User talk:Kiteinthewind/Archive (2017.2)

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

AfD...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, can you please explain what was the point of starting this AfD when you sought a plain old-school merge?Winged Blades Godric 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

While your apprehensions might have proved true; a merge is quite-obviously discussed at talk-page of the article.Cheers!And I prefer to keep conversations in one place.Winged Blades Godric 03:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you help verify translations of articles from Chinese

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Kiteinthewind,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Chinese to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Chinese article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Chinese , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Chinese. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's some of the articles that need checking:

  1. Guntzepaula
  2. Hong Kong–Singapore relations
  3. Huajian Faction
  4. Ideographic repertoire
  5. Kaohsiung 2nd district


All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Chinese article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer on my talk page. So, to help out, what you can do is check the list above, and just add {{pass}} or {{fail}} next to each one, depending on your evaluation; or you can just add them below. (Note: two of them were not relevant; I've struck them and added two more.) Just {{ping}} me here by adding {{ping|Mathglot}} to your reply if you have a question, or when you're all done. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect CSD Tagging (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

You recently tagged User:You're The Worst for speedy deletion for blatant advertising. This was not advertising, so I declined the deletion. I have mentioned this before - incorrect tagging of an article can cause problems, so please do have a read of the speedy deletion criteria before nominating any more articles. If you have any questions, please drop me a line on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 11:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but in this particular case, the user in question wrote most of the promo material in the edit summary, instead of in the article itself. It's something I have seen happening recently, but I don't know if it's becoming a problem. I believe we are really in a gray area when it comes to that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 14:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I did see the edit summary. This is it, in full:
Lesego Gordon Kekana (born September 22, 1994) better known by his stage name Worst Saturdae is a South African rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer and label owner based in Pretoria currently signed under Ambitiouz Entertainment.
Nothing in that could be described as promotional content. If you think about it, any article that describes the subject has to be written in this manner, be it a person, product, company, or whatever. What makes an article promotional is WP:PEACOCK words are used to make the subject appear amazing. Stephen! Coming... 06:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We're on Twitter!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!
Hello Kiteinthewind!
Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)

RachelWex 19:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion of Robert Comer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article Robert Comer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:BIO1E. There's coverage on the murder and his subsequent execution, but that's it. Comer was otherwise a low-profile individual.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Kiteinthewind! I hope you're having a good day! Regarding this edit you made: I just wanted to let you know that (in most cases), users removing warnings from their own user talk pages is allowed. They just can't alter the text to make it falsely state that someone said something else, or remove declined unblock requests while they're blocked, and others. That's all; figured I'd just let you know in case you weren't aware :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PAP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, I have received repeated harassment from what seem to be COI editor(s) on the page. I had no intention of editing the page myself, but rather to bring attention to the serious issues it had and still has. I have requested semi-ṕrotection status so the editing can stop while the page is amended by experienced and registered editors, and this permission was granted. Since you are a long-time editor and have more knowledge on policy than myself, I request that you begin some kind of procedure whereby the page can be brought to the attention of multiple editors who are willing to work on it and bring it up to the standards of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I don't really feel like being berated and threatened and this is clearly becoming a serious issue after the latest round of attempted edits, so greater community input would be appreciated as I have no desire to deal with this. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted two 4im warnings for the IP user, and I will report him to AIV in the future, if he bothers you or edits the article. As for the edits you want to make, let's work together and find sources, and I will add them in. Thank you for editing, and don't let these PAP operatives drive you away from Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help. I see you too think this is a problem with PAP operatives. I tried to AGF, but judging from the problems on this page and many other Singapore-related pages, it does seem like there's an effort to remove certain information and they have been whitewashed over the years. I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with sensitive pages on countries which have a tendency to employ cyber-armies, but if there is such a policy in place, Singapore should be dealt with in a similar manner as these countries since otherwise the page will most likely return to its current state over the years. When I can, I'll describe where I think the main problem areas in the article are on the talk page and we can start looking at sources there. Thanks again. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination of Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

07:04:42, 7 November 2017 review of submission by Bozward

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


In my view the Entrepreneurship page needs a MAJOR rewrite as over the years its has a large number of additional material in a very adhoc manner. The stages of starting a business and also those of the person that started the business needs to be explored on different pages about the entrepreneur and stages of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the process of starting and growing a business. These you will understand should be separate pages and currently are not. Therefore I believe that the current wiki on the subject is not academically correct and nor exploring the full range of definitions or literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozward (talk • contribs) 07:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies for the belated response, Bozward. I rejected the draft because I think it can add dramatically to Entrepreneurship page on Wikipedia. As you have stated, that page needs a major rewrite, and I think, in this case, that this could be the start of that re-write project. While I understand that to an entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship and Nascent Entrepreneurship may be two distinct matters, but to the average person, they will, more than likely, consider them one and the same, and that nascent is merely a step in entrepreneurship. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15:45:04, 8 November 2017 review of submission by Niallmcg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi Kiteinthewind. Thanks for taking the time to review my page RCPSG-Faculty of Dental Surgery. I wanted to understand further why you declined this page as having inadequate references? It includes a reference to a published and peer reviewed paper, a textbook and references to government and official websites? Some of the information posted is original and taken from a visit to the college where I noted down the names of the past deans from the notice board in the college library. There are no further references existing to support this. Can you point me in the direction of further references if you find any/tell me how to improve this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niallmcg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Niallmcg, and apologies for the delayed response. The page currently contains eight cites, with only four of them related to the institution itself. The other four references are not directly related to the institution, but laws on dentistry. In addition, the page appears to contain loads of materials that can be written using prose. The page has potential, I believe, and there are instances where a faculty (or in the US, school) within a college is a page unto itself. Please implement the recommendations I listed above, and I will accept the page. Thank you. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiccan rede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi could you help me trabslate the Wiccan rede article into Chinese? I would really appreciate it. so far we have this: 翻譯: 您應該相信威卡的教規﹐用誠實和真誠的愛來信 但凡事都得饒處且饒人﹐你附出多少便應得多少 由北開始畫三個圓的圈﹐把所有妖魔鬼怪全除去 如果你想咒語變成現實﹐用順序或特殊音節念出 以柔制剛切勿意氣用事﹐靜心聆聽切勿大發謀論 美麗的月亮漸漸地變圓﹐大家開開心心跳舞歌唱 每逢新月之夜都是初一﹐大家歡歡氣氣一同慶祝 每逢月圓之夜都是十五﹐大家誠心誠意來許個願 每當北風呼呼地吹來時﹐門窗要鎖好帆布要落下 每逢南風呼呼地吹來時﹐心愛的人熱情地親親你 每當西風呼呼地吹來時﹐靈魂們趁機會起來活動 每逢東風呼呼地吹來時﹐豐富的大餐迎接新開始 九種不同的樹木放入鼎﹐猛猛地燃燒慢慢地燃燒 接骨樹是代表神聖女神﹐如燒接骨樹會被追咒的 當節日輪盤開始轉動時﹐沃爾帕吉斯夜燒篝火炬 當節日輪盤轉到冬至時﹐燃點起火炬迎潘皇再生 照顧好大自然花草樹木﹐神聖女神送幸福給人們 石頭水中拋前程就可知﹐用漣漪多少遠近看前程 如果要實現願望或理想﹐絕不可貪心或不責手段 不應該浪費寶貴的時間﹐結識一些不成實的朋友 見面和離別也同樣快樂﹐面頰紅紅的心情要愉快 記緊因果關係輪回三次﹐三次幸運或是三次災難 如不幸遇到災難降臨時﹐把藍色的星星戴在頭上 人人都要做到坦誠相見﹐除非他人全心欺編真成 威卡的教規八字真言是﹐「為所欲為傷人不為」 翻譯 更重要的是巫师或巫师的13个目标 认识你自己 了解我们的艺术 学习和成长 用智慧应用知识 达到平衡 保持你的话顺序 保持你的想法 庆祝生活 调整到地球的周期 保持身体健康 锻炼你的身体 沉思 尊重女神和上帝 is it translated right?108.75.79.57 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Odile Kennel declined

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Kiteinthewind,

I am am a bit confused by your declining of my draft for Odile Kennel, since I did include several sources that I regard as quite reliable and independet, like the link to the Bavarian TV, the Autorinnenvereinigung and Baden online. Also to be featured on Zeit.de is considered to be quite a sign for notability in Germany. And even though her portrait on dtv might not be considered absolutely independent, as she published books there, this publishing house stands in high esteem in Germany and does not publish just anyone and will provide only well researched things about its authors. Since I am admin on de.WP and have some experience with judging notability (although I know rules are different for each project), I really wonder if there was not a misunderstanding from your side on this. Could you please look into this in a bit more detail again? Thank you very much --Kritzolina (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Kritzolina, many apologies for my delayed response. I was hoping for more English cites, but after a brief search on my part, I have failed to find any (and that's OK.) Upon further review, I have accepted the draft. Thank you for the contribution! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Kiteinthewind for accepting the draft like this. I also did a search for English sources, but did not find any valid ones. There are quite some things in Spanish, but as my Spanish is not good enough to really understand them, I did not want to put them in. Also I was very busy with real life, travelling a lot and catching up on everyday things after, so I kind of pushed this to the back of my mind. I was just contemplating on what to do, when your acceptance came in, so thanks!
May I ask something of you though? Please consider for the future to accept similar drafts in the first round and asking after specifically for English sources - if I had not been a seasoned Wikipedian in another language version and well immersed in Wikithings all around, I might have just given up on Wikipedia after the first decline. I would not want that to happen to others, especially to contributors who are speaking other languages than English fluently and so might bring content from underrepresented regions of the world into our Encyclopedia (I know, Germany is well represented, but female poets are not). I would be very happy, if you thought about this wish of mine for a bit. Thank you again --Kritzolina (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Kritzolina, as an English Wikipedian who also edits on Chinese Wikipedia, I understand that content from other regions of the world may be underrepresented on English Wikipedia, and in the future, I do intend on carrying out the suggestion you have made. I'll accept the draft if it meets acceptance standards, and then ask the user to either work on providing English sources, or, if such sources are not available, provide a translation of the title and (if possible) passages cited. All of that can be easily done via the Twinkle. Thanks for the suggestion! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your understanding! --Kritzolina (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

09:10:54, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Leobowski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi, I'd like to know if it is possible to improve the draft page in order to have it accepted. My reference page is FSR, FSR is a technique with the same goal, but with some drawbacks, and it has its own page. To justify FSR there are 4 references, one to the original paper, one to the (unfinished) RFC, one to some unmaintained readme from the OLSR repository, and another to an additional paper discussing the limitations of FSR. I work with OLSR and I know that FSR is used, and I think FSR page is OK.

Pop-Routing is an alternative strategy, pretty new. Now what I can provide to improve the current page are: 

1 - another link to a paper (adding to the present one) showing that the computational complexity is sufficiently low to be implemented in real networks. Note that Infocom and ICC (the conferences where the papers were published) are both top conferences for communications (see http://www.comsoc.org/conferences/portfolio-events where ICC is a flagship and Infocom is a core conference). This means that the technical and scientific community has largely accepted this technique as relevant.
2 - two links showing that the Freifunk organization (the largest community network in the world, based in Germany and serving hundreds of thousands of people daily) chose to support the development of Pop-Routing in their GSOC umbrella program, twice, in 2016 and 2017. That is, they considered this technique relevant to improve their network made of tens of thousands of nodes.  
3 - two links showing that Google accepted to finance the GSOC project and finally did. 
4 - one link to the presentation that the main developer of the code did to the ninux.org community (another community network in italy) that is using Pop-Routing in one of their network (in italian).

I can also improve some of the other entries clarifing the importance of the battle of the mesh, which is a 10-year old conference totally devoted to advances in mesh networks (and should definitely deserve its own page).

Would this make it suitable for publication?

The links: 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7842049/
http://www.comsoc.org/conferences/portfolio-events
https://blog.freifunk.net/2017/08/29/implementing-pop-routing-ospf-final-evaluation-updates/
https://blog.freifunk.net/2016/08/22/implementing-poprouting-final-evaluation/
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/archive/2016/projects/5374689325088768/
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/archive/2017/projects/6288671921668096/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leobowski (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Leobowski, many apologies for the delayed response. The original reasons I declined the draft is that it contains three cites, none of which are independent. The links you provided are a start, but it would be better if you can provide more third-party links, particularly from tech-oriented news sites, if possible, or trade publications. The page has potential, I would say. Please continue to work towards having more independent, third party cites. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger at Michael Yeung Ming-cheung

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Kiteinthewind. I wanted to let you know that I have performed the merger agreed to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies. I included all non-BLP-violating content but I anticipate that you will consider my selection overly-conservative. I have therefore stated my reasons for this selectivity at Talk:Michael Yeung Ming-cheung#Merge completed and invite you to discuss any possible changes you may feel necessary to this merge there. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:27:08, 19 November 2017 review of submission by Obie Willis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am unsure what qualities the article fails to meet. I ask as I have edited this article several times and I am at a loss to know what needs to be removed or added. I am intending to write articles about New Zealand animators and was hoping to use this article as a guide to what would be required but I am very confused. These people have been nominated or won awards that are the national equivalent of US Oscars and Emmys but when included are these and any of their achievements, the reason I believe they should have an entry in Wikipeadia in the first place, going to be refered to as an "ego wall"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Willis (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Obie Willis, apologies for the delayed response. The article contains portions that I believe makes the tone a bit promotional. In particular, the Time Frames series section can be rewritten. Also, the references should be formatted properly. They look odd at the moment. Please implement the changes I recommended, and I will accept the draft. Thank you. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I have implemented some changes and I hope the result fulfils the requirements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Willis (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Kiteinthewind.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

22:42:01, 27 November 2017 review of submission by NGaryet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello,

I'd like some clarification regarding your questioning of the subject's notability. All but two sources referenced in the article are independent, as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. All references cited (excepting one article authored by the subject) in "Further Reading" come from reputable, independent, verifiable sources.

As for "clear evidence of notability" Kaven is an exhibiting artist and a partner at an award-winning architecture firm. In the past two weeks, Kaven's proposed design for the tallest building on the West Coast has been covered in such national and international publications as Dezeen, ArchDaily, Blouin Artinfo, Archinect, The Architect's Newspaper, SF Gate, and Geekwire, among others. These I have not yet added to the list of references. Would citing those help the case for this entry?

As a precedent for this type of entry, I'm looking at the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speer. This entry lists just 3 references, all of which are primary sources written by the subject of the entry. The only external links are to the subject's personal website and to a list of his published works.

I'd appreciate a re-review and/or clarification of your rejection.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGaryet (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

NGaryet, apologies for the delayed response. Upon further review, I have accepted the draft. However, I would like to urge you to continue working on the page by improving its layour. Happy editing! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Kiteinthewind. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 19:07:43, 11 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Piersco

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article.

I was hoping you could let me know how I might edit my article to make it acceptable? As you know there is a big backlog of articles awaiting review, so I'd like my next/edited submission to be fully compliant.

I believe the subject is noteworthy in that this company is responsible for developing a majority of the drug names that are approved every year. This topic seems, at least to me, to be relevant from a cultural, governmental and business world perspective.

I used 17 references, trying to cite any claim or statement that might be perceived as subjective. I've tried to eliminate any promotional language, understanding that, in order to establish the legitimacy of the subject, some claims need to be made. I understand the types of references I've included are limited in scope, but they are from legitimate and reputable source such as the New York Times, CNN, etc.

I really want this article to comply with Wikipedia's content standards. I greatly appreciate the Wikipedia Community and the standards it applies to its content. So any specific feedback you can provide for me to improve the article and make it acceptable would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

Piersco (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Piersco: I have received your message on this issue. Please allow me some time before I respond, as I have off-wiki commitments right now that are limiting my time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Kiteinthewind: Thank you! I look forward to your feedback. Piersco (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Piersco: Please read the comment I have left on the article here. I believe the article is notable, but I think the references can be formatted more properly, using Twinkle (you can install this in your preferences page). Furthermore, the Offices section can be merged with others, to make the page read less like an advertisement. Please make these improvements, and I will accept the draft. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Kiteinthewind: I hope you are well. I have edited the copy of the article, removing any language that might be considered superfluous or promotional. I have also reformatted the Offices section of the article. I hope this draft is now acceptable and greatly appreciate your feedback and continued support. Piersco (talk) 7:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I will accept the draft, but I would like you to continue to improve the article. Thanks! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Kiteinthewind: I will, thank you! Piersco (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:02:26, 12 December 2017 review of submission by Schuff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello--I hate to be a pain but I can't understand why my draft on Albert Myer was declined. I included references from Wall Street Journal ("Tyco Sleuth Has Long History Of Uncovering Bad Numbers") and Morning Call ("Accountant Found New Era's Problems"), where Myer is the "Sleuth" and the "Accountant" referenced in the headlines, respectively. These are not parenthetical mentions or minor publications--they are articles about him. Like others whose entries I have edited in Wikipedia, Mr. Myers is a key player in modern US financial history. He was the key player in unmasking the New Era ponzi scheme (which has it's own extensive Wiki entry that referenced him already) and the Tycho bankruptcy, which also has an entry. I hope you will reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuff (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Schuff: I have received your message on this issue. Please allow me some time before I respond, as I have off-wiki commitments right now that are limiting my time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Schuff: Someone else has accepted the draft. Thanks for the contribution. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:G13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was the criterion that Draft:Sophia Ananiadou was deleted under; it is the most innocuous of all the deletion criteria, and, on its own, needs literally nothing more than following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13 for it to be almost immediately restored. Therefore, as a reason for rejecting an AfC, it is possibly the worst reason you could give. I see that Richie333 suggests that you [1] "Go and read WP:PROF immediately ". May I add WP:CSD to your reading material? This way you will see what new articles and their submissions the speedy deleton criteria apply to- and those that they do not. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, a comment on an AFC is not a decline reason; the decline was made because of notability (as a note, I haven't looked into the merits of the decline itself). Primefac (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Indeed, and I wish that were true; but someone working in a sensitive area such as AfC (where one really does bite the noobs with a just a slip of the keyboard) should be far clearer in their communication- there is no indication that they understood aither the criteria, or what the speedy log meant. In fact, communication is wholly an issue here- les than twenty replies to other editors on this page since 2009? It's no surprise that the editor who submitted the article- and presumably others, unknown now- are unhappy. I just hope this isn't a common problem; at least until it requires permission to participate. (But yes, perhaps demading someone plough through that page is a trifle over the top, apologies) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, you make a good point, and it's something to consider from an AFC standpoint. I will bring the matter up with the other AFCH Participants to see what their feelings regarding proper communication should be. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 On the Draft in question, I merely noted the article was speedied in the past, and that was not the reason why I declined the draft. The draft did not show the subject's notability, and was inadequately sourced. Hope this clears things up. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 22:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
And, can you enlighten me as to the potential benefit that part. remark with such ill-chosen words provides to any future reviewer or the submitter? I see nothing save the submitter getting quasi-bitten and feeling dismayed.Winged BladesGodric 13:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Godric, I personally wouldn't have included such a comment in the decline itself, but knowing a page has been deleted can be helpful for future reviewers (especially if the deletion wasn't an obvious one). I think this entire thing is being blown way out of proportion. Kiteinthewind made a mistake, Rhonda overreacted, which caused Ritchie to overreact, and now here we are arguing over one poorly-written comment in a decline. I genuinely think we should all take a step back and ask whether this is worth the massive amount of text and time this has generated. We're definitely at the "more heat than light" stage. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In the rare occasion, that I choose to dis-agree with you, this is not an one-off case.As 54129 has put out, this's a case of continual failure of communication, suddenly rising it's ugly head out.While Kite has his reasons, ACCACCT within a rational time-frame is quite an integral component of the project.And, no, the knowledge about a G13 deletion isn't a bit helpful to any reviewer.And, for now, it's my last comment over here.Winged BladesGodric 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree, a G13 is one of the few deletion rationales that I wouldn't really care about. I think a lack of overall communication is problematic for an AFC reviewer, but asking someone to be more collaborative shouldn't start by threatening to kick them off the project entirely. One BITE does not deserve another. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have hoped that this problem would have ended by now with all sides agreeing to back off, and me starting to be more effective in communicating. I have erred. I have admitted to it, and promised to be more communicative in the future. I have had hopes this this would be the end of it. However, seeing as this incident has shown even further signs of escalation since last night, I have to choice but to declare that should further escalations take place, I will have no choice but to ask a third-party administrator on Wikipedia to intervene, up to and including Arbcom if absolutely necessary. This is not a threat on my end, but a declaration. I am tagging Primefac and Winged Blades of Godric as a way to give notice. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Just for the record, I suggested [2] (keeping discussion in one place, hope that's OK). Take care, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiteinthewind/Archive_(2017.2)&oldid=999372566"