission with open humility, and said so at the time, because they were true and I am an honest person. I see no hint of my prior faults in my subsequent submissions.
Knowing why an historic figure did something and went somewhere is genuinely useful, valuable and even necessary information, which is confirmed and validated in one or more of the cited references. In fact, without the ‘offending’ phrase, “Missing the sense of adventure from his war years”, the paragraph is disjointed, leaving the reader to wonder how and why he went from working as a civil engineer to working for his passage on steamer ships (4th paragraph). None-the-less, I removed it for my next submission but the article clearly suffers for it. Please be assured, there is no conjecture, hearsay or supposition in my article – just historic, neutral fact validated in the cited material.
I don’t wish to turn my article into a mess of unformatted, dry bullet points, so if that is what Wikipedia considers ‘WP-worthy’ and professional then please tell me now, and I won’t bother you anymore. In such a case, the cost of adhering to protocol would be too high for me.
I look forward to reply and I thank you for your understanding. 74.103.165.66 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi, please remember to provide a link to your article when inquiring about it, to make it easier for the person you're talking to. I agree with Primefac's decline because while everything you say may be factual and true, it is written more like an essay that would belong in "The life and times of Donald Harkness" and less on Wikipedia. Your article also is devoid of inline citations - see WP:REFBEGIN to learn how. Also, your article does not begin to address the notability issues: why do we care? have there been enough news mentions or book mentions? You need third-party reliable sources, to prove notability and significant coverage that isn't just the book itself, or something you wrote. Also, you appear to have a conflict of interest which may impede your ability to edit neutrally anyway. Please take a look at WP:PSCOI - it is recommended that you wait until someone without a COI writes the article in a neutral, non-flowery-language manner. Take a look at all of these links and understand them before resubmitting - perhaps your chances will then be much improved. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Best of luck! — kikichugirl speak up! 02:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
About AfC
Hello. I have noticed your rejection of Draft:Sir William Garth and I find it to be incorrect as he is clearly notable. His article in A & C Black's Who's Who confirms that he was indeed knighted in 1914. As a knight of the realm, he (easily) satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. That guideline is satisfied by any honour of or above the rank of CBE. If an AfC submission claims that a British person has received a relevant honour after 1897, that publication should always be checked as a matter of course. Please review the submission again. Thank you. James500 (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi James500, Sir William is a Knight Bachelor, which is below CBE (as it is not an Order of Chivalry). According to the KB wiki page, all male judges are awarded this rank. It is not inherited, and appears to be given to anyone who meets the criteria. While I am not saying that Sir William is not notable in his own right, the sources provided do not demonstrate that (which was why I declined your draft). Primefac (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly is not my draft that you declined. Secondly, according to the table of precedence in Dod's Parliamentary Companion (1998, p 504), knights bachelor rank several places above commanders of the British Empire. As far as I am aware, only judges of the High Court or above and above are automatically knighted. The said table of precedence places circuit judges immediately below knights bachelor (implying that they are not necessarily knights). I was told, by User:Necrothesp (admin with 79,000+ edits), that High Court judges automatically satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because they are automatically knighted. That appears to mean that all knights are notable. James500 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Primefac you have misread the Knight Bachelor article. Kt is only awarded to judges of the High Court of Justice, not all male judges. It is an award below KBE, not CBE.Emerald (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- James500, you are correct, I appear to have misinterpreted a few things. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly is not my draft that you declined. Secondly, according to the table of precedence in Dod's Parliamentary Companion (1998, p 504), knights bachelor rank several places above commanders of the British Empire. As far as I am aware, only judges of the High Court or above and above are automatically knighted. The said table of precedence places circuit judges immediately below knights bachelor (implying that they are not necessarily knights). I was told, by User:Necrothesp (admin with 79,000+ edits), that High Court judges automatically satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because they are automatically knighted. That appears to mean that all knights are notable. James500 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Michael Palance for deletion
Hello. Thanks for you notes about the page. I am new to wikipedia and have read all the instructions and made sure to follow all the guidelines, providing references and other resources for this individual's page. He is pretty notable and I am still collecting references and other material that can be added to the page. I recently added a new reference link to IMDB with more coming. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with the format, language, reference or anything I can improve to help increase the chances of this page staying on wikipedia. I can assure you I didn't take the decision to create a page for him lightly as it takes much time and effort to get all this done and I was sure he is notable enough as he is a well known actor in the community. Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoptimizer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi, Kingoptimizer. Just a note - remember to provide a wikilink to the article when inquiring about it, so that it's easier to find. First of all, IMDB is not a reliable source, unfortunately, because anyone can put information up there. Also, the user who accepted your draft is pretty new to AfC and probably shouldn't have accepted it - they've been removed from the participant list for the time being. The problem with the article as it is, is that there is only one reference. If there's only one reference in the references section, how are we to know that what is said is true? How do we know that all these awards are important and not lies or made up - how do we know that Palance's works are legitmate? Wikipedia requires significant coverage. That is how you meet notability criteria. Without providing enough sources, it's hard to assert notability. I've removed the list of works and stuff for the time being; feel free to restore it when you have references (or if it's cleaned up and written in prose form... I think your article actually looks better this way). And.. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. — kikichugirl speak up! 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kikichugirl for your comments. They are very constructive! I understand that the IMDB link is not a reliable source as you mentioned. I am having a hard time finding more references because most of what Michael Palance has done was in a time prior to the internet and therefore any references are scarce. There are many youtube videos of him but that is not a reliable source as well. What is the best way to approach this? - I am still digging for some more references. Thanks for any help in advance! Kingoptimizer (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Kingoptimizer, offline sources are perfectly acceptable for use on a page, as long as there is enough information to be able to find it. Keep searching, but at the end of the day there are just some people who do not meet the requirements for having a Wikipedia article (note that I'm not saying Palance is not notable, but if there are no valid sources then in the eyes of Wikipedia he isn't). Primefac (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft: BODYARMOR SuperDrink
Hi, you stated that my draft for BODYARMOR SuperDrink posted on my sandbox reads too much like an advertisement. Can you please provide suggestions for which sections sound too much like an advertisement or what can be added to have the article sound less like an advertisement? I would like to make edits to the article to have it fit the guidelines for submission. Ianvor (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ianvor, when I read your draft it sounded like an advertisement I'd read in a fitness magazine. (slight exaggeration) "Bodyarmor contains all these great nutrients, comes in six exciting flavours!" The main ingredients ("electrolytes, vitamins, and coconut water") and the number of flavours (6) are fine for inclusion, but specific details like the flavours themselves are unnecessary.
- As an additional note, while you continue writing the draft, is that three of your four references aren't valid. The first two are Press Releases, and the final is Bodyarmor's own website; these are primary sources and are generally discouraged. You'll need to find some reliable sources in order to demonstrate notability of the product. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
22:47:43, 11 February 2015 review of submission by Cdettman64
- Cdettman64 (talk · contribs)
I've added more footnotes and citations. What is the correct amount? Cdettman64 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Cdettman64 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cdettman64, there is no "correct amount," but rather an amount that allows a reader to verify facts and find more reliable information should they wish. I haven't actually looked at your sources, but you appear to have improved the quality of the sources. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
16:33:07, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Danielkahena
- Danielkahena (talk · contribs)
Hi Primefac. Thanks for reviewing the Sears Outlet draft. I do not agree with your reasoning for the rejection of this draft. Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores (also known as "SHOS") is a parent entity that only exists as a holding company for it's 4 daughter brands - namely: "Sears Outlet", "Sears Hometown Stores", "Sears Appliance and Hardware Stores" and "Sears Home Appliance Showroom". The 4 company formats operate as different brands, with different product ranges, pricing and operations. The "Sears Outlet" brand is the only type that encompasses both physical stores as well as an eCommerce site - the remaining 3 store formats only operate as physical stores.
Due to these aforementioned facts addressing the difference between the parent and daughter formats - I believe that there is a strong case for a separate Wikipedia article. I agree that there is some content overlap and I am prepared to fix this with your guidance. Can you please provide us some guidance as to how to build a separate page?
Potential additional facts that I could add (where I found references) include:
"Dealers and franchisees are paid commission based on their net sales of inventory consigned to them. Dealers and franchisees are authorized to sell post-sale services, such as extended-service plans, for which they also receive commissions." (retrieved from 2014 annual report - http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-filing/Annual-Report/2014/2/1/t.aspx?t=XNAS:SHOS&ft=10-K&d=5e61278408bd4350f80372d6be0d7dfe).
"In 2013, Outlet’s most significant merchandise category was home appliances, which made up 78% of Outlet's sales revenue." (ibid).
Thanks so much for your help!
Danielkahena (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Danielkahena, if you feel you can further expand this draft to include more information, and that it should not be included in the main article that already exists, you are more than welcome to do so and resubmit. Unless a significant amount is added to the draft, I do not believe that it will be worth having as a separate article, but that is just my opinion and another reviewer may feel differently. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft Review: Fair Stone
Hello Primefac,
thanks for reviewing the Fair Stone article. I added a couple of sources as external links, not as references. Will these suffice to establish notability? Unfortunately they are in German. The standard has begun to expand to the United Kingdom, which is why an English Wikipedia Article makes sense. FairStoneLabel (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- FairStoneLabel, foreign language articles are perfectly acceptable as sources, but in order to demonstrate notability you will need to use them as references, not external links. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
George Chakravarthi
I don't understand why you have re-graded my article George Chakravarthi as 'Start', the example of this grade is Dirty Laundry (Bitter:Sweet song) in which all the content is in one section, is very basic and has minimal citations to potentially unreliable sources. The article had originally been graded B-class, which seemed more appropriate. Can you please explain your logic? Emerald (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- EmeraldRS, on the pedantic side, it is not "your" article, but regardless, I made a minor mistake. I was fixing a number of rankings and gave the wrong rank to the page. It is not quite at B-class yet, but it is definitely better than a Start-class article so I have ranked it as C. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. By "my article" I meant that, as it stands, it is all my own work. I would like to know "what [content] is still missing..[or is] irrelevant material" and what "may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup", that would be very helpful when I attempt to improve it as the editing suggestions for C class are not helpful as I am not aware of any gaps in the content or clean-up requirements, hopefully you can point them out to me. Emerald (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am still awaiting the detailed comments you kindly offered to post a few days ago, I hope you get an opportunity to write them down soon. Regards, Emerald (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Patience is a virtue, EmeraldRS, we're all volunteers here. Anyway, I've chatted with a few people, looked at the article again, and am sticking with the current ranking. I should mention that article rankings are not the end-all be-all of articles - the content itself is more important. Until an article reaches GA or FA status, the specific ranking doesn't really matter. The main issue with the article that is preventing it from reaching B status is that two of the sections are entirely unsourced. The Themes section especially needs sources, as it counts as original research otherwise.
- On a side note, given that the Career section is so large, I would consider shifting that to its own page as a list. It breaks up the article and makes it harder to read. Just my personal opinion though. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. It is very helpful and has given me quite a lot to think about. I'll have a look at more artists' articles before making any decisions. If you don't mind, when I do make any substantial changes I will let you know, I would then be grateful for your comments about whether I am moving it in the right direction. Best wishes. Emerald (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Patrol
Hi Primefac,
I just received a notification that you are patrolling a working article in my sandbox... Judging by your talk page, you have given out a lot of advice. Do you have any feedback on how to improve my article? This is my first new article, so I would really welcome any suggestions you have on making a good Wikipedia submission.
09:12:49, 18 February 2015 review of submission by Slacabos
Hi Primefac and thanks for reviewing my submission, I'd like to ask you what can I do to improve it, since it was declined. I could add details about the funds received by the VCs, but I dont' know if that's enough.
Many thanks
Slacabos (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Slacabos, more detail is always good, though make sure you avoid sounding too promotional. The reason I declined the draft is because of the sources. The draft needs more independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. At the moment the sources are mainly press releases or primary sources (from the company or those associated with it). Good secondary sources will help immensely. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Primefac, you are one of our finest editors. Keep up the good work, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
Right.... you would never need to look at Peter Teuben's bio, but you are not the target audience. The target audience in this case is a user or potential user of the ASCL and researchers interested in reproducible science; there are enough of that population who care who is on the advisory committee, and contact advisory committee members about it that having links is useful to them.
I don't have the time to muck around much with Wikipedia. I update pages in which I am a subject matter expert only, and only because information on them is incorrect or lacking. The ASCL page is now out-of-date/inaccurate, and some of the information on it is unreferenced. I guess that will have to be okay, though it changes my view (and advocacy) of Wikipedia as a mostly-reliable source of astro info. Makes me sad, though!
Owlice1 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Owlice1, if the page is out-of-date it should be updated so that the correct information is included. If there are unreferenced sections, they should either be referenced or removed. Adding external links to the body of the text does not fix either of these issues. In fact, WP:External links states that they should not really be included in the body of the text. We're not out to be malicious, we're just following the rules. I'm glad you've decided to help out where you can, and I do hope you continue doing so.
- As a small note, if you're keen on Astro pages I would suggest checking out Astronomy WikiProject (if you're not already a member); we could always use more helpers. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I know you're not trying to be malicious, and I WAS trying to update the page, to provide correct information and missing/updated references -- the changes kept getting backed out, however, each time an editor restored changes made by another editor! It's extremely frustrating for me to edit the page (I don't have mad wiki editing skillz; I don't do this very often, so every edit usually takes me a long time to do correctly), only to have someone with great wiki chops but little expertise on *this* very narrow topic wipe out the edits or get in an edit before I had a chance to save mine. I don't have a lot of time to spare on this and certainly don't have time to spare on other pages, especially when there are so many others with much greater knowledge available for those other pages.
And again, though I made small subsequent changes one by one, I see that someone else has once again removed external links that are relevant, namely those to other efforts that nearly anyone interested in the ASCL would want to know about. Those other efforts should be listed, acknowledged as part of the broader effort and available to people who are interested in astro software and research integrity and reproducibility; this record is the poorer without them.
submission review
Hi Primefac
Thanks for reviewing my article. I have since added a lot of new sources which I hope will now be acceptable?
I have followed Huon advice on referencing.
Meteoroid diagram
Thank you very much for you offer to make the diagram for the Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990! However, I have just found another paper on the topic with more up-to-date data of the orbit of the body, and so I am going to update the article as well. Could you wait for a while, please?
Thanks once more, --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, Jan.Kamenicek, I probably wasn't going to get to this until tomorrow anyway. Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Update finished. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| For all your awesome help in answering my talk page messages and keeping me afloat (and using hilarious edit summaries), I award you this Barnstar. Your help is greatly appreciated. :D — kikichugirl speak up! 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
Religion for Atheists Draft
Thanks for the review - the last feedback I recieved was that the draft didn't have enough information on the contents of the book, and that I should look at Good Articles to see what kinds of information was needed. I found a couple with blow-by-blow entries of each chapter, so I had a bit of a go at that. Do you have any advice on how I can make the draft more acceptable? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Primefac tell me only where is it mention that pasi are untouchable.
Already I have provided all real proof and photo king fort which is available in present and also India Govt and state Govt has been assigned land for king fort.--Sachin8p (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
21:24:55, 23 February 2015 review of submission by Rachel Josephson
You seem to be unecessarily deleting this page. this journalist has extensive media references. you have deleted most as they are via youtube. but they are valid. there does not seem to be a good reason why you are deleting this page. noted re deleting blog citations and this has been done. additional independent refs have been included. rachelj 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
rachelj 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Rachel Josephson, the YouTube references were deleted because YouTube is not a valid reference. The majority of your references are one-paragraph bios which read like they were provided by Gabay himself. You seem hell-bent on breaking any and all rules to get this draft into the Article space, even when three different editors feel that it is not ready for the Article space. Read the rules regarding notability and reliable sources, improve the draft, and then complain if it doesn't get accepted. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Request on 07:48:41, 24 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nvdierdo
Declining Draft:Ubiwave
Nvdierdo (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Primefac. Thx for reviewing Draft:Ubiwave. Based on your comment I have been reading about Notability of organisations and about Identifying reliable sources. I believe I understand what you mean.
There has been quite some independent coverage about Ubiwave and not all sources have been included in the article I submitted. I'd like to start working on an improvement. Could you indicate how far off from acceptance we are? I other words, am I to add just a few reliable and independent sources, double the number of sources, more? Is there anything else than adding more sources to be done?
A brownie for you!
|
I tried to slip one by but kikichurgirl got me, then you. Is there a better place to start? All that Manhattan, Cisco, and Novel stuff does not relate to me.
Wlthrpr (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Please use more care when reviewing CSD
You moved User talk:GeorgiDane to Draft talk:Georgi Danevski - and User:GeorgiDane - Draft:Georgi Danevski and left redirects. This completley messed up the user's user and talk pages and caused all of the conversations that took place on Draft talk:Georgi Danevski to be lost when an admin untangled the redirects.
While I agree that it was a questionable CSD tag simply following the process and having a reviewing admin decline it would have been much simpler. As it was you did not follow up with the user and 1 - tell them what you had done 2 - tell them what to do next. You also left their user space in a terrible state. Please use more care when you do these things and remember to follow up with the user. Thank you for your consideration and understanding in this matter. JBH (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing old notices
How am I doing this? Obviously unintentional - I am trying to work with you, update references as I was told to do and then get things passed. I'm very confused why there is any issue. Please advise, or help me, or something. I know I am so close to getting this approved, so thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert4321 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Qwert4321
Hi! He's not doing it intentionally, (I think - I'm going by AGF). I'm trying to work with him on the article to bring it up to snuff. You can see the discussion we're having HERE, on my talk page. If you give me a little leeway, I'll walk him through it. I honestly don't know how he's doing it. Thanks for your patience.Onel5969 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Onel5969, this is definitely an odd situation. If I had to guess, they have somehow bookmarked an older version of the page, and when they edit they keep changing the same things. I'm glad you're helping out, though; I'll remove my comment on the page since it really does appear to be accidental. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ukamaka Olisakwe
Thanks primefac for everything.
I'm seriously working on improving the page and I think it would be unfair to my efforts if it gets deleted.
I'm sure you noticed there's been huge changes from when it was declined for approval.
If there's any further help you can oblige me, I'll be most grateful.
thanks again.
Victhur69 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Victhur69, while I appreciate the changes that have taken place in your article, the draft should have been improved and accepted rather than putting something directly into the article space when it was not ready. If the article gets deleted, you still have the draft. While the AfD is progressing you are more than welcome to edit the page and improve it. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Draft decline question
What do we need to do to Draft:Highest-grossing_films_which_combine_Live_Action_with_Animation#Highest-grossing_films_which_combine_Live_Action_with_Animation to upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following was e-mailed to me by User:HydeParkResident
Hello,
Thanks in advance for your help. We have input a history of Hyde Park, and previously had a list of notable places in Hyde Park (such as a historical fountain), which we removed for fear of appearing like we were just "advertising", which isn't the intent of the web page at all. Our parent neighborhood has a wikipedia page here they specifically mention Hyde Park, so the original intent was to build our information. Neartown_Houston
When we were told Hyde Park wasn't notable enough, I read in your rules that appearances in the news made it notable, so I input some of the appearances in the news despite being trivial. I totally agree christmas trees being stolen is trivial, as is parking so they werent included in the first iteration. (I disagree that residents rallying around a tree is trivial; overdevelopment was referenced in the articles about Montrose and is a MAJOR debate in houston covered daily by major papers. It is relevant.
However, we have also included a history of Hyde Park, some other info about it.
I guess is this a matter of adding material or removing material? Plenty of trivial things are covered on wikipedia with 1-2 sentence about the history. I am more than happy to remove trivial articles.
Another concern is there is plenty of relevant history in Hyde Park, but it doesnt say "Hyde Park" - just "Montrose" because most people know of the general area, not the neighborhoods. For example, much of the LGBT equal rights movement discussed on Montrose,_Houston occurs in Hyde Park. If we go through the effort to pick out things that happened, will qw just be told they arent relevant because they don't specifically say "Hyde Park", but instead say "Montrose"?
Sorry for the lengthy email, but I have been going in circles since december with this. Reading the rules that it should be appearing in newspapers, magazines, so noting when it appears in newspaper and magazines, and then being told that isn't important enough, is kind of a head scratcher.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HydeParkResident (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 February 2015
Cirex
Regards. About the 'Cirex' article. Can I made the biography (not a carbon copy from his website) and then insert citations that needed (not overloading with citations).. Once I do that do you think it can be accept it? TIf you can help I 'll apreciatte. Thanks in advance Manufacturapr (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
NEQUA the problem of the ages
I have again attempted to get "reliable citations" for the NEQUA page that I am trying to create. I do not seem to understand what is missing. All of the citations are ones that I used to look for information on the book because biographies were not available. Any additional guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Giant Green Snake (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Films which combine live action with animation
One of your comments related to the need to provide a compelling reason to have an article recognizing the highest grossing films which combine live action with animation. Would you be able to comment regarding the following content I will add to the article?
"In 2010, the International Animated Film Society [4] (ASIFA) who host the Annie Awards which recognize outstanding achievement in the field of animation, created a new award category in recognition of 'Character Animation in a Live Action Production' for its 38th annual awards. The award that year was presented to Alice in Wonderland[5]. The following year ASIFA added a second award category to the Annie Awards in recognition of the use of animation in live action films; 'Animated Effects in a Live Action Production'. The movie Transformers: Dark of the Moon[6] received the award in 2011. These two awards do not distinguish between animation and animation used to create special effects in the way that Roger Ebert did, but they do finally provide professional and cultural recognition of films that combine animation with live action."
Thank you. Telewski (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Telewski, to be honest I'm still not overly convinced that your draft needs to be on Wikipedia, and the last sentence of that paragraph sounds suspiciously like WP:OR designed to make it "relevant" to Wikipedia. However, if you feel this paragraph makes the topic meet the criteria, you are welcome to add it and resubmit. In general my policy is not to re-review drafts so that other reviewers can weigh in (so I won't decline it again due to personal preference). If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Primefac
Hi Primefac and thanks for reviewing my submission, I'd like to ask you what can I do to improve it, since it was declined. You wrote "there is a wealth of promotional jargon in this draft. Please remove it in order for the draft to stand a better chance of approval." I also read other wikipages of other products like Sentinet3 and they are very similar to the page we wrote(i.e. the OP5 page) Can you tell us how we can improve tha page? Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.184.42 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry Primefac I wrote this without beeing logged in :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikii la (talk • contribs) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mikii la, we have a phrase on Wikipedia called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which means that one poorly-written article does not necessarily mean there should be another created. That being said, I think the main improvements your draft requires is to turn the bullet pointed list (especially in the "Description" section) into prose; this should (hopefully) reduce the "promotional" aspect. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance.
19:03:26, 4 March 2015 review of submission by 83.254.133.205
Dear primefac. What is needed for this article to be able to be published to Wikipedia?
Thank you.
83.254.133.205 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, very much!
|
After some very hard work, I thought you might enjoy a little cup of coffee. Thank you for helping me. Even with the smallest things. Once again, thank you. Regards, Snowycats (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
Please give me advice
Can you please have a look over at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Not review it just yet, just please check all the sources as I have added more and comment for me. Secondary ones too.
Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Resubmitting draft:Solace of Requiem
Hey Primefac, you asked that I rewrite the Sound section to be a bit more neutral, which I have done. I also made some other minor changes throughout the draft of words to make it less biased (for example changing the word 'top-notch' to 'high quality') Overall I think it reads better now. Do I need to click "resubmit" on the draft? You said to just drop you a note here on talk so please let me know if you have any more issues with it and also how to proceed, thanks. Draft:Solace of Requiem
Rapeseeed (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rapeseeed, very well done, I've pushed it through to the mainspace. Nice! The only thing I would mention is to clean up the band members timeline a bit, I kinda threw it together and didn't know the exact dates, so they're a bit jumpy. I figured you would know the dates better. Let me know if you need help with it. Primefac (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum: Thank you for the help.
Hello,
I can't tell you how much I appreciate the help with the article for the Simeone Foundation Automotive Museum as well as your kind comment in the IRC chat. You had signed off before I got a chance to thank you, so hopefully will catch up with you again soon. A few moments ago, I re-submitted the article draft for review, and I'm hoping that goes well!
Thanks again, Joe C. JosephChiaccio (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- JosephChiaccio, you're very welcome, we deal with a lot of interesting characters in IRC and via the AfC process, so someone like you is rare and extremely refreshing (y'know, actually taking our advice and not being stroppy about it). Hopefully you decide to stick around and continue to help out with Wikipedia; if you do, feel free to drop me a note here or on IRC if you've got any questions. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Reviewing a set of article drafts for a research study
Hi Primefac! I'm helping some researchers run a study on Wikipedia and I'd like to ask you to be a collaborator on the project (not a research subject/participant). We need someone with experience reviewing new chemistry articles to help us control for some confounds in the study. Given your background in AfC, it seems like you've got the experience we're looking for. Would you be willing to discuss the details with me? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I forgot to link to the study description. See m:Research:Impact of Wikipedia on Academic Science. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair Stone Draft, Final Updates
Hello Primefac,
sorry it took so long, we have been swamped with work lately. I updated the reception segment of our Fair Stone standard and added external references to establish notability. Can I resubmit the article or is it still not sufficient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fair_Stone
Kind regards from Germany and thanks for all your efforts!
FairStoneLabel (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- FairStoneLabel, I'm not sure if it's just the location from which I'm trying to connect, but all of the references either lead to dead links, untrusted sites, or generic company pages that don't specifically talk about Fair Stone. Make sure all your references actually point to where you want them to, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't resubmit. Personally I think you've gone into a bit too much detail in a few places, but sometime that can be a good thing.Primefac (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm answering you at the right place. I re-checked the links and fixed them. A double http:// made them unusable. They should all be fine now. I also checked all the older links, and removed the ones which were no longer working or outdated. Thanks for all your feedback. Regarding the account name: Thanks for the advice. I'm the only one using it. I will change it later to something more personal :) FairStoneLabel (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Improved references for Draft: Julie Mintz
Thank you for your comments on my draft for Draft:Julie Mintz Per your recommendation of additional independent reliable sources that do more than simply mention Mintz, I made sure to focus on including, in particular, reference numbers 1, 11, and 12 (EntertainmentWeekly, LAmusicblog, and Guitar World respectively) which pertain only to Mintz. Would appreciate your input on whether this is an improvement? Thanks, Primefac! Bonmee (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bonmee, reference 1 is okay, 11 seems to be pointing to the wrong place (as does ref 2), and 12 is the one decent source I mentioned in my previous comment. I'd double check those two at a minimum, and add one or two more good sources (and/or find a web link to the Fangoria article). As an aside, the EW article is a good source, but aside from verifying who she is engaged to it doesn't do much for notability (especially since it's focusing more on Leitch). Primefac (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the issues with references 11 and 2. Got those back in working order. Unfortunately, the Fangoria article is only in print, as it was in 2000. I have a copy of the magazine I bought on ebay years ago, as I've been following Mintz's work through her initial work with Tobe Hooper. You can see here, this is the only verifiable source I can find for Fangoria: (no web links, only hard copies) http://www.ebay.com/itm/FANGORIA-194-HOLLOW-MAN-SPIDERS-CROCODILE-TOBE-HOOPER-THE-NAMELESS-/380708478938
Let me know what else you suggest. Thanks (Bonmee (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC))
Based on the above mentioned changes, I'd like to resubmit. I don't want it to seem as though I'm just trying to push this through though. Do you suggest I resubmit? (Bonmee (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC))
Responding to your initial review for Kirk B. Jensen page-added and corrected references
Hello Primefac. Sorry to take so long to respond, I've been sick. I have added and corrected references on this site (that was the reason you initially did not post it.) Although I have carefully checked over and over, and all of the references appear at the end of the article, I still get this message: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them." I cannot find any tags without content. Could you possibly help me see what I'm missing so that I can correct this? Really trying to comply!!! ~~~~Micojack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micojack (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Request on 17:09:30, 18 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by HalleMillien
- HalleMillien (talk · contribs)
I would like someone to review my submission again. I believe I have resolved the issues with the citations but please let me know if more needs to be done.
(HalleMillien (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC))HalleMillien HalleMillien (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC) (HalleMillien (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC))Halle Millien
Draft:LGO_solver_suite_for_global_and_local_nonlinear_optimization
Hello Primefac,
I resubmitted an extended version of my article Draft:LGO_solver_suite_for_global_and_local_nonlinear_optimization on March 9, and I will appreciate a response from you or your colleagues who decide about its publication.
For your information, I am a well-recognized research scientist and I can certainly add more content if necessary, but I'd try not to repeat already published [on the web] materials, instead providing web links and other links to those interested.
Thank you for your work; let me know if you have any comments or if you need clarification regarding the submission.
Regards,
Janos D. Pinter, PhD, DSc Pinter Consulting Services, Inc., Canada http://www.pinterconsulting.com janos.d.pinter@gmail.com
Google Scholar Citations http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=iHrfmDEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/janos-d-pinter/10/9/676
Past Chair, EUROPT Managing Board The Continuous Optimization Working Group of EURO http://europt.iam.metu.edu.tr/
Co-Editor, SpringerBriefs in Optimization http://www.springer.com/series/8918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janos D. Pinter (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Smile
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Primefac, for the redirects you create via AWB, for your work at AFC, for your help at #wikipedia-en-help connect, and (“most importantly” :P) for your impressive work on my talk page, spending much time answering every question patiently, helpfully, and accurately, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you for your diligent service to Wikipedia. --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC) |
15:26:11, 30 March 2015 review of submission by Jpenny01
Thank you for reviewing my article about Angus Walker. I do agree that the titles of the newspaper articles are lacking and there was no way for you to verify if any of the information from them was true. Unfortunately, none of the articles are available online as most newspapers' online archives here in Nova Scotia and the other places do not go that far back in time and/or would cost money to make copies available to you in that manner in addition to some of them being bought out by others over the years. However, I do have scans that I can send you of the articles that I referenced and others that I choose not to use because they were either redundant or I did not feel they were quite worthy of wikipedia. As for the online sources, I agree with you as well that they are lacking discussion about Walker, but they do add to the criteria for his notability such as having songs in the top 50, being associated with other notable artists, releasing albums, winning a major award, etc... I could actually add what major record labels he worked for and reference some of the newspapers as they state that info in some cases or even his albums if they are valid references (a could scan those for you too). In terms of "The Cape Breton Rebel" section, you are right again with the lack of referencing. The majority of this section was inferred from comparing his older with his newer material (I could send you some songs so you could compare if that was a valid way to obtain information) in addition to looking his songs up on the SOCAN database for co-writers, year, etc... I was not sure how to reference that and sending a print screen of that to you could take awhile as it is a friend who has access to the database and the mentioned that their initial terms included not reproducing anything, although there may be exemptions for academic purposes and keeping them private. Speaking of inferencing, I can infer that Walker is the first Nova Scotian ever to win a Canadian Country Music Award although I don't think any newspaper directly stated that (Probably any genre if I can find the origins of the rest of those that won the RPM award in '64). Should I include that in this article? Finally, I did originally include pictures and I think a program automatically removed them as they did not have the proper licence. As I'm only located a half hour away from where Walker grew up, I was able to get pictures from relatives of people he played with that were either taken by them or Walker's father who was a photographer but had moved on from doing so officially at the period that these pictures were taken according to one article (he actually opened his own general store at that point). Could you send me a link to get those properly approved for wikipedia? I have permission to use those pictures from the owners, as well as the articles I got from them as long as I keep everything about Walker so people do not bother his busy family. Thank you again for the time you invest in scrutinizing all these articles and for linking the repeated references together. I tried to duplicate that but it wouldn't work.
Jpenny01 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jpenny01, I'll start with the easier stuff first:
- In order to upload an image taken by someone else, you need to contact OTRS (from that page) and prove that you have permission to upload the file.
- Inferences - you should avoid original research at all times, so unless you can find a source that specifically mentions a fact, it should probably not be included.
- Notability - unfortunately notability is not a popularity contest, but it's about whether people have taken notice. For example, I could have released hundreds of self-produced records, and put them on a website, but if I never get an article in a newspaper, am I really notable? The shortest description of what makes a person notable is at WP:42, and a slightly more in-depth guide is at WP:GNG. Essentially, we need multiple independent sources that talk about the subject in detail. Finally, because Walker is a musician, there is WP:MUSICBIO to consider - again, he does not meet the principal criteria (in-depth coverage). I should note, however, that your current references are by no means unusable, but they simply do not demonstrate how Walker is notable.
- Hopefully this will help as you continue to edit the draft. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
21:33:32, 30 March 2015 review of submission by 83.168.54.0
- 83.168.54.0 (talk · contribs)
do you even read the article or the sources? 83.168.54.0 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Paralimni, if you read the comment I left on the page itself, you would know that I did indeed read both the article and the sources. In fact, it was specifically because I read the sources that I declined the draft. He might play for a 1st Division team, but you have no reliable sources to back that up. Find some references that talk about Felgate in detail and I will be happy to reconsider my decision. Primefac (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Susana Martinez-Conde
Hi Primefac!
I added 4 sources as requested. Tell me if it looks good enough now!
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklyUniversity (talk • contribs) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- BrooklyUniversity, yes it does. I've accepted it, but obviously feel free to continue to make improvements. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Susana Martinez-Conde
Hi Primefac
I'm just wondering if I could include some of the "science writing" material as a section, as I did with Stephen Macknik's page under the headline "Popular Science Writing". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Macknik
I just noticed this part was deleted, and I think it's an essential aspect of Martinez-Conde's notability.
Thanks!
BrooklyUniversity (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- BrooklyUniversity, I don't think it's really necessary - I've included links to her Scientific American writings (plus they're mentioned in the text), the books are already listed, and unless you can find some reliable third-party sources that discuss the "neuromagic" it's just unsourced promotion for a term they coined. You'll note I removed the neuromagic section from when it was still a draft; this is because I could not find any supporting evidence that anyone outside of these two people actually use the term. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
19:32:32, 1 April 2015 review of submission by 83.168.54.0
- 83.168.54.0 (talk · contribs)
they have been adjusted and this is enough reliable sources
83.168.54.0 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey may I ask u for help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prpl_Foundation Could u look at that draft, I decline and see if i was correct indoing so first. I didn't feel it had 2 indy sources from outsides souces. the arthor is asking me for advise from me, and I dont want to tell him or her the wrong thing. i do have notabity fears about the article too.
I ask this because i know int he past I have accepted articles i should not have and hope im getting better at that, I do appeate help with that copo article u deattped and part back int he draft.Oo7565 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oo7565, I would say you made the right call, I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources (i.e. it could use a couple more). As a suggestion, I would not accept/or decline a draft unless you can justify the decision. If all you have is a "feeling" that a draft should be declined, it might be better to leave it and let another reviewer take a look.
- On a somewhat related subject, I noticed that a few of the drafts you accepted recently needed some (very) minor cleanup, such as removing extra headers or fixing date parameters. While you are under no obligation to do these minor fixes, it does make the fresh article look a lot nicer (and only takes a minute or two to clean). Primefac (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey thanks for help and advise.Oo7565 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
OTRS
Hi Primefac,
I've waited 2 months since your message about the OTRS ticket. How much longer will it take?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdelich&action=edit§ion=11
Thanks, ```` pdelich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdelich (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Edited article "Mariestella Racal"
Good day Primefac!
Thank you for your comment. the article Draft:Mariestella Racal has been edited base on your comments. please let me know if still needs revisions.
Thank you for your review
Primefac,
Thank you for your input on my draft. I appreciate your time and expertise. I will try to make the recommended changes.
Thanks again, JWhitener
Paraphrasing
Hey There! Thanks for letting me know about the paraphrasing for the SkyTechSport article. I have tried my best to make it so it wasn't so "promotional". Please let me know any advice you have as I am still in the "review" stage to get my article approved. Thanks! Alex at SkyTechSport (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Alex at SkyTechSport April 6, 2015
Mindy_Mcknight
hi! i made an article and its changed so is it accepted or declined Draft:Mindy Mcknight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.217.164 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Have mercy
Have mercy... Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Draft genes hox
Hey gotcha,
I agree that we shouldnt have reptiles or amphibians on our page. I added one on genetics. Because we do talk about genes. Also, can you not edit ours just yet, I clicked save but I am not ready to submit. I will add stuff tonight.tommorow/ this week can you not delete it or put that red box saying that we didnt make the cut for a new article.
cheers and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRocsMinions (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- DocRocsMinions, I have no intention of deleting any additions you may make in the coming days, it was just the taxoboxes that seemed to be a sticking point. Additionally, the AfC decline notices should stay as a record for the next reviewer to ensure that the draft has been improved upon since the last submission. If and when it is approved those notices will be removed, but for the moment they need to stay on the draft. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Please Help
Dear Sir,
You declined my Article about Kundan Srivastava and you mentioned comment The references provided do not do any more than mention Srivastava, which is perfectly acceptable for verifying facts but not for establishing notability. The YourStory reference is PRIMARY, as is the biography from his own group (which is duplicated on the MatPal page). Please find additional reliable sources to add to this page.
I am very disappointed and sad to know the Wikipedia Behavior. Kundan Srivastava is an Activist faced many misfortunes in his young life and fighting for women issues. He is notable activist and author. I already submitted all the reliable sources like YourStory, Matpal, IndiaTV, DIT University, Rediff News, Haribhoomi, etc. YourStory is India's leading digital media, Matpal is India's leading biography site.
Find Example here Wikipedia published more Biography without any reliable sources because they are rich businessman and mine article is full of notability and reliable source:
and so on......
Why you declined Kundan Srivastava Biography that because he is an Activist and Author not a rich personality. Right ? please consider my request and help me to make publish the biography of Kundan Srivastava.
Bihngo (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bihngo, first of I should say that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I have actually nominated those three pages for deletion for being sub-standard. Second, while your sources are perfectly acceptable, they do no more than give passing mention to Srivastava (as I said on the notice you posted here). The biography on his own company's website is a primary source, which means it is not as reliable as a reference that has nothing to do with him personally. It is also the only source that talks about him in any detail. If you cannot find any sources that are unconnected to him and talk about him more than in passing, then unfortunately the draft cannot be accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Primefac is this not a reliable source about Kundan Srivastava ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kundan_Srivastava http://social.yourstory .com/2015/04/second-chance-for-second-sex/ http://www.indiatvnews.com/crime/news/delhi-man-rapes-office-colleague-for-2-months-after-blackmailing-5352.html?page=4 http://matpal.com/2013/01/kundan-kumar-biography-be-in-humanity.html and this one is official verified page by facebook https://www.facebook.com/founderkundansrivastava
Bihngo (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bihngo, you've given me four links, so I'll break them down one by one.
- YourStory - this is a site dedicated to interviewing people and publishing (as the name suggests) their story. It is a glorified interview (so PRIMARY and thus discouraged).
- IndiaTVNews - this is a very reliable source, however there is one sentence about Srivastava. It proves that he is the founder of the NGO, and that is it. No indication of notability.
- MatPal - this is (as it clearly states at the bottom of the article) a bio sent from the NGO itself (thus making it a primary source).
- Facebook is not considered a reliable source.
- My suggestion would be to check out WP:IRS and WP:42 to determine what is considered a reliable source and what sort of sources Wikipedia is looking for. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Primefac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kundan_Srivastava look now
- MatPal - http://matpal.com/2013/01/kundan-kumar-biography-be-in-humanity.html now this one is deleted by Matpal this is (as it clearly states at the bottom of the article) a bio sent from the NGO itself
- Haribhoomi - http://epaper.haribhoomi.com/Details.aspx?id=20547&boxid=144511224 "रेप पीड़ितों ने समाज से मांगा हक: कुंदन श्रीवास्तव" Suffered rape victims from different states of the country come at Jantar Mantar under the banner of the NGO Be In Humanity Foundation performing her rights. President of the organization Kundan Srivastava said, their family and husband left these raped women and now they are very miserable to live their life. He said the organization afford necessary facilities for these women and their children's education and support them to send their children to school.
Why wikipedia took Matpal as a source for these Articles, if not for Kundan Srivastava ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firoza_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neha_Mehta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepa_Malik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasmita_Kar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhishek_Singhvi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._R._Gopinath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandeep_Anand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Joshi http://matpal.com/2012/06/sanjay-joshi-biography-bjp-leader.html http://www.matpal.com/2012/07/alka-lamba-biography-congress-leader.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alka_Lamba
Bihngo (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Burnaby Park
--deleted--
Just saw you asked me to reply elsewhere.
--PeteLambert (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Request on 06:29:33, 15 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Richadevesar
- Richadevesar (talk · contribs)
Hi Primefac... I have submitted this article thrice with all the links and proofs. but I dont know why it is getting rejected again n again. Could u plz guide what changes I need to make.
My submission is about my first book ALL WE NEED IS LOVE Richa Richadevesar (talk)
Richadevesar (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
removed erroneous info
Hi, I am the subject of this entry. It said that I founded a non-profit Institute that no longer exists and has been recreated by people who use the name, but run a large money-making outfit that I have no association with and I am definitely not the founder of that company. This is why I made the correction. Thank you, Tolly Burkan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.138.134 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 UTC
Lexalytics Move for Deletion
Hey there, I'd really like to get down to the bottom of what is going on with Lexalytics. The move to delete the Lexalytics page is confusing because it's already been edited down quite a bit. The purchase of Semantria by Lexalytics is widely reported in interviews, articles, etc and has been cited. I don't know what needs to be done in order to remove this move for deletion. What is more, I don't know why it was put on there in the first place. I'm trying to write a solid, meaningful wikipedia page but I feel as though I've accidentally done it in a very misguided way. Instead of deleting the page can I get advice and some guidance on how to correct this blunder?
Charleslegros (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Charleslegros, the nomination for deletion has absolutely nothing to do with your recent edits and everything to do with my belief that the company does not meet the notability requirements for companies. If you can improve the article with good, independent reliable sources, then I am happy to be proven wrong. The AfD will run for seven days, after which (if a consensus is reached) the page will either be kept or deleted. If you want to weigh in, go to the deletion discussion and comment there. In the meantime, please do continue to edit/improve the page. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, regarding Lexalytics I'm really not sure what's going on so any feedback would be very appreciated. Is there some way I can get advice on how to avoid the nomination for deletion? The goal was to make the page thorough and I think I've just bungled that up. I'd be glad to take out any information that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. I was editing it for fun in the first place as practice and I'd like to learn.
- Charleslegros (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Charleslegros, as I said earlier, the page has been put up for deletion, and it's not going anywhere. The best thing you can do is improve the article. If this is your first article, I would suggest reading through the Tutorial to see how to best edit Wikipedia. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Charleslegros (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Central Park (Burnaby)
Do you still want to merge Draft:Central Park (Burnaby) with Central Park (Burnaby) or can another editor handle it? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
22:22:53, 9 May 2015 review of submission by Historian78
- Historian78 (talk · contribs)
I am having a heck of a time with Mr. Byron's page and frankly have forgotten how to remove the 2 imdb references (after "Toby Byron" at the top, and after the Kennedy Center Muddy Waters tv show. Have tried this a number of times and gotten tangled up. I believe all that is required to make the page acceptable is the removal of these 2 citations. Can you pleases do for me? Thanks in advance your expertise and consultation.
Historian78 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
May 10, 2015 Post by Crod330
Hi,
I got some good feedback on IRC but anything you can add would help.
Is there a cubesat example you can provide to help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Picopanther
I have been going based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechEdSat and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HawkSat_I and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KySat-1
Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline supposedly "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally"...are IEEE peer reviewed publications not credible sources?
The payload concept has been referenced by https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2287195442061368190&as_sdt=40005&sciodt=0,10&hl=en and used by NASA and other entities to accomplish LEO to Iridium connections. It is not as popular a topic as "the kardashians" but still part of a body of work that was developed and accomplished.
From IRC user "Huon", I took notes on sources needing to line up with statements and some content that strays. Really good points. Anything else that could help would be great.
Thank you, Crod330 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crod330 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
11:13:32, 16 April 2015 review of submission by Laoswikiedit
- Laoswikiedit (talk · contribs)
Hi Primefac,
I am not completely sure what I should change regarding citations. You mentioned two major things, where I have questions:
- Significant coverage: I posted the link to the website of my University, because I think this is reliable and independent. Do you agree with this? I compared my article with some of similar persons. Susanne Albers has only one working refernce to her publications and nothing else. Hanspeter Mössenböck has no citations at all. How where those articles accepted? Sepp Hochreiter has actually a lot of references, but all are a direct link to his publications or the JKU website. I could also provide this, but would you suggest to do this instead of indirectly refering to Microsoft Academics or the [Computer Science Bibliography] as I have done it? I saw this at the page of Tim Finin and therefore included it.
- Copying directly from other sources: Do you mean similarity to the text on my personal homepage, http://wwoess.faw.at? I removed this citation because previous reviewer told me it is not independent. What would you suggest? Cite to my personal homepage, or not?
Laoswikiedit (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Laoswikiedit, apologies for the long delay, real life caught up to me for a while.
- Significant coverage - the university employs Wöß, and is thus a PRIMARY source. As for the other professors, I will refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (as a side note, Mössenböck's article is on the de Wiki, which has different standards). Some of those articles may meet the criteria for deletion.
- Copying - yes, if you have written something, you cannot copy it directly to Wikipedia unless you release it for fair use.
- The main thing your draft needs is two or three independent reliable sources that talk about Wöß, and I don't see any reason why the draft shouldn't be accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
link
I want to link Mughlai paratha to Mughlai cuisine, the same way Green mango chutney was linked from Sesame oil. I created the page Green mango chutney so i am getting red notifications that the page is getting linked. But I can't do it myself. Just tell me the process to link Mughlai paratha from Mughlai cuisine .--C E (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- CosmicEmperor, they are linked. Take a look. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 12:51:04, 18 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Silkybadger
- Silkybadger (talk · contribs)
hello please can you tell me the reasons you declined the draft for Patrick Waterhouse, i submitted about 6 weeks ago. I looked at other artists pages on Wikipedia and they read very much the same as the way I wrote this page. Can you let me know what I need to do differently to get the page accepted Many Thanks Silkybadger (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Silkybadger (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
/* National Centre for Excellence */
Excuse me, may I know what is wrong or that you dislike in the article National Centre For Excellence . I've removed each and every line which may promote the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.31.218 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- IP, see the talk page. Unless things can be sourced (reliably) and actually provide useful information, then it will continue to be removed. Given that these changes are identical to every previous attempt, do not act like you are surprised that they were removed (again). Primefac (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Future Earth
The Future Earth article relates to an obscure TV program that is no longer current, and thus of little encyclopedic interest, although it was one of the motivators (along with the Al Gore initiative et.al.) so since it shares the same name, it probably deserves a oblique mention in an article that is about a major current programme of scientific (and thus encyclopedic) relevance. Saludos, Timpo (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Timpo, you are more than welcome to nominate the page for deletion, but as I said before, simply hijacking an existing article is not appropriate. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 05:27:19, 20 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Candellan
Re: Draft:Dogmachine
Hi,
You noted that I have many references but not notable ones. I have references from the National Library of Australia and a major Australia newspaper, surely those are "notable".
As the article is regarding a band that was mostly active in the 1990s there's not a lot of online articles to reference. I have other media that I could reference but from what I've read I cant use them until the page is active (or is that not the case?)
Any help would be appreciated.
Candellan (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Candellan, I believe you misinterpreted what I wrote. You have good references (almost all being reliable sources), but none of them talk about Dogmachine in any detail. This is a criteria for establishing notability. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, and if you have some then by all means use them. The only difference between online and offline sources are that online sources can be easily checked. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Feedback
Hello, I write to you in relation to you feedback given to my submitted article. User:Mari libelula/sandbox
- The aim of my article is to help understand the mathematical object called ‘connection’. For most of the mathematical objects, one could just give the definition for it and then give an example to show that the definition makes sense. Given that connections used on manifolds are quite complex objects, there are several problems that arise when one might try to understand them:
- 1. Why is it necessary to have one more complicated object to deal with in mathematics? Does it really make sense to introduce a new notion? Is there no other easier way to deal with things instead of building a more and more complicated theory?
- 2. One needs then to have the rigorous definition of the notion and learn how to deal with it.
- Because it is easier to assimilate new notions when they are presented in a coherent way, such that you may see how they combine with the other tools you already know, I presented first what are the reasons to introducing more complicated notions than metrics on manifolds, such as connections. The problem often in mathematics is that you are presented different notions, but nobody helps you see how they are related one to another or how one may be the generalization of another one, etc., people generally stress only the part containing the definition and properties. This was precisely the reason why my approach presents connections in relation to metrics and explains how several other notions arised along the way until discovering ‘connections’. Although it may be not obvious, there is no personal opinion or original researh in it.
--Mari libelula (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Request on 00:02:35, 26 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Rblasing
Rblasing (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Rblasing (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC) hi! this is Ray. I submitted an article that contains an accounting of my subject's personal life. Unfortunately those aspects of his history have never been published so it is impossible to find cites. However, the information was provided by the subject of the article. Is there any mechanism for using info gleaned from the subject without footnotes? Would you accept a testament of accuracy from the subject person, instead of cites? If so, what is the procedure to accomplish that?
Thanks!
- Rblasing, the short answer is, unless the information has been published in an independent reliable source, then the information cannot be in a Wikipedia article. There is nothing wrong with having gaps in a person's article (i.e. not every aspect of their life needs to be covered). Remove anything that you cannot find a source for (and you really should find sources for the awards), and if you're still satisfied with the draft then feel free to resubmit. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
General Service Area
Hi and thanks for the help. I just was getting tired of seeing pretty much a sea of red links in virtually every village, town and city article for the Province of Nova Scotia when there really didn't need to be any. Again, thanks and cheers. Aloha27 talk 10:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.
Thank you for your help with my article submission. I have placed the appropriate template on my userpage. PabloRicardo (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding May 26th Review of entry "Social Role of the Civil Engineer"
Hello Primefac, thanks for the feedback. I do have a question. Would making sure all my sources are "secondary, reliable sources", and/or removing parts which cannot be backed by such sources be enough to get my entry accepted? Thanks. Btw, I'm not sure if I posted a the right place, this is all new. Vassco (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Vassco, the main issue is the prose itself. It reads like someone's essay on the role of the engineer, and not an encyclopedia entry. Trimming it down to "just the facts," as it were, would greatly improve the draft's chances of being accepted. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion - Rebeca Minguela
Hello Primefac, I'm new in Wikipedia and I saw you posted comments on the nomination for deletion of Rebeca Minguela. Would you have any advice on how to improve Rebeca Minguela article or you think that it should just be deleted? I created the article. Should I already delete it, or I should wait for a Wikipedia Admin to do it? One issue that I'm experiencing is that many of the references that are being refuted are main newspapers in Spain. Could that be because the interviews are written in Spanish and I wrote the article in the English Wikipedia? Thanks. RogueKhan (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- RogueKhan, the issues are not the newspapers, or that it's in Spanish, but that they are interviews. Interviews are PRIMARY sources, and are not judged to be reliable. The reason for this is (in small part) because the interviewee could be lying. Now, 99% of the time this wouldn't be the case, but all it takes is one person lying for the whole thing to go downhill. If you can find sources that are not directly connected to Minguela (so no interviews, or her own websites/businesses) then the page might stand a chance of being kept. At the moment, however, there does not seem to be much chance of that. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's helpful. It's the Harvard Business School case about her a good reference, or is it not? What about the fact that she was speaker at the Harvard European Conference (sharing panel with the Director of the European Commission for entrepreneurship)? Are those valid? Should I delete all info and references about Blink Booking, even though that's the company she started? Would you advice changes or just simply delete it? Thanks again for the time! RogueKhan (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Really not worthy noting?
I submitted this article for review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackson_Senyonga and it was dropped citing "not being a person of notability" yet I was careful to include all the references necessary and choosing the references (BIG Media stations) acknowledged by Wikipedia itsself.
For example on Wikipedia itself, http://www.cbn.com/ is a recognized big media company with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Broadcasting_Network and I also included New Vision Uganda - The leading Newspaper in UGanda (Infact the only Government newspaper)
The person I wrote about is also an owner of over 6 media stations including a 5 radio stations and the leading Christian TV station. Why then is he not being considered notable. Could it be that there is no Wikipedia Person to refer to that knows about Uganda or East Africa at large?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuteesakwe David (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Help
I have been requesting adoption for a while, and I have not been adopted yet.Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
My AFD listing problem
Sorry to call on you again, but I also tried, and failed, to list The American Muslim at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Blind Removal of Refs
Seeing as you are on a mission to remove references which you, and you alone categorise as "spam", I'd suggest you also remove the information they are referencing.
Fsquirty (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fsquirty: There are at least three editors reverting your WP:REFSPAM and the info already has existing references. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. References for birth details have been removed and are now unreferenced. I was solely reverting edits make by Primefac, as I noticed they were removing references. Not link spam - the birth details are now unreferenced - so perhaps you "atleast 3 editors" can now also go and remove them.
Fsquirty (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fsquirty: Really? --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done for finding ONE example of what you claim - now look at the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsquirty (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- A second example was provided on Huon's page. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Findmypast.com
I see that your personal vendetta against sources from findmypast.com continues aaace. I have searched the archives at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and I can see several discussion threads that do indeed raise legitimate concerns about sources that rely on that site. But I would be very interested to hear your own views on why findmypast.com is to be considered "unreliable", or indeed if there is a categorical policy decision somewhere that I have missed. In the mean time, I wonder would it be sensible for you to replace any source that you remove with a "citation needed" tag, and/or to raise the issue at the appropriate article Talk Page, instead of just mechanically stripping out, with the help of AWB, clear and formatted sources that many editors have obviously taken some time and care to add in good faith? I've started a discussion thread over at WP:RSN. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, I have spent the better part of the last year researching my own genealogy, and sites such as findmypast are not subject to editorial oversight, frequently have errors, and are essentially just a gigantic database. For example, Colin Self's birth date is 1941, but [a search for Colin Self] turns up 14 individuals within 10 years of '41. What if his birthday is really 1943 in Northumberland instead of Norfolk? The possibilities of getting it wrong outweigh the chances of it being right.
- While I could go through and methodically go to every single Talk page and ask if someone could find a reliable source that verifies the birth/death date of a given person, with over 550 such pages that would be a monumental undertaking. Am I taking the slightly lazy approach? Yes. Do I think what I have done is wrong? Not necessarily. However, were I to attempt something like this in the future, I can see your point that a consensus of some sort (in general, not on a case-by-case basis) should be gathered before a massive AWB sweep.
- As a side point, I find it interesting you mentioning the "clear and formatted sources", when in reality I only removed those refs that were bare URLs. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- EDIT: got an edit conflict, I'll check out your RSN in a bit.
- Formatting bare URLs can be fixed quite easily, and it certainly doesn't make a source unreliable. I think you should give your reasoning at the Noticeboard. Can you tell me that you actually checked each of those sources before you deleted them? What if the result gives just a single result like Sunetra Sarker? I'm not so sure it's always so very clear cut. It looks like you've already done "a massive AWB sweep", without any consensus, so from your point of view it's a fait accompli. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, my final comment was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, though I do realize sarcasm is often lost in prose. I believe that we could pick and choose any number of examples to "prove" our respective points, but one example to either direction does not change my overall point about the reliability of a user-maintained database of information. It's like goodreads: is the information accurate? Probably. Is it reliable? Less so. Things are never clear cut, and to be honest it's a good thing you went to RSN, if only to settle the matter. To be completely honest, if they determine that findmypast is reliable, I am willing to personally undo all of my edits (I'm not averse to being wrong). Primefac (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we'll see if anything comes of the noticeboard discussion. I imagine there may be quite a few editors who may be pissed off by what you've done so rapidly. Personally, I'm not trying to "prove any point", I'm just disappointed that you've left Sunetra Sarker's DOB a bit "high and dry" ... not to mention Mackenzie Crook, Caroline Aherne, Hughie Green and Gilbert Harding. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, my final comment was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek, though I do realize sarcasm is often lost in prose. I believe that we could pick and choose any number of examples to "prove" our respective points, but one example to either direction does not change my overall point about the reliability of a user-maintained database of information. It's like goodreads: is the information accurate? Probably. Is it reliable? Less so. Things are never clear cut, and to be honest it's a good thing you went to RSN, if only to settle the matter. To be completely honest, if they determine that findmypast is reliable, I am willing to personally undo all of my edits (I'm not averse to being wrong). Primefac (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Formatting bare URLs can be fixed quite easily, and it certainly doesn't make a source unreliable. I think you should give your reasoning at the Noticeboard. Can you tell me that you actually checked each of those sources before you deleted them? What if the result gives just a single result like Sunetra Sarker? I'm not so sure it's always so very clear cut. It looks like you've already done "a massive AWB sweep", without any consensus, so from your point of view it's a fait accompli. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: Nick Marsh.
Thanks for your edit and advice on improving. I've re-submitted. I think I've fixed the relevant parts: re-edited the parts about Flesh For Lulu and much improved the references. Having read the criteria, I believe that Marsh is notable - signed to major labels, songs on movie soundtracks etc.
Marsh is very unwell and unlikely to live much longer. This page was requested of me by a close friend of his. I think it will probably be used as a source page for obituaries (i'm sad to say).
Any more help or suggestions much appreciated.
Best, Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.134.59 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
'The Talks' article draft.
Hi there, hope you're well!
You recently offered advice on my draft article on The Talks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Talks)
Would you be able to have a look through my current draft now I've made the amendments you suggested?
Thanks in advance
AOOHull (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- AOOHull, I'm not particularly inclined to give it a full review, but it definitely looks better. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Primefac, what is the <ref name=BBC12> code you used? how do I do that, and what are the benefits?
- cheers! AOOHull (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- AOOHull, that is how to use a reference multiple times (see this section of REFB for more information). Notice that the BBC article is now only in the references section once, even though it was used thrice in the body of the text. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Break
Thanks so much for your help
Nick Marsh update
Hi,
Nick Marsh died on Friday so I have updated the post to reflect this and added more detail and cited more sources.
Your help in getting this approved and published would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.172.250 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi thank you for reviewing my entry. this was my first time creating an article. I can certainly remove all of these words that you have mentioned. I just thought as I had to use the sources I had to use some of the words from this. I understand now what you mean about advertising.. Can I please ask, if I review all of this information again, do I have to wait the 4 weeks again?
thank you for taking the time to read my article and read this post
Azura81 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Azura81, I honestly couldn't say. Some drafts are reviewed the same day they are submitted, others take a while to be looked at. I do encourage you to make the proposed changes and resubmit, even though it may take a while to get reviewed again. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That's great, thank you I appreciate it Azura81 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Answering Connorgurney1's questions
Hi. Just wanted to thank you for answering the questions on my talk page! Connorgurney1 (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Declined article
Hi, my article about Miloš Meier has been declined 3 times because the article does not adequately show the subject's notability. Miloš Meier is considered as one of the best drummer in Czech republic. The information wchich I used are not subjective, for example where he studied or where he was born. So a I do not understand why a cannot use them? You wrote to me to improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Problem is that there do not exist any other sources. So what can I do? Is a solution to set Miloš Meier as a non-notiable musician? Or please tell me any other way how to include my article into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefron 95 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)