User talk:Onel5969/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

Archive 35: October 2017

Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas

Hey there. Would you have a moment to look at Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. It seems to be a puffed up article filled with trivial details about a small housing development that hasn't even got a GNIS entry. A second opinion would be great. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677 - I'll take a more in-depth look later, but a cursory look makes me agree with your assessment. Issue is, all the citations have to be checked, and those which are promotional, pr pieces, or unreliable sources, need to be weeded out. Then we can figure out if it passes WP:GNG, because it certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Rainbow Tribe disambiguation page

Hi One-I-5969,

Last spring you closed an aFd discussion which resulted in paring down an older disambiguation page to a redirect. I was available then for the opening of that discussion, but unfortunately not for its closing a month later. I finally had a little time today to address your original question a bit further, which I have attempted to do on that page's Talk page. I will be happy to try to do my best to answer any further questions you may have about this, on that Talk page. Sorry for not being able to participate in the closing of that conversation earlier.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

How can autobiography issues be properly addressed?

Please provide clear instructions how to improve autobio articles so that the template can be removed. Wiki articles are not eternal pillories even if these people did sth wrong. Allensbacher (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see the requirements under WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It would be one thing if these articles had been significantly edited since they were created autobiographically. But they haven't. The situation is similar to an "Orphan" tag. Just because that tag has been on an article for a significant length of time doesn't make it any less valid. Only linking to other articles is a valid reason for removal. Until significant editing by neutral editors occurs on a page, the auto tag should remain. It is simply alerting readers that the main contributor to the article is the subject of the article. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
So this is to say that autobio and similar templates may be removed once and only once an article has been cleaned up by neurtral editors? Even if the article has been create by the person concerned? And how about articles on persons who do not meet the notability criteria? Why is their article kept on wiki with the templates rather than simply deleted? Allensbacher (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Northside Christian College, Everton Park

Hi, Thanks for sending a message that you've marked the Northside Christian College for deletion. I am a new editor and certainly din't mean to make it sound like advertising. Can I ask that I remove all the new edits that I made except for the intro part and make it a stub that was originally accepted instead of delete the whole entry? Also, I don't want to take up too much time but can you let me know which parts sound like advertising? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnesemiddleton (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability tag removed per WP:NGEO

I've removed the notability tag on Parish Church of Our Lady of the Rosary. Please note at WP:NGEO: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." The national historic designation of the church is outlined in the infobox, intro, and in a full section of the article. Prburley (talk)

Thanks for that Prburley, I was reviewing several church articles, and mistakenly tagged that one. You're absolutely correct. Onel5969 TT me 14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm used to it. Articles for non-US/European entities are constantly flagged with this stuff. Prburley (talk)

33, Cathedral Street

Thank you for your review of 33, Cathedral Street. The article is currently under construction. Kindly note that other sources are found below in the further reading section. I have done my research and saw that is has enough notability which you can verify. The article will be reviewed and discussed with the Maltese Admin (@Xwejnusgozo:) and those interested in Wiki Project Malta. Kindly also see my other created pages. There are several requested pages and I am trying to address this. You may give me a feedback here. Regards.Continentaleurope (talk) Continentaleurope (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hearts of Jesus and Mary Parish Article for deletion

Good day to you!

Thanks for informing me about the deletion of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary Parish Article. I'm sorry that i forgot to explain why that page should not be deleted. I'm still getting some information about the church. It's still not finished due to my school works. What will I need to do to prevent the deletion of the page, Thanks! --Neonridex1 (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

~Competitive gaming

The talk page refers to the deletion discussion, which was summed up as: 'The result of the discussion was keep. Also, gambling is competitive by nature, isn't it? It's certainly zero sum, unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology.' If you don't want to follow that, I suggest you explain why - on the talk page. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The redirect was kept as a result of a discussion, which means the consensus was to keep the redirect, which was already pointed out to you by Mduvekot. Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Tourism in Russia

Hi. Could you please look at the 04:48, 11 October 2017‎ edit by Jim1138 to the Tourism in Russia article and see if it could be reverted? I contacted this user here [[1]].Denghu (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Im Husayn my old account has been block. i create Articel for Murad Ali Murad. Thank for editing the page Talib Hussain 20 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi One. This is K.D.Satyam here, I have some latest update in my filmography section, Recently I have written a film called "Mukkabaaz", This is the Wiki link to that page.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukkabaaz. As you said that I should not update any further, pls let me know how to go about it. This is the Reference Link. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/brawler-1039664 Pls have a look into it. Regards K.D.Satyam (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

University of Georgia School of Law

Dear Onel5969,

I notice your advertising page problem note template, and your reversion of moot court competition, etc., on the University of Georgia School of Law article.

I adjusted the moot court sentence so it would not appear improper based on your notation to the reversion, although I have seen other law schools’ articles that were similar or more pronounced. Since the sentence states as previously written that students could participate in national and international competition (which is true) I still don’t see the problem with the original sentence. Some schools (like Georgia) emphasize moot court, etc. while others do not.

Regarding the advertising problem note template - could you give some direction as to how you would fix the article so the note can be removed?

Thanks for your help. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 9:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Setia Darma House of Masks and Puppets

Thanks for your nice note on my talk page. I think you're right that Setia Darma fails GNG - although I happen to think it's important, LOL - so please go ahead and delete. AdventurousMe (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Just a brief one. I have User talk name now. Going to take me a bit of working out. I want to do this efficiently and as professionally as is possible with my skill set. If it turns out I do not have the appropriate skill set I will stop. Quality is everything! Thank you for your help. It is all very knew right now so I am rather confused as to how this site works. I will follow tutorials where offered, and listen to any advice offered if sound and reasonable. It is quite exciting yet rather daunting! Kākāpō (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Cecilia Park, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Coproduction Office page review

Hi there, it's Rupnik17. You reviewed my article about Coproduction Office, thanks for that! I re-edited the text without the problematic passages and I was wondering if you could check it again to speed up the review process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupnik17 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Marsy's Law Request

Hi Onel5969, I wanted to follow up on a request I made in January 2017. I have suggested a couple small edits to update recent changes to Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota at Marsy's Law. I have a conflict of interest that is fully disclosed on the Marsy's Law Talk page and I will not edit the page myself. You helped me with this article and the Marsy's Law (Illinois) article in 2015, and I was hoping you could help me with these small changes as well or advise me on the best way to make these additional edits. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say well done on working on those articles you have created on film. I was looking through your talk and it seems you don't get a lot of gratification for your work. JohnSmith678 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JohnSmith678 - Just trying to go through and get rid of redlinks! Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Why my page Kashiyatra content is regularly removed

Hi, I am Kalpesh Bansal, a core team member of Kashiyatra, an Annual Socio-Cultural Festival of Indian Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. I have got a page on the name of the festival and your team is regularly removing all its content which I update on it. Please tell me the reason of your such actions.

Kalpeshbansal (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)KALPESH BANSAL

Hi Kalpeshbansal - simply because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. A while ago, it was the subject of an AfD discussion, where it was decided to redirect the page. Please read the guidelines for notability at WP:GNG. Second, you should not be editing the page at all, since you have a conflict of interest. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So can you please help me by letting me known to how others, not a part of Kashiyatra team, can edit the content on this page as I have been questioned by some of the people that they are not able to edit the content. Should I tell them to make a new page where they can edit the content about Kashiyatra.

Kalpeshbansal (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)KALPESH BANSAL

15:34:35, 26 October 2017 review of submission by Danlipka


Hi, I am really unsure what else needs to be done on this page, two people just said there weren't any changes, but I have no idea what changes are needed. There were a lot of changes from the original entry to what it has now. Everything has a valid source and nothing seems promotional. If you could provide any specific advice it would be greatly appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Making_Headway_Foundation Thank you. Daniel Lipka (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to My name is not dave, who previously declined the draft. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Courtesy ping to Justlettersandnumbers, who draft-ified the article as well as stating that it was 'undersourced'. And ping Danlipka for the sake of it. I will go through the sources one by one:
  1. [2] -- from what I can see, this website is used to promote non-profits. It is therefore not independent, as these organisations are creating their own profiles here.
  2. [3] -- this looks alright, until the end, where it seems to show that this is a promo of the company. Actually I just realised it's WP:PRIMARY, quoting the source, it states I was lucky enough to spend time talking with two of the founders of Making Headway and I came away enlightened and inspired. As it's an interview, it is not a secondary source.
  3. [4] -- unfortunately this source doesn't make Making Headway its main subject. It is a bit better than just a passing mention, but it's not the main feature of this source.
  4. [5] -- Okay this source is a little better. It is not PRIMARY and has the organisation as the main subject. It's from the same site as the second one above; one should note that the general notability guideline states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Something to be aware of.
  5. [6] -- this source is just a list of one organisation's partners. For the purposes of notability this is a moot source.
  6. [7] -- mu. This is a bit promo-ey, it's alright, it's more or less independent (albeit with a quote from one of the founders). But it is not a 'clean' source.
  7. [8] -- this is just a profile, like the first, seems to be managed by the non-profit itself, and doesn't appear to be an independent source.
  8. [9] -- not the subject of the article.
  9. [10] -- not the subject of the article.
  10. The book by Bill Clinton. AGF pass for content, but I could not confirm nor deny its significance in the book.
The crux of all of this is notability. Basically, the sources are not what WP:GNG wants. We want significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The sources above do not fully satisfy that, I think that is what we are trying to say when we say it is 'undersourced'. Other people have the right to completely trash my opinion, but I am not convinced. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Further to this, the sources are all local. WP:AUD states On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed response, it is greatly appreciated. I will look into each comment and see if they can be clarified, find better sources, or removed. For example, you said that greatnonprofits.org was not independent, but it is actually one of the most independent and trusted sources of information about non-profits on the web. However, I will definitely try to address all the issues you raised. Thanks again Daniel Lipka (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Danlipka: By saying that the source was not independent, I noted that a non-profit could 'claim' their page through this, which raises questions as to whether the source here is independent of the subject -- simply, are we referencing something the organisation wrote? My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. I've made several change, as recommended.

1. I tried to find the most official documentation of the organization's mission. The link goes to the NYS Office of the Attorney General's Charity Search. The link "Certificate of Incorporation" is a document (created and approved by NYS) that includes the mission. This isn't a news source, but I thought an official government source would be work as well.
2. I used a different source, which is a little more focused on the organization.
3. I removed this reference, it was unnecessary anyway.
4. This source is used twice, but different articles (I know it's not ideal)
5. Removed
6. I'm not sure why this isn't clean and independent. It's an article written by a large independent magazine about the organization.
7. Guidestar is the leading reviewer of non-profit organizations. Organizations that are transparent and meet their standards are given recognition. Making Headway was given their highest rating, which is notable. I am not referencing anything the organization wrote, just the award.
8. I’m a little confused, the links are just confirming a fact about the organization. Does it really need to be the subject on the article? I can remove these if needed.
9. See #8
10. In the book, Clinton spends several pages on the organization, the founders, and their good work. I can add quotes from the book if that helps.
Overall, I have four unique news sources. I don't think anything is promotional and it is just limited to facts. I've look at other similar organizations on wikipedia and they had a lot fewer sources and a lot more optional information. What do you think? Of course, I am happy to continue to work on this so that it meets the standards of wikipedia. Thank you. Daniel Lipka (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
First, thanks for all the input from the talk-page stalkers. Second, I agree with My name is not dave's assessment on each of the sources they've outlined above. Now to address the main points most recently brought up by Danlipka. There are two general types of sources: ones that simply validate an assertion made in the article and those which not only validate an assertion, but can be used to show the notability of the subject of the article. Both are useful, but the issue here is notability. I only mention the first type so that you don't remove citations which verify a fact in the article, even if they don't help notability.
There are two issues with the article. First, neutrality. Currently it reads like a promotional brochure for the organization, rather than an article about a notable organization. The recognitions section is wholly promotion. Needs to be deleted outright. Those are things which promote the organization, even if they are true. The second paragraph in the history section also is a bit promotional. The Programs section, would be okay in a much longer, more detailed article, but in such a short promotional article it simply lends to the overall promotional tone. But all those can be dealt with through editing. The bigger issue is notability. And here, the biggest issue is that it doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH. If several of your articles weren't from local sources but were from papers in different regions, than that would be overcome. Onel5969 TT me 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Danlipka: I am pleased to say that I share the thoughts of Onel5969. I linked to a thing above, WP:AUD, which places higher weight on sources that might have a higher readership than the ones currently listed. I think the bottom line is that your charity needs to have more than local coverage. If you can show this, then that will be great. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I can certainly delete the recognition section, although I see similar things on many other entries. Originally, the programs section had a lot more information (taken from the articles), but I was told to cut it way down, so I did. I understand your perspective about notoriety and Making Headway has done most of its work behind the scenes for decades. They are the 2nd largest non-profit in the country that focuses specifically on pediatric brain tumors (which cause more deaths in children than any other type of illness). So my question is, does the organization have to have notoriety, or does it have to be important? Thank you again for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlipka (talk • contribs)

You'll note that behind our messages we are placing colons -- this is to indent our messages for the sake of organisation, and it also shows that you are not new. Do follow this practice, and make sure to always sign your posts. Simple talk page etiquette.
Well, it comes down to sources. Making Headway seems to do a lot of good work, but how do readers know that? Our lifeblood is sources, really, and that is the decider of notability, which in turn defines our established idea of what importance is. This is perhaps best explained in WP:42. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know about the colons, thanks. Sorry about forgetting to sign as well. You are the experts and if this doesn't meet the criteria, I'll except that judgement. I don't know of too many other articles in which Making Headway is the subject, although there are many that mention the organization. There are also dozens of published research papers that the organization funded and is mentioned, but I guess that doesn't meet this standard either. Thank you again for everything Daniel Lipka (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Danlipka -- No worries. I would never say never -- it might just be WP:TOOSOON. You can return any time to this draft with some statewide or national stuff to speak about. Be aware, declined drafts that have not been edited in six months are subject to deletion. Therefore, it would be best to move your draft to your userspace (so it would be at User:Danlipka/Making Headway Foundation, currently red-linked of course) and remove the decline notices. I can do this for you if you wish. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
If you could move it, that would be great (I don't want to screw anything up at this point). Making Headway is expanding services to new locations, so perhaps it will get some media attention (as I mentioned, this is not something they regularly seek out). Thank you so much for your prompt, professional assistance and expertise. Daniel Lipka (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Danlipka:  Done -- User:Danlipka/Making_Headway_Foundation. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you know about Sandor Blum?

Hi! I saw you edited an article about Alex Blum, and I was wondering if you know if that Alex has anything in common with Sandor Blum. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saraiki_dialect&action=history

Sir,

You are a senior on Wikipedia. You look like neutral person. A user Uanfala is trying to change Saraiki status from dialect of Punjabi to separate language. He has started fourth Request move since 14 August 2015. All admins / other users have this time started to support him by wrongly labelling me as a sock of LanguageXpert. I promise I will not edit any more or evade block but you please close Move discussion by reading these sources which clearly show Saraiki is a Punjabi dialect/ Variant.

Please intervene as a honest person

Literature and independent sources review.

  • Sultan Bahu was a Sufi mystic, poet and scholar active mostly in the present-day siraiki speaking South Punjab province of Pakistan. His biography Divan of Bahu: English Translation with Persian Text written By Hadrat Sultan Bahu, Syed Ahmad Saeed quotes him speaking Saraiki dialect Divan Bahu
  • Background Notes on South Asia May 2011 by US department of State writes Saraiki is a Punjabi Variant. South Asia
  • Crossing Boundaries edited by Geeti Sen, Punjabi south western dialect Saraiki Crossing Boundaries
  • List of official, national and spoken languages of Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Saraiki is a Punjabi Variant. List
  • Studies in Pakistani culture: an international perspective by Saraiki is not a language.international perspective
  • The World Factbook 2014- 15, Books 2014-2015 by Central Intelligence Agency, United States Government Publications Office. Punjabi variant Saraiki factbook
  • India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 24 fourth dialect Saraiki. 24
  • Pakistan, a country study, American University (Washington, D.C.). Foreign Area Studies, United States. Dept. of the Army. There are three dialects, Saraiki is southern.American University
  • Outlook; a Journal of Opinion, Volume 3, Three dialects spoken in Punjab include Saraiki. Outlook
  • Unity in diversity: a vision for Pakistan by Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar Ferozsons Ltd 2005 , Hindko Pothwari Saraiki all are dialect of same language. Ferozsons Ltd
  • Routledge Handbook of Psychiatry in Asia by Dinesh Bhugra, Samson Tse, Roger Ng, Nori Takei Saraiki (A Punjabi variant) Handbook

39.33.158.201 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Friendly(talk page stalker)
This is really unfair. How can you expect anyone other than a knowledgeable Asian help you on this. You must withdraw and ask elsewhere.
You are canvassing for support it woud seem[11] Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_47&oldid=1137158474"