Jump to content

User talk:Revent

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vannessacoats (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 31 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trout this userWere this user to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, they are open to being slapped with a large trout.

WP:EPICFAIL

Template:Archive box collapsible You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as User talk:Revent/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the VHA article. Pine✉ 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Dear Revent, thanks for your extensive work on Template:Paid article! The template, with the new 'client' parameter is now ready for use! Keep up the good work! You are making a difference at Wikipedia! With regards, AnupamTalk 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well earned Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
You spent some considerable time giving me huge and specific help on the live chat on Saturday. My article about Alison Appleton has since been accepted. I really appreciate it. Thanks Revent!

PS: Hope this works..... 

Linspark (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (have a kitten)!

Just wanted to say thank you for the input on my user page - I'm a bit lost here (there's a pretty steep learning curve), so help from those more experienced than me is always welcome!

Gisou94 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little gift...

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Just a little gift to thank you for being a great help in #wikipedia-en-help. I've observed some great conversations and assistance to contributors in need. Have a great day :) — JamesR (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Conrad Glass

Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your help with marking categories, day and night, with templates and stuff, I hereby award you with this barnstar. (This is the barnstar all wikignome want, I heard!) (t) Josve05a (c) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:06, 14 July 2014 review of submission by Olamikhx


Olamikhx (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please enlightened me more on why my article (Kenna Partners) submission was declined despite citations and non inclusion of advertisement phrases. I'm written this for a client and I have tried as much as possible to write from third party's view while providing adequate citation to support my article(Olamikhx (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Article Rejected, Please helps

Can you please help me on why my articles was declined for submission even with all the citation I provided and the fact that I wrote from third party's view regarding the said articles.

Kindly guide me through as I am a beginner here.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamikhx (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Olamikhx: I'm not sure what submission you are referring to. Can you please clarify? Reventtalk 23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

u r kewl. See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC) 

— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]



A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the assistance! 
Sanfordstreet (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:37, 5 August 2014 review of submission by Step28


Hello Revent, I just wondering about the reason why my article was rejected. I included three external references (http://www.construction-machineryworld.com/faresin-industries-heavy-investment-research-and-a-clear-path-ahead/ - http://cabeteconstruction.ca/projects/sopa-square/ - http://www.sydneyfc.com/corporate/hye/1m36ed4770hjn13dc3r20wn9cs and I'm going to add another one http://issuu.com/ancr/docs/darlingquarter (pag 56) , that is a link to an article to Faresin projects. Maybe, in the first draft of my page there was an error in the link about Sydney FC. Now, it would be ok.

Thank you

Step

Step28 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Step28:Hi, happy to explain. The first link - [1] - Industry journal, independent source, about the article topic and gives signifigant coverage... all good. The second link - [2] Website of Cabete, about a project Cabete (and according to the draft, Faresin) worked on, doesn't actually mention Faresin at all, and would not indicate 'notability' if it did (it would merely demonstrate a single fact, that Faresin worked on that project The third link - [3] - Is not from an independent source, it is an acknowledgment from Sydney FC that Faresin gave them money, and does not indicate notability The new one - [4] - About Calconco, merely mentions they bought a product from Faresin... not about Faresin, not signifigant coverage, and is only a source for that particular fact

To show notability, you need to show that Faresin, itself, has been considered worthy of significant coverage by multiple independent sources... you can see the specific requirements at WP:CORP. Things such as magazine, newspaper, trade journal articles about the company, or books that discuss it in depth, meet this criteria... things like short news blurbs like you find in the business section of a newspaper covering specific events that give no background, or republished press releases don't. A source can be independent and reliable, but still not provide significant coverage, either because it is very brief (merely taking note of an event) or because it is merely a mention in something else. You have not shown notability.

In addition, the majority of the article should be cited to reliable independent sources, and anything that indicates the quality or importance of the company must be cited to such sources. Most the statements in your draft are completely unsourced, and thus are not verifiable by readers. This is also something that needs to be addressed.

Hope that helps. If not, or if you have further questions, feel free to ask. Reventtalk 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:44:06, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei


dear wikipedia, I am recently working at Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc. as a school registrar. I was new to wikipedia articles and upon browsing the web on instructions on how to create one, I decided to create an article about our school. I started creating the article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." After much anticipation on the approval of this article to be publish on the internet, I was very disappointed on learning that it was rejected due to this article being a duplicate and as far as I am concerned I was having hard time submitting this article and no other articles about this topic was made by other person except me. I really think that there is a mistake on this, perhaps a double submission on different dates. Sorry for this matter at hand. I am still hoping that this article would be reconsider. This article was given an effort, please do the same for me. Thank you so much and God Bless. Ndgei (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndgei:Yes, you misunderstood. The draft was created twice, one in the 'correct place' and on in the 'incorrect place'... normally the one in the wrong place would get moved to the right place, but the other (identical) copy was in the way. The 'decline' of one copy was a technical thing, the other one is in the queue to be reviewed. It's not something to be worried about, it was not 'really' declined, just the second copy. The draft is waiting for review at Draft:Notre_Dame_of_Genio_Edcor,Inc.. Sorry for the confusion. Reventtalk 05:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:33, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Revent,

Please review my article entitled " Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc." It was rejected lately due to double submission and recently I was editing this article so that it will have a greater change of being accepted and hopefully I could see this article I created once I browse over the internet. Thank you and God Bless.

Ndgei (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:23, 6 August 2014 review of submission by Ndgei

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi Ravent,

Please make a review of my article "DRAFT: Notre Dame of Genio Edcor, Inc.". I received just now a reply that my images in this article was not own by me. How is that possible if I was the one who uploaded that images. "ndgeilogo.png" and ndgeimary.png". Please help me with my article. Thank you so much.

Ndgei (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in the queue waiting for review. There are also 2000+ other articles, most of which have been waiting far longer than a day, and your article is not more important than those others. Asking that your article get reviewed 'right away' will not cause it to happen.
As far as the images, you uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons under a claim that they were your own work....that you had actually been the creator of the seal and logo themselves, that you owned copyright in them, and that you are allowing them to be reused freely by any person anywhere without permission as long as they attribute them to you. That means they could be used commercially, in satire or ridicule, or for purposes that you would find offensive. I doubt they are truly your own work, or that you (if they are) you intended to release them in such a way. Reventtalk 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Thank you @Revent for your detailed explanation about why the article Mohak Meet is nominated for debate. From March to July 2011, Mohak Meet played the role of Aditya in Chandragupta Maurya (TV series) who was the friend of Chandragupta Maurya. His upcoming movie Vartak Nagar is presented by Kunal Kohli Productions. Isn't it notable? Should I collect more references? Kindly guide me through to improve this article as I am newbie and don't have experience of writing articles about living persons. Thank You. --Khushiar (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as 'importance', 'signifigance', or 'existence'... it is purely a matter of if independent, reliable sources had 'taken note' of the subject. Unless you can show, before the closure of the AfD, that Mohak Meet currently meets the notability criteria, then the article should be deleted. That does not meet that it can not be recreated in Draftspace or in your userspace to be worked on, just that it is not currently acceptable as a published article.
More references will show notability, IF they are from independent, reliable sources, and give signifigant coverage to Mohak Meet. References that are on other subjects (the movies, probably) that just prove 'facts' about him, but do not really talk about him, do not work. Reventtalk 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Awards

Hi. Please don't take this as heavy criticism, but simply as an observation: I feel it's rather unfair to give awards to other editors congratulating them on their ability to speak English fluently when they can't. If you are being sarcastic, they won't understand this, and if you're just doing it to be nice, it doesn't encourage them to improve. I'm a strong supported of our awards system, but it is important that these awards are made for reasons of genuine merit. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasting at Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve

T'was me. You are up to speed on what is allowed. Please see the article talk. I am rather nervous about this and feel quite guilty, but think I've done it right. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: The way you attributed it was perfectly fine, except that the use of things like {{{url|}}} in the actual article was breaking the template... I've made an edit to fix that, and it now all shows up properly. I'm guessing that you used substitution, or something, that mangled it.
Personally I prefer to put the attribution before the reflist, but that's really just a matter of a layout choice... I just think it 'looks better' visually. Reventtalk 01:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Polandball issue

I don't know if you saw my comment, but I've been completely uninvolved in all previous discussions of Polandball. I contacted Supernerd after finding his name somewhere and never followed up with him, and some IP address contacted me. It would be fair to say tha I'm so uninvolved that the threat of meatpuppetry accusations don't daunt me.
That being said, I saw your comments and the impression I get is that it's simply been disallowed. I was shocked by the extremism displayed by both users and even admins on the issue - it was almost a flame war against an absent adversary. But I want to ask you since you seem familiar with the topic: is there any avenue that wouldn't be a waste of time? It seems that reviving it on the deletion review log would get crushed and, so soon after that last discussion, would seem a bit pompous. Is there a forum where it can be discussed without the threat of anonymous IPs jumping in and this further inflaming those obsessed with blocking this article at all costs? Or should it just remain dead and buried? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo:FYI, the variety of IP addresses speaking up are all, almost undoubtedly, Russavia socks. The ongoing 'flame war', as you put it, is quite widespread, and extremely old....as far as the article itself, I doubt it can, or ever will be, recreated, regardless of the notability of the subject, until the current 'toxic environment' of Wikipedia is itself fixed. There are too many editors and administrators with 'pull' that have an obvious, blatant grudge against Russavia, to the point of stalking him on other wikis, for anything related to him, or that can be portrayed as related to him, to go unchallenged. Unfortunately, the current 'brokenness' of some Wikipedia policies makes the blocking or banning of a editor an invaluable 'tool' for the preservation of a POV, as it allows the abuse of 3RR and the 'duck test' to suppress new editors who might challenge that POV. Similarly, the aggressive 'hunting' of socks, or supposed socks, of people who were blocked or banned as part of a 'politicized' dispute has become a great way for some editors to (as I see it) ingratiate themselves with others.
There are other recent cases where obviously acceptable new articles on topics more notable than Polandball have been repeatedly deleted, and even salted, as part of the 'war' against Russavia. While I'll be among the first to admit that Russavia can be a massive asshole (and no, I'm not talking behind his back, he knows I think so) the current situation has far more to do with him being unwilling to simply shut up about what he perceives as abuse (and I usually think he's right), kiss ass, and act humble, or alternatively do what many editors in his situation seem to do, and simply sock quietly. The situation as it stands right now has, I think, become so extreme on the part of the anti-Russavia crowd simply because in the case of several of the articles he created other editors stepped in and recreated them while stating they were 'IAR' and doing so because it was obviously to the benefit of the encyclopedia. The response to that has been for them to become even more aggressive about it, to the point of stalking his commons uploads and creating miserably bad stubs on anything he uploads images for, simply to try to deny him the 'credit' for creating the article with a fresh sock.
TL;DR, what's going on is a blatant and focused effort by Russavia to expose the hypocrisy of certain editors and admins, by making it explicitly clear that they are more interested in 'ownership' and 'winning' than in improving the encyclopedia. Reventtalk 04:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like long messages as they explain more. Thanks for depressing the hell out of me this morning, not because I'm crazy about Polandball (it's just a cartoon) but because it's sad to see what's going on. Better if I stay out, I suppose. Stay safe and thanks for the details man. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise will be along to revert shortly

Hi FYI. 95.153.112.50 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If or when he does come along, him and others should note that they explicitly do not have my permission to revert edits from my talk page without my request, no matter who made the edit or what excuse they want to use, unless it is something that is actually required to be removed by a policy such as BLP. Reventtalk 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:26, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Dsouzaronald


Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dsouzaronald (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Ronald This is my first submission. please tell me what's missing or point me to a guideline I need to follow[reply]

@Dsouzaronald: Hi. Sorry it was unclear, but the links in the red 'submission declined' (which are admittedly not obvious) actually explain the issue. In order to have a Wikipedia article, an organization must not merely exist, but be 'notable'... it must have been covered in multiple independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, or television news, and the article needs to use those sources. This is because a core content policy of Wikipedia is that information much not merely be correct, but must be verifiable by the readers from trustworthy sources that are independent of the subject.
Relevant links would be be guidance given in the "Your First Article" essay at WP:YFA, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline at WP:RS, and "referencing for beginners" at WP:REFBEGIN. You should note that it is stated in the reliable sources guideline that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...so long as...the article is not based primarily on such sources."
Also, you need to ensure that your draft article demonstrates that the organization meets the criteria for the notability of organizations given at WP:ORG, which in an of itself boils down to the existence of reliable, independent sources. Reventtalk 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

00:28:28, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Dcgreene88


Hi I recently submitted an article for review, about a production group "The Order". It was declined. The original submission about "The Order" was made in error by a friend. That one should be disposed of and not considered. This recent submission is accurate in small detail subject matter and sources. What would be the proper steps to ensure that this gets fixed so that this submission is published. Thanks in advance.

Dcgreene88 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcgreene88: It's inconvenient for the reviewers when a draft can't be moved to the appropriate name because there is another one in the way... not that this is a fault of yours. Since the other draft contains text that you reused, it needs to be attributed to the other user for copyright reasons, even though that account was blocked for the username issue. What needs to be done, really (in order to fix the edit history), is for you to cut-and-paste the 'content' (not the afc header, just the actual draft) from User:Dcgreene88/sandbox over the content in Draft:The Order, and then resubmit. The software will then only consider the things you actually changed to be the 'net' edit, attribute those changes to you, and attribute the other content to the other account. My declining your draft was much more a 'technical' thing than due to any assessment of the actual content submitted (your draft is 'technically' an unintentional copyright violation). Thanks. Reventtalk 02:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:10, 16 August 2014 review of submission by Edmundtee


Hello Revent,

Thank you for taking the time to review my first try at putting up a page. Also, thank you for the comments on the MightyCall draft.

My name is Edmund Tee and I am the VP of Comms at MightyCall.

I apologized for if I caused offense - my intention is not to promote the company, but to provide information on our company just like what our competitors have done on Wikipedia. What I did was studied what Grasshopper and RingCentral did, and emulated the tone and style they had. I figured if they were allowed to talk about their companies, we would to. I guess I missed something!

What can I do better?

1. Remove all reference to a rebranding? If so, done! 2. Remove product information? Here I referenced Grasshopper's product information, and followed suit. I can certainly remove our product information, but could you help me understand what Grasshopper did right, and what I did wrong? 3. Wait till we get more third party coverage to cite? If so, we'll try again in six months when we have grown up some more.

Thank you again for your time.

Edmund Tee Edmundtee (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edmundtee:While I have not looked at those other specific articles, the 'generic' answer would be that they have probably written unacceptable articles without going through the review process that have not yet been noticed (we have over 4 million articles, and many fewer active editors). It is perfectly allowable to write about a subject you are connected with, as long as you disclose the conflict of interest, and especially if you disclose any paid connection with the subject.
As far as the specific article, Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral, factual tone...you can't make statements that indicate the 'importance' or 'quality' of a subject without them being directly cited to a reliable, independent source that makes that exact statement. You can't say "MightyCall is an innovative company", for example, but you can say "According to Whosis, MightyCall is an innovative company", followed by a citation to the independent source that makes that statement.
The 'factual' information about the rebranding is itself fine... it's merely that we often see new articles written by companies as part of the advertising they engage in after a rebranding, and so the fact of it having just happened is a good indicator that the draft (or new article) was written by someone who is associated with the company. Again, this is allowed, as long as you disclose the fact. It so happens, also, that we see a lot of articles written about startup companies that are seeking investment funding written by people associated with the company, and, while I am not a lawyer, such statements without disclosure can actually have legal implications (at least in the US). So, disclosure is best all around.
Basic product information is allowable, as long as you are, again, neutral and factual, and do not provide specific pricing information.
It does seem, though, that you should probably wait to try to push the article live until there is more third party coverage. The draft as it stands would probably (though it might take a while to get noticed) be deleted as a article, as being about a company that is not notable. Once you have been 'taken note of' by third parties, however, then cite those sources and you won't need much work... the draft is not 'itself' particularly objectionable. FYI, draft articles are allowed to 'remain' until they have not been worked on for six months straight, so you will be able to update the draft over time with sources as they become available, and resubmit once you have enough to show that the company meets the requirements for notability given in WP:NCORP.
Just as a quick explanation, 'notability' in Wikipedia terms is not the same as the 'common' meaning... it largely is a measure of if there are enough independent sources about a subject that the article content can meet Wikipedia's content policies on the verifiability of information.
Thanks for your honest, and reasonable, response. It's unfortunately rare for companies that want an article to admit that they might not be, as you put it, 'grown up' enough for one. :) Reventtalk 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up comment, I have now looked at the other articles mentioned, and they are, unusually, not bad at all. Sorry if my initial response came across as a bit cynical, but in most cases when people writing new articles about companies make statements such as yours, the articles they are looking at for comparison are appallingly bad. This is true enough that we have an entire page written about "do not try to use other articles to argue for the existence of yours" for the purpose of citing in such cases. In this case, though, you chose quite reasonable 'company stubs' to look at, and you should feel free to model yours after those (the sole exception being eVoice, where the list of 'features' should probably go away). I would simply say again that you should continue to update the draft article as you get media coverage, and once you have enough sources to show that MightyCall has been 'taken note of', feel free to resubmit the draft. We actually want content such as this, as long as the subject is notable and the content is not advertising, it's just very rare that the content submitted by companies about themselves meets those criteria, and the determination of some people to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for such content is sometimes frustrating. Reventtalk 05:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Your template work will help make all those Mexico TV lists so much better. Thanks for the advice and the templates! Raymie (t • c) 08:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio needing attrib

Could you please help me with this one if you get a chance? [5][6] Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Looking now. Reventtalk 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Done,[7] though I put the wrong license version at first. That license is explicitly described as CC-BY compatible, so it's not a problem even though it's 'technically' under Crown copyright. :) Reventtalk 10:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Er, not done, derp, didn't actually read and didn't realize you had removed it. Putting it bck now that the attribution is in. :) Reventtalk 11:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nerilie Abram copyvio still present

IMHO the copyvio re Nerilie Abram and http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/antarctic-palaeoclimate/aurora-basin/people-in-the-field/nerilie-abram-driller-and-ice-core-chemist is still present. I haven't attempted to mark the article because of the deleted revisions. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Markhurd:I saw the 'similarity' there also at the time, but since the content was somewhat rewritten I didn't actually tag that part... it's poorly sourced, as it's her own comments, and uses 'fragments' of sentences directly, but it is cited, and it's not the kind of 'blatant verbatim' copying that was present in the revdel'd material. Unfortunately, a lot of the "Wikibomb2014" content is questionable on the same grounds... I've gotten sidetracked, but I still intend to go through the whole list and specifically check every article (sigh).
You shouldn't feel 'blocked' by the deleted revisions, as they were due to (verbatim) copying from entirely different sources, but I think a better solution would be to just reword things slightly so as to avoid the issue instead of actually removing the content. Reventtalk 19:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UE 900/900s

Hello, you have helped me in the past to copyedit Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II. Could you please help me again? I have written an article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmatteng/sandbox. Since I'm a native Russian speaker I always make grammar and structural errors in English, though I'm constantly trying to improve. I have also tried my best to be NPOV, but if you see anything that should be changed in this regard, your advise would be much appreciated. (And you have also my full permission to change anything in my sandbox.) Dmatteng (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, tbh, a bit backlogged at the moment, but will take a look when I have time. Reventtalk 04:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a reply, and thank you in advance for your input. Dmatteng (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey

freenode seems to be down and I'm going the same way but please look at that userpsgae you had me draft, user readded some stuff ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on their contributions, to see if they figure it out. Hopefully I can get it sorted before they get too confused. Reventtalk 06:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: See the contributions of Axshah95, they figured it out, might want to re-zap the user page. Reventtalk 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

The sock drawer is more than IPs:

Those are just the ones since August. This is a long term SPI obsessed fan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I am aware, I'm simply stating that I don't think "I-am-unwritten" is actually the same person as the others, because the IP behind that account was making edits to other unrelated articles (from their IP) as well as simply trying to add a photo of him and his second wife to her article during the time period that the others were socking. Also, the person behind "Nkapoor21" also came to IRC during that time period, and came across in a completely different manner (much more argumentative, for one thing). I think this is a case of two fans who attend the same university and know each other, and the sockmaster told the other about being in a 'war' on Wikipedia about him. Again, I could be wrong, I just think this (newer) editor is somewhat clueless about what is ok and what isn't, and I'm trying to 'salvage' them before they get escalated to the same level of drama. Reventtalk 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Luciano Darío Vietto

Hi. The page under User:Kushalchavan/sandbox was not meant to be a AfC and the page Luciano Vietto currently exists in mainspace. Any edits done in the sandbox was meant to improve the article under the editor's course work. Please remove all AfC tags and return the page to the sandbox to avoid a duplicate of an existing page. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushalchavan: @LRD NO: Fixed, it's back where it belongs and the AfC header is removed. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it popped up in the "AfC submissions in userspace" cleanup category, and the script did not indicate it was a version of an existing article because the pagename was 'sandbox' instead of 'Luciano Vietto'. I also changed the {{user sandbox}} to {{draft article}}, which doesn't have the 'submit' button. Reventtalk 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the revert. LRD NO (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The L235 quarterly everything barnstar
Hi revent. Please accept the quarterly L235 "Everything Barnstar" for being helpful on IRC, doing tons of maintenance work, like clearing out Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace, and for being, in general, a great person. Thank you, and congrats. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Article Creation feedback

Hello Revent, thanks for your feedback on my article. As a newbie who's still learning to "walk, talk & breathe" around here, you helped clarify a lot for me. I am now currently working on the improvements you suggested. (PS: Sure hope I posted this in the right place! Haha)

WrittenInHeart (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback

Revent, thanks for the feedback - I've updated my User Page now. Digitalandrew (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Digitalandrew: Thanks. It's always nice to see subject 'experts' that are willing to be honest. :) Reventtalk 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback

Thanks for your comments on Evolution’s second law of thermodynamics fallacy. It is very helpful to have made clear the reasons for refusal. You are correct; the subject is covered in Entropy and life. The “open system” argument is given there to explain “Schrodinger’s paradox”. Lehninger’s argument “that the ‘order’ produced within cells… is more than compensated for by the ‘disorder’ they create…” (excess entropy) is also given to reconcile the second law and evolution. What is lacking is this new understanding, that the above arguments, while correct, are not sufficient to explain what they purport to do. This leads to an important misconception. That evolution is able to overcome the second law is worthy of full understanding. It is noteworthy that the author of the main reference and one of the references used for this submission are cited in Entropy and life. That there is only a single main reference can be attributed to the newness of the insight (February, 2014) and the information has not had time to be disseminated. Is not asking for more than a single peer reviewed journal reference a very high standard? LEBOLTZMANN2

@LEBOLTZMANN2: Your draft article, User:LEBOLTZMANN2/sandbox, is written more in the form of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Also, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references. To be useful to readers (to be in context) the information you want to convey should be added to the existing article. Having a new article will do noting to correct the 'misconception' you are referring to, and I suspect the same thing is probably mentioned in several other articles without being fully explained.
By the way, please don't think I'm trying to be difficult on grounds of not 'understanding'... that the fallacy you are writing about is based on a gross misunderstanding is fairly obvious to anyone with a decent understanding of physics. That the article you're using in a source is in The American Biology Teacher instead of a scientific journal, also, makes it pretty blatant that it's just an explanation, and not 'original reseaarch'. It's simply that this is a case where your goal would be better served by improving the discussion of the matter in other places instead of writing a new article.
@FireflySixtySeven:, since you had previously declined this also, any comments? Reventtalk 23:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

The da Vinci Barnstar
For the wonderful help you provide with all that code that I don't understand and never will. Thank you so much! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:37:27, 26 August 2014 review of submission by LexieHoskins


The page got rejected because it already exists. I edited the existing page but the edits were rejected. Theroadislong suggested that I should draft the revised article before submitting and then ask him/her or another editor to proofread it. I thought using userspace drafts would be a way to do this but now the page has been rejected because it already exists.

Please could you look at the content I provided and tell me if it will be approved if I edit the existing 'Cambridge International Examinations' page?

Thank you

LexieHoskins (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, the actual 'submission' process you used is specifically for brand new articles, not to ask someone to look at your proposed changes. The best place to do that would be on the talk page of the article itself, though I am willing to reread it (and will). I can't speak for what other editors will think, though. Reventtalk 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading... I don't think any of the changes that the text you want to make are objectionable, other than a bit of copy editing for missing spacing. The only thing that Theroadislong seems to have been objecting to was your using an external link in the text of the article (which is not done). I think your changes to the text are an improvement. Reventtalk 07:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LexisHoskins: Ok, I did some quick fixes to your version, if you want to apply them to the 'live' one by cut-pasting over it should be fine. I don't think anyone will specifically object to the text changes, and I also ran a couple of scripts to fix the reference formatting. Just don't wipe out the headers, as it still is all primary sources Reventtalk 08:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You are true helper. Thanks for helping me at IRC. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:25, 27 August 2014 review of submission by Dave H Franks


I am not "requesting a re-review"; I am asking for further guidance from the reviewer who declined my submission of "Sword-grip and Scabbard-grip" on 25th August 2014. I thought that my article, which defines a pair of terms, which are applicable in many martial arts, and explains their derivation, was of a similar format to the articles on martial terms like "Horse stance", "Pinch grip tie" and "Knifehand strike" which already exist on Wikipedia. What need I do to get my article accepted ? Dave H Franks (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave H Franks: I find it a bit hard to explain, exactly, except that your draft is very heavy on illustrations that essentially show the same thing, in lots of variations. It comes across as less of an encyclopedia article than what you would expect to see in a text on martial arts, in that there is more an illustration of 'how' in the second half than a discussion of 'what'. Also, as I'm not a member of the martial arts project, I would suggest you enter into discussion with them. I'm going to ping @PRehse:, as the member of the project who responded there, and see if he can give a clearer explanation.... he had essentially given the same response that I did in my decline, and he might be able to give you a better explanation, or point at how you can improve it. Reventtalk 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave H Franks: My initial comment was that it was a minor point of a particular martial art. I understand the importance of grips, the ease of classification into basic types and, for example in my own particular art, how those basic grips can easily expand. However, wikipedia is not a how to manual and the basic feeling from reading your submission is that you were introducing a terminology rather than describing something that is applied universally. More to the point I have never heard of those grips named in that way and your article does not make it clear at all where (ie. which martial arts) those terms are typically used. Is this original reasearch? Something else wikipedia does not support. The Aikido article and it its daughter Aikido techniques article list a number of grabs/attacks which could be expanded on in its own article. My advice there would be to keep it general, understand the non-universal nature of the names (even within aikido much less the wider martial arts world) and cut-down on the size and numbers of the photos (download speed is also non-universal). I hope that helps. One more observation - a smaller initial article often has a better chance of getting through to be expanded later. This is because it is easier to see the core notability and it certainly avoids a whole lot of hard work going nowhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your help and advice on the 2000 Yountville earthquake article that I created.

Request on 07:37:07, 29 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaryn Sattefield


What should i change on article

Jaryn Sattefield (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaryn Sattefield: The speedy deletion nomination for User:Jaryn Sattefield is because you may not have a copy of a draft article on your user page. I also reviewed the copy you submitted, which has been moved to Draft:Jaryn Satterfield, and left comments there. To be more specific, though...
  • You may not include external links inside the text of wikipedia articles
  • You may have a official link or two in 'external links', you may not spam links to dozens of pages
  • You need to reference the given material to reliable sources that are independent of you, so that it is verifiable by readers
  • You must have a sufficent number of such citations to show that you are notable
Please refer to WP:TUTORIAL for help with formatting, and to WP:YFA for directions on how to write an article.
Also, it is highly preferred that you not try to write about yourself, and most attempts to do so end up deleted. Please read WP:YOURSELF. Additionally, it is best to actually intend to be a Wikipedia editor, and gain experience, before you try to write any new article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web host. Reventtalk 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:47, 29 August 2014 review of submission by Cicimau


Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cicimau (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC){{Draft: Ivan_Smolović waithing for re-review, with a lot of new sources. I hope now you will see the quality of this article and approve that. Wikipedia have a lot of bad created robot articles with bad sources. My article Ivna Smolović for sure deserve approving. This is my last try and last request. This article is for sure better that million other approved requests. I hope you know that and please approve my article.}}[reply]

@Cicimau: I'm afraid you misunderstood my decline, though I will not re-review it, but leave it to someone else. The sourcing was fine, and better than a lot of other stub articles on football players.... the problem is that to meet the criteria he has to have actually appeared in a game for MFK Košice, either as a starter or a substitution. Merely being signed doesn't qualify. Once he has, and it's in the article, then it can be immediately accepted, and in fact would have been fine as it was, with only that fact added. Reventtalk 10:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:00, 29 August 2014 review of submission by NeilRedburn


Hi, I have tried to cleanup the tone of the recent post, and have removed the contacts (my bad). Other than that, it should now read as a descriptive history of The RHADC. I have a problem with "citing reliable sources". The challenge is, there aren't any! This information is culled from Club archives (on paper) and data that has been on The Club's website for many years. I don't know how to rectify this to your satisfaction. Could you please advise or give give guidence. NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilRedburn (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilRedburn: Paper resources, as long as they were published (old books, newspaper articles, etc.) are perfectly acceptable as sources, they merely need to be referenced. See {{cite book}} and {{cite magazine}}. The website can be used to a limited degree, for simple non-controversial details, but the article may not be 'primarily' based on self published sources. It is simply a core content policy of Wikipedia that information must be verifiable by readers from published sources, but they do not have to be online, and it doesn't have to be 'easy'. If someone would have to travel to Bermuda , go to the library, and look at newspaper articles from the late 1800's, that is perfectly acceptable, as long as the references are to published, reliable sources. Hope that helps.
See WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:REFBEGIN for more details. Reventtalk 10:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of page


Hello you recently blanked a page I created and reasoned that it was copyright infringement. Can I redo your blank and request that you view the article once again after i edit it. I understand why it was done and i will work with it as soon as possible, making it wikipedia worthy.

thank you for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StangerManor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StangerManor: Instead of re-declining it I've just blanked the specific part, and retrieved the previous decline notice from the history (they need to be visible to later reviewers). Please don't revert a blanking for a copyvio, the text can't legally be visible in the current version. A better solution is to simply retrieve the 'usable' parts from the history, and re-paste them into the current version. Before this is accepted, an admin will have to do a 'revision deletion' on the versions that contain the copied text. Reventtalk 06:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: much appreciated, thank you!.

Request on 10:59:44, 30 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Kravitza


Hello! You've recently reviewed the page I've created on Danish singer Nikolaj Grandjean (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Nikolaj_Grandjean&action=edit&redlink=1), and it was not accepted on grounds of copyrighted materials usage. Now the page is removed completely. Is there any way for me to know which info exactly was copyrighted? And can I rewrite it without that material, so it can be accepted? Thank you in advance! Kravitza (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kravitza: Now that it has been deleted I cannot see it again, no, only an administrator can. The simple answer, though, is that all text that you find other places on the web is copyrighted, and you cannot cut-paste it into Wikipedia articles. Yes, you can rewrite and resubmit the article, and you might be able to get a copy of the 'usable' material, if there was any, from the deleting administrator, user:FreeRangeFrog. Reventtalk 11:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Request on 23:59:34, 31 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vannessacoats



Vannessacoats (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The response said that the document named Cretzel was not acceptable for various. However, it doesn't outlne what those reasons are, so it makes it difficult to address making edits that will be sufficient for the article to be accepted.

We would appreciate a prompt response. Please do not delete the draft in the sandbox so that we have a common working draft.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,

Vannessa

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent&oldid=623641360"