This is to advise you that the peer review in which you recently participated has now been closed. Many thanks for your help. The article has been nominated at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry about the long radio silence - it's been, and still is, a bit of a struggle at my (admittedly lovely) job so my Cragsiding moments have been few and far between. As you'll see at its Talk page, I have the book but am not sure I have much to add. If however you have specific things you want me to check please yell. At the moment I can probably deliver better on short uncreative tasks than on anything more clever! Family have been up there (in North'd) more recently but not over that way specifically, and I am not sure when I will next be there so whilst the photo is not actually forgotten, it is not the subject of immediate action either! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! As you'll see at the PR page I've largely kept up with SchroCat's comments, but a couple of things stumped me a little:
Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, got it. The quotation from Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel where he says it's "one of the most dramatic compositions in all architecture". We use this in the lead, and again in the "Architecture and description" section. In the lead, we are describing the result of the transformation, so perhaps implicitly the whole thing; certainly it is not nailed down further than that. In the later section we specify that he was talking about the entrance front. Does this matter? I may be seeing an issue which doesn't really exist! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for your review of this article! Just letting you know that I have given it another copy edit, and brought it to FAC (nomination page). Fingers crossed! --Usernameunique (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I've figured out what worried me. If we said that the first one was one of Shaw's favoured inglenooks, or something similar, we would still be making a claim that ee, 'e were a right one with them inglenooks
or words to that effect ... I'm not sure that we can support the suggestion although I am happy to accept that it is probably correct. You have the source and I wondered if there is anything in it that could help; I have also ordered this book so I will be pleased to take a scan through too. I'll also look for other sources which might support this, as it would be nice to have it as in effect a note on what styles and feelings he embraced. For now, to be on the safe side, I have reduced it to something which is blander but which can't be challenged in the same way. Please don't feel that you have to respect this though - If I'm wrong, please edit away! Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
Thank you for Cragside which is No. 2 on my review-to-do ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing and thanked you yesterday. You're doing some great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am importuning close colleagues to look in, if they are inclined, at the peer review for Arthur Sullivan. Ssilvers and I are planning to take the article to FAC, and if you are inclined to look in at the peer review and give us your comments, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, KJP1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your thoughts at the PR for the Tottenham outrage; the article is now at FAC, should you have the time and desire to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheaper than wine, anyway :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
Well, I've done it ... or more accurately, I think I have done it, trying to follow the instructions carefully during my lunch break while a succession of Y5 and Y6 children come in wanting to practise Jingle Bells or whatever! I think, therefore, that it would be a very good idea for you to have a careful look and make sure I have not broken anything. Thanks again for the involvement ... it's very interesting! With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I was intrigued by Tim's point about Krupp vs. Krupp's and indeed Krupps. I think there is something odd going on here about how we say certain company names. It's perhaps a little old-school; it's highly selective though I can't see the criteria; I think it may be a bit British/colonial/presumptive/ownerish. (I have here in the back of my mind the mostly-discredited "The" in places names like Lebanon, Ukraine etc, though only as examples of things with a similar vibe for me, not as direct parallels with the Krupps usage.) Our own Krupp article has the one unsolicited Krupp's, and Dixon says Krupps as if it is normal. I have the nagging feeling that I have seen it in print, perhaps in an older source or in one being quoted, apropos of Krupp vs. Armstrong.
At the same time, I am not sure if I am going to be able to track down anything useful. It's possible that we should not argue the toss re usage but only say Krupps/Krupp's in a cited quote, if necessary ... otherwise I worry that it is potentially a lot of effort, though interesting, over nothing very important. Or maybe you have a good source for this usage which would nail it? Anyway, enough on that for now. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi KJP1. You've probably noticed that I changed it again. I don't think that I have broken the way the referencing works, but you would be prudent to check!
I emailed a very nice Dutch academic friend – former professor of Dutch at UCL and former director of the Fryske Akademy – and got a very detailed reply. Basically, almost anything I did was OK and Low Countries people are used to having to check under both V and M! But the one thing that was not OK, as you had suspected, was to have a capital V among the Ms as I had! Doh. It appears that I'd tried to follow two reasonable rules but really done 2+2=5. I also checked other places on Wikipedia where Jeroen van Marle is mentioned. Some just call him that (like Fred Smith) anyway so they don't help. Others that do list with surname first, though (Smith, Fred), have opted for Marle, Jeroen van, where you cheat the "van" in by popping it after his first name. So that's what I have done and I think it makes sense and looks fine, and certainly better than my first attempt. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes | ||
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Martinevans123 (Santa's Drop-in Centre) ... sends you ...
... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you have a good run in 2018!!
Martin - and all warmest wishes to you and yours for Christmas and for 2018. KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to thank you for everything. It's been a great experience. I wish you and yours a lovely Christmas and New Year. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi KJP1 Thanks for your helpful feedback on Church of St Edmund, Mansfield Woodhouse Further to that - what's accepted practice when referring to another "thing". EG: there are 2 other churches linked to St Edmund's in the parish, though no article about them (I think I might attempt them). Do I just refer to them in plain text, or is it best to put in square brackets. like St Chad's Church, Mansfield Woodhouse, so a red "not yet written" link comes up. If you see what I mean?
Enchufla Con Clave (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Enchufla Con Clave (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
While I understand some of the comments re: puffery, some of the stuff IS sourced - "Neon Buddha’s ethical work standards, and continuing education programs are fundamental values to Sebastien" is mentioned in the two french language articles written about him as well as the ancillary articles about his co-founder. Offices in various locations would keep a chairman on the go - do addresses need to be included? "Sharing dad's passion for adventure" is a fair comment and will be edited in re-submission but just curious.
Re: Notability, being the founder and chairman of a company that does 50-70 million dollars a year in revenue isn't notable? Company is privately held so those figures would HAVE to be published by Pure&Co, violating the rule on sources not being by the subject. The article was modeled after Chip Wilson's wiki entry, which is somewhat promotional in its tone. Just wondering what needs to be done, specifically. Totally get it's supposed to be encyclopedic and will alter tone, like I said, was modeled after another Vancouver-based designer.
Would it be better to create a page for the company first?
Sorry if I'm being annoying, just wondering because it's been rejected three times for varying reasons.
Sorry, I thought I was logged in, I have declared my conflict on my user profile. Thank you for your help, will continue sourcing and editing and then re-submit. Will alter tone, specifically I assume you mean to refer to him by his last name as well as leaving out stuff like being on the go. You're 100% right re: Mr. Gates.
Cheers, S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurrie90 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi KJP, and a very warm happy new year to you. A few months ago you were kind enough to comment on the PR for the Aberfan disaster. After a slight delay to allow some of the images to become PD, the article is now at FAC. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you KJP1 for your honest opinion and willingness to help. I am a new editor and I thought national news papers were credible references. I will remove Pindula content. Can you name any sources you consider credible.
I will change the tone of the article but I thought it was neutral. Thank you again. Jakelewis2 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you @KJP1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelewis2 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear KJP1,
Honestly speaking, I do not fully understand your comment. Wikipedia is full of articles written in such way with even less details: simply remaining on the MCU field, one example is V850. Another one is MPC5xx.
So, if my article is so poor, then can you please help me to understand how to improve?
Thank you.
Topogiallo (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Can I ask you a couple of questions:
Regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi KJP1,
thank you for your comment on my first article. I updated the Criticism section which was definitely very essay-like. I also changed one paragraph in Characteristics section and got rid of phrases like "According to <an author>, ...".
Could you please give me some examples where my article is still written rather as an essay? I admit that I was inspired a lot by the sources I was using as I have a little experience with writing similar articles. Maybe you meant phrases with "may", "could", "would", etc., but to be honest, I don't know how to change them since they are used in my sources as well.
Regards, Pnevyk (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
Thank you, KJP1, for getting involved at Articles for creation and helping whittle down the backlog. Your diligent reviewing is recognized and greatly appreciated! --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC) |
I feel like this article is being thrown aside and not given proper attention because it's an article for a company. According to the General notability guideline, this article has sufficient coverage. I appreciate your opinion in regards to the notability, but according to WIKI standars, it meets them. It has significant coverage, I used reliable sources, cited secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Similar companies like OrangeTheory Fitness have an article, the difference being that their article actually sounds like an advertisement. Please let me know what sources you feel are not worthy of use on Wiki or which sections of the article sound like an advertisement. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloan (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi KJP1, I would like to address your point made about my Wikipedia page about Millennial Woes (your comment below)
"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 encyclopaedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."
I completely agree with you on this. The problem is, given that this is individual is a politically contentious figure who is up against the entire media establishment (as his profile itself implies), there ARE no published, reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. What there we do have in the media, are attempts to smear the subject with epithets such as White Supremacist, Anti-Semite and Nazi, while the individual concerned has no way to address these except his own YouTube channel. I see that Colin's ideological enemies have realised that Wikipedia was an unconquered space for them to spread their political bias, and have managed to have a page published about him where I failed.
Here is the subject's Wikipedia page, entered hurriedly by people who clearly wish to misrepresent him, who ironically created and got their page approved weeks after I created my page about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Woes
Their "published, reliable secondary sources" include blogs like Salon.com and the Huffington Post. They also managed to invalidate any claim to the validity of the subject's views by ensuring that Wikipedia is subverted by own epistemological mischief, with a link to the ridiculously partisan "White Genocide Conspiracy Theory" page, a page which by its existence implies the validity of the topic (i.e. that this is indeed a conspiracy theory), and which is full of such fallacies that whoever approved this page should not be working at Wiki.
We are now entering a situation in which things are deemed to exist or be true based on how these assertions can be referenced, but when ideological opponents of the current system do not have "reliable" contemporaneous sources because social validation is only given to outlets which support the reigning ideology, then Wikipedia is entering dangerous territory of political partisanship. It becomes s self-referencing tissue of deliberately manufactured misinformation, subverted by a minority of determined individuals with an agenda. The world's most famous librarian, Jorge Luis Borges, satirized such a situation in his fable "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", in which a group of determined intellectuals worked to hoax a fake universe into the annals of accepted truth via means of cross referenced encyclopaedia entries, in which every aspect of this fictitious universe was documented with an encyclopaedia entry, each entry made valid by means of cross-referencing with other fake entries. I fear that we are entering into such territory with Wikipedia today. You are being lulled into deception by hoaxers, who are using their discredited Far Left "references" of interest groups, NGOs, partisan newspapers and blogs (on the page in question, these include the SPLC, the HuffPo, Hope Not Hate, Right Wing Watch and Searchlight) to confect a sense of credibility and "truth" to gullible Wikipedia readers.
As for some of the basic facts about the subject on his Wikipedia page, there are quantifiable errors here, as there are errors in the grammar and punctuation, but I see that these have been allowed to stand, given that the writer is assumed to be correct.
I tried to create this page for Millennial Woes as a bit of an experiment. I am a friend of his, something I'm sure I stated when I made the draft (I think there was a box to tick), hence my first-hand knowledge of the subject. I absolutely stand by elements of your second point, which is that language I have used may be seen to be biased to the subject. I did this to see what would get through, knowing that my page would be quickly edited by his ideological enemies. I have used Wikipedia heavily in the past, I have donated several times, and I have also had my own work used as a reference for a page which is wonderful in its accuracy and detail (as are many pages on Wikipedia). But I fear that unless Wikipedia gets to grips with this situation of ideology, the site will eventually become a parody of itself, and will lose credibility among a growing contingent of people, especially the young, who understand the ideological waters that they are being forced to swim in. That Wikipedia did not to stop this happening would be a great pity.
Conscientious Academic (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just noticed that you rejected Draft:Swami_Smaranananda as not noteworthy.
You state, "Comment: There is only one source, and that's to his own writings. I'm afraid, as the previous reviewer indicated, this doesn't establish Notability."
I think you must have missed it: the opening sentence has five separate references! Please have another look: there are five references to independent news articles in major internationally recognized newspapers.
I request you to reverse your decision and accept the article as noteworthy.
Thanks and best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
ps: I admit it's still a stub article, but of a noteworthy subject, and I'm sure the article will improve with time. Thanks, Devadaru (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you KJP1 for your comment. The article is rather a biography. Does it not meet that standards? What do you
suggest? Shall I add content to the page Ambazonia instead? Thank you.
79modsiw (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Draft Kaleem Haider Sharar, he was a very popular poet of urdu language.
The reference to the couplet of his poetry is given in the article in support of my viewpoint, because I feel his poetry are inclined to Extreme Stubbornness.
You can find a list of his poetry at
1) https://www.rekhta.org/poets/kaleem-haider-sharar (in Roman Urdu Transcript) 2) http://pagalshayari.com/poet/kaleem-haider-sharar/sher/english Sayedminhal (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have also found his biography in one of the book of biographies written by Nusrat, Khaliquuzzaman. I have added in the refrence [2] in my draft edit
Would be sufficient for notability and verifiability, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedminhal (talk • contribs) 08:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The reference #1 on the article is from a website of poetry collections and is a third party, not my/his own website. I can tell you about this website: it is, it collects poetries of different poets, (written in rekhta style/form) and posts under their chapters of poets. You may find about other poets as well on this site. The reference #2 is book of biography Compiled in 2. Volumes written by someone else the book can be found in Library of Congress. I had another book in which I read about Sharar but at the moment I am not able to recollect the name of the another book, will try to find it by this end of the week and post update. If that doesn't suffice, how does the "global" encyclopaedia assert for notability and verification? Sayedminhal (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
None of them do just list a poem/book that they wrote. They have a wide range of Reliable sources to desmonstrate Notability. No worries re. the email. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Here the question is valuable contribution to literature not how many cities the Laurette has visited.
Sharar was also invited to read his poetry in Mushairas held in different cities of India, say for mention Bhopal, Nagpur, Lucknow, Kanpur etc, by various litrary organisation and forums, while he was a resident of Mumbai.
He was also a regularly published Laurette for Urdu Language magazines and periodicals, such as Shair from Uttar Pradesh, Aajkal from Delhi, Suhail from Patna to name a few. Iam trying to get copies of them.
Further he enjoyed the readership of Ghazal sections in various daily news papers accross India and Pakistan. Namely Urdutimes - Mumbai, Inquilaab Mumbai which I have read myself
He has also written drama, criticism and prose which are not available at the moment.
These are his contribution to urdu literature.
I hope you re-consider
Although, by my previous comment what is your opinion, how many citations would I need to provide for this Afc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedminhal (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi KJP1, i see your comment concerning our draft of Palazzo Albertoni Spinola. I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say "Plainly Notable. But sadly lacking in inline citations." As you can see the are 9 very big and important citations (notes) online but maybe i'm making a mistake cuase you mean something else. Would you mind suggest me what i have to do? Thanks --Wikipeder74 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Wikipeder74
Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No point in a re-review at this time but:
Some further feedback would be useful because I might want to look at other subjects that are not yet covered by Wikipedia.
Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you, that is very helpful. I think the article will be useful because there is a resurgence of interest in Victorian culture. However, it clearly needs more work and clarification as you say. Incidentally, one of the sources I supply is from that 'reprehensible character', who obviously gives a differing view.
Hi! I'm going to do some work on the draft later; I was going to focus on cleaning some of the "history" versus "architecture" sections, and work a bit on the paragraph structure for the architecture section... Let me know what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Sir , I am a big supporter of the man whose biography I want to be added to Wikipedia. As,I am the son of this man ,I know a lot about him , therefore I want you to add this biopage to wikipedia
WIKI REPORT (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I see the page for Matthijs Otterloo has been rejected saying 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability', the person has been mentioned on the most mayor news sites of the netherlands with multiple articles, he's verified on Twitter and got quite an amount of followers on Instagram.
Could you please re-see your decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platflyer (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello KJP1,
Thank you for your recent review of my article submitted for posting. I have been trying to submit an article about model-based measurement software, but as hard as I try I can't seem to present the article neutral enough or with enough citations to warrant acceptance. In an effort to understand the necessary writing style I have looked at other companies within the space my article talks about. The each case I see less references and what appears to be non-neutral statements. Can you help me to understand how these articles were approved for posting? [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]
I appreciate any feedback or direction you can provide.
Thank you - Robert Robertmooers (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help there. Still unsure after years of small wikipedia edits if this is even the way to thank. Will look carefully at your comments. Unable to find clearly usable photo of Hall but will search on. Timbow001 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
A question: there are at least three J C Hall pages on wikipedia: Poet, Canadian writer and founder of Hallmark Cards. also dozens of John Hall pages, including one John Hall (poet) (1627–1656). what's the best way to handle this? Does it require a disambiguation page? Are there guidelines? Timbow001 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I had a little play & put some projects eg "Wikiproject United Kingdom" & the list changes to only show submissions tagged "UK" but I've not had much time to play with it.— Rod talk 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, My article on Samuel Boateng has been declined due to the subject's notability. Samuel Boateng was the first Ghanaian to be on the UK’s biggest business show with over 6 million viewers each week, was nominated for a GUBA and Screen Nation Award and is recognised across the UK for the exceptional work he does for entrepreneurs through his Business and verified on Twitter. How much more ‘notable’ does he need to be!? There are other candidates from the same show who either left the process a lot earlier or are much less ‘notable’ yet their articles are published?? Russellanderson (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
What makes you think the current sources are weak? Can you please be specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elirang (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)