Jump to content

User talk:Wiae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nairspecht (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 25 November 2015 (→Submission of Draft:Jio_Chat (November 24)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reply to comment on Draft:Jeremiah Texts from Qumran


Hi! I noticed your comment on the draft.

On looking at the Letter of Jeremiah link, I did see a connection in terms of the Pseudo-Jeremiah texts, though I didn't find a lot of reference to the Biblical scrolls themselves. Would it work if a redirect to the Letter of Jeremiah link was put in the Pseudo-Jeremiah section? I haven't found much representing the Biblical side of the Jeremiah Qumran finds, so I'm wondering if this will work or not.

Thanks for the input! Azureindignation (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azureindignation: Hi, I'm by no means an expert on Biblical history, so my comment is merely a suggestion. The article may well be able to stand on its own! Another reviewer will be along in the coming days to give you their perspective too.
You can certainly put a note in your Pseudo-Jeremiah section linking readers to the Letter of Jeremiah page. Wikipedia:Hatnote explains how to do so (just scroll down until you see "Main article".) Thanks! /wia /tlk 03:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:53:23, 4 November 2015 review of submission by Pancax77


Just fixed it. Hopefully this is notable enough. Please tell me any changes needed to be made. Thank you for your time.

18:42:50, 16 November 2015 review of submission by Carlagates247


Hi, I believe I have made the edits you suggested. Please let me know if I should make more. Your guidance is appreciated! - Carla

@Carlagates247: Hi, I think you need more sources that are independent of the subject. The cuinsight and bai.org sources are written by someone at Saylent, and the cuna.org source appears to be a press release. The other two sources (cbinsight and banknews) don't offer substantial coverage of Saylent either, so sources that offer more in-depth coverage will be required. Has Saylent been covered in any reputable newspapers, journals, books or magazines (whether offline or online)? That's usually a good place to start looking. Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted with add'l independent sources (11/18). Please let me know what to do next. Thank you! - Carla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlagates247 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlagates247: I have left a message on the draft with some thoughts. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rexnord Wiki Draft

Thanks for your note. I would really appreciate some additional guidance on how to overcome the copyright issues. In the event that I donate copyrighted material, I'm unsure as to what to donate. What specifically on the page is perceived as stolen, copyrighted material? I don't have any logos or images yet on the page.

Many thanks.

Emily.white89 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Emily.white89: There were a few sentence copied from here in the introduction. I see that you are affiliated with the company in question. Whoever in the company holds the copyright to the content on the website may donate the copyrighted material to Wikipedia by following the instructions at that blue link. It's certainly possible to do so, but I'd suggest rewording that content for two reasons:
  1. it's a lot faster to rewrite a sentence than it is to wait for the corporation to legally licence the copyright to Wikipedia; and
  2. the content removed was somewhat promotional in tone, making it likely unsuitable for inclusion even if it were licensed.
Since it's only two sentences and a sentence fragment that have been removed, I think rephrasing that in your own words would be an ideal solution. Of course, the company is also welcome to license the copyright. Both work.
As for the other issues with the draft tagged by SwisterTwister, you generally want to avoid relying on primary sources like newswire services, press releases and the company's own website, as they are not really independent of the subject matter. You can cite them, but they don't show notability themselves, so at the end of the day it's better to rely on more independent sources. There appears to be some coverage in the Milwaukee Business Journal, which is a good start, but since that is a local news source, more regional or national sources would also be a good idea. Google News and Google Newspaper archives are a good place to look, as are magazines, journals and books (whether online or offline). Let me know if you have any other questions. Someone at the Help Desk should be along soon to give you another perspective on the draft, which never hurts. Always good to get multiple opinions! Thanks, /wia /tlk 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiisawesome: Many thanks for your advice. I am not an experienced user but of course want to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I reworked the text a bit and added in additional, national news sources throughout the draft. Please let me know if you see any red flags or if I might be able to submit for review once again.
Emily.white89 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Emily.white89: Hi, it's not a problem! We all start somewhere, and I'm happy to help.
Some of the new references don't seem to offer significant coverage of Rexnord. By "significant", I mean "substantial" and certainly "lessmore than trivial". I know it seems like a tall order, but sources need to provide significant coverage in an independent manner in order to make a strong case for notability. Keep working at the referencing and perhaps trim down a few of the primary sources that don't offer a whole lot in terms of content. Let me know if you'd like me to have another look later on. Thanks, /wia /tlk 19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Wikiisawesome: Hello again! I have gone through the article for Rexnord and deleted trivial references. I also eliminated any references to sources linked to the company. I focused mainly on finding independent, national news sources. It would be much appreciated if you could review and let me know if this would meet the standards to be published. Many thanks, Emily.white89 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Emily.white89: Hi, I took another look at the draft. The New York Times is a reliable source but unfortunately this newly added source doesn't have much of substance to say. It's just a typical directory link; sites like Bloomberg have one for just about every company in the US. The Reuters and Yahoo! Finance articles only offer passing mentions of Rexnord. While they establish that Rexnord exists and is in business, they don't show that it's notable. I like the Milwaukee Business Journal article, although it is a bit light on content.
There is a real possibility that the company is simply not notable at this time, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. I just did my own search for references (previously I'd only been looking at the ones cited) and it seems like most of the good ones come from the Milwaukee region (and in particular the Milwaukee Business Journal). For me that leads to a presumption against notability. There are other good sources (like this source) but it's also from Milwaukee. This suggests to me that the company isn't notable right now. While that's probably not welcome news, I think it's important that you know the realistic probability of acceptance right now.
The good news is that drafts are kept for 6 months after the latest edit, and even after that, you can always request that the article be restored. Keep looking for good-quality sources from regional/national publishers that offer significant coverage of the company. You can probably get rid of some of the less useful sources unless you are specifically citing them for something. Let me know if I can help you with anything else! /wia /tlk 23:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:04, 19 November 2015 review of submission by Legog


Dear Wikiisawesome, there is no paraphrasing in the article anymore. It is the same topic, but I've changed the content. It seems that you didn't check the submitted version. I would be very grateful if you could double-check the article, or show me which part is paraphrased, it is hard to write something completely new in a biographical note. Best regards, Legog

@Legog: Hi, I've cleaned the draft of copyright issues, which is why you shouldn't find any paraphrasing issues in it right now. In the version I declined, there was some copying/close paraphrasing from here, including the sentences about "interventions in already existing films", "creative appropriation", "critical context", and "panoramic film projection". Thanks, /wia /tlk 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Schweickle/sandbox

Just an FYI, but I submitted that to AfC on behalf of the editor. He communicated through OTRS that he felt the draft was ready. I forgot to change the AFC tag to his username, so I got pinged. Anyway, I moved the relevant pings to User talk:David Schweickle. –Fredddie™ 01:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Oof, I'm sorry! Didn't mean to spam your talk page. Thank you for moving the messages over to the appropriate page. Cheers! /wia /tlk 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Thumbs up icon –Fredddie™ 01:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Max Zimmer

It does appear that there are glitches in the handling of edit conflicts on AFC review. You and I were evidently declining the draft at the same time for different reasons, you for copyvio and I for conflict of interest, and both the copyvio and the conflict of interest should be noted. This isn't the first time I have seen problems due to edit conflicts on AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Good to know; I'll be sure to check the page history after making edits in the future to check for potential conflicts. While we're here, I very much appreciate your work at AfC and the dispute resolution board! Cheers, /wia /tlk 01:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:14:15, 20 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Spiritholy


The information was concerning the name change, not just previous history. This restoration of the name is more relevant than the past history, and should by broadcast.

Spiritholy (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiritholy: Hi, thanks for dropping by. Since the Bay of the Holy Spirit is another name for the former Mobile Bay, you can discuss that its name changed at the Mobile Bay page. I think it would be confusing to have two different articles about the same bay. As for the relevance of names, I'd suggest discussing that on the Mobile Bay talk page. Thanks, /wia /tlk 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:53, 20 November 2015 review of submission by Atlantic306



Hello, I was disappointed that you turned down Holiday Lovers. I believe it is notable because it was written by Leslie Arliss who is an important figure in British cinema,also it was the debut of George Benson who was a popular comedian.I have added a citation to. Leslie Halliwell's Film Guide.The. cast information is the most I could find, I've been through all the google entries and I can 't find any other citations so far.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Hi, thanks for inquiring here. The Articles for creation process is iterative, meaning that you're welcome to keep working on the draft even after a decline (or multiple declines!). Another source is a good start, and you may be able to find more coverage by searching in the Google Newspaper Archive, on JSTOR, or through another source. Try looking through these to start: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.
While it is true that Leslie Arliss is probably notable, notability isn't automatically inherited. One of the film notability guidelines states that "Some inclusionary criteria to consider are... [whether] the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". (Emphasis mine.) Right now I'm not sure that Arliss' and Benson's contributions to Holiday Lovers were a major part of their career. That's something that more referencing might help with. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with! /wia /tlk 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, I've already been through those references although I am trying to find a review from 1932.I think you are interpreting the notability rule too strictly for example is Jean Claude. Van Damme very notable yet every one of his films has a page, there are thousands more examples of non notable films that have a wiki page.Can I appeal your decision and are you the sole reviewer of my page going forward. ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Hi, next time you submit the draft, another reviewer will come along. That keeps the process bias-free and ensures that you get different perspectives on your draft!
Jean-Claude Van Damme is a notable person because he meets the WP:BIO notability criteria as well as the actor notability criteria, by virtue of having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". It's not always fruitful to compare a draft to an existing article, however, since sometimes articles slip through the cracks. The best way forward for your draft is simply to follow the film notability policy itself. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: Congratulations on the article acceptance, and thank you for your contributions! /wia /tlk 01:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ,I'll try to improve itAtlantic306 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that this is an automated message, but at this point I'm still shadowing existing DRNers to learn strategies. I don't feel comfortable taking on a whole case quite yet. Thanks, /wia /tlk 20:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hey wia, good to see another fellow Canadian around here. I've run into you whilst recent changes patrolling, and looking at your contributions you are quite a prolific editor! You make lots of minor, semi-automated edits, but don't let the "minor" get you down -- minor edits are often overlooked (even hated by some!), but they mean a lot to the encyclopedia. Normally I'd give you the "Minor Barnstar" for that, but you've also been helping out with anti-vandalism as well, and being a vandal fighter myself, I have high respect and a lot of admiration for Wikipedians like you and me. So take this special, shiny, dazzling barnstar as a reward for your hard work, which never goes unnoticed. At least, not by me. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@K6ka: Nice to meet you, and thank you very much for the barnstar! It's always nice to meet another Canadian. I feel right at home making minor edits—an easy way to make Wikipedia a little better, one edit at a time. Looking forward to working with you in the future! /wia /tlk 01:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:13:50, 21 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tonizimmer


Hi, I understand that a large part of the submission was rejected/removed because some of it was taken directly from my husband's (Max Zimmer) website. I have two questions: would I be able to paraphrase the information that describes his work and then provide links as I did before, within the paragraphs, or do I need to use footnotes instead - for example - after the title of one of his books mentioned in the body, I would provide a footnote reference below. Please help, because I really want to share his bio and body of work with all. Also, would I be able to upload a photo of him? Thanks so much for your help!

Tonizimmer (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonizimmer: Hi, thanks for inquiring. The copyrighted material has been removed from the draft. You are welcome to paraphrase material from a copyrighted source, provided that you provide attribution whenever you do so and that the paraphrasing is not close to the original. As for references, you don't want to use external links within the body of the text. Instead, use footnotes whenever you make a substantive claim about the suject. (See WP:ILC for Wikipedia's policy on when to use inline citations.) Keep in mind that, in order to show that the subject is notable, you will have to find reliable, independent sources about Zimmer, not merely works by Zimmer.
If you are the copyright-holder of a picture of Zimmer, then you may upload it. If you're not the copyright-holder of the picture, it's a bit trickier, but the short answer is that you probably can't upload that picture. (See WP:IUP for more details on Wikipedia's image use policy in that case.)
Finally, there is a conflict of interest here as you are affiliated with the subject. Take a look at our conflict of interest policy, as COI editing is discouraged on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wia /tlk 14:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done /wia /tlk 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review of Parables TV Article for Creation

Thank you Wikiisawesome. I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly review the article draft for Parables TV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parables_TV I've gone back to look at each of the sources used thus far (based on your comments). As you stated, they are mostly primary. My intended purpose was to use these sources to confirm a statement made in the article, but they don't offer substantial or general coverage of the network as a whole. I will add more reliable secondary sources.LG Brichetto (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LG Brichetto: Not a problem! Primary sources have their place and can be used in certain situations, but they just don't show notability. Happy editing, and feel free to drop by the Help Desk if you have further specific questions about the draft. /wia /tlk 19:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of Draft:Jio_Chat (November 24)

Hello Wia! I have made few changes and also added 3 more reliable citations. It would be great if you could check this. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Hi, thanks for stopping by. I think the problem with the Firstpost references is that Firstpost is not very independent of the subject, since Jio Chat and Firstpost are, I believe, owned by the same company. The CNET source doesn't offer substantive coverage of Jio Chat. I haven't looked at the other sources yet, but I wouldn't rely on those three for notability's sake. Thanks, /wia /tlk 16:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiisawesome: Thanks for replying. That sounds right, Wia. Hence, I have removed all the Firstpost as well as the CNET references, and have added articles from the Times of India & Business Standard, which I believe are independent sources. Please have a look when you find time. Thanks Tejas Nair (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nairspecht: Hi, I just took another look, and I think these sources are looking better. You are free to resubmit the draft and another reviewer will come along in the next few days to assess it! (I try not to review drafts twice in a row so as to avoid bias.) Thanks! /wia /tlk 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiisawesome: Thanks for taking a look and replying, Wia. I'll definitely give it another try. Thanks, again. Tejas Nair (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cluetrekk

Thanks Wikiisawesome. I'm just responding to the comments from Tokyogirl who had modified the content of the New Swears page. The whole process was a bit frustrating as 3 reviewers made comments about not being notable enough yet she indicated that there were issues with promotion. It is a fine line between notability and promotion. I will look over the content and make the necessary changes. Thanks for getting back to me Cluetrekk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrekk (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Stagophile

Wikiiawesome. The anonymous editor making the revisions to the Xaverian Brothers High School article is a student or alumnus at a rival high school named St. Sebastian's. His edits are mean-spirited and meant to disparage Xaverian. If you look at his IP addresses and pattern of revisions, you will will understand. Also, if this continues, can I recommend a temporary lock on edits? Thanks. Stagophile (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stagophile: Hi, their edits are a little strange, now that I take a closer look. You can certainly request temporary page protection at WP:RFPP, although it seems to have died down a bit. Thanks for following up! /wia /tlk 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFCRD

Hello Wia. Our paths crossed the other day in WP:AFCRD. I checked out the 3 .js that links to that page. User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js is not perfect, but it appears to be the best IMHO and is very worth a line in one's common.js. Try it. Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiae&oldid=692367583"