User talk:Mz7/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Driveby GAN
I quick-failed your nomination of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for GAN. The article failed because of instability from content disputes. There are other things wrong with it, too; problems I did not list.
I note that you did not take part in the building of the article, and I see no reason why you would have nominated it for Good Article status. Please refrain from creating bureaucratic work for others with a trivial and unpromising nomination such as this one. If you wish to nominate an article in the future, first apply yourself to improving it in good faith. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response, and believe me, although I did not participate in the development of the article, I read it, and found nothing too serious in the content of the article that could fail it from GA status. I didn't take part in the editing and naturally, I didn't see much of the content disputes by just reading the whole article. Although there may be things in the article that could hold back the status, you said content disputes were the greatest concern that holds it back, can you please tell me some of the things else you saw wrong that I could perhaps work on to make it better? Thank you for your quick response, I will, in the future, stop and check even further before making any good article nomination. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's discuss improvements to the article at the article talk page. Start a new section and I will join in. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I've userfied it at your request at User:Michaelzeng7/Sandbox Worshyp - and it really was A7 worthy, not much to work with :) Skier Dude (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki !
|
Hello, Michaelzeng7, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
Jawaharlal Nehru
Unfortunately, your neutral position is NOT neutral -- I have lived through the 1962 war and have stated the facts (versus the opinion of Parthasarathy). I hope you share my viewpoint of NOT suppressing the truth. You are free to dispute it, not suppress it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Ravi 1944 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I am anxiously waiting for your reply -- You must learn to accept facts along with your sense of neutrality.Jay Ravi 1944 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
BuzzBuzzHome
Hey Michael!
Thank you for your feedback. Being one who appreciates the neutrality of Wikipedia, and also being affiliated with the business I am writing about, I did my utmost to ensure the article remained UN-biased. I drafted it and spent an entire day making edits, removing any positive adjectives such as good, great, vastly, and removing/changing any parts that sounded anything more than a statement of fact. I am going to re-read it right now...OK, still sounds neutral to me.
I also read the comment from User:King4057 who said the article was reasonably close to being publishable - king4057: "It needs to be cut back to what can be verified in sources that are independent of the subject." Generally I would agree, however if you click through reference #11 you will see where many notable publications have featured BuzzBuzzHome (BBH) as the center of interest in their articles, establishing it's notability - not only that but we currently receive over 1 Million page views a month which is pretty notable. As such, I felt it was reasonable to source some information from the website itself as is permitted under the "Independence of sources" section of the Wikipedia:Notability page. For example: "BuzzBuzzHome receives over 135,000 unique visitors per month." --> This is sourced from the BuzzBuzzHome site. In actuality this number is currently closer to 200,000 as the company is growing at a rapid pace. But in keeping with the protocols of Wikipedia I stated what was currently published on the (BBH) website, even slightly playing down BBH.
I believe that if you had read the article without having first seen my username:BuzzBuzzMax, the neutrality of this article would not be in question. If I were you, I certainly would have flagged it, but I'm hoping this explanation will change your view. If not, please let me know which sections should be changed and I will make the proper alterations. I would also inform you that this post was written independent of any direction from BBH. I was shocked to see that the company did not yet have a wiki and took it upon myself to write one.
I'd also like to point out that the things that I did internally source were primarily things that are service based. For example, how the website works, how BBH filters searches, etc...these are all elements of the BBH website that can be easily observed by visiting the site. Anything that isn't service based and is sourced internally is later verified by external sources...for example - in the globe and mail article the author stated that BBH has 100,000 unique visitors and grows at 10% per month - that was in june of 2011 - 1 year later we have close to 200,000 visitors. However, BBH posts 135,000 as they have yet to update this stat.
I'd just like to take one second to thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I know it's not easy keeping it relevant and neutral. While I disagree with your POV on my article, I appreciate what you're trying to do.
Please let me know how to proceed as soon as possible.
Best regards,
BuzzBuzzMax (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
BuzzBuzzHome re-submit
Hey Michael,
I've done a couple edits and added a couple new external sources from notable publications. Please let me know!
BuzzBuzzMax (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
BBH Approval
Many thanks, Michael!
Hopefully the community will fix the issue soon. I will continue making edits to make it sound less like an advert.
BTW...I have uploaded an Image - I would like to add some stats under - for example : hootsuite how do i do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuzzBuzzMax (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
All the best,
BuzzBuzzMax (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I made what I felt were the necessary edits to bring the article in-line with Wikipedia's standards and added the infobox as requested on the Talk page. I made some pretty rough cuts and welcome polishing. The details of how the service works is acceptable, if they can be properly sourced. I don't this requires a "reliable source" since it is not "likely to be contested" but relying on company published materials to describe its own features doesn't quite qualify. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
AFC Backlog
Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!
 Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 3206 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. |
re Radio Today website
Well the book is notable and widely circulated.
Actually the author doesnt take pains to get things published about it in newspaperss, otherwise within 6 months of its release, it is widely available in International market as well!Rrashmissingh (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Taming The Restless Mind
Hi! I'm just writing to let you know that we need a little more than just the say so of an author to have an article pass notability guidelines. The sources on the article are not enough and I'm going to give you advance notice that if it is approved, I'll probably end up AfDing it if someone else doesn't beat me to it. None of the sources show notability and we need more than the book being in wide circulation to pass WP:NBOOK. The rundown of the sources are as follows:
- [1] This is the publisher site and can't show notability. It might be usable as a trivial source, but we really should only use primary sources as trivial sources if there are other independent and reliable sources to back up the claims.
- [2],[3] This site isn't really considered reliable because it's also a merchant site that is selling the book. This means that they would be seen as having an interest in promoting the author as well as promoting her in the best light possible, so this can't show notability in any format.
- [4] This is a press release, which can never show notability since it's considered to be a primary source, released either by the author or by the website that did the interview.
- [5] This is another merchant site, which cannot show notability.
I don't want to make it sound like I have a vendetta against the author or her works, but this book isn't notable enough to have an article and we'd need more than just the say-so of the author to establish notability. Being in wide release does not guarantee notability. It might make it more likely, but it doesn't give notability. We need multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability and that just isn't out there for this book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I'm posting this is because I want to avoid this going to the mainspace, only for it to end up going through AfD and for the author to get upset that one editor approved it and it still got sent to AfD and deleted anyway. I did a search for this book when I'd declined it and there just aren't enough (or any, really) reliable sources out there to show notability for this book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
radio today question
Hi Michael, Thanks for your help with approving the radio today page, I appreciate it. One question that I hope you can help with. I set up my profile and called myself 'danroosters', but gave myself the signature 'editor'. I assumed (wrongly) that in the edit history for the page, it would show my changes/tweaks as 'editor' but it shows them as 'danroosters'. Is there any way to change my user name to something meaningless - like 'drsters'. And for the edit history to reflect the changes that I've made, to therefore be made by 'drsters' not by 'danroosters'. Is that possible? Thanks again...! Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danroosters (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Team Tiger Post
Help! You reviewed a post I did for Team Tiger on August 5 and you said it was not acceptable...can you please tell me exactly what I need to change to get this approve and live...I have been working on this for months and need to get it posted. Please advise. Thank you! Natalie
(Tgreene3 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC))
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind.
Its alright.
But pls ask Tokyogirl to delete many idle pages like Rashmi Singh on Wiki too if she so diligent.
Here is a worthy book, the author which is not so affluent to have published about it in different media section.
When it is available on Amazon and other worthy sites and its PublishersPustak Mahal have a wiki page then too she objects... okay it seems Wiki pages are for the riches...
Thanks
Rrashmissingh (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there If Tokyogirl is biased and thinks that Taming the Restless Mind is not notable it is okay. But I have already stated the popularity of the book lies in readers heart and it is widely circulated all over. The writer, she should understand comes from a area which is considered quite backward in India and then too she managed to come out from where nearly no women in recent times have been able to author a widely circulated book. She should understand how notable is the author and her work.Moreover Books chum do sell but they give honest reviews of the books. She should read the reviews of all the books that are showing there. I hope her education too is notable enough to understand all this and I know it must be then only she is selected as an editor but I doubt...She is still in school...
And as an Editor she should delete so many idle and orphan pages of Wiki... like Rashmi Singhwhat about all this? As the Taming's authors name is the same and a page can't be made on her... just wondering !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrashmissingh (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyways keep rocking guys..
Rrashmissingh (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my comments on your page. This is considered a personal attack and is not considered to be acceptable actions on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just because a book is popular does not necessarily make it notable under Wikipedia's standards. It MUST have reliable sourcing. Otherwise, a fully verified article can never develop. Which is the whole point of Notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Michaelzeng7. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about this Michael, but I'm bringing this to the Wikiquette board and wanted to let you know that I've mentioned the comments on this page.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello Michaelzeng7. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Waze, the free gps navigation app, running on the HTC Vivid (Android).png, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
patrollers needed
Hi there Michael! I've seen you doing some great work on counter-vandalism, have you considered helping at Special:newpages? There are serious backlogs there and your kind of experience is just what is needed. You can find out more about it at WP:NPP and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. On another note, often, as you have seen yourself, some nao at Perm are not helpful at all or even wrong, but what does not help at all is when non admins contradict each each other there. It does not convey the impression to the new users that Wikipedia is maintained by experienced users. If you find an nao comment to be unhelpful, it would probably be best to address the issue on his/her talk page. some editors even feel that there is very little need for any non admin observation. Take care, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |