Jump to content

User talk:Shadowowl

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andymman (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 4 June 2018 (→Please, don't decline my draft. You have no reasonable and/or factivle motive to do so: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Constructive criticism is welcome. Templates are OK.

Looking for clarification on your review & decline of Analytic Theology submission by jmg5041

Hi Shadowowl. First, thank you for reviewing the entry for Analytic Theology and for the service you provide to the Wikipedia community. Seriously; thanks. Second, I see the reasons given for the rejection but I could really use a few specifics because I can't tell which features of the article correspond to the problems listed in the response. It says ---->

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

Ok, so the article has 28 references from almost exclusively academic journals and books so I'm guessing citations are not the issue?? Is there a section that seems overly opinionated? I'm not trying to quibble; I genuinely need input here. Is it the diagrams? Is it that I discuss opinions on what AT is? If an article did not list out opinions on what AT is, and instead just listed one view then _that_ would certainly be a biased article. I try to list out three views. For example an article on Quantum Mechanics would certainly discuss the various "opinions" of physicists as to which model of interpretation is best (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohm, etc..). Likewise an article on Analytic Theology would list out some opinions of what AT is... because....currently in the academic literature that .. just is... part of the going discussion (i.e. "What is Analytic Theology - merely a method of doing theology in a philosophical style OR an attempt by theologians with philosophical training to defend orthodox Christianity). If an article says AT is just one or the other, it is not objectively reporting the state of scholarship on AT.

Regarding writing the article less like an essay, I attempted to write it based around un-connected thematic sections (rather than) like an essay with a thesis, sections defending the thesis, smooth transitions and a conclusion. I organized it around definition, history, geography, example literature, criticisms. What do I need to be more encyclopedia like? So again, I can't tell what is essay-like about the article that needs eliminating. Your help is requested in seeing more specifically what needs to be changed. Again, thanks. . Jesse (jmg5041)

User:jmg5041 (talk) Draft:Analytic_Theology —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ger Harmsen (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Smmurphy was:
This article is a translation of nl:Ger Harmsen, and is likely, in my opinion, suitable for the encyclopedia. However, there are currently numerous grammatical issues stemming, I think, from the translation process. Nearly every sentence includes examples of poor word choices, tense usage, and other clumsiness. Also, please add the full citation of Fortuyn 1988 and Schaminée 2000. I find that enough work is needed that it is best to decline at this time and encourage further development.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Smmurphy(Talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy: I moved it back to userspace and will work on it there. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Like I said, it's a good subject for an article, but at that length is a bit too much work to ask others to clean up the prose. If you have any specific questions, ping me and I'll be happy to take a look. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more guidance on Submission: Give It Back to You

Hi Shadowowl,

I'm trying to get some more insight on why it's not appropriate to have an album page for a band. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Give_It_Back_to_You

Both you and Legacypac wrote: Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Give It Back to You instead. (this redirects back to the band's (The Record Company's) main page,

Plenty of legit bands have album pages separate from their main band page. Many legitimate citations were provided for this album page. Could you give any further insight as to why this album page isn't making the cut?

Writer1977 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Writer1977§[reply]

It has been merged. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anticaucasus mountain system

Dear Sir (Madam). Thank you very much for defending my article. Please , can you defend my work on maps of that region, from user "RoySmith". He is clearly personally against my work. And he is making false statement about me. I never claimed making space satellite photos myself, this is ridiculous of what he is trying to accuse me!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Armenian_highland_and_Caucasus_mountains_12_12284.jpeg This is like personal attacks on me from RoySmith. This kind of satellite photos all over Wikipedia geographical articles.

Thank you for your time.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He wants to delete my maps just because they are bothering him and he just wants to do that. I change appearance of the satellite images before turning them into maps with descriptions. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Armenian_highland_and_Caucasus_mountains_12_122846.jpg.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Эльбрус Казбекович:, Please tell me where you got the original satellite image. (is it Google Maps or something else?). Then there will be more chance the map is kept. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide originals shortly and you will see how they different from main. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Эльбрус Казбекович (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC) @Эльбрус Казбекович: Thanks for doing that! -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/309692911845788766/ Here one of the links to this image from NASA satellite. But it is many of them on different websites.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how the original appears very much different then my maps.Here another link to this image http://www.crdp-strasbourg.fr/main2/albums/russie_espace/index.php?img=4&parent=71 Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Казбекович: you seem to be taking this personally. My only concern here is that we comply with copyright policy, and that requires correct attribution. If the base photo is indeed public domain, that's great, but you need to provide the correct documentation for that. See, for example, how somebody else did it correctly. NASA is credited as being the author, and a URL (which, sadly, appears to be broken) is provided pointing to where the original was found. Note that in the link you provide above, the license statement says,

This iconographic material is Public Domain ( Public Domain ) under US law and may be used without restriction. You must nevertheless mention its author.

So, it's fine to use it, but you still need to provide the proper attribution for the base image. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I taking that personally. It is obvious, you sir here to only attack my work. I guess it is your job now. It was perfectly clear I did not claim NASA's satellite photo is main, but you stated like I did. I explained already to public what it is all about. First of all ,the appearance of the image was changed from it's natural,original view to artistic more colorful look, even before labels of description was pouted on it. So, it is already not the same image, which was taken by NASA.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying about my work again sir. The image you provide for example is not like main. It is just plain satellite photo of the Earth's region without any changes of appearance and without any descriptions on it. The image I downloaded is turned into original looking map with explanations on it.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Khethukuthula Mbonambi

Hi Sir. I certainly do need your guidance to help me understand the criteria that determines notability and reliability of sources. Are Huffington Post South Africa and Huffington Post Arabi not considered reliable sources? Are ENCA ( www.ENCA.com) and Media24's News24 not reliable sources? If not, Howa are they not?

Please make me understand. There are other non notable/reliable sources and one broken link from the now defunct Who's Who Southern Africa which had profiles of all notable 

Southern African personalities. Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo 12:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs)

~~ Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo 12:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs)

I never said that those sources were unreliable, only Twitter is unreliable. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand the grounds at which this article has been declined. Professor Sbonelo Mhlongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyprof7 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined due to unreliable twitter sources. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi Shadowowl. Can you maybe nelp. I am under attack from people who want to bury the truthful geography of that region.Эльбрус Казбекович (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abeotaxane has been accepted

Abeotaxane, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Manasseh Leach has been accepted

Manasseh Leach, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Razer Edge (June 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This article was written in 2013. It is unclear whether the product was ever actually released, or whether it had any lasting impact.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shadowowl! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bradv 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: German Africa Prize has been accepted

German Africa Prize, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Hester Brodrick (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Declining this with regret. I see that she existed, but it's not clear that her work has ever attracted any significant attention. I'll leave a note at WP:WIR.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help editing my article

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the article on alexandr kachkin. The source material was not created by the subject its all from gallery pamphlets, gallery websites online, and from some articles written about the artist. As there is very limited source material about the artist i was limited to using these. Any recommendations you can make on how to improve the article with these limited sources available? Thank you so much for your time! Im super new to wikipedia and can use all the help I can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janna Kilimnik (talk • contribs)

Article Review

Hello. Thank you for reviewing the draft I submitted. Unfortunately I did not understand the comment you left on my article. Can you be more specific? What source is not by the author?

Thanks! AvalerionV 13:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AvalerionV: Source 6 is the only independent one, all others are unreliable self-published sources. You need to prove the notability by adding sources that write about the product, not by people that made the product. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bargain Sale Article

Hello, I submitted my draft for Bargain Sale. You said I copied a URL which I did source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170 in my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bargain_Sale. I need more detail. I want to be in compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattias13 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying text on Wikipedia is not allowed unless the license is allowed by Wikipedia. In this case , there is a The compilation of materials gathered here by the editors of the LII and the pages holding them are protected by copyright, with the copyright held by Cornell University. and a Creative Commons license that disallows commercial use. That license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattias13: See Shadowowl's message above. --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowowl: After chatting with Mattias13 via IRC, it seems as though they want to know which part(s) of the article were copied. Could you specify further? --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JustBerry: I took a look at the copyvios report again ([1]) and the copied text is scattered along the page. It may be a false positive. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadowowl: Even though a tool may highlight a confidence level that a particular page contains a copyright violation, it is important for the reviewer to make sense out of the tool's analysis. The tool seems to be highlighting the following: a) quoted material or, if this is not the case, b) copyright material that can easily be removed from the draft. Please note that the tool is not responsible for the reviewer's actions. Are you planning on un-reviewing or re-reviewing the draft? --JustBerry (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I un-reviewed it.-- » Shadowowl | talk 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed that jmg5041, Writer1977, and Janna Kilimnik asked for further guidance or clarification on your review, but there seems to be no reply to their inquiry on your talk page or their talk page. Is there any particular reason? --JustBerry (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:38, 4 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonnycakez


Hello,

Who says imdb is not a reliable source? Where is the list from wikipedia that supports your claim?

Jonnycakez (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source. - WP:IMDBREF.-- » Shadowowl | talk 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't decline my draft. You have no reasonable and/or factivle motive to do so

Hi. You hinted that the martial artist I'm writting about, is not of the "tier" high enough to have a Wikipedia page, as I understood; because "she doesn't have 3 fights in a 'top-tier' organization".

Who decided, and why, that 'Combate-Americas' isn't of the high enough tier/level, for the fighters of its roster to have an article in Wikipedia? There are many martial artists with less experience and less level (based on their ranking and martial arts belt grade) that have a wikipedia page; fighters that haven't competed in the "top-tier" organizations you defined in your article "WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability". Combate Americas has several highly ranked fighters, by well-recognized webpages and organizations (like Sherdog, Tatpology, Fight Matrix, etc.); for examples: Érik Pérez, ranked #33 in the world at bantamweight; Kyra Batara, ranked #20 in the world at atomweight; etc.

And Melissa Martínez, the fighter I'm making my draft about, is a world-class kickboxer: Winner of silver medal at the 'World Games 2017'- Kickboxing world championships[1], panamerican kickboxing champion, [2], among other things...

Please, check out again the draft I'm creating Melissa Martínez (fighter), reconsider your decision. PLEASE. I'm basing on facts to argue that Melissa Martinez has the notability enough to have a Wikipedia page. I spent a lot of time and effort in creating this draft, and I know it doesn't deserve to be declined. Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you be comprehensive and empatic with me. Have a good day, Shadowowl

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference KickboxingChampionship was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "9th Panamerican Kickboxing Championship - Resultado". Sportdata. sportdata.org. Retrieved 2018-06-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowowl&oldid=844420447"