User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

11:37:23, 20 September 2017 review of submission by 169.149.192.74

• 169.149.192.74 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GauravKotli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request on 16:24:48, 20 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Careyjamesbalboa

• Careyjamesbalboa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AJ Kang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void| Hello Aguyintobooks, can you please assist us in making our article more "boring" or maybe at least point out our pea-cocking so we can delete it. thanks!!!! Carey James Balboa (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• The entire article is written in a kind of newscopy/promotional tone, its hard to find any of it that isn't, try comparing it to other articles to get a sense of the issue, or study WP:MOS. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

00:55:52, 21 September 2017 review of submission by The wicked ape

• The wicked ape (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Pineapples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I haven't made the changes yet, so I'm not yet asking for it to be reviewed again. I need more specific examples somehow. The band is referenced with multiple reviews in NME, Melody Maker, Big Takeover, Blurt, Time Out. There are references for all of these, with date and issue number. However, I don't know how to link directly to those articles, some of which are not online. I used references, or footnotes. I tried a simple google search, and googling Pineapples Big Takeover would show that Jack Rabid picked the band as one of the top releases in 2016. Jack Rabid is essentially a next generation Lester Bangs. Those are big names in rock journalism. The Blurt review is also easily found online, Google The Pineapples Blurt Magazine. Blurt is the best music review magazine online. So if there is a way to better reference that, I'm not quite sure how to do it on Wiki. Please advise, and thank you for taking the time.

• Try listing the following in the ref tags: Publication name, publisher, date published, Page numbers(s), headline of article.

To reference an online source, put the URL in ref tags.

If you can't link at least one online source its unlikely to be approved, you would need to have it approved by an expert at the reference desk, they are very busy there so it would have to be a pretty well written article for it to be worth their time.

We have literally every garage band and wannabe you can imagine trying to make article here, so as you can imagine it's pretty tight on quality, especially on showing their relevance. It's worth noting that (per WP:CRYSTAL) you can't base an article on what will happen, only what has happened, often an issue with 'the next big thing'.

Yo can {{ping}} me to get my attention on another page, or post here. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Gloomhaven Draft Review

I am disappointed that you have rejected the draft of the Gloomhaven article after I took the time to add seven new reliable secondary sources to the draft article, all of which discuss the article subject in depth. I can certainly add more such sources, but I before I do I want to ask you whether you have an issue with the sources I am using. Sources such as Vulture, ars technical, Geek and Sundry, Polygon, Purple Pawn, etc. have been accepted as reliable across a broad range of articles for pop culture topics such as games. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• The only significance I see is it being a 2017 Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming Nominee, The sources are primary, routine, or mentions. While I don't doubt its a good start, the article is overly focused on Kickstarter - to the extent that is practically a Kickstarter ad - and this is not supported by the sources.

Example: "Gaming website Geek & Sundry described Gloomhaven as "a masterful design" and suggested "it belongs in a museum."[8] As of April 2017, Gloomhaven was ranked within the top 10 games in the "overall" ranking at board game database website, Board Game Geek.[9] Demand for the game quickly outstretched its availability as a retail product; only about 8% of the 25,000 pre-orders at retail were actually fulfilled. [10] Another Kickstarter campaign was launched in April 2017 to raise funds for a reprint of the game.[11] This campaign raised approximately $3.7 million, becoming the seventh most funded board game on Kickstarter, the fourth most backed, and the first for non-card game projects.[12] The game was nominated for the 2017 Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming.[13] Board game reviewers Jeremy Salinas and David Waybright describe Gloomhaven as one of the best games of 2017.[14]"

These assertions are based on reviews, these companies review practically every game that is ever put into large production, try to focus on what makes this game significant rather than parroting the reviews. For example the gameplay section could be expanded, the circumstances of the award could be expanded.

The lead which says: "Gloomhaven is a cooperative board game with role-playing game elements created by Isaac Childres. It appeared on Kickstarter in September 2nd, 2015, and was released in February 2017. Gloomhaven's Kickstarter campaign was funded with a total of $386,104.[1]As of April 2017, Gloomhaven was ranked within the top 10 games in "overall" ranking at board game database website, Board Game Geek.[2]"

Ought to say: "Gloomhaven is a role-playing board game created by Isaac Childres. It was crowd-funded on Kickstarter and released in February 2017. Gloomhaven's Kickstarter campaign raised a total of $386,104.[1] Gloomhaven was a 2017 Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gaming Nominee, and received positive reviews from websites such as Board Game Geek.[2]

In short, you need to rewrite the article slightly to make it clear why it is important, but without saying it is important, mastering the art of implication is necessary here.

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  08:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Thakur

20:40:14, 19 September 2017 review of submission by 2603:3024:1528:2B00:E1C0:4083:85E2:2550

• 2603:3024:1528:2B00:E1C0:4083:85E2:2550 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hany Rambod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, can you please let me know what changes are needed? This page looks very similar to already accepted pages of Phil Health, Jay Cutler (bodybuilder), Gunnar Peterson trainer, etc. I see this information as more of a background on the person as opposed to "promotional." I am happy to edit and make changes if I can please get some direction. Thank you. Nick Erbe (for Hany Rambod)

 Comment: You need to adopt a neutral tone, writing about yourself is discouraged, however reading WP:NPOV may assist you in understanding the issue. Sentences like "is one of the foremost authorities on training, diet, and contest prep in the bodybuilding world" and "Hany enjoyed success in athletics at a young age, but as he grew into his teenage and collegiate years, he found the love of the gym and bodybuilding to be much greater" and "... and making a name for himself." are all red flags to a reviewer, and suggest you have not read the guidelines on promotional content. You need to rewrite all these parts and a bit more, making it neutral and encyclopedic. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for taking the time to explain our mistakes. We will get this corrected.

15:14:05, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Flickyard

• Flickyard (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Go away! Trinity has arrived in Eldorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As a source, I have added the book "Spaghetti Nightmares" which also deals on the film and its production, not merely mentioning it, as does the book on Spaghetti Westerns which I cited. As for the question of notability, I think it is given by the fact that it was the first movie directed by the extremely prolific and relatively well-known and influential movie director Joe D'Amato, which I have also added in the article. Is there something else that I can do?

• Your reason for notability is good enough to add it as a section to Joe D'Amato's page, but not enough to warrant its own article. You need at least three significant sources to show notability, (you have one excellent source already). The fact that the director is notable does not extend to his films, even Martin Scorsese is not exempted from this. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

AFC Question Kotli, Himachal Pradesh

Hello, I noticed you moved Kotli, Himachal Pradesh from draft space into main space. I think it may have been a little premature, as the article seems like it just lists banks and government offices, there are also some formatting and grammar issues. What are your thoughts? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! Well, since we're on the subject, heh, and I don't know how else to ask this.. What the hell is this? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Olol. o_0 I will fix that... slight language lapse. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup on the article with formatting but the content issues persist. -- Dane ^talk 03:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

My stance on this is a very strong Geoland one: any village which I can verify the existence of I will approve. Listing the banks and post offices in the village is rather strange, but at least their not advertising some tourist trail. Feel free to stubify if you think that listing banks etc is unencyclopedic, I can't make up my mind on whether it is or not.:--Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion we are doing an article creator a disservice by moving the article to main space if it immediately has to be tagged with multiple issues. I think this can be very disconcerting to new editors, which is the majority of who we deal with at afc. This is my perspective and not necessarily the perspective of anyone else. Just a point you may want to consider. --(Cameron11598's Alt Acct) (Converse) 00:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience AfC drafts are only submitted when the editor thinks they are finished, I'd rather this was a three line stub in mainspace than a abandoned draft cleared out as G13 in six months time. (I reserve this opinion only for articles which are inherently notable). And other people have the chance to expand it now also. As far as the tags are concerned, I am not overly concerned about them, a AfC rejection template is probably worse. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  00:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A few helpful tools

Thought you could use some helpful tools that I like and find useful. User:Anomie/linkclassifier takes some getting used to but is super-helpful when going over "what links here" and contribs. Also, if you haven't already, you should enable the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in the Gadgets (under Appearance), which also gives a popup showing why a user was blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the gadget thing you mentioned is very handy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  18:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

draft article

I updated that draft article you declined.

Thanks!

Hi Aguyintobooks, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well at first I was against someone with so little new article creation being an admin, but your work has been really good, and you have done great content work on existing articles, so I struck that and changed my !vote to support :) .Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

00:01:31, 23 September 2017 review of submission by Nhpackard

• Nhpackard (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John McCaskill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe McCaskill clearly passes the notability threshold for academics, in particular the criterion:

"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

Two examples are readily verifiable using scholar.google.com:

1. Citations to the following article (1260) put it solidly within the top five articles on "RNA secondary structure", an important subfield of microbiology.

   McCaskill, John S. "The equilibrium partition function and base pair binding probabilities for RNA secondary structure." Biopolymers 29.6‐7 (1990): 1105-1119.

2. Citations to the following article (833) reveal it to be the top cited article on "molecular quasi-species", one of the primary concepts in chemical evolution.

   Eigen, Manfred, John McCaskill, and Peter Schuster. "The molecular quasi-species." Adv. Chem. Phys 75 (1989): 149-263.

These two examples alone should clarify McCaskill's academic notability. I could elaborate other examples if necessary.

I should note that the reviewer (Aguyintobooks) may have been applying wikipedia's Basic criteria, e.g. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" to find the McCaskill article lacking. Instead, the McCaskill article should be judged by wikipedia's academic criteria, by which his notability is unambiguous.

If the current reviewer is unfamiliar with wikipedia's academic criteria, perhaps an alternative reviewer with experience in assessing academic notability would be appropriate.

• You should note the comment made when I reviewed it, that I specifically declined the draft considering NPROF. I should clarify some points. Significant in his field, means Microbiology at the narrowest, some would argue Biology. A sub-field does not count, nor does a specific subject in that sub-field. With a low number of total citations, I am unconvinced he has made a significant contribution to his field which has been recognised by his peers, whats more, the draft makes no assertion of him having made a significant contribution. The research you mentioned above is not standing out from the 'biography' and the lead paragraph is incredibly vague. A web of science citations search only shows 214 citations to his name, perhaps you could link to the google scholar results? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  00:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Debris documentar

Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your article has not been deleted by me, if you want the content back, you can have it refunded by User:RHaworth. However the extreme graphic detail used in the film should not correspond to extreme graphic detail on Wikipedia, some discretion had be used to avoid the unspeakable content. Also there was no indication it was notable, when you recreate it, please find some more sources. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is what another editor wrote me over at deletion review: "Overturn and trout the deleting admin. The reason given in the deletion log was "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism", which is what the tagger wrote. That kind of implies it was an A7 deletion, but the article was about a film and A7 does not apply to films. Even if A7 did apply to films the article cited a couple of sources which should have circumvented this. I don't remotely see how this could possibly be vandalism. Granted, the content of the film is obviously rather disgusting (it's about cannibalism), but that certainly doesn't make it vandalism."--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I am appalled at this of course, children read this encyclopedia you know - show some restraint. It seems the reaction at deletion review is positive towards your article, out of politeness I will not nominate it for deletion again, although someone else might. And for the record, I still think its disgustingly over-detailed. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. And I doubt many children will seek out this page... Regardless, when it is restored, we can work out on modifying it so it would not be as detailed.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS. Nevertheless, toning down some of the gory detail would not make it less informative, I would appreciate it if you did. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. After it is restored, I would be glad if you could help me. Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok if you {{ping}} me when that happens I will point out the bits that made me vomit the most. :) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Three more editors came and argued for restoration since.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleter replied now and still seems very hostile for some reason: "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. So why did you not link to the German version? And yes they do have a problem - have you read the hat note to it? So which of the cited sources even mentions this movie? Try again via AfC if you must." Here is what I wrote back: "German version from which I translated is here. Here is the main source I cited which discusses the film at length. Four editors have by now replied over at deletion review and all said the original reasoning for deletion was spurious."--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well normally I insist of at least 3 sources discussing the subject at length, but I am reluctant to argue that point since it is not why I dislike the article and it would be dishonest. I think the point that admin is making is that he considers the deletion was correct, but that isn't mirrored at deletion review. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So what do you suggest I do?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait until the deletion review is done, I will add some comments there myself. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have one here too and here are the deleter's comments.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, what happens if the original deleter refuses to restore the article?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a deletion review, an uninvolved administrator will adjudicate and decide whether to restore the article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Everybody over there now seems to agree deletion was a poor choice, so, when can it be restored, now that consensus is formed? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

On the 27th. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The original deleter replied over at deletion review. They keep ignoring the fact that I cited two sources in my article, one of whom is a book discussing the film at length. They seem to argue in bad faith, and, anyway, it's eight to one.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well some editors insist on more sources than others, I personally think that 3-4 is the minimum. But don't worry about it, barring a major stampede of censors, it will get restored, although that’s not to say the deleting admin wont send it to AfD directly afterward, you may have to argue the point about the sources there also. 12:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If that's what they'll do, then it seems almost as if they have some vendetta against me, especially given the hostility earlier. And they specifically wrote I only cited one source, which is blatantly false. Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No admin wants to admit they wrongly deleted a page. Its just not happening, he might be trouted, obviously he will argue his corner. And anyway he has a point, he has doubts that an article with two sources would survive a AfD, saying it only had one source is odd, can't explain that. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I meant by bad faith. They're probably simply outright lying for their case against me and should be monitored and taken with a grain of salt for their decision regarding the case in the future. They continute to make snarky and hostile comments against me on their talk page, the latest: "I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks," strange given how I used them in the original article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Article got restored and promptly nominated for AfD. Please see my comment there, and, maybe, you could help out. Thanks. I do not understand why people here continue to ignore the fact that I cited two sources, not one, including a book discussing the film at length, despite the fact that I mentioned it several times. Another editor made it more visible, yet, people seem to continue ignoring this fact.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Most people there seem to support deletion. Can you, maybe, try to convince them to support merging, instead? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)