User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2010/September

churches

Church of the Resurrection, Hurley, Baxterley Church and St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter are articles that are useful and don't need deleting and if you are saying that then you need to look at St Saviour's, Branston, St Mark's, Winshill and All Saints, Burton upon Trent MARK BEGG (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering your Baxterley Church AfD et al. I am certain your prompt withdrawal of this AfD will help MarkBegg (talk · contribs) in creating useful wikipedia articles --Senra (Talk) 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Eli Maor

Hi! You tagged Eli Maor as unsourced. However in the article a source from Princeton University was mentionned. Do you think it is not a reliable source ? Is the bibliography I provided not reliable ? French German and Esperanto Wikipedias had articles about Eli Maor before I created the article in English. Eli Maor is very often cited because of several books he wrote. In English Wikipedia there were dozens of red links to Eli Maor. I thought en:WP was lacking of an article about this man. I created a stub. I have no material to expand it but copying the bio in Princeton University website. I let other wikipedians expand it. But why do you want to delete an article which was lacking before I created it ? Arno Lagrange ✉ 06:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That was added as a source after it was tagged for deletion. This was previously an external link and it was not clear that this was the source used to create the article. Thanks for clarifying that. But the article still has notability concerns. Simply being an author and professor is not sufficient. Actually the notability bar for academics is a bit higher. See WP:PROF for more information. --RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Throwing my three-pence into the ring here. My understanding of WP:PROF is that the subject is notable if any one of nine criteria are met. A very brief look at the external link (Bio of Eli Maor) provided in the article when first seen will show that this person meets notability criteria #2 in the guideline:WP:PROF. I accept this fact has not been stated in the article, but it could easily be inserted (provided it is sourced). Having written more than 50 mathematical articles, he may also meet criteria #1, however, I do not have the relevant access to citation databases to check this. Additionally, I have recently tagged the article as a WP:BLP --Senra (Talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that award in there as well, but dont think that an award from the "National Council of Teachers of Mathematics" would meet WP:PROF's #2 critirea of a "prestigious" award. His involvement in Mathematical Association of America's Program of Visiting Lecturers and Consultants is interesting but this article is still not meeting WP:BIO much less WP:PROF. Was there another award you were looking at that I missed?--RadioFan (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did do a google scholar search but I am not qualified to comment on its results. It was the NCTM award I was thinking of incidentally. I am not an expert on BLP's, though I have done all I can on this one. If he is not WP:NOTE then fair enough --Senra (Talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD

You will have noticed that I became involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church. I think this is the first time I have contributed to a discussion on AfD. Maybe I don't understand the process, but I can't see what you are up to. It seems a bit foolish to offer four articles for deletion on a single AfD; does not each article have to be discussed and decided on its own merits, and come to an individual conclusion for each, rather than mush them all together?

I'm pleased to see that you have been sensible enough to withdraw the AfD. You declare your ignorance about the listing of buildings in UK and yet you offered the articles for deletion without looking more deeply into their subject matter. Rather taking a superficial glance at a short new article, perhaps you should spend some time looking more deeply into its notability, rather than responding with what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction. Nominating an article for AfD can do a lot of harm to an editor, particularly if he is a newbie; a glance at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers would be an idea. IMO for what it is worth we should be encouraging and helping less experienced editors, not exposing them to the threat of AfD for no justifiable reason. Maybe the first line of action should be a message on the talk page of the article, or better still, a message on the talk page of the editor, explaining your concerns, and giving an opportunity for the editor to explain why he thinks the topic is sufficiently notable for WP before nomination (he may even agree with you and support AfD, if your reasons are good). Nomination to AfD should not IMO be a first option. Discourage a new or inexperienced editor, and you may, by that very action, lose someone who could in the future become a valuable contributor to WP.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to explain why it is notable and to provide sufficient references to demonstrate this notability. This applies to veterans as well as newbies. The article was initially prod'd and the prod removed with a simple "I think it's notable". This is why it was brought to a larger discussion in the form of an AFD. Please remember that an AFD is just a discussion. It wasn't my intention to discourage this editor.

Also please keep in mind that a lot of articles are created for churches and many of them are removed because they just dont meet notability guidelines. A church being old doesn't make it notable. These churches are registered buildings so they will likely meet the guidelines which is why I withdrew the nomination and closed the AFD. Let's leave it at that.--RadioFan (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If a subject is notable, it is notable. Editors do not have to justify notability if the subject if an article is self-evidently notable. People who have nothing better to do than to try to delete articles without properly looking into their notability are harming the future of Wikipedia (IMO of course) and dissuading present and future contributors from building the project. How about being positive (and helpful) rather then destructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter I. Vardy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2010--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joel Chan (actor)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joel Chan (actor), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Chan (actor). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean for "notable"; I guess that someone wo contributed to decipher eblaitic language is surely notable and reknowed (unless by bias and envy of his colleagues...). If you are unaware of whom Pettinato is, it is just a problem of yours.

BCtl (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the welcoming information left on your talk page, it gives a good introduction to Wikipedia. A subject can have an article only if it meets notability requirements. Articles about living people are particularly well watched to ensure that they are referenced with verifiable sources. That's the problem with this article. The only source appears to be IMDB, it needs more to show that this person is notable.--RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gohar Jageer

I appreciate your effort of cleaning wikipedia but please make sure to do justice to every article not just to Gohar Jageer. I have seen many articles which are full of non-encyclopedaic material for example article 'kasur'. So please do not just stick to gohar jageer and also take notice of other articles. kindly tell me your location (country) if you do not mind. I shall try to repair this article according to the prescribed rules. Well i am happy to know that someone is there to clean wikipedia. keep it up. I am waiting for your reply very anxiously, its my first talk with any wikipedia editor/contributor. Thanks. Kasuri929 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I assure you, this article isn't my only focus. I've made over 36k contributions to Wikipedia over the years and welcome new editors like your self. I'm happy to see that you are eager to help make this article conform to the guidelines. Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer. You are probably wondering why this article came under scrutiny. All new articles are reviewed for their appropriateness for Wikipedia. Those that will likely not meet notability guidelines are deleted immediately. Others that just need some help, like this one, are cleaned up and allowed to continue to be contributed to.--RadioFan (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr RadioFan

May I respectfully request that you be more gentle with inexperienced users please? --Senra (Talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not been involved with new page patrol, but I wonder if that job doesn't require more contact with editors. Strictly speaking, edits such as this are within policy. Wikipedia doesn't allow for unsourced information or original research, but allowances have to be made for new editors. That's not to say policies don't apply to them, but they have to be granted some lee-way if they don't understand them, or haven't even heard of them. I think explaining to Kasuri929 precisely what was wrong with their article and why Wikipedia doesn't allow unsourced material or original research would have been beneficial. It educates them in Wikipedia's policy and why we do things a certain way. Edit summaries are not the best places to explain things, and "cleaning up, removing non-encyclopedic list of students" might mean nothing to someone who has not read the relevant policy pages. Non-encyclopedic isn't a word people are likely to encounter outside Wikipedia.

I think it's important to explain things when dealing with new editors. Referring to policy pages or using jargon is just going to discourage people. In the situation relating to the Jageer article, there were really two likely outcomes after the unsourced material was removed. 1) Kasur would get discouraged, perhaps leaving Wikipedia because they don't understand why it was removed or 2) Kasur would ask someone what the edit summary meant. In either case, explaining what was wrong in the first place would have been preferable. When most of Wikipedia is unsourced, it would seem like a double standard to a new user to not permit further unsourced information, and this too needs explaining. It's possible that a new user might go in search of the relevant policy pages, but in a new website they'd be lost and unlikely to find them. New editors such as BCtl above can't be expected to know what "notability" is.

It sometimes helps to drop a welcome banner on a new user's talk page so they can familiarise themselves with our standards (I note that no one else had done so for Kasuri929 [1]). Even so, that can still be a bewildering amount of information to take in and direct contact would be helpful. Of course I support making sure Wikipedia's article are of a decent standard, but when dealing with new articles you're also likely dealing with new editors and care should be taken not to scare them off. This is somewhat more laborious than culling unsourced information from an article, but it is worthwhile. There's no rush, so taking time out to explain things to a new user isn't going to damage Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case the editor was welcomed by you and another editor via templates. I also left a personally written messages (not templates) left on the editor's talk page. No links to policy pages, just advice on writing good pages written in plain English (to help ensure there are no misunderstandings. You are absolutely correct that editors like this can take a bit more hand holding to get them contributing positively.--RadioFan (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added that template less than an hour ago. Your message to Kasuri was written three days after you removed information from the article. All the explanation originally given was "cleaning up, removing non-encyclopedic list of students". To someone familiar with the way Wikipedia works that's fine, but what will a new editor gain from that? They're just left with unanswered questions. Exactly what needed to be cleaned and why? What precisely does non-encyclopedic mean? There's no way to measure how many other times has a new editor simply given up because all the explanation they got contained less information than something you'd find on Twitter, but not explaining why someone's time and work is being undone will no doubt drive people away. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for the feedback.--RadioFan (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD removed on Hermann Hunger

Hi - I saw that you proposed this article for deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person. I have found this source[2], which I believe is sufficiently reliable, and have removed the BLPPROD template. If you still believe the subject is non-notable, feel free to take it to WP:AFD. Robofish (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni Pettinato

I've also contested your proposed deletion of this article, as I believe the sources make sufficient claims of notability. This one[3] makes a particularly strong claim: the first line translates as 'Ebla, a city located in present-day Syria, is the greatest archaeological discovery of this century.', referring to the Ebla tablets, and the article goes on to credit this man with helping to translate them. As above, if you still think the subject is non-notable, feel free to take it to WP:AFD. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Pow telegram.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pow telegram.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi Sir,kindly give my article a look and help me .Thanks.Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Its looking better but I there are still some significant problems with this article.

• Its too long, stay to the point of:
  • describing who this person is
  • what he does
  • how he is notable
• It gets off track and begins covering people other than the subject of the article. All this information can be removed.
• It's over referenced, Rather than reference the definition of a word, link to an appropriate article on that word.
• The extensive quotations are making the article more difficult to read.

Can you condense this information down to 2-3 paragraphs focusing only on this person. Also, please take a look at WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE for information on how to cite references. This is far preferable over something like "(see P.114 of Zia Fatehabadi-Shakhs aur Shair by Malik Ram) "

Hello. There is a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4 concerning the restoration of an userfied version of an article you nominated for deletion. You may be better able to determine than I whether the concerns you voiced in your deletion nomination are met. Regards,  Sandstein  06:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

=blp prod

You seem to have made a slip Malli Amman Durgham is a place, not a person. I think I;ve done this once or twice myself. Perhaps you had some other article in mind? DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A Family Album - The Verve Pipe

Good question - follow the link at the bottom of the page (this should have been looked into before the "unreferenced" tag was added). On A Family Album's official site, the interior booklet is laid out graphically and I painstakingly "wikified" that information. It took a lot of Post-Its because there's no consolidated "credits page". I guess I should have added these notes to the discussion page. I'll try to make a habit of that in the future. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is intended as a reference, it would be clearer if it the WP:CITE template was used along with ref tag. With the only external link, the official site, it appears to be unreferenced.--RadioFan (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? I know how to set up references, but where would the optimal place for a tag be in this instance? Wikkitywack (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CITE for good guidance on how to cite your references clearly. You should also look for some additional references, not written by the band. This is a primary source and while it's useful here some additional references, such as a critical review of the album, would help significantly.--RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lakeshore, Jacksonville, Florida

I remain uncertain of what specifically disqualifies content included in this article which previously needed correction as it originally contained misinformation and was not congruent with fact as recognized by the city of Jacksonville, native residents, surveyors, and real estate professionals alike. It is true that Lakeshore Boulevard extends north out of the neighborhood. This no more makes the frontage it passes Lakeshore than Edgewood Avenue's connection to Cassat Avenue makes that area Avondale. I am hoping to help, not hinder. As such is the case, I hope you gel this data in accord with a map of the inner-perimeter of this great city. Are you local? 74.170.103.4 (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems here. There is no indication that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'm having difficulty finding sources that might help establish notability here. While a few sentences in Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida might be appropriate should we be able to locate reliable sources that can establish the area better, I dont see this as a subject for a dedicated article, especially in it's current, essay-like form. The references provided are a problem as well. The only place I've been able to find this area refered to by this name is the historic society mentioned in the article and real estate web sites. Even the local paper doesn't seem to refer to it this way. Are there any books on the area that might mention it? See the nomination for deletion for more information on these concerns, it is linked at the top of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Julian days

I would appreciate it if you would respond to my questions about your edit to the Julian day article. Please respond at Talk:Julian day#Formula changes. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KJXJ logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KJXJ logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder from a fellow vandalism fighter!

Hi! Thanks for pitching in on the constant fight against vandalism, and all of your positive contributions to the Wikipedia community! This is a super-friendly reminder to be on the watch for the vandal's trick of making two malicious edits in a row, so that the vandal fighter inadvertently reverts to a bad version. This happened today with Suzanne Collins, so I thought I would mention it. Thanks again for all your hard work! Tarastar42 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42

I've found a number of those just today, sorry one slipped through.--RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

amniote

What's wrong with my edit to the amniote article? 86.155.14.153 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, it was accidentally tagged and immediately reverted. Sorry for the noise.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Leyland St marys page

thanks for looking after the Leyland St Mary' s Technology College page. i guess an upset pupil has been trying to "have their say" on the religious aspect. Thanks again for your prompt editing.

Mjmjfoxy (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit of becogent group article

Please explain why you have reverted my edit? 80.194.100.111 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The list of clients was unreferenced and a bit spammy. This article was being considered for deletion due to it's lack of references and unclear notability. I've cleaned it up a bit and provided some references that should help prevent that. You can help by expanding the article with information which is cited with reliable sources. Also, what is your connection with this company?

Hi The article I was replacing had been vandalised as was apparent if you had read the content. The content was dafamatory, solcatious and offensive. I am unsure how none of the editors noticed these changes on 21st Sept and that you were happy to replace my edit with one that was equally unsourced, spammy and could inflict serious damage to the reputation of beCogent Ltd. I merely replaced vandalised edit with a previous one held in the history. I am not a wikipedia user and am not totally aware of how things should be done however I am employed by beCogent to protect its name and image and would appreciate help in how to remove the vandalised edits from the history. I have emailed 'oversight' in relation to this for assistance. I appreciate your work on the page today.Thank you 80.194.100.111 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As a beCogent employee you should avoid editing this article as you have a conflict of interest. To answer your question, the edit was missed because all patrolling of edits is done by volunteers and there is no systematic method that will catch all edits. Could you expand more on how you think previous edits might damage beCogent? I dont see anything especially accusatory or inflammatory.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)