User talk:TheCascadian/Archive 3
Status: Offline 
|
|
|---|
 | 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. |
|
|
CubicShogi
Heard of AfC for the first time tonight. Is it for users without accounts? User:Prilin has an established account. So why was he using AfC?
His article request seems to have been refused for lack of RS. His article topic has notability: Pritchard, D. B. (2007). The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. John Beasley. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-9555168-0-1.
Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, AfC is for users without accounts or users who want additional help creating their article. Also, the topic of his article may be notable, but the references he provides must prove this notability. According to the AfC reviewing guidelines, articles must have multiple, detailed, independent sources that constitute significant coverage of the topic. Thanks, Gold Standard 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok that explains it (he was seeking help; what he did get, apparently wasn't interpreted as "help", but cold rejection, he got frustrated, now he's blocked). The *multiple* RSs requirement doesn't really work for many chess variants, which are lucky to get a single, solid ref within the Pritchard and Beasley Encyclopedia editions. Thx for explaining AfC to me. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of Parvez Dewan AfC
Hi Gold, thanks for the review of the AfC Parvez Dewan. This was my first AfC & am glad that its made it so far. -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
AFC articles and G10
Just an FYI, g10 is for attack pages, a page saying "xx is the greatest looking guy on the planet" or "yy is a modern day god, a hero amongst men" is a hoax page or vandalism but not an attack--Jac16888 Talk 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
AfC
Hi Gold standard! I am trying to get approval for a wiki entry about the architect Roland Coate, Sr. I've included more references per your instruction. Hope I get it right this time. 68.108.251.143
- Hello, and thank you for contacting me. First off, please read WP:TPG, and don't place your comments at the top of my userpage. Second, regarding your article, you need to read WP:REFB to learn how to properly format your references. You should also read WP:LAYOUT and Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria. Also, to sign, use four tildes ~~~~ not four hyphens ----. Thanks, Gold Standard 23:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yu-shan Huang
Thank you for your criticism, it is helpful. I have tried to back up what I wrote by two kinds of sources: 1. academic publications and 2. newspaper article(s). I still have to ask for permission to upload the photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanX.Chen (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, good job continuing to work on your article. Please note that I was not the one who evaluated your article "Yu-shan Huang", I evaluated "Massimo Bacigalupo". User:David FLXD was the one who evaluated "Yu-shan Huang". There are a few things I think you should read and apply to your articles; they are: WP:REFB and WP:LAY. Also, next time you make a comment on a talk page, remember to sign your name with three tildes: ~~~~ Happy editing! Gold Standard 06:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Update on Fiserv Page
Athleek, I have posted a draft of my updates to the Fiserv, Inc. page for your review. I wanted to explain a few of them for transparency/clarification:
- 1. In regards to the initial summary, there are a number of industries/businesses listed there that are inaccurate. Insurance is not a Fiserv business anymore and BPO is not a primary business. My suggested edit is, instead of switching this out with a laundry list of current company offerings I have removed the initial listing of services and moved this down to the corporate structure section (see #3). The Reuters page provides an accurate overview of Fiserv activities so I have cited that site.
- 2. The history is largely incomplete. I used a recent obituary of a founder, George Dalton, plus the Fiserv.com history page to provide further details that support the History section.
- 3. Corporate structure is inaccurate. Health Solutions – not a Fiserv business. Others are dated or incomplete. Suggest renaming Corporate Structure to “Areas of Business” and using Reuters as an accurate reflection of lines of business, rather than trying to use formal Fiserv names that would not be understood by outside audience and could become dated.
That's all I'm going to do for now. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'm more than happy to answer them.
P.S. Sorry if I'm not doing this entirely right...still getting my Wikipedia sea legs!
Kabursch (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Kabursch,
- I made a few minor edits, and it all looks pretty good. I just have a few concerns:
- Many of the statements in the history section, although slightly reworded, are very similar to the wording of the article from which they are sourced. These need to be rewritten so that they include the same information, but show little to no resemblance of the source.
- The first part of the "Areas of Business" section is copied verbatim, and the second part has no source other than the company's website, which is not considered to be a reliable source since it is self-published.
- So my recommendation is to completely reword the additions you made to the history section, and possibly delete the "Areas of Business" section.
- Also, I changed my username, I am no longer "Athleek123".
- Regards,
- Hi Gold Standard,
- As usual thank you for your edits and your continued help with this. I understand the issues with copying and pasting text from the source so I worked to try and get rid of all instances of that. I reworded the history section so it is not verbatim, but still contains the same information.
- As for the Areas of Business section - what do you think of my changes? Does it work to state that I am pulling this information directly from the stated sources? In addition, I made it into more of a bulleted list. I believe this is the standard description on stock/finance websites to explain what are Fiserv's products/services (which really is a difficult task haha). I think it's important to include, but please let me know if you still think it doesn't work. I took out the information pulled from Fiserv.com, totally understand the issues with that.
article Koos Hertogs
Dear Sir,
I wonder why the Koos Hertogs article was deleted. I tried to add a reference, as I did in the previous attempts, but was unable to do so, otherwise I certainly would have included it. Now I cannot find the text at all any more I wrote on Koos Hertogs. Koos Hertogs is already accepted in Dutch.
Sincerely Jeroen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroen1961 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Thank you for contacting me regarding your article.
Do not be alarmed, your article was not deleted; it is still available in the page history, the old source code is available here.Unfortunately, another user deleted your page, I just blanked it. The content was blanked and then deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, as your article contains unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. Once the information can be verified by the article's references, please resubmit your article.
- Thanks for your understanding and compliance with Wikipedia policy,
- Thanks, I hope I am now repaeting this message in the right place: the article "Koos Hertogs" is already a Wikipedia article in the Dutch language. I have tried to be as precise as possible in the English version. Unfortunately, the article has been deleted, possibly because in the last version I was not able to include references. (14:36, 13 July 2012 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koos Hertogs (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)) I request again the English language version of the article on Koos Hertogs to be allowed. I am hereby submitting some references in English, which are difficult to find (most are in Dutch): http://www.rnw-classical.nl/english/article/row-over-privileges-convicted-dutch-sex-killer http://culture-society.todio.info/history/dutch-serial-killer-koos-hertogs-684.html
- Sincerely, Jeroen1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroen1961 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can resubmit the article at AfC, just make sure that every bit of info can be verified with reliable sources, preferably using inline citations as well. Also, the second source you posted is not a valid source as it is a blog type website and doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You are also allowed to use sources in dutch, as long as you mark them with this icon template: {{Nl icon}} at the beginning of the ref. Also, remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ Gold Standard 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sincerely, Jeroen1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroen1961 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My submission on Val Geist
Thanks for your review of my submission -- my first. You rejected it because "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability."
Yet, a search of Wikipedia shows 34 separate references to Valerius Geist already. See below. (Sorry that the hotlinks do not copy over). He seems pretty notable already. No? What do you suggest I do now? Thanks.
Alex akrem@admiralty.net
Kenton Joel Carnegie wolf attack Valerius Geist launched criticism on the official investigation, stating that it was too focused on establishing Carnegie’s cause of death ... 74 KB (11,568 words) - 00:25, 29 May 2012 Moose Valerius Geist, who emigrated to Canada from the Soviet Union, wrote in his 1999 book Moose: Behaviour, Ecology, Conservation:Those who ... 58 KB (8,638 words) - 16:16, 1 July 2012 Fenrir Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary, Alberta wrote that Fenrir's maiming and ultimate killing of Odin, who had previously nurtured ... 27 KB (3,975 words) - 06:21, 13 June 2012 Wolf attacks on humans Ethologist Doctor Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary, Alberta outlined seven hypothetical stages which lead to wolf attacks on ... 45 KB (5,938 words) - 23:44, 22 June 2012 Big Bad Wolf Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary , Alberta wrote that the fable was likely based on genuine risk of wolf attacks at the time ... 34 KB (5,498 words) - 15:52, 10 July 2012 Wolf hunting pdf | title Statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie | publisher Wolf Crossing | accessdate 2008-09-17 | ... 82 KB (12,534 words) - 15:13, 6 July 2012 Elk least studied Biologist Valerius Geist, who has written on the world's various deer species, holds that there are only three subspecies of elk. ... 55 KB (7,850 words) - 18:37, 3 July 2012 Patricia Wyman wolf attack Valerius Geist during the Kenton Joel Carnegie case that he was “stunned at the ignorance After interviewing the staff and detectives on ... 4 KB (582 words) - 09:16, 5 April 2012 Wolves as pets and working animals pdf | title Statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie | publisher Wolf Crossing | accessdate 2008-09-09 | ... 12 KB (1,717 words) - 14:25, 28 May 2012 Dire wolf pdf | title Statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie | publisher Wolf Crossing | accessdate 2008-09-09 | ... 14 KB (1,947 words) - 00:49, 12 July 2012 Tibetan red deer Valerius Geist: Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology, Stackpole Books, Mechanisburg PA 1998, ISBN 0-8117-0496-3 last ... 3 KB (477 words) - 19:10, 29 December 2011 Never Cry Wolf Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary Alberta , who had himself experienced aggressive behaviour from wolves in his home on ... 12 KB (1,690 words) - 12:08, 12 July 2012 Chital External links: Valerius Geist. Stackpole Books. 1998. Pg. 58-73. http://www. theanimalfiles. com/mammals/hoofed_mammals/chital. html http://www ... 17 KB (2,317 words) - 16:14, 3 July 2012 Wolf hunting with dogs Chapter 10: Wolf Control Methods in Will Graves, and Valerius Geist, editors. Wolves in Russia. Detselig Enterprises Ltd. 210, 1220 ... 14 KB (2,177 words) - 20:16, 9 July 2012 Hunting in Russia Chapter 10: Wolf Control Methods in Will Graves, and Valerius Geist, editors. Wolves in Russia. Detselig Enterprises Ltd. 210, 1220 ... 18 KB (2,629 words) - 04:50, 19 May 2012 List of animal names their evolution, behaviour, and ecology By Valerius Geist, 1998, ISBN 0-8117-0496-3 The term "flange" was originally used to denote a ... 32 KB (3,281 words) - 19:12, 10 July 2012 Siberian roe deer Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology, by Valerius Geist. See also: Capreolus pygargus. List of mammals of Korea ... 10 KB (1,429 words) - 16:39, 3 May 2012 Sambar Deer External links: Valerius Geist. Stackpole Books. 1998. Pg. 73-77. url http://www. the-knife-connection. com/handle-materials--india-sambar-stag. ... 21 KB (2,833 words) - 06:34, 12 July 2012 Brown bear External links: Valerius Geist http://www. cnr. uidaho. edu/wlf520/pdf/geist. pdf Did Large Predators keep Humans out of North America ... 79 KB (11,502 words) - 19:10, 9 July 2012 Coyote pdf | title Statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie | publisher Wolf Crossing | accessdate September 17, ... 56 KB (7,922 words) - 21:04, 12 July 2012 Red deer id bcWZX-IMEVkC&pg PA202 | title Deer of the world: their evolution, behaviour, and ecology | page 202 | first Valerius | last Geist | ... 36 KB (5,157 words) - 22:57, 11 July 2012 Goat-antelope author Geist, Valerius | year 1984 | title The Encyclopedia of Mammals | publisher Facts on File | location New York | pages 584–587 | ... 9 KB (958 words) - 23:43, 20 May 2012 Gray wolf External links: Geist, Valerius (2006) http://westinstenv. org/wp-content/Geist_when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans. pdf When do Wolves ... 145 KB (20,123 words) - 22:27, 11 July 2012 Pampas deer References : Geist, Valerius. Deer of the world their evolution, behaviour, and ecology. Mechanicsburg, Pa: Stackpole Books, 1998 . ... 16 KB (2,477 words) - 11:04, 19 May 2012 Père David's Deer External links: Geist, Valerius, 1998, Stackpole Books. Deer of the world: their evolution, behaviour, and ecology "url http://english. ... 12 KB (1,662 words) - 16:32, 26 June 2012 Irish Elk Geist, Valerius (1998): Megaloceros: The Ice Age Giant and Its Living Relatives. In: Deer of the World. Stackpole Books. ISBN 0-8117-0496- ... 14 KB (1,890 words) - 15:56, 21 June 2012 Marco Polo sheep last Geist | first Valerius | encyclopedia Encyclopædia Britannica Online | title Argali | publisher Encyclopædia Britannica | url http:// ... 26 KB (3,646 words) - 16:10, 9 May 2012 Anteater editor2-last Kleiman | editor2-first Devra G | editor3-last Geist | editor3-first Valerius | editor4-last McDade | editor4-first Melissa С ... 11 KB (1,426 words) - 15:17, 8 July 2012 Thumb editor2-last Kleiman | editor2-first Devra G. | editor3-last Geist | editor3-first Valerius | editor4-last McDade | editor4-first Melissa C ... 35 KB (4,570 words) - 10:19, 11 July 2012 White-tailed deer Further reading : last Fulbright | first Timothy Edward | coauthors J Alfonso Ortega-S | year 2006 ... Geist, Dr. Valerius, (1998). http://books. ... 47 KB (6,992 words) - 14:38, 12 July 2012 Cedar Paul Men and forces of our time by Valeriu Marcu . ... Translated from the 3rd German edition of Das rote Russland, Staat, Geist und Alltag der ... 25 KB (3,540 words) - 16:31, 17 May 2012 Moose milk title Deer of the World: Their Evolution Behaviour and Ecology | first Valerius | last Geist | publisher Stackpole Books | date 1998 | isbn ... 5 KB (774 words) - 03:28, 13 June 2012 Sika deer last Geist | first Valerius | title Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology | publisher Stackpole Books | year 1998 | ... 18 KB (2,508 words) - 01:40, 27 June 2012 Pudú last Geist | first Valerius | title Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology | publisher Stackpole Books | date ... 20 KB (2,549 words) - 05:42, 1 June 2012
You want me to make links to all these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkrem (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for contacting me regarding your article. The article I evaluated did not have any of the references you posted above, it had four references, one of which was a Wikipedia article, which is not an acceptable source. I don't know where you got the above references, but if you provided a link to the page on which they were found it might be helpful. Please also read WP:REFB to find out how to properly source your article. Also read Help:Section and apply it to your article. Thanks, Gold Standard 17:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Gold, The subject fully meets both WP:PROF and WP:BOOKS, It certainly needed improvement, but it was good enough even then for article space, and I am accepting it. I have taken care of fixing it myself partly, and will do the rest soon. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are being entirely unfair. At the time I reviewed the article, it did not meet WP:PROF as it had far fewer references. Gold Standard 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's his books that show notability as AUTHOR & PROF -- they were I think in there from the first, though not as formal references. There is no rule that references need be formal, as long as the information is present. However, it certainly does explain why you might not have noticed it--which is why they do need to be converted into more explicit references. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are being entirely unfair. At the time I reviewed the article, it did not meet WP:PROF as it had far fewer references. Gold Standard 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I also accepted this article. The town website is enough to support the material given, though more specific references are desirable. There is no need to prove notability , since all town are considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
More generally, I am a little concerned you are failing to accept afcs that with a little effort can be made good enough for mainspace. If I can take the time to improve them, you can also. It just means working a little slower. Obviously we want to encourage good articles, but if it would not be deleted by afd, I think there is no reason to reject it. Editing can continue in the ordinary way. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would you please point to the part of the AFC reviewing guidelines that states that towns are always notable? I follow the AFC guidelines to the letter, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Secondly, it is not the job of an AFC reviewer to make articles better, it is a reviewers job to mark whether or not the article is ready for the mainspace. Although fixing up an article is a nice thing to do, it is certainly not required of reviewers, as Wikipedia is a volunteer service. I will continue to review articles at AFC using the reviewing guidelines, since it is an objective way of reviewing articles. Your way of "if it would not be deleted by afd, I think there is no reason to reject it" is completely subjective and is an alternative to the already reached consensus for how to review articles at the AFC reviewing guidelines. I also am somewhat concerned that you are not familiar with how AFC works, as you didn't cleanup Yumura Onsen (Hyogo) after you accepted it and you do not seem to have read the AFC reviewing instructions. Gold Standard 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- The standards for notability are not set by AfC. If you want to test this at AfD, go right ahead, but out of the 100 or so articles on towns challenged in the last 2 or 3 years, not a single one whose real existence can be shown has been deleted.
- AfC is not independent of Wikipedia. The general rules apply to everyone.
- nobody is obliged to follow the AfC process.
- Any Wpedian who cares to do so can move or rewrite an article. I have been using the mechanism at AfC for articles started there because it neatly cleans up all the notices; I could just as well simply move them with the ordinary move function.
- If an article is clean enough for mainspace , there is no obligation to clean it further.
- I am indeed challenging the really weird and inconsistent standards at AfC , by the way I usually work, showing their inadequacy by dealing properly with individual articles. My plan is to continue through July, day by day. My opinion at this point is that a small minority of the reviewers seem to know wp well enough to review articles. If we can't get competent people there, we will need some other approach. I consider the error rate at least 20%, equally divided in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense, that articles on towns are inherently notable, but there is no "list of exceptions" in the AfC guidelines, so I assumed that I should follow the AfC guidelines rather than thinking "this probably wouldn't get deleted if I accepted it".
- I know that AFC is not independent of Wikipedia, but if you think that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines conflict with those at AFC, I suggest you post something about it here instead of criticizing users who have just been following what they thought were the appropriate set of guidelines to follow.
- I know that the AFC process is not mandatory, but improving articles is not part of the reviewing process at AFC, it is a separate AFC process.
- I think you should post about your concern at a talk page at AFC. I do believe that, although there are some users who have demonstrated their complete inability to understand how to review articles at AFC, most of the reviewers are simply following the reviewing instructions, and that the error rate is a result of the "inconsistent standards" at AFC, not the reviewers themselves.
- Gold Standard 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- your suggeation about where to follow it up is perfectly correct, and I apologize for discussing the general concerns here when there is a better place for it, but I was not yet sure whether I wanted to start a general discussion. This seems to be the right time, so I have commented at WT:AFC.We will see what comes of it.
- I regard AfC as a project not just to enforce standards, but to give new users advice. In giving advice, I give advice according to the mainstream safe wp position, not my own opinion. If there is something which ought to be accepted, but which I know wull not, I tell the erson what I think is the likely result, not the result I would personally prefer. Similarly, if in my opinion something ought to be developed further, but would stand in the current version, I consider it my obligation to say so. In some cases (e.g. NBOOK, I think the WP standard too low--but I will give advice according to the standard, not according to what I think ought to be the standard. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Someone has put a speedy deletion copyright infringement notice on this page. LittleBen (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- It was removed as the page was in another language. Gold Standard 04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, that was not necessarily a good reason to remove the notice. If the text is the same in another language it is still a copyvio, though not necessarily such an obvious copyvio that it can be deleted by speedy. But I just now used Google translate to get an approximate idea if the text was in fact the same, and I see it is not--there were just a few incidental words about a festival that provided a match. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ved Prakash
Ved Prakash EducationItalic text Diploma in nursing in 2002 Bangalore India Bachelor degree in nursing 2006 New Zealand Master degree in Health promotion in 2012 Australia working with govt of Australia as a Health Promotion Officer in Public health sector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaipura12 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Copy editing of Tania Libertad
Hi Gold Standard, I noticed you tagged Tania Libertad with {{GOCEinuse}}. Was that on my behalf, or do you intend to work on it? I listed the article on the drive page as my current target, but I haven't done anything with it; if you'd like to work on it, that's fine. You can reply here. Thanks, --BDD (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Rainer Neske article
Hi Gold Standard,
I submitted an article on Rainer Neske on 5th July - please can you advise how long it should take for the article to be signed off and published by you? Many thanks!
Best Florian Kleinsteuber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flkleinsteu (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, your article didn't have a submission tag, so I added it for you. It should be reviewed anywhere from a day to two weeks from now. Also, there are many, many people who review articles at Articles for Creation, so it probably will not be me. If someone denies your article and you need to resubmit it for review after you make the necessary changes, just add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page.Gold Standard 18:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding page submission for "GOES-R"
Hi,
I had previously submitted this article and several editors agreed that there were no issues with copyright infringement because the information came from a government source, which is public information (and incidentally, I wrote the content for that website so it's my own content I'm using). The only issues remaining were that the article did not have enough wikilinks and contained some subjective information and these issues have been corrected with this submission. Editor "Excirial" consulted with several other editors and they concluded that copyrighting was not an issue for this article due to the public nature of US Federal Government Information. I'm wondering why my article has been rejected based on an issue that was already resolved. I can send you my previous communications with Excirial if you'd like.
Thank you
Michelle Smith/GOES-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOES-R (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC) GOES-R (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the response from Excirial:
Hello Michelle,
When i originally declined the article, it was because some sections appeared to be copy-n-pasted from external sources. Under normal circumstances US law dictates that copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor always present unless the writer specifically waives these rights by releasing the text under a different license. Since Wikipedia is intended to be a free and open encyclopedia, it cannot accept any texts that aren't released licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or more lenient license).
Note that the key words in the previous section are "under normal circumstances", which was when i remembered reading that US Government works are often released in the public domain by default under PD / Government works. Since this is the proverbial exception to the rule i had to ask some other editors for their opinion regarding this (Since i am not an expert on copyright law), and general agreement was that the texts are indeed public domain and thus can be used (Voiding my previous decline concern). Do note neither me nor the other editors are specialists on copyright law, so i cannot give a guarantee on this issue.
Moving on to another matter - since the decline reason is likely voided, i think it is prudent if i do another pass over the article to see if i can give some improvement suggestions. The first this i would suggest is altering the lead a bit. The lead should contain a short summary of the entire article, intended for people who just want a definition of the subject. Right now the lead is about 2-3 paragraphs worth of information - it is best to migrate that in the article body, and have the lead summarize the content (Example: Goes-R is a satellite network being created by the Nasa, which goal is to provide thisandthat. (Ect))
Another point i see is that the article often uses subjective or WP:Peacock wording, and sometimes promotional text. For example:
will improve forecasting quality and timeliness, generating significant economic benefits to the nation in the areas of public safety (Promotional, subjective).
The spacecraft bus supports numerous subsystems (Peacock wording - Numerous is an opinion. For some 10 are numerous, for others 100 may be a small amount.)
In order to create the most useful severe weather tools possible (Same issue as the last two).
This is actually rather prevent throughout the entire article, and honestly it isn't that surprising seeing the contact was copied from an external source. Encyclopedic texts tend to require a rather different writing style then other texts, and thus it is quite common for the above issues to arise.
As a third and final suggestion for the moment: The article could definitely use more Wikilinks. Right now only Goddard Space Flight Center is linked, but there are definitely more relevant terms to link. Just keep in mind that some people reading the article are novices on the topic, and might therefor appreciate a quick link to say, spectral band. As a final - try to keep external links such as the one to NASA and NOAA outside the main article body, and replace them with interwiki links. Generally taken external links are placed in a separate external links section (With the exception of references, such as the ones you cited).
Believeniks
Hi,
I submitted an article for review on the subject of the book BELIEVENIKS!
The article was declined on the basis of the general notability of its subject and the lack of independent sources.
The book is the only one of the novels written by Jonathan Lethem that does not yet have its own Wikipedia article. Lethem is surely notable by any standard: multiply published novelist and essayist, New York Times bestseller, MacArthur Fellow, winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award, among numerous other distinctions. Moreover, the book's co-author, Christopher Sorrentino, is the author of several books, one of which was a finalist for the National Book Award.
In my opinion, these factors combine to bestow notability upon the article's subject.
As for sources, I'm looking for guidance as to what constitutes independence. One of the sources is an article that appeared in New York Magazine (certainly independent of the book, its publishers, and its authors), another is the book itself, via which assertions concerning its contents can be confirmed. I could really use some help determining what sources are necessary to undergird a brief article whose fundamental purpose is to describe a published book by a major contemporary author, with brief, and neutral, reference to its form and content.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.59.55 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for contacting me. I believe the wording of my comment was confusing. I meant to say, "The references are either not independent or don't constitute significant coverage of the topic of the article". The first source is clearly not independent since it is the topic of the article. The second source doesn't even mention the topic of the article, so it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The third source is good, but you need multiple sources like it for the topic of your article to be considered as having significant coverage. Replace/add more references that are similar in coverage (or with greater coverage) to the third source. Thanks, Gold Standard 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Updated Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit
Updated my references and how I referenced within the article. Added to the article and used wiki links as well. Can you please take another look. Thanks Hammerstone2012 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I had originally edited the Brookfield page and someone took what I had written, off. I will try it again, Thanks for your reply. :) Hammerstone2012 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the Brookfield Asset Management page today.........put a lock on it....Ha Ha Hammerstone2012 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I just noticed something. Your nickname seems to put you in a conflict of interest with writing that article. Are you in any way affiliated with Brookfield Asset Management or the Hammerstone Corporation? Gold Standard 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not....just picked that name for the related article. Thanks Hammerstone2012 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, well I am still going to file a request for COI review at WP:COIN just to make sure. Per [1], we have to make sure that users don't have a COI, especially when writing about court cases, as they can have real world consequences. Thanks for your understanding, Gold Standard 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand, let me know if there is anything you need from me. Hammerstone2012 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hope your summer has been good, I was wondering how long the wait is to know whether or not the info can be added to the Brookfield Asset Management page? Hammerstone2012 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the Brookfield page Hammerstone2012 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive
 | Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume II, Issue I, July 2012
|
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's August Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts August 1, and you can sign up anytime! |
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
. O0fishguy0o (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) |
synthetic cash advance - rejection
Hello. Why is a reference to an issued patent of the United States Patent and Trademark Office non-verifiable? I am the inventor. Can you please explain? Thanks, /A.J. Bayne/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abayne (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your one source does not verify all of the information in your article. Lots of the information in your article cannot be verified solely using the reference you provided. In addition to that, the references of the article do not establish the subject's notability. Lastly, if you are the inventor of this, you have a conflict of interest. Let me know if you have further questions. Gold Standard 03:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"Lots of the information" - What information could not be verified? What information is untrue? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Who is better to discuss a topic than the inventor, author, composer, architect, etc.? Please advise. /A.J. Bayne/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abayne (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although the information may be verifiable using that one reference, multiple, independent references that demonstrate significant coverage of the topic of the article are required to establish notability. A government patent website is not significant coverage, and an affiliated website is not a reliable source. Read WP:GNG for more information. Also, "the inventor, author, composer, architect, etc." is the worst person to write the article because they have a conflict of interest. Read WP:COI for more info. Thanks, Gold Standard 05:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see anything regarding who is the worst, best, etc. re writing about a topic. However, if it would address your concerns, I could include that I as the contributor, am also the inventor. "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." Also, the topic could be included under "cash advance", instead of a "stand alone" entry. I don't mean to take up too much of your time, but it is a new invention. Appreciate your guidance. /A.J. Bayne/ P.S. Also, the patent can be found in Google Scholar.
- "COI editing is strongly discouraged" means that anyone who is associated with the topic they are writing about (an inventor, author, owner, etc) should not be writing about the topic at all. If you think that this would be better as a part of another article, then feel free to add the content, just make sure it is verifiable. If you choose to keep it as its own article, make sure its references establish notability. Regards, Gold Standard 06:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- AJBayne, the fact that something has been patented does not make it notable. That something has been patented that is actually exploited significantly enough that there are third party reliable sources that refer to it in a significant way is what makes for notability. Existence is not notability. Gold was totally right to decline that article; it would be nominated for deletion immediately if it were in mainspace and would certainly have been deleted. Unless you have other references, I wouldn't even consider it appropriate content for any article; I checked and could not find any, so I have removed it. And Gold is also totally right that according to our rules on COI, the most you can do is mention it on the talk p.and see if someone else thinks it's appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
NNN Lease
Thank you for touching up my article, the feedback, and creation!
usrealtor 21:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarver (talk • contribs)
- You're welcome, and you might want to sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~" instead of usrealtor, otherwise people will believe you have a conflict of interest. Gold Standard 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry...
Thanks for pointing out that I was confusing the feedback process. It honestly had not occurred to me, and I am sorry for causing a problem. And thanks for being nice about it. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
| | 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. |