User talk:Visik/Archive/2011/Feb

Speedy → PROD

I changed True meaning of beauty's speedy deletion template to a PROD. Although it should be deleted, it is not a person, animal, organization, or web content. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for tipping me off on how to properly use multiple instances of the same citations in an article. I've only done it a few times, but it is extremely troublesome and frustrating to boot trying to get it right and each attempt to make multiple citing tags doesn't come out the way you would think it should have when you have to keep editing it and you don't know how. The instructional article on how to create multiple citings on Wikipedia, unfortunately, seems to have the "refname" without the forwardspace. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

No worries, yeah I'll check out the WP:CITE and see if it needs to fixed if its unclear. happy editing Tvtonightokc. --Visik (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag BLP sources to page Daniele Vocaturo

Hallo Visik, with respect to the tag you added to the above page, perhaps it is inappropriate, since the page is a translation from it.wikipedia and all references should be found on the original page. Moreover the italian page was written by a user whom I know personally and who knows very well Daniele Vocaturo. However I added some references on the page, after which I removed the tag. Hope you will agree. Regards, --Gabodon (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talkpage. --Visik (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike "Munchie" Roeder

Hello again! Just letting you know that for pages like Mike "Munchie" Roeder, you can tag them for speedy deletion as attack pages (G10) instead of prod them. Thanks for your work! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi GW, thanks for that. I was unsure if it met CSD:A7, but wanted to PROD to get the weight of consensus from the community or second opinion. If I can use CSD:G10 for town alcoholics. That will be handy :P. --Visik (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely a negative unsourced BLP. If you didn't tag as that, you could easily have gotten away with A7 or with vandalism (G3). – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Speedy deletion contested: Planned Parenthood/Editnotice

Hello Visik, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Planned Parenthood/Editnotice, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Logan, thats fine by me. But did you delve further at the talkpage of the article which I commented on or checked out the author's history with Parenthood. Looks to me to be a erroneously created and the author was trying to reply to the talk:Parenthood. Also just a bit of care, if you challenge a CSD, it should have a {{hang on}} notice but you removed it unilaterally. --Visik (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to a G2. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. thanks for the notice. have a good one Logan. --Visik (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) {{hangon}} notices are for the people who created the article, not the decliners of a speedy deletion. The page is a perfectly good candidate for speedy deletion as a test page (due to the way editnotices work); however, it was not a redirect, and thus it didn't fall under the R2 criterion. Have a good one too! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your correct!. just re-read that part of the policy, its for the author for hang on tags and everyone else can either remove it or adjust the CSD tags. My apologies, doing too many things at once. --Visik (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan Sun Oil

Hey Visik, it seemed you had already marked this won with copyvio but I couldnt see it on the pages edit history...recreation naybe? Nopt sure in any event I have remarked it as WP:CSD based on G11, A7, and G12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjicharlton (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Benjicharlton. I think the author has re-created the page. I was reluctant to place another tag on it, putting it on my watchlist, giving the user more time to see if they would improve the article to a wikipedia minimum acceptable standards. Obviously, you were patrolling and tagged it under CSD. I don't have any issue with that. Hopefully the author would respond or request help in wikifying the article. --Visik (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He is trying I have removed the copyvio tag as the article is no longer a website copy paste, but it still contains nothing showing notability (A7) and thus to me appears to he a G11 speedy as well...I guess we will see.benjicharlton (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Visik. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 06:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

53rd National Film Awards

Hi. You just tagged the article 53rd National Film Awards as Unreferenced for not providing any references or sources. But article does mention about the sources in the external link section. These are links provided by Government of India and are very much official. Kindly let me know if is there any other reason for tagging it as unsourced? Thanks Vivvt (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Visik (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done the needful. Please confirm and let me know if any correction required. Thanks. Vivvt (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. I will try improving the article whenever and wherever possible. Just for your information, there will not be any other authentic source/reference that this as its directly from Government of India which helds this award ceremony. So all other reference links will be again pointing to the ones I have mentioned in the article. Thanks. Vivvt (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vivvt primary sources are good but third party references would give the article more added weight and verifiability. WP:RS can give you help on finding reliable third party references such as those covered by the free media such as maybe the Times of India or any major newspaper in India. They may cite individuals or award categories which you can use as references. I'll leave it up to you when you have time. --Visik (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

I see you are changing WikiProject China back to WPCHINA. There is a bot going around doing just the opposite, so I have been expanding the project names whenever I encounter the "short" name, since the expanded version is evidently preferred. Also, WikiProject Zoo does not take "importance". Donlammers (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page.--Visik (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of your Project banners changes and thought I would chime in also. Please stop changing the banners from WikiProject to WP. For one this is counterproductive and only causes more work and second this could be construed as a minor edit and not appropriate for use of AWB by some. I also noticed you made a comment about if the bot was more efficient... If you have suggestions please let me know and I would be glad to pass them along or maybe draft something up myself. Happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko I think you misconstrued some of my edits. I'm part of WPCHINA and it perfectly ok to use WPCHINA, See here Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/Assessment. If you read the above discussions with DonLammers. In fact I have been in the project since mid 2006. The Arkansasbot which came into effect only in 2009 has been reverting under good faith tagging under WPCHINA. In fact, some articles have already been tagged with WPCHINA and I have left it as that. The bot then change it when it runs. I do not agree with your wholesale revert of Joseph Stilwell [1]. If you left the importance parameter tag and revert back WikiProject China portion I find that more acceptable. Your revert actually cause more work for the WPCHINA project to re-assess the article.

Kumioko, if there is a discussion about standardizing WP names, please send me a link to it. I like to be part of the discussion. As I said earlier, I'm in the WPCHINA project and its perfectly clear WikiProject China is acceptable, so as WPCHINA. ArkansasBot may be doing good faith bot edits but did it have consensus or input from the WPCHINA team. Don't think so. It was approved to tag whatever the author scripted up. I have seen many taggers use different variations of it e.g. wikiProject China, WP China, WP CHINA...etc. It would nice to standardize to just two WikiProject China or WPCHINA. If the bot tagging was more intelligent and found some way of assessing the importance parameters, I would not need to re-tag as my job would be made easier.--Visik (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would nice if all WikiProjects to come to an agreement about standardization. Otherwise your issue about tags could be seen as imposing unilateral rules on WikiProject China community from outside the community without consensus on tags. Unless there is a watertight consensus and change from the assessment page of WikiProject China, I'm perfectly entitled to use WPCHINA to tag as equally as WikiProject China. However, I am willing to come to a compromise about leaving existing tags alone and updating with assessments if one is forthcoming with the benefits of using the full name which I have yet to see any evidence to suggest it is superior. --Visik (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:China-related_topics_notice_board#Assessment_of_WikiProject_China_articles--Visik (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use WPChine thats fine just know that someone else will just come behind you and change it too WikiProject China at some point. In regards to the discussion of standardizing the WikiProject banners it took place over several months in several places but the end result was that we needed to standardize the 2000+ banners and countless redirects to all start with WikiProject (except for 3 projects who refused and are also therefore not supported by much of the assessment and other applicable cleanup logic). This was done for several reasons but the undeerlying reasoning was that it would make it easier to work with them. There are currently at least 3 bots that deal with WikiProject banners including several users including myself also doing things. If you want to see the magnitude of how many projects and variations there are the take a look at the code I use here. Just be careful with it. Its not 100% yet. I am not sure if anyone talked to WPChina but the consensus applies to all projects and really is a benefit. The ones who chose not too did so with the understanding that the "good" logic like assessments and other cleanup would not work on them because it is simply too difficult to account for thousands of variations. As for assessments and importance its possible to use the assessment of another project on the articles talk page or to look at the article itself for stub templates and use that but as for importance thats a bit harder unless we assume they are all low importance. I hope this helps explain things a bit. --Kumioko (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to bring it up for discussion again though I would recommend the Village pump or the WikiProject Council. Happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful explanation and suggestions, Kumioko. I'm now up to speed with whats going on as I couldn't find anywhere to see any discussion about WP tagging. I've already raised the issue within the WPCHINA and see if anything comes out of it. Even if nothing comes out of it. I will review my tagging and make changes. I fully understand the bot will change to WikiProject China tags for articles at some point. I have no problems with it all. Have a happy editing too Kumioko --Visik (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

re SME Rating Agency of India

hi visk, can you please help me develop the article SME Rating Agency of India. It would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratullobo (talk • contribs)

Oh okay. I'll give you a few tips. Hang on. --Visik (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the main tags and added the references given. General cleanup and wikification. It does require further third party sources if you can find them and use insert it where it is required. If you need help with citations, please go to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Hope this helps you. good luck --Visik (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

hi visik,

Could you suggest some volunteers who can add some more information for SME Rating Agency of India. There is a lot of info on the web but entering such info requires time and I do not have that at my disposal. appreciate your support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratullobo (talk • contribs)

I would advise you to tag the article talk page or go to the discussion board of the following projects to ask for assistance.

• WP:WikiProject Companies - all articles on companies
• WP:WikiProject Finance - credit rating agencies
• WP:WikiProject India - all India related articles

Tag the talk page of your article with

• {{WikiProject Companies}}
• {{WikiProject Finance}}
• {{WikiProject India}}

As I have a backlog of things to do. I also suggest if you do create new articles, best to do it in your own user page first so you can find time to develop it to an acceptable standard and then move it in to article space. You can create a new page following this format User:Pratullobo/new article name. That way you will save new page patrollers from tagging your page if its not up to scratch. --Visik (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your name for each comment you made anywhere. --Visik (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete Stupid Mario Bros.

I give up! If you want to, go ahead deleting that article! I have no things going on or it. The web series is real you know? Just click on this link, [2] to see this video. (User:Airmario3) February 22, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Hi there. I am not an administrator. I was doing new page patrol and came across your article. I saw the message this page will be deleted in minutes!, thought it meant it could be speedy deleted. I'm sorry if you do feel that way but if you would want to make the article meet the WP:MOS, WP:N, WP:V for your web content you are welcome to create it in your user sub page User:Airmario3/new page first and get someone to review it before it goes into main space. --Visik (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WPCHINA Tagging

Hi Visik,

I'm sorry that I am late in responding to the discussion on WPCHINA tagging that you pointed me to. In the future, you should explicitly create a new section when you post on users' talk pages (hit the "new section" button in the upper right corner). Your post on my talk page was at the bottom of another unrelated post, and I somehow didn't see it until now.

For what it's worth, I use WPCHINA when I tag China-related articles, rather than the full name. I think that either way is fine; Ohconfucius' comment about server load is probably true, but the effect is likely minimal. At any rate, if a bot or anyone else wants to change WPCHINA to WikiProject China, it is totally fine, as long as they don't mess anything else up. Thanks for your help with WPCHINA tagging. I'm thinking of launching a month long assessment drive for April to knock out the 1700 or so remaining unassessed China-related articles. What do you think of that idea?--Danaman5 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danaman5, no probs. Yeah I should have made a new section on your talk page but somehow I forgotten during the moment of writing. I think your comments are reasonable as with OhConfucius as well as the naysayers who prefer the full tags. I have already made some modifications to the way I tag. I now leave the existing tags and update with the class and importance sub tags. I won't mess with other unfamiliar projects tags as I think some of these projects have their own assessment criteria.

I think its a good idea to launch an assessment drive to get the unassessed count back to zero as its been far too long sitting idle. I have been assessing for the last couple of months and close to burn out. I'll take a breather (slow down) to recharge my wiki editing battery :)--Visik (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the unassessed count ever been at zero in the past? I've been assessing for a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen that. For a while, it was at like 9,000, until we auto-assessed a bunch of articles. I'll start setting up the assessment drive soon.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I'm being too optimistic :P I think we can probably reduce it down to a 1000 or less than 500 would be great. It will be more manageable. I'm still working on the unassessed importance for stub articles which numbers in the 11000 +. At least they have been auto-stub by bots and other editors.--Visik (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm partially responsible for those unassessed importance articles, sorry. I stopped assessing importance years ago, because I find it too difficult to judge the relative importance of articles in any satisfying way. The importance parameter is also less suitable to semi-automated editing like with AWB. I'd rather focus on getting the unassessed count to zero first, and getting previous assessments up to date, and then we can worry about importance.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand your position because of lack of time and real life. Time is always precious and we should focus on the most pressing issue which is getting all unassessed articles tagged with the quality attributes first then we can worry about other things e.g. importance attributes. --Visik (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)