Open main menu

Draft:XY - The Persistent CompanyEdit

Good Evening CNMall41,

Thank you for taking the time in reviewing the XY - The Persistent Company draft.

I wanted to confirm your feedback, with 11 sources only the 2 that you mentioned were reliable. With the 2 reliable sources based on your feedback I will not be able to use them. The reason I wanted to check was due to one of the other articles being from the San Diego Union Tribune, and wanted to confirm that the other 9 sources would not be allowed to be used.

I greatly appreciate your time and help.

Hannig25 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Hannig25 2/26/2019

Hanning25, that is my assessment, but others may have a different opinion. The San Diego Tribune is a reliable source. However, the article is more of a general announcement and not in-depth about the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

CNMall41, I deleted Forbes and CNBC. I did add a new source With that new source added, since that source breaks down more information for the company can I use that source and have the other sources remain as they confirm details for the wikipedia page? I appreciate your help! ````Hannig25 3/3/2019

Hanning25, a source breaking down information about a company does not necessary add up to notability. References need to follow the guidelines of WP:ORGCRIT. Without those, the page will unlikely get approved by anyone. Of course that is just my opinion and you are welcome to resubmit for others to provide a second opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on SkyWay Group site appreciatedEdit

I'd just like you to know that the valid comments you made about the SkyWay Group article relating specifically to the use of 'many countries including' and over-reliance on the FSMA press-release were listened to and that they resulted in changes to the article. I've further attempted to pay attention to and learn from what you suggest about the notability of the companies by painstakingly fact-checking the financial regulatory agency links. It must be very irritating to have people dramatizing what you are trying to do and I thank you on the beforehand for not officially taking me to task for it. I certainly didn't mean to challenge your good faith and I agree that if there's consensus on the non-notability of these companies then the article should be removed. I went, however, to the WK guidelines you mentioned and specifically listed them as they relate to the regulatory warnings, which I've since adjusted and expanded thanks to your advice. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaxander, it's Wikipedia so I don't let it irritate me. In fact, the WP:SPAs and WP:ADVOCACY has taken over in the discussion so I don't feel I need to add anything further. Despite stating and asking numerous people commenting, no one has addressed the simple issue of WP:ORGCRIT. Administrators will see that an take it into consideration accordingly. It is not a vote count for AfD, it is about the quality of the arguments. On a side note, you mention "we" several times in your comments on the AfD. Can you expand on that? It makes it sound like you are discussing the topic offline or you represent an organization for which you are editing on their behalf. Wanted to ask you while WP:AGF as I am sure there is a reasonable explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@CNMall41: Good to hear you're not easily phased. Actually, I only started using 'we' when another user recently said that about changes that were being made in a general sense. I had the impression they were referring to the fact many people were working as a team to help improve an article. They were referring to the fact that as there was not enough verifiable scientific information, 'we' should change it so that it reflects the issues we do have verifiable references on. They were referring to 'we' as in 'me and you (and others in a team)'. In Indonesian they have separate words for 'we'; kami means 'me and you inclusive' whereas kita means me and others, but not you (exclusive). This is far more specific. If I say 'we' I meant 'me and you and all other participants' and not 'me and other specific people'. This is evidently easily misinterpreted and I'll be more careful that people know what I mean. I've always meant 'we' in the inclusive collaborative sense.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@CNMall41: I tried in any case to learn from this experience. I'd certainly be curious to know what you think of the argument I made after going to the WP:ORGCRIT page you suggested and checking the regulatory warnings against these criteria. I did make a genuine effort to learn all I could so that the decisions I made were informed. If you think the combined influence of so many regulatory warnings are insufficient for notability, I'd like to know it. I obviously hate the idea of misinformation for corporate advantage. But the idea of me making uninformed decisions that could mislead people horrifies me even more. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Zaxander, no need to ping someone on their own talk page. The notification will automatically go to them. Thanks for the "we" explanation. As this is English and not Indonesian Wikipedia, I didn't draw any inferences to any other cultural language. The bank references do not meet the criteria in my opinion. They are actually primary sources and also considered insignificant coverage under WP:ORGCRIT. If the page is kept, this information would need to be removed from the page unless there is a reliable secondary source reporting the same. If there is any other discussion about the deletion, please make sure to include it in the proper forum at the deletion discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just meant that English can be ambiguous in this way and I'm glad you pointed out what I said could be misconstrued. I didn't mean that you should know what I meant. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello CNMall41,

Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "CNMall41".