mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| archive = User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive %(counter)d |
| archive = User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive %(counter)d |
||
| algo = old(7d) |
| algo = old(7d) |
||
| counter = |
| counter = 20 |
||
| maxarchivesize = 250K |
| maxarchivesize = 250K |
||
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
Revision as of 06:40, 27 July 2010
——————————————— Navigation ———————————————
If you are about to post something new please wait and take the time to look at my archives and the currently active discussions to see if something similar has been posted already, if not please continue. I will not scream at anyone if they ask a question again, instead I will link them to the archived discussion that contains the answer. Conversely, if am unable to answer your question I will forward it to an administrator who if they cannot answer it may look for the relevant information that might help or ask a bureaucrat who will be able to help you.
For the first non-numbered Archive go here |
Template:G has been used for the following templates in the past:
When writing in the shoutbox, please make new shouts on the top of the box and expect replies in the shoutbox as well. Click the above link or to shout! |
AfC Status
For my own information:
AfC submissions Random submission |
3+ months |
Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me
DirectHit
You declined an "Article for creation" for DirectHit because you said it was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" - in fact, it had many excellent sources, such as The Lancet and many other scholarly publications; just because the author has not formatted things quite correctly is not a good decline reason. Please could you check other submissions that you declined; if we can salvage these articles - ie if they are not 'speedy deletion' type material - then it is worth trying to fix them, or at least asking the originator to fix them, rather than declining. Thanks, Chzz ► 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right gotcha, well in most cases the starter of the articles hadn't had activity beyond creation of the articles, in a few instances I had to report one to UAA because they made an article about themselves in AfC which I failed to catch when I put it on hold. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw the UAA, but I did not understand that either; you reported Ranjani Shettar (talk · contribs), who does not exist - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ranjani Shettar was written by Talwar108 (talk · contribs). Chzz ► 03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Erh.... this isn't the first time I made a mistake like this... I need better glasses, I miss this and that and then this goes missing that gets moved augh I'll refrain from AfCs until I can get this all sorted out. Remember if you need to click the trout at the top. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello! Your submission of DirectHit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fridae'sDoom, thanks for improving this article. There are further comments from me and others that need to be addressed, see Did You Know nominations page. On a personal note, such a large and importunate "stop" sign for people editing your talk page might give the impression that you do not want to communicate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign... LOL then I wouldn't have this many messages. Ok. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fridae'sDoom, I see you have replaced the scientific hocus-pocus with a statement that is easier readable. Unfortunately that's now not a reliable source and will be rejected at DYK -- press releases are generally not well received.
- My "Requesting second opinion" has unfortunately been ignored at DYK. Could you maybe put both sources (the gibberish and the press release) to the DYK hook statement and ask at WP:MEDICINE if someone would be willing to check the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fridae'sDoom, thanks for improving this article. There are further comments from me and others that need to be addressed, see Did You Know nominations page. On a personal note, such a large and importunate "stop" sign for people editing your talk page might give the impression that you do not want to communicate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Mandy Gonzalez
I've spent loads of time fixing AFC things, so forgive me ranting - I know others have complained above.
Another one just occurred, where a new user entered the help channel asking why Mandy Gonzalez was declined.
It should not have been; it had sources to NY Times, Playbill, Broadway.com and BroadwayWorld.com.
Please check over the other AFCs you may have done.
I appreciate your acceptance of the feedback above, but please - save me more time - and check over them. Thank you. Chzz ► 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
...and another. Another user complaining about how their submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloginity Networks - "nothing was interesting" is not constructive feedback to new users. Chzz ► 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article wasn't very informative. I didn't screw up all of them, I'm doing better the only problem was that a lot of the bloody articles used blogspot as a source. HOW ON EARTH is Blogspot verifiable and notable? Five articles were copyvios which I checked and I had subsequently reported the userbbs. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
KwikMed Page
Greetings,
Thanks so much for reviewing my page. I see there is a hold due to the references section but I am not sure how to correct the problem. How should I correct the problem?
Thanks so much!
JenSmith27 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)JenSmith27
Hi again,
If anyone is reading this and might be able to give me some feedback on my page so that it can be approved I would be very grateful. Not sure where Fridae's Doom is but I noticed it says I have 24 hours to make changes and I am quickly approaching that without a response. It says something about the references section and the page being jumbled but I have so far had no feed back that suggests how I may fix this.. Thanks!!! :)
JenSmith27(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC).
Ahem
Your work at AFC has been less than helpful (from viewing the threads on your talk page above related to it). Especially here. No one quite really cares if you've heard of a subject. You might familiarize yourself with the reviewing instructions before you continue your work there. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Your enthusiasm is commendable! But I think it would be appropriate to be a little more conservative with the "decline" button. Many of the articles you've declined look like reasonable article stubs and should probably not be rejected out of hand. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Village Siswala is not very notable, I mean an electrical engineer and a management student do not make it a notable place. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- When in doubt, hold. And remember that this isn't about us, it's about them- new contributors to Wikipedia in many cases. We have the responsibility to give them an acceptable and detailed reason why their article can't be accepted, and to work with them to improve it if it can at all be salvaged. Please remember that and tread carefully. sonia♫♪ 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was only following the article policies :/ perhaps I was being a bit too harsh. Village Siswala however definitely WAS NOT notable. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Siswala may not be notable, but it's not relevant whether you personally have heard of the village or anybody from it. That comment is a source of concern in the context of AfC.
- There are other declined articles for "lack of sources" that appear to be well sourced:
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Al Agnew American naturalist painter - declined for lack of sources despite what appear to be several reliable independent sources
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Megan Rye - ditto
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Fiske Whitney
- Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are other declined articles for "lack of sources" that appear to be well sourced:
- Some were changed after I declined them, in fact there were some articles that other reviewers declined that the authors had replaced the Pending AfC Tags on. I admit my mistakes but at least it wasn't as big a screw up as last time. They had sources like blogspot. About 80% of my decisions were correct at the time. So please also check the history log. But yes thanks all for telling me my mistakes. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
C Ebner
Hello,
I'm trying to complete this post and have my article accepted, but obviously having problems with doing it correctly. I don't know if I am just inept at this, or if I'm not looking in the right places for help. The person I am submitting about is a well known author and journalist. I'm confused, can you help me with edits? Or is that not something you do? I would really like to get this published on Wikipedia ASAP, as I have been trying to get it done for quite some time.
Thank you C Ebner (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)C Ebner
I am new to Wiki - just submitted my first article Megan Rye - which was defined as sub quality. Being new to this process - I thought I had carefully done a lot of research.
I am hard pressed to find anything that I wrote that wasn't verified in the independent press - on several occasions more than once.
The only thing that might be "contentious" is the sentences talking about future exhibitions. If I remove this - I think everything else is extremely well sourced.
Please let me know if I am overlooking anything else??
Thank you,
rachelgregor2010@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelgregor (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello...
Hi,
Sorry to keep bugging you, I would just really like to get my article going and since you have put it on hold I have been trying to reach you to see what I can do to remedy the situation.
I also have made revisions and still have not heard anything...
Done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much FD:) Only one question, I looked over the rating system and noticed that for C class one of the main issues is unreliable sources, I have cited the Wall Street Journal, several .gov sites with official documents, USA today,a published study straight from the mayo clinic. I thought these were all pretty credible sources. Please let me know your thought on this as I would love to improve this as much as possible.
Replied. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
New tool: ACH
You might be interested in a tool that I am making - WP:ACH. As of now, I'm still making it, but let me know if you want to test it. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hastings
See your DYK nom on Hastings. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Megan Rye article
Hello - I wrote you a few days ago on your talk page. I am not trying to be difficult - rather this is the first wiki article I have written.
Please specifically let me know which items were not verified by a third party source. I think ALL of my article has been sourced by reputable media. With the exception of two sentences regarding future exhibits. I asked you a few days ago - if these sentences regarding future exhibits are removed - will it then be acceptable?
Again, I just need more feedback.
Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Megan Rye article
Hello - I see your comments on my talk page. I am not sure why forumgallery.com isn't a reliable source.
I was following the example of Wiki entry Marc Handelman - another artist, and the top external link for his entry is similarly the NYC gallery that represents his work.
It would be easy to delete Guernicamag as a link.
And in the body of my entry - Marya Hornbacher - has been a wiki entry for a long time - is this considered an internal link?
Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Trouted
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted because the button was closest by and was most fitting. Your actions here, IMO, were highly objectional. The article looks fine and should have been brought to AFD with your concerns. Formatting is not a criterion in AFC publication. Sincerely, Blurpeace 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You've clearly had some trouble with article reviewing at AFC before (just based on the scroll up). Maybe you'd like to join us on IRC? Ping me (Blurpeace) if I'm online when you get on. Blurpeace 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can't get on IRC, yes but I don't see how Guernica Magazine and Forum Gallery were good sources. I'm being too harsh and too ignorant... often at the same time. IRC is blocked on my laptop by the NSW DET so I can only use it Friday-Sunday. Thank you all for dealing with me so long and for giving me an elongated first chance :) I appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A decline reason needs to give the new user feedback, on the problems with their article and either a) how they can fix it, or b) why it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
In this one, for example, you put "Per hold >24 hours" - the new user has only made one edit, and probably has not been back yet, so far; when they get back, that message would be no use to them.
I changed that one to 'web'. Chzz ► 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/US Universities Debating Championships is similar, see this edit. Chzz ► 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In the hold reason, you put "Same source used three times".
Please, look at any (probably every) featured article, where the same sources are used many, many times. Chzz ► 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
DirectHit
I've moved this into a DYK prep queue, but before it goes on the main page you need to properly format those first 5 refs, which are currently bare URLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Recent thoughts
Hello Fridae'sDoom, You have been the subject of criticism based upon some of your recent actions. While I agree it is warranted, I preface any comments with the pronouncement that it is offered with the earnest hope that it will allow you to improve your-own efforts on Wikipedia. Much of what I might have said has already been said by others, whereas it is just as valid having been said by them. What is left for me to say is I think your intentions are completely honorable. If anything your zeal, which is otherwise a good attribute, is bordering upon over zealousness. From that perspective, a good intention can produce an unintended result. The first thing you should ensure is that you are accurate in your own counsel. These new users are depending on the information you provide, and when you assume the roll of an adviser, it is incumbent on you to have learned that which you intend to teach. One of the best ways to progress is to ask questions. If you think perhaps a source is unreliable, ask a member of the community for an opinion. By doing this you will become more proficient yourself and be that much less likely to con-volute a policy or guideline. For example you speak of "notable sources". Notability is a criteria the subject of an article must meet. Sources need only be reputable and free from editorial influence by the subject. Some facts are perfectly permissible coming from a primary source as well. So, I imagine we can move forward with that, and I look forward to seeing your future interactions. Happy editing. My76Strat 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Understood, in regards to my over zealousness I've stopped that, I'll give them websites to use but in doing that I shouldn't put articles on hold or decline them if they don't have very reliable, verifiable and notable third-party sources. I check the sources I put the first paragraph into Google search, if it returns as a copyvio (if the text is mostly bolded) I'll blank the article. I'm not doing anything wrong per se, just being too harsh in not giving the new guys some help. Right, not too zealous or harsh... but being overly nice is just flamboyant and pretentious. Right, thanks. If I can I'll join your IRC channel so that I can get help. Thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for J. Woodland Hastings
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for DirectHit
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
IP Block at my School
- All righty. I inferred from your last message that you're up and running again. If it turns out I've misunderstood, please just give me a ring (or post an unblock request if necessary!). If I hear nothing further, I'll assume all's well. Best of luck! - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Cardiff School of Art & Design
You declined this [1] despite the fact that the user had added reliable sources (as requested) with this edit.
It seems fine as a start-off article, to me, and I accepted it. Chzz ► 13:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, sorry about that I really need to join your IRC channel. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News