User talk:Eyebeller/Archives/2021/January
 | This page 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. |
Branch Insurance Draft
Thank you for your review of the draft Draft:Branch_Insurance. I appreciate your comment about the appropriateness of the primary source for the claim about reinsurance by SCOR. In case it makes things easier, I have replaced that primary citation with one to an article by Coverager. If you don't feel that this improves things, please feel free to revert.
Another editor, Theroadislong, has stated that the line about reinsurance by SCOR is "is totally inappropriate and promotional." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theroadislong. I simply can't agree with that assessment. I believe that editor doesn't understand the nature of the insurance industry or why that information would be interesting / important to an interested reader. Could you please advise me about how to proceed with this issue? InsuranceLovers (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The fact that an insurance company is reinsured is important information. I will finish reviewing your draft. In my opinion, it is nearly ready. Just a couple of concerns which I'm posting as a comment on the draft now. Eyebeller (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have resolved both concerns that you posted. I changed the source that you weren't able to access to one that is accessible, and I reworked the paragraph that had source 12. I will keep an eye out for secondary sources that report on Branch's use of drones in particular and when I see one I'll add that claim back. For now I have a source that refers to Branch's use of technology for rapid-quoting, underwriting and automation. Thanks for your help. InsuranceLovers (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits. I still can't access the new source, but it turns out that is because of data laws in my country but I trust that the sourced content is fine considering the other sources. I have now published the article. Thanks for taking the time to improve your draft. :) Eyebeller (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. I really appreciate that you took the time to help me understand the weaknesses so I could improve the draft. I now have more confidence about working on other drafts. InsuranceLovers (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits. I still can't access the new source, but it turns out that is because of data laws in my country but I trust that the sourced content is fine considering the other sources. I have now published the article. Thanks for taking the time to improve your draft. :) Eyebeller (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have resolved both concerns that you posted. I changed the source that you weren't able to access to one that is accessible, and I reworked the paragraph that had source 12. I will keep an eye out for secondary sources that report on Branch's use of drones in particular and when I see one I'll add that claim back. For now I have a source that refers to Branch's use of technology for rapid-quoting, underwriting and automation. Thanks for your help. InsuranceLovers (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- This article has been nominated for deletion. I thought I might give you a heads up in case you want to contribute to the AfD discussion. Thanks again for your help, however this turns out. You've helped me learn a lot about Wikipedia.InsuranceLovers (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome New Page Reviewer
Dear Eyebeller, First of all let me welcome you as a New Page Reviewer. Congratulations for getting qualified. Now comes the actual point (of discussion), regarding the Draft:Vega-Genesis, which you had recently accepted it and moved it to main namespace without checking the quality of references. Don't be in hurry. Before accepting and rejecting take your time and refer to various Wikipedia guidelines. If you still have doubts, then you can either reach me or any other reviewer for better clarity. Thank you once again for joining us and I wish you a very happy new year. -Hatchens (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Tom Klemesrud Proposal for deletion tag
The tag is inaccurate. The tag is making the case based of the name "Tom Theo Klemesrud" when that is not his known name. Take for instance the Scholar tab. The search with the false name only brings up one article. But if you search it with the correct name, "Tom Klemesrud" this is the result you get – five Google pages of citations. User Klemesrud has stated that he does not want his middle name used because he is not known by the string "Tom Theo Klemesrud." A correct search would yield these results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=%22Tom+Klemesrud%22&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.113.108 (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC) In fact, the whole article has the wrong label it should be "Tom Klemesrud" because someone in 2007 changed it. This is wholly unfair that this is going on. I am asking you to correct the name of the article, as Tom Klemesrud has requested a few times before but was reverted by user:schazjmd 71.29.113.108 (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello. First of all you shouldn't remove templates even if you disagree with an AfD. You can state your opinions on the relevant AfD page (as you have already done). I am not involved in the article so I won't be changing anything. Let me know if you have any more questions. Eyebeller 10:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Faces Places
How to I cite...the film? I update synopses all the time with no issue. I've seen the film, not sure why Faces Places in particular needs a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.251.183 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, I didn't see that it was a film page. I have reverted my edit to add it back in and I will blank out the warning on your talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Eyebeller 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Why blanked?
Why did you blanked my talk page? You left a message and later removed that. Why? India weatherbox templates (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I made a mistake with my message so I removed it. Your edits seem fine to me. Sorry about that. Eyebeller 10:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. It doesn't matter. India weatherbox templates (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Tax Residence Edits
Hi Eyebeller, I've been editing the Tax residence page as the info regarding the UK and OECD Model Tax Convention are out of date. As they are now they show inaccurate tests. Could you tell me how I can go about making the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxchambers15 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to leave an edit summary to say why you were removing the text. Let me know if you have any more questions. Eyebeller 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
[Removed by Eyebeller]
why delete the post you don't know Koko Jani Abdul Waheed309 (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)