User talk:SL93/Archive 6

nominate

) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SL93. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuya Soy.
Message added 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DivaKnockouts 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SL93. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Vestal (J215).
Message added 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarity fixed, anything else? Matty.007 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK issues

I've removed 4 references to Tresorit's official site and have replaced them with more credible websites. Billybobjoe997 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/William_De_Los_Santos

Please re-review when you get the chance.--v/r - TP 00:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice statement

Just read your statement. Pretty much share everything you said, except perhaps the soldiers bit. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panchanan Bayam Samity

Dear Reviewer,

I've created the below article and you've reviewed it and deemed it to be unacceptable. Could you please provide details and please let me know what I need to know in order to successfully publish this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anirudha2000_2000/sandbox

Thanks, Ani Anirudha2000 2000 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inline citations. WP:Citing sources. SL93 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Suri 100's talk page.
Message added 09:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply

]

talk) 09:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, Just a quick reminder that you should give everything you approve a rating on the quality scale. There is currently a backlog of 2000 articles without assessment, and that should be at 0. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review tool says that it is optional. 17:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't respond to incivility by being uncivil yourself [7]. If only because you lose the moral high ground by doing so, making your point ultimately less effective.

Is this what being an admin does to people? I doubt that he would have passed RFA if he had a history of this. SL93 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You were warned by an admin, and yet you chose to leave this edit summary. It's unacceptable, and I have blocked you for 31 hours to prevent further such commentary. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't condone the comment you left on Scott's page, which was clearly inappropriate, I wanted to let you know that you were exactly right in reverting their edits. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines under Others' comments clearly states:

or basically that talk pages need not be to publishing standards and making changes to grammer, punctuation and spelling are discouraged and can irritate other editors. Just thought you should know that its actually written down somewhere. Happy editing. :-)

His edit summary called me a weirdo. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am a wierdo (big head, little eyes and a funny looking face:-)) and wouldn't take the slightest offense. I wouldn't let it bother you.

talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's funny how he says that I should reflect on my reputation on Wikipedia when he should reflect on his reputation as an administrator. SL93 (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irony abounds on this site. I'm not familiar enough with that editor/admin to speculate but there are about 1400 admins on this site and of that a large chunk (at least a couple hundred) shouldn't be for one reason or another. Most wouldn't even pass a modern day RFA if they reapplied. Again I wouldn't let it get you down. If you continue to edit I can assure you this is not the last time someone will irritate you and this is likely not the worst thing that will happen or be said to you. Its said, but unfortunately true.

talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I was blocked, but an admin was allowed to call me a weirdo and attack me? SL93 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth here SL93 I would have blocked you too. The comments you made on Scott's page were not acceptable and deleting that discussion with the edit summary of I hate most admins was also not cool. Take a couple days and cool off. I agree that calling you a weirdo wasn't acceptable and I will leave a note about that, but you are not helping your case at all.

talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So the admin gets off free? SL93 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where the admin attacked you, and there's a huge gap between "weirdo" (after your taunting) and "dumb bitchy ass immature admin retard". If you can't see that difference, I probably can't explain it to you. I'm sorry, SL93, since I think highly of you, but that comment was really ridiculous and totally out of bounds. After ec: thank you Kumioko--I think we're probably equally wary of civility blocks. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at his edit summaries and his comments to me on his talk page. He called me a weirdo before I said anything bad. SL93 (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also violated the talk page guidelines by editing my comment. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a section you blanked here it doesn't seem congenial to remove an entire section that others might like to read, when multiple other editors put time and effort into responding to your query. Regards, Crazynas ^t 18:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Researcher's Barnstar
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Researcher's Barnstar in appreciation for your superb work in finding sources showing Coboy Junior: The Movie as suitable for inclusion. Excellent work! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm really new to wiki but trying my best. I have had this article refused because it is like an essay and then its like a 'how to' article? I formatted it exactly like five other wiki articles I was using as examples so I am unsure as to why it is an essay or a 'how to' when it is exactly like other articles in its structure, format and tone. I have cut it back so it is just the facts but somehow it is still an essay. Can you please offer me any suggestions? Thanks for your help.

Miconefal (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a how to article because the article tells people how to prevent it as well as treat it. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the drama above. Any chance you can finish off the review? Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. But, I think you forgot to add this box the overall analysis template. Like

czar · · 20:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, in reviewing you have to illustrate that the article meets the GA criteria, so to not use it, you're not clearly demonstrating that it meets requirements. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted it for re-review so this discussion is moot. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL, I'm not sure relisting it is the best solution. You've already passed it. The best thing to do would be to move forward and ensure that in future reviews you attempt to address them more critically. Some of my own reviews are short, sometimes there is little wrong with articles, but often other editors can see a lot of issues with an article which are not apparent to others. In this case the best thing would be to ask for the input of the Indian project to offer ways to improve it and identify any issues rather than putting back for review. Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review tool comes up with an error each time that I try to approve it because of a redirect. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SL93 for your comments, but I wonder what are the missing RS in the submitted article. Michal Rovner appears on Frence Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michal_Rovner) and much of the article submitted here was translated from the French article by me. She is certainly notable enough to be invited by the most important museum in the world, the Louvre, to produce an installation that has been seen by millions. She had major presentations at the Whitney and at Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume as well as many others. Thank you for indicating to me the exact problems. רסטיניאק (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]

The issue isn't notability. The first two sections have no inline citations. SL93 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again SL93. I added many RS to the first and second paragraphs and there is indeed a plethora of RS to this extraordinary artist. I hope that now the article is ripe for inclusion in WP and that it does not have to wait much longer to be included. I am resubmitting it now. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]

For anyone who reads this - The creator fixed the problem and it was accepted by me. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not (yet) retiring, SL93. It gladdens my heart that editors yet exist who can look on the sort of AfC and simply hit "Decline" as needed. I do not think any copyediting or depuffing (or

WP:RS) can save the article. I do not see any hint of notability. Their product is heavily derivative if not entirely someone else's proprietary work, and its only the company's services that put any value into it. This is a terrible submission on every level. But all that was truly needed was a simple  Declined, and that's all you did. Thank you for that. --R.S. Peale (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

Hi, so my article for Rx Laughter charity was rejected for reading too much like an advertisement and citing biased sources. I have to say that it does neither. All the article does is delineate what the charity does, how it does it, and why. I've sited almost 60 sources. Please review, or at least tell me what I can do to get the article into "article space". This is the 10th time it's been rejected.Enjosh13 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong. Using sentences that include things like "through the power of comedy", "heavy focus", "growing reputation", "unique", "nurture a positive, humorous perspective", "top entertainment industry executives", "innovative", very best humor", "uplifting", "illustrate stress-free, upbeat ways", "carefully implemented", "wisely expanded", and "engenders enjoyment" is promotional. SL93 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Schuylar!

I just inserted the underconstruction label on my Diaskagogy article so that it will be developed further. The term is important to preschool education and I am currently writing a journal article to bring it officially into academia. My concern is that other people need to be writing journal articles about this very important topic. Preschool is the basis for lifelong education though it receives little attention from the academy. I developed the article in my 'sandbox' and may have prematurely submitted it for review. At this point, should I (could I) return it to my sandbox?

It isn't ready for article space yet. If I could change Wikipedia rules myself, I would make it so that a term that is frequently used is notable automatically. I don't think that something like that can get consensus. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox isn't article space . . . is it? How do I put it back into my sandbox?

talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I moved it back to your sandbox for you. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've added some references that are independent of the subject but not independent of me . . . it's difficult to gauge how to get input on this one.

talk) 00:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Thanks for filling Prep 4 at DYK. When you promoted the Amrut Distilleries hook, did you notice that the DYK reviewer had expressed a strong preference for ALT1? (I ask because you chose the other hook.) --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I promoted the alt hook, but obviously not. I changed the hook in the prep area. SL93 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote both of them, so I obviously don't have a strong preference, but I figure that reviewers' opinions should be respected. --Orlady (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SL93,

We have submitted an article for Praj Industries. It was earlier rejected in February because the language used was thought to be marketing oriented. We have since made changes to the content and resubmitted the same, but now we are getting a message that This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Please let me know if we should remove any of the sections so that the article can be accepted. One section I think may be causing an issue is Awards and Recognition. We can remove this altogether if it helps the article submission.

Thanks Jagdisha (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Office
Thank you for quality articles on topics as varied as film and wildlife refuge, such as The Singing Office, Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge and Buffalo burger, for caring about articles for creation and deletion, for efficient reviews, - did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, thank you tremendously for taking the time from your busy schedule to review my DYK nominations--it is greatly appreciated! I am thankful for your kind words and feedback, and it has certainly been a pleasure participating in DYK as both an editor and a reviewer. I just wish there were more hours in the day for me to research and write about all the interesting places and people that I would like to profile. I thank you for all your extraordinary efforts and contributions to DYK and Wikipedia! --

This is the file where we record all hooks that are removed from prep areas and unpromoted. I recorded the two from today, since I didn't think you knew about this step; you should do the same any that you need to remove going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't know that it existed. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: I didn't either the first time I removed an article, and someone had to point it out to me as a needed step. It's really not documented well; it's only mentioned at Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue, and most people figure out how to do it without those instructions. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give yourself a break! Relax, and savor the chocolate chips. No need to apologize for "late review" of Rocco, you reviewed again within 24 hours, and within 10 hours of my revision. That is more than reasonable, and I thank you for it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SL93! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so

I can.

"This system can launch decoys against anti-ship missiles coming from different directions to evade them." in article compared to "Deseaver can launch decoys against anti-ship missiles coming from different directions.".

"The Indian government approved the construction of the three ships in May 2000." in article compared to "The Indian Government approved the construction of three Kolkata Class destroyers in May 2000."

"Chennai, like the other Kolkata-class destroyers, would incorporate stealth, and have modern weapons and sensors, an advanced action information system, an auxiliary control system, modular living spaces, and a sophisticated power distribution system." and "The indigenously-designed ship class marked a significant development in India's shipbuilding technology." in article compared to "The indigenously designed ship will have state of the art weapons and sensors, stealth features, an advanced action information system, a comprehensive auxiliary control system, world class modular living spaces, sophisticated power distribution system and a host of other advanced features." SL93 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. I will start correcting them right now. Actually, I was pretty sure I was not closely paraphrasing any of the cited references in the article - but it seems that when I re-worded the text, it matched some author/reference elsewhere. :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were in the article though. SL93 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine now. I removed the tag. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad that you pointed these out! :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, I never manage to quite say this to set assemblers in a way that is received well, despite my good intentions, but I'm going to try again because I think it's important. Some people who build prep sets like to do so as a whole, and one of the things that's the most fun is selecting the lead hook. With your promotion of Nancy, you've now taken the next three prep set leads. It would be nice if you let others have a chance at the next couple.

Please do not take this as a request to undo any of the promotions, or even to demote them to non-lead slots—it's not that at all, and not fair to the nominators to have a lead image disappear. It's just that not everyone has the same philosophy of building sets, and might have other hooks in mind for potential leads. Thanks, and I hope I didn't screw up this note; I apologize if I did. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is such a big deal as long as it gets done. I have no problem with not completing prep sets. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I will have to disregard your concern over updating preps being fun. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then think of it as sharing, if you will. I have no concern over not completing prep sets—as I said, some people like to do complete sets, and some don't. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was such a great thing to be considered hogging. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no policies in place about such things. No wonder this didn't go over too well. SL93 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you know, once I pointed it out, the behavior did change. There may not be policies—most of what's written dates from the era when there was only a single prep area, or after the second was introduced—but people were willing to adapt once it was mentioned. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bad behavior to fix so there is no reason for change. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had your say which should be enough without any type of consensus, with policies or not. More editors would have raised concerns if it was such an important issue, but I find the matter to be trivial. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nominate ) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC) DYK for The Private Affairs of Bel Ami DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] If you create any more can you add them to lists like List of American films of 1947? Thanks!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Talkback Hello, SL93. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Vegard Lysvoll. Message added 10:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. talk) 10:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ] Boris Nikolov Hey, thanks for the review! I replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Boris Nikolov (footballer). — Toдor Boжinov — 13:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the talk) 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks2 Thank you and thank you for the DYK nom and the AfD defense. - PKM (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sharknado See what you think of the plot summary now. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] It looks great. Thanks. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi Thank you for reviewing Olivia Wells, anyhow could you take a look at my quite newly created article on Elisabet Höglund and see if you can find any improvements that needs to be made. I have placed it up for DYK but some users think it needs some more tweaks. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I wish that I could, but I don't think that I would be of any use to that article. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Amish romance and red links Hey there. Still new to Wikipedia. I'm wondering...you reverted my edit because "there is nothing wrong with red links." But why have the links if they don't go to anything? I'm still learning. HeathenBenny (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Red links are allowed in articles if it is possible for those articles to be created. Those red-linked authors are notable and the red links might make someone interested in starting those articles. WP:REDLINK has good information. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ] Ah, that makes sense. Thanks a lot :) HeathenBenny (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Tait Memorial Trust Hello, I have provided a ref for the page ie the website for the Trust http://www.taitmemorialtrust.org/Home The page follows the template of the Australian Music Foundation page which also uses the foundation page as its only reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Music_Foundation Re the orphan tag I have linked the page to Dame Joan Sutherland, Googie Withers, John McCallum, Dr John Amis, Barry Humphries, Piers Lane, Jeffrey Smart, Julian Gavin and Benjamin Bayl Re Advertising. I hope it doesn't appear like that. It is simply a true statement about the Tait Memorial Trust Thank you for your help to improve this article Londonopera (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] recent band page submission Hi SL93, I submitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brutal_Verschimmelt a few days ago and you rejected it. From what I understand, I need to establish the notability of the band with verifiable references. The criteria for the notability of ensembles given here says "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of ... a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." (1) In my understanding, the band's tour in June 2013 falls into this category of a national concert tour in Germany with 9 concerts in 10 days, i.e. it does indicate "notability". (2) The non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources is given, in by mind, by the two articles in renowned daily German newspapers, namely the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung and the Allgäuer Zeitung which I both referenced. Can you please tell me whether the approach of (1) and (2) basically makes sense, or tell me where I am wrong or missing a point? I admit that the correct placement of references in the text does not carry my argument in the best way. I will improve this for sure. But before I fiddle with irrelevant details, I first wanted to get your clarification on my overall strategy. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2spring (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Question Hi SL93, I have a question about the recent nomination for deletion for the page Lyon County League. Could you please explain what violated the Wikipedia rules? I took another sports league page (Centennial League) and based LCL off of that. I was just wondering, so if you could help me, that'd be great! Thanks! Corkythehornetfan--StingersUp! 23:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was basing it on the notability guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources should help to learn about reliable sources. Centennial League does not show notability in its current state either. A league is automatically notable if it is a professional sports league, if that fact is verified, which a high school league is not. Leagues that are not a professional sports league need to meet the notability guideline. Non-independent sources can be used, but only if notability is shown with other sources. Multiple independent reliable sources include at least two of them with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkythehornetfan (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi sl93, I don't know why you guys want to delete this page so bad, anyway I surrender. I won't improve it because it's been nominated for speedy deletion, so no matter what I do it'll end up being deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megahmad (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SL93/Archive_6&oldid=1146593853" Toggle limited content width