This is an archive of past discussions about User:CharlieEchoTango. 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.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there
I notice you've reviewed and rejected my article on Funny's Funny on the grounds of notability. As I'm writing about something I'm personally involved with, I've tried to keep the "selling" to a minimum, to ensure that it's factual and verifiable, rather than just marketing drivel.
Can you offer me any advice on the best way to express why this organisation and event is of note. Here are some facts about the event.
1. This is a one-of-a-kind comedy competition - a distributed event, where comedy clubs around the country coordinate an all-female comedy competition, coordinated by a central team of comedians
2. This was a landmark in the UK comedy calendar this year - a protest against the work of an established competition, which in just over 3 months became larger than the event it protested
3. The impact of this event on its participants was hugely positive, unlike pretty much any other comedy competition ever run.
4. The winners of a national comedy competition deserve recognition, which this page is able to do by stating the list of winners
5. It is in an identical category to other comedy competitions like Laughing Horse New Act of the Year, Funny Women, and So You Think You're Funny, all of which have their own Wikipedia pages.
I want to submit an article which can be added to over the years, ideally by others as well as people involved in our organisation, and which links together the people involved.
You'll note that there are stub links from Bethany Black and Funny Women's pages to this page. In addition, there are links from this page out to other Wikipedia entries that are strongly relevant.
Thanks for keeping the submission neutral and factual.
There is some concerns with the sources used, as they seem to be either self-published (written by you) or related to some extent to the subject of the article (UK Comedy Guide). These sources are good for verification, but not to establish notability. Digital Spy is an okay source for both, but in itself not sufficient to establish notability. If you can list one or two more references from reputable third-party sources (such as mainstream media), it would be great.
Another concern, which also doesn't help to show the significance of the subject, is that none of the finalists have articles on them (probably rightly so per WP:GNG).
As for the other pages that exist, Funny Women suffers from the same problems outlined above and probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in its current form. (The sources used don't indicate notability)
So really, my only advice would be to find two reputable sources (see WP:RS) that talk about the subject (not mere mentions), and I or another reviewer will be happy to take a fourth look at it. Surely, if this is a "landmark in UK comedy", it has been mentioned by media publications? I have searched The Guardian and The Daily Mail, but with no results.
As it was founded in April 2011, I think it may be too soon. When it gets more traction, it will get more coverage, and eventually meet the general notability guideline.
Why Delay IGD - Immobiliare Grande Distribuzione SIIQ SPA ?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi CharlieEchoTango ,
I work for the IGD group, and my company asked me to put the company's data, taking some data from the site.
I do not know what you mean by copiright violated, what should I do to make good the article?
Could you give suggestions?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giox71 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Valeria Solovieva - please reconsider
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you rejected this article for creation. I did not submit it but I ask you to reconsider based on two things:
1) Only one person said weak delete.... one person is hardly a quorum for deleting a page. It should have been brought to the attention of the folks at ProjectTennis so we could weigh in on it's merits. And 2) per the guidelines at Project Tennis this player deserves inclusion as being notable. They won a junior grand slam tournament in either singles or doubles. Her's may only be in doubles but the guideline is for both singles and doubles. I feel that had any of us at the project noticed the request for deletion it would not have been deleted in the first place. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello - I'm writing regarding recent edits to the article, "Institute for Population Studies"
I'm confused as to why the sources are not acceptable. Although the articles are not on the organization exclusively, the sources are independent third parties and recognize the Institute as a legitimate non-profit organization.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for removing the "Speedy Deletion" from my post. I realise that I still need to do more work on the post itself, but are the sources that I am using acceptable? AlexHowardWine (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is a well balanced article, which is always impressive in a controversial topic. Looking at it from a GA perspective, I think a background section would be ideal. About half of the Content section touches on Levant's reasons for writing the book. That might be pulled into its own section with a brief passage detailing the specific anti-oil sands complaints. You would then have to re-fill the content section as well. This editorial argues the 'Ethical Oil' vs. 'Dirty Oil' debate, of which a specific passage might be ideal. The Guardian blog entry also makes a very good point at the end of its story about China's investment in the oil sands.
This reprint of a National Post article references the disturbance in Saskatoon and notes that Alberta politicians such as Danielle Smith have adopted the neologism too.
From a technical standpoint, newspaper and book sources should be italicized in the references. Use the work= parameter in the cite x templates rather than publisher= to fix that. You would be expected to reference the fact that the book was a Canadian best seller - possibly by finding a back issue of the G&M that noted the book's peak chart position. I wish sales information was easier to find. I had similar problems with Playing with Fire.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am writing for some additional counsel as to how I can help make my article on the Institute for Population Studies publishable. I understand the problem to be that the sources, though third party and independent, are not exclusively about IPS -- only reference the organization as an authority on population issues -- and are therefore unsuitable even though they acknowledge IPS as a reputable non-profit organization.
Hi there DHVirk, sorry for the delay. The main problem, as you point out, is that the sources are not directly about the IPS. For example, "Al Gore: How Empowering Women Benefits the Environment". Environmentalgraffiti.com. 2011-06-21. Retrieved 2011-07-14. doesn't really talk about the subject, in fact nowhere does it mention 'Institute for Population Studies'. Some of the sources, such as "Institute for Population Studies [20-8682697] GuideStar Report". .guidestar.org. Retrieved 2011-07-14. are mere listings, they don't 'talk' about the subject and they are not really "authoritative sources" per the reliable sources guidelines. The issue here is not really verifiability but notability. You need to show that the institute has received coverage in reliable, third-party sources. See WP:GNG. Has the institute been talked about in the mainstream media? Even regional coverage would do. I hope it helps, again, sorry for the delay. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
question about status on submission
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tried to submit a new more neutral version (as requested) of Doyle Beantenbough on 8/5/11 & an unclear on where it now stands. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks for advice.
Katemunroedaly (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too sure which version of the article to look at, so I looked at the bottom one. I see you removed 'leaving his own imprint on the trucking industry in America', which is good, because it was unsourced. What is still an issue is the inclusion of various quotes by the subject themselves, "best truck line in the US", etc. Keep the submission factual, without puffery, and well sourced, and I'll be more than happy to look at it again. Also, if you can provide online references with the submission to make it easier to verify the notability of the subject, it would be great (but it is not mandatory). I hope this helps. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Enterprise Archictect
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for that reminder CET. If you take a look at several of the articles listed at WP:PNT you will detect my hand in them, but sometimes I'm a little careless about doing all the proper markups. BALTAP and 30th Rifle Division are examples of when I've done it properly. Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06(talk)21:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Princeton Technology
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Just curious - why did you decide to accept the AfC for Princeton Technology when it was repeatedly declined for advert/non-notable organisation? By the way, it was previously deleted via G11. -Cntras (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Self-whack Good question, I'm not sure why. I think I assumed Princeton was de facto notable as a popular brand, but it's quite likely I have confused it for another brand. After doing a bit more research, I can see how it probably fails the general notability guideline and WP:NCORP by extension, though I don't see how it could be considered blatant advertising in its current state (the recently deleted version at Princeton Technology Inc. must have been much worse to be deleted as soapboxing). Feel free to take to deletion, I won't challenge it. Best, CharlieEchoTango15:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "second time this has happened"? A CSD would obviously be a stretch and inappropriate, but an AfD may be appropriate, if you feel that it is not notable enough. Like I said, I wouldn't challenge it. Best, CharlieEchoTango07:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have made quite a lot of changes for you to take a second look at it. Last message I sent you in Spanish (sorry I thought you understood Spanish) said that there are some facts that have to be on there in order to preserve the commitment to the truth that Wikipedia has. As I said I have re-written the article in my own words and do hope that I can get closer to getting it publish. On my Spanish article "Ciudad del Saber" I did exactly what Wikipedia asked me and yet I have received no response in over 3 weeks. I guess this is the way Wikipedia works. Do seems a bit slow for my taste providing they were quite fast in taking my money when they needed it.
At your service of course,
--Marts 13 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Marts13
Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, Ciudad del Saber already exists on this wiki (it was created years ago). You should add relevant information there, we cannot have two versions of the same article. It's easy to change the article, just click on the edit button on top, add what you wrote and press save. As for the Spanish Wikipedia, I see the article is back (although I'm not sure if the copyright issues have been resolved). Let me know if you need anything else. CharlieEchoTango19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the Clarification
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No problem. If we couldn't add relevant 'news' to articles, we would have very poor articles :P. The guideline is intended for the notability of article topics, for example "Non-notable event XYZ" and such. Best, CharlieEchoTango00:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do you mean by highly specialized sources? Is Visual Studio Magazine a highly specialized source? It's the world’s leading independent Microsoft development magazine[1]. Stimulsoft Reports was in Visual Studio Magazine Buyers Guide for a last 4 years. [2][3][4][5]
Earlier I thought that Wikipedia tries to show full situation in the world also in software. How can I add Stimulsoft Reports in this list List of reporting software? It isn't full.
Military persons infobox
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well done editing the new Canadian Forces pages. Your effort has really paid off and in hardly any time at all. I wonder how one might go about editing the nomenclature of the military person infobox. For example, on the page of Charles Bouchard it still lists his service/branch as Canadian Forces Air Command because the infobox coding "|branch={{Air force|Canada}" is set to automatically display the RCAF flag (quite rightly) but also the name Canadian Forces Air Command which ought to be changed to Royal Canadian Air Force. How to change this is beyond me, but somehow I imagine you're the man to fix it.
Again, great job with the RN and RCAF page mergers and everything.
That was my fault, I posted on your page and it was ment to be on the other guys page my apologies! The person who said my vote was bad did not sign their comment this must of been y i said that to you again i am sorry. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
am I any closer to finishing the Doyle Beantenbough submission?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"technically all soldiers are apart of the army" - Absolutely not. Most soldiers in these units (especially CSOR) are from Army units, but the unit themselves are within CANSOFCOM, which is not the Canadian Army but a different command altogether. The Land Staff (chain of command of the Canadian Army) does not control CSOR and JTF2. I reverted back, as the correct 'branch' is CANSOFCOM for all units placed under its command. CharlieEchoTango 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL Can i ask why you undid all of my edits which i got from good sources and reverted back to dead links? thanks. CANSOFCOM is not a branch its a command explain to me why the SAS,delta force,SASR are apart of the ARMY? Dude you don't control Wikipedia anybody can edit shit not just you. There was nothing wrong with my edits.(talon2k9) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Anybody can edit doesn<t mean anybody can add wrong information, and yes, your edits were wrong information ;). The structure of the Canadian Army does not include neither CSOR nor JTF2, since (like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CharlieEchoTango&action=edityou just said) CANSOFCOM is a commmand (just like the Army is, in Canada). So no, CSOR is not the Army. CSOR is CANSOFCOM period, and has nothing to do with the Army chain of command (in fact it selects candidates from all branches including RCN sailors and RCAF airmen), simply because the CF is a unified service unlike the US Army and the US Navy, which are separate services. Saying CSOR is a branch of the Army is like saying the 10th Mountain Division is a branch of the Rangers, which doesn<t make sense. And the fact that you bring up SAS, SFOD-D and SASR suggests that you do not know the CF is organized differently than other militaries. Perhaps, if you are unfamiliar with the way the unified Canadian Forces are organized, you should keep away from these articles or at least avoid being disruptive (not answering messages left on your talk page and on the article<s talk page and reintroducing incorrect information without discussion first is disruptive).2.25.171.50 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
What edits all the ones i gave correct links too and the correct information did you even take the time to read anything or just undid everything for the hell of it ;)?
Ok sure there not under the command of the army but are still technically army units according to this link otherwise your just talking out your ass like you know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_units_of_the_Canadian_Army. LOL its disruptive are they going to put me in jail. WOW what a joke you Wikipedia police are becoming you people think you control everything everybody does on this site what did they make you honorary dork of editing. News flash you control jack$hi7 only administrators do bud.
(talon2k9) 11:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You should try and read WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to answer further, but to discuss your edits further, feel free to take to the article talk page, where I'm sure other editors will show you why you're wrong better than I can (or am willing to). — CharlieEchoTango — 22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I was just wandering why you changed the Canadian Army badge. I couldn't understand what you wrote on the description. If this was a misunderstanding of some sort, I would like to clarify it. Thank you very much, and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Basically the file(s) you uploaded to Commons is a copyright violation, because they clearly meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted (unlike the PD-textlogo license you uploaded them under, which are only for very simple logos). The Government of Canada does not release its work under free licenses, so they most of the CF badges cannot be uploaded to Commons, but they can be uploaded locally under a fair use claim. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango — 04:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will try to do that with the link you sent, but I frankly don't know what to put in the 'Summary' section of the description. could you help me please? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Simply override what's in the summary box with the following.
{{logo fur
<!-- REQUIRED -->
|Article = [[Canadian Army]]
|Use = The image identifies the badge of the Canadian Army
|Source = Government of Canada / Canadian Forces
|Used for = To show the badge of the Canadian Army
|Owner = Department of National Defence
|Website = http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/index.asp
}}
{{non-free logo}}
Wow, thank you very much. I'm new to the image part of Wikipedia, so I didn't know what to do. Thank you very much for your quick and extremely helpful insight. Have a wonderful day. I'm going to go change the Canadian Army page now. If there is something wrong, please alert me. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem, images and licensing are a fairly complicated part of Wikipedia for most. Thanks for your contributions, keep up the good work! Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango — 05:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Later 17:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Done [6], and thank you for your kind words! There is still a lot to be done. Best, CharlieEchoTango 22:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
