Jump to content

User talk:Frayae/Safn 13

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Valina L. Dawson has been accepted

[edit]
Valina L. Dawson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chronicle (UK TV programme)

[edit]

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michael Frenzel

[edit]

On 25 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Frenzel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michael Frenzel, the former CEO of European tourism group TUI, escaped from East Germany with his father when he was nine years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Frenzel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael Frenzel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

openHAB

[edit]

Hi Frayae,

I stumbled over the openHAB article and couldn't actually believe what I saw. It's really irritating to see questioned the notability of a project that,

  • has several books published, available on Amazon
  • has been covered by credible news sources
  • has involvement of Universities, has meetings,conferences,workshops
  • has an extensible user base of tens of thousands, or probably millions if you count the commercial products based on it
  • has more than a dozen of companies, big and small, investing in it, relying on it
  • is part of a renowned organization (Eclipse Foundation)
  • exists for almost a decade, ever growing

So I tried to improve the article and establish some of the above facts in it. I agree that the overall quality of the article could use improvement, which is surely easier to obtain when it actually IS an article, and not a deletion candidate. But can we at least establish that this is a notable thing? (After all, that's why I looked it up on Wikipedia, and, after probably more than a decade, reactivated my account and for the first time published to en). I also moved some discussion from the draft to the talk page, I found that irritating, too. I hope that's okay. If you think there's still work to do for this to be accepted as article, can you make suggestions? Caliga (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first suggestion would be to deal the MfD someone else started on the draft after the seventh consecutive decline. Then you need to find reliable independent sources about the subject which are needed to qualify for an article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I never worked on the English wikipedia before, can you give me a pointer what you mean by "deal the MfD"? Also, please be more specific about "reliable independent sources". Did you take note of my additions? How many sources specifically are expected?
    • Thanks for your time and kind consideration Caliga (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is that if it is deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OpenHAB (2nd nomination) then you will not be able to work on it. Canonical is not independent to anything that runs on Ubuntu. The other sources you mention are good. More good sources is better, more bad sources hide the good ones. Bear in mind the average reviewer will only spend a few minutes looking at a draft.
My advice is to remove all the sources which are not independent, and then remove anything in the article not explicitly stated by these sources. This will make the article much shorter, but also more likely to be approved. This is because you need a draft which a reviewer can see the relevance of within two or three minutes. There should not be any sources linking to blogs, github, or the company's own website.
The project was founded in 2010 and has evolved into a mature solution consisting of nearly one million lines of code contributed by hundreds of developers [4] The original code base was merged into the Eclipse SmartHome framework in 2013. - This is what would described as 'promotional'. It uses lots of words to make the sentence sound nice without imparting information. Consider, Openhab was founded in 2010.[4] In 2013 it was merged with the Eclipse SmartHome framework, and now contains nearly one million lines of code.[4] — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgii Chornyi

[edit]

Dear Frayae! Thank you for moving the "Draft:Georgii Chornyi" into the article space on 15 October 2018. Since a few users made editing, reduction, improvement of style and tone and referencing etc. I ask you in this connection to consider possibility of removal of both templates at the beginning of the article Georgii Chornyi. Geokiv (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Everipedia article

[edit]

I would just like to thank you for fixing the once awful article on Everipedia. Before you fixed it, the article looked like a bloated advert and was full of unreliable sources. But now, the article is looking better then ever and i'm not sure if the next web should be used as a source in the article since it might not be reliable, but until there is a consensus on wether or not TNW is a reliable source, it will still be used as a source in the article. So once again, thank you! P.S. Are you a sceptic of cryptocurrencies and the blockchain? 344917661X (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@344917661X: Thanks! TNW doesn't appear to be very reliable judging by the comments at WP:RSN#TNW, certainly not independent. I can't see the big deal in cryptocurrencies myself but I may just not be the target demographic for the product. This doesn't make me a sceptic really, I would have to come up with some intelligent skeptical opinion to do that. By the way I think you deserve a lot of the credit for the improved state of the Everipedia article, given how you put even more work into the article than I did! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did help fix the article as well, but I accidentally readded some stuff in good faith that you removed, so I removed most of the readded content since it mostly looks like advertising. Also, since it seems that the consensus is that TNW isn't a reliable source, I will be removing all sources and claims backed up by the next web in the Everipedia article. 344917661X (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article declined

[edit]

( Gegedei (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC) ) Hi Frayae, I do not understand, what can be a reliable source which can be cited in ma article about Gilla Cremer, which is a german actress. We can point out to performances, films, TV-Productions an we link to them, so far it is possible, but there are no publications where we can cite in this sense. So if I understand you wright, you will have footnotes like in a published book. This kind of publications do not exist on theatre plays ! Playing theatre is a fleeting art, what the user can do to verify, is to follow the links to the schedules on Gilla Cremers HP or the HPs of the venues an theatres or TV-Stations On the same article in german Wikipedia, there are also no footnotes in this sense. what can we do ?[reply]

  • If you hold a theatre performance and it is relevant, then reviewers and newspapers will write about it, and books about theatre will mention the performances. If this doesn't happen then it can't be written about on Wikipedia because there are no sources to base the article on. The German Wikipedia has different standards. You need to find reliable sources about the subject you are writing about, news articles, magazines, books, journals, recorded radio and TV news, website links, could all be plausible sources. Please note that anything written by someone connected to the production does not count. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Street

[edit]

Why is a dab page needed? There are only two items. One points to a page that is a redirect to an article on another subject where the street in question receives only a brief mention. The other street was named for the builder of UW and was one of the original streets platted in Seattle. So we have a clear case where one subject is more signicant and the other can be pointed to in a link from the header. Isn't that standard policy? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I am new to this process so just hoping I did it right and won't get castigated for making any mistakes. FloridaArmy (talk)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trump's dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality. Since you had some involvement with the Trump's dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 05:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Jovi Unnamed European Tour 2019

[edit]

Would you mind deleting the page Bon Jovi Unnamed European Tour 2019? They decided to keep it under current's album promotion instead of the new one

PanosBonJovi (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Nanjing Massacre

[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the error. STSC (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

[edit]

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Markbassett (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the templated notice guidance suggests be put into the creators web page. Not that you're the creator of all the content at the page, just following the suggestion.

I think your intent was reasonable and the case for POVFORK is stronger, but it does fit WP:ATTACK "exists primarily to disparage", or at least that seems to be the effect. A breakout from Donald Trump for criticism is just a bit fraught here. As I said on TALK, there are aggravating factors that made it more a concern to tag. The weaker match at G10 is a good point, and the one shout-out was against tagging it, so maybe this will be a quick reject. But unfortunately the guidance at ATTACK also seems fairly prescriptive:

"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person."

Again, sorry you went so fast and wish more of the experienced shout-outs had waded in. Will see what comes. If rejected, I caution that POVFORK and NPOV concerns would still be active. If deleted I think you can take it as a BRD and craft something in sandbox with scope a bit more fully defined and bit more controlled (e.g. 'this is about the fact-checkers and false statements', observing BLP and consensus there) that might have been fine. That does not seem to be the desire though, so take this as a check and the results will at least be a clear indication to point to one way (back up a bit) or the other (go ahead some more). Markbassett (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission as ATTACK page ... *sigh*, did it
...and it was immediately rejected. Keep in mind that you are running a one-man campaign against the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Markbassett

[edit]

Well, I suppose the Bing translator knows what it's talking about ("Irritating man... I don't know why you hate the article. Enjoy it."), but for myself, I read your "Pirrandi maður" as "my stomach tingles" (det pirrar i magen) and "Góða skemmtun" as "a good joke" (ett gott skämt). Amazing how little Icelandic I can understand! (Even though the middle sentence, "Jag vet inte varför du hatar artikeln", was actually perfectly clear to me, and I'm not sure my reading of the whole wasn't better than Bing's.) Bishonen | talk 15:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There is no exact science to translation, especially when I am not writing in complete sentences. I think you are doing better than Bing! If I was writing in English myself maybe; "[Mark you are an] annoying person. I don't know why you hate the article [so much to G10 tag it]. [At least the debate is] good entertainment." — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's false and misleading claims listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump's false and misleading claims. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump's false and misleading claims redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Markbassett (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - this is the redirect created during a move proposal; as mentioned at that thread it seems a WP:POVTITLE and WP:RNEUTRAL that is just a descriptive phrase and not a term in common use for this subject, and I mentioned intent to file deletion. Seems just a cleanup, but you may feel otherwise and any remarks at the discussion would be welcome. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new user help request

[edit]

Hello Frayae,

I RufinaSmith have contributed on below wiki articles and would seek your feedback. My prime area is key government schemes and personalities from India, primarily from information technology/digital space. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I am looking forward to small contributions as and when my schedule permits. Please suggest for any improvement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omkar_Rai (Creation) (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgii Chornyi

[edit]

Dear Frayae! Since 26 October 2018 the article Georgii Chornyi was improved by complementing of additional citations for verification, and also new titles of sections were entered in it. If you agree to the changes, do you can now remove the maintenance template added to the article? With kind regards! Geokiv (talk) 19:35, 08 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frayae/Safn_13&oldid=867911719"