User talk:Paul W/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

DYK nomination of International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Hello! Your submission of International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There have been further comments that will need action by you to address. Please stop by as soon as you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• More action needed. Please address it soon, if you still wish the article to run as a DYK. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Geoffrey Binnie

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Manby

Hello! Your submission of Charles Manby at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DoctorKubla (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paul Jowitt

Hello! Your submission of Paul Jowitt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Paul,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Also, hello from Brixton!

Best regards, — Scott • talk 10:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. Done. (missed the day, having misread it as 13 October - d'Oh!) Paul W (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Di Botcher

I have reinstated Di Botcher in the Port Talbot article. There is a Wiki article about her in the French version of Wikipedia here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Botcher but I'm not sure how to link to it Canol (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Manby

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Chime Communications plc

Hello, I work in the Marketing Department at Chime Communications plc. Last year, I made some suggestions for updates to our Wikipedia page and I think you subsequently updated the page. In June this year, I posted a few more suggestions to update our Wikipedia page, following the sale of Bell Pottinger last year. There are some incorrect details which I am keen to rectify e.g. Chime Communications plc has a new Chairman. However, we have not yet heard anything and I wonder whether you could kindly give us some advice as to next steps, given that you helped us last year? Thank you ever so much, Sasha Pearce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha Pearce (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The article shouldn't really list each board member individually, but it could certainly use History and Services sections. It is not promotional to describe what the company does and at-the-moment it is a bit confusing as to whether it is a holding company or a marketing services provider, because the Lead contains a contradiction. I might fix that logo real quick by putting it in Photoshop and placing it on a transparent background in a PNG, so it doesn't create a white box in the grey infobox.

Paul. I actually dropped by because I may be working in a COI capacity on an article about a major construction company and I saw that you have an interest in construction. I think I bumped into you on the CIPR page, which I brought up to GA (hoping to bring this one up to GA eventually too). It might be a couple months before I have a draft ready, but I figured I might swing by and see if you wanted to collaborate on it later for the whole BrightLine(ish) thing. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CorporateM - will leave a message on your talk page.Paul W (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Pearsall (architect) Comment

Thank you for your kind contributions to Robert Pearsall (architect). I shall be putting this up for a DYK in the next few days and will give you co-credit. Edwardx (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - interesting subject that I've enjoyed editing. Good luck with the DYK. Paul W (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seven of his surviving fire stations are listed - there must be many more articles about notable Londoners yet to be started. And then there are all the listed buildings... Anyway, I've done the DYK nomination. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Fluor Corporation

Just a heads up, it may be a while before I have a draft ready to share. I have made about 4-5 requests through the public library's inter-library loan system to get rare/archived articles and they will probably take a while if they are able to obtain them. CorporateM (Talk) 03:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Pearsall (architect)

Hello! Your submission of Robert Pearsall (architect) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mindmatrix 22:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW: I did I full review of the article, and there are two minor points that need to be addressed. Mindmatrix 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Pearsall (architect)

Allen3 ^talk 10:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources New Charlton History of London Hubert Bland Advertising agency Transport in London Tunnels underneath the River Thames Cleanup London Borough of Southwark Fire services in the United Kingdom Tango (drink) Expand Emirates Air Line (gondola lift) London Victoria station London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unencyclopaedic Elephant and Castle Oracle Database Nunhead

Wikify Below the line (advertising) British Council Terry Farrell (architect) Orphan JPMorgan Asian Investment Trust Janana Institute of Food Science & Technology Merge Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK Wembley London Metropolitan University Stub Greenwich Pier Born Innocent (The Proclaimers album) Charlton Park Woolwich Arsenal Pier Oliver Turton CP-226,269

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article about Verizon?

Hello Paul W, I found your name listed as a member of WikiProject:Companies who's interested in telecommunications firms and I'm wondering if you might be able to help me with something. I'm an employee of Verizon Communications, and looking to improve that article. Because of my conflict of interest, I don't make any edits to article directly. Instead, I propose language on the Talk page, and ask volunteer editors to look at what I've written and, if it looks okay, move the material over into the article.

I recently drafted a new version of the "History" section for the Verizon Communications article and uploaded it into my userspace. I also left a note at Talk:Verizon detailing what I'd done, but so far, I've had trouble finding an editor who is able to help. Do you think you might be able to take a look at what I've done and, if it all looks okay, move it over into the article?

I realize the section is quite long, so I'm also happy to work through it with you section by section if you're prefer. Do you think you might be able to help?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

VZBob I have been bold and made the change, trying to ensure nothing major was left out when I took out the 'controversies section'. I hope other editors will review what I've done. Paul W (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this! VZBob (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Paul W, I see that yesterday, an editor named "SuperGangsterRapper95868686" came and added a "citation needed" flag to the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph under "History / Formation (2000-2002)". However, this information is clearly supported by the next citation, currently number 8, which is available here. If you have a second, could you please remove the "citation needed" flag?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done (seems that editor may also be a sockpuppet) Paul W (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with a couple more sections for Verizon article?

Hello Paul W, I have another set of suggestions for the Verizon Communications article that I hope you might be able to take a look at and move them over into the article if they look okay to you. The sections, about Verizon's marketing and sponsorship efforts, can be found in my userspace, and are designed to replace the current "Sponsorships and naming rights" section, which is just a list.

There were also some edits made to the infobox on May 5 by an IP address editor which introduced some inaccurate information. I think it best if these edits be rolled back to the previous version as of May 2. That version isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than the current version, and I plan to post up some suggestions to improve the infobox once the marketing and sponsorship information has been reviewed.

I've posted more detailed notes about both of these things, the new draft sections and the infobox, over at Talk:Verizon, but it doesn't look like an editor has had a chance to review the new sections yet. Do you think you might be able to help here?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the marketing and sponsorship text over and made some further amendments, mainly to reduce the disambiguation highlighted in the head note, and returned the infobox to its 2 May state. Paul W (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul W, thanks so much for making these changes—the page looks great! I'm curious about the disambiguation flag at the top, though. I clicked the "check" link in the flag box to see what the issues were, but the list of links it provides (e.g., New Wave, Nelson, WB, etc.) don't actually appear in the article anywhere so far as I can tell. I'm happy to help sort out the link issues, but it seems to be like the tool that placed the flag might be broken. If you agree, do you think you could remove the flag?

Again, thanks so much. VZBob (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I share your mystification about the disambiguation flag. I tackled a couple of easy disams, but the template ones are beyond my technical knowledge (like you, I think that flag tool has got it wrong). Haven't had chance to go back and investigate further. Paul W (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with a few more small improvements to the Verizon article?

Hi again Paul W. Last week, I posted a few suggestions for some improvements that I think could be made to the Verizon Communications article. These edits relate specifically to updating the infobox to make it current and accurate, as well as some concerns about a recent edit. If you have a moment, do you think you could a look and see what you think? I really appreciate all of your help on this article!

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul W, Sorry to bother you again, but I'm having a bit of difficulty finding an editor to help out with this request, despite asking both individuals and wikiprojects. I even posted earlier this week at Paid Editor Help, but no one has been able to take a look. Do you think you might be able to help out with this request? If not, do you have any ideas who I might reach out to?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I just wanted to follow up with you and let you know that another editor was able to make the improvements I suggested to the infobox. However, there's still a question about what to do about the edit I mentioned, and the editor suggested that I reach out to others for help. If you have time, do you think you might be able to take a look at that one thing?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been done. VZBob (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Symphony Analytics

Hi Paul As we agreed yesterday, I've written a draft of Symphony Analytics. If you could give me advice on what I need to do to get this article published, it would be great. Please give advice as to what changes need to be made to the text as is. Thanks PaulinSweden (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PaulinSweden. I have hacked the draft about a bit, cutting out the hyperbole and focusing on what can be referenced from external sources, clearly referenced now. I suggest you might write to one of the users who fast-tracked the original for deletion asking for their feedback on this new version. Paul W (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I've contacted the guy who sent the first article for speedy deletion. Let's say he doesn't come back, what do I do next? In other words, how do I publish? Thanks PaulinSweden (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)PaulinSweden

Let's be patient first; Wikipedians are volunteers so a rapid response isn't common, in my experience. If others were involved in the deletion process, you could try them. If still no reply, then publish it from your sandbox (when you do, I would suggest adding a note on the article talk page saying that you sought the help of other Wikipedians in replacing the deleted article and avoiding a conflict of interest; it would also be diplomatic to include some details about yourself on your user page.) Paul W (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Trading Standards Institute

Hello Paul

I periodically edit the Trading Standards Institute page on Wikipedia, I am a member of staff for the Institute. Having noticed that you have made several edits I thought I would try to contact you. This is my first attempt at such action so please accept my apologies if this is not the preferred manner to communicate.

Could I ask that you refrain from further edits. I notice that you list some edits as advertising. All entries regarding Citizens Advice are not advertising. The Institute is often thought of by the general public as a Trading Standards Office. Unfortunately this is not the case. We are a professional body for officers working in the field. Trading Standards frontline advice is handled by Citizens Advice as outlined by central Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.124.154 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First, if you work for the Institute and edit the page, you have an immediate conflict of interest (see WP:COI) and should refrain from any further editing of the page. Second, I will edit as I see fit, and encourage other Wikipedians to make amendments so that the article reflects the collective 'wisdom of the crowd' - an article is not something that is owned by its subject (see WP:OWN). Third, thank you for contacting me via my user-talk page - it is indeed the preferred approach - but I would also suggest you create a proper user account for yourself. This is something that is encouraged by Wikipedians and by guidance from organisation such as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (disclosure: I helped write the CIPR's guidance). If I can be of further help, please let me know. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Stanley O'Neal

Hello. Where is the bare URL please? Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Where please? I don't see a bare URL.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ernest Trevor Spashett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ernest Trevor Spashett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Trevor Spashett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Paul W. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8