An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac ( talk) 03:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The Hidden Valley, Negev | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
Thank you for article improvements in February! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear KEC, I find this rather worrisome. I do not believe any part of WP:COI requires an editor to disclose any COI to be allowed any topics they want. While as you know I am active in 'hunting' for WP:PAID-violators, this is a bit different, as we are not dealing with a spam-entry creator. While it is possible that User:Tatzref works for CPC, it is also unlikely - citing works of an NGO doesn't mean one works for them, one just may agree with their POV or such. It would be nice if Tatzref disclosed something about himself on his userpage, but AFAIK he is totally within his rights to be as anonymous as he wants to. As you are of course well aware, I, for one, do not edit under any anonymous protection, I fully reveal who I am - but if others chose not to do so, they have the right to remain anonymous, and we should respect it.
On the other hand, as I said elsewhere, I believe CPS may be a notable NGO and warrant an entry. And further research into it may shed more light on whether its publications would be reliable or not. I think that would be a more constructive line of thought to pursue rather than demand that another editor reveals facts about themselves they are clearly not interested in doing anyway (nor, again, as far as I know, can they be required by us to do so). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to submit it. Take your time, I'm in no rush.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your comment on the rejection of the draft for Colin Guillarmou's page. The page is analogous to the one of many mathematicians on Wikipedia. It cites Guillarmou's papers that are published in prestigious scientific journals (Duke Math. J., Inventiones, J. Amer. Math. Soc.; these are among the best 5 mathematical journals). The page also mentions, with due references, two prizes won by Guillarmou (the CNRS bronze medal, the Paul Doistau-Émile Blutet Prize), the invitation to the International Congress of Mathematicians (the congress where the fields medals are awarded; every 4 years the most prominent mathematicians are invited to speak), and the ERC grant. Compare this entry, for instance, to the one of the following mathematicians: Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, Serge Cantat, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 00:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that we refer to a mathematician's accomplishments by quoting its publications is normal. What gives credit to them is the fact that the publications appeared in prestigious journals. For a mathematician, the very top journals are: Acta Mathematica, Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Duke Mathematical Journal. The caliber of these journals correspond to the one of, say, Nature (journal) for a natural scientist. If you check the Wikipedia page of the other mathematicians that I mentioned, you will see that they all cite the person's best papers. Also, beside the publications, Guillarmou's draft lists the prizes he won and its invitation to the ICM, all with references to independent and official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you at least check the pages of Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, or Serge Cantat? Could you tell me what is different in terms of sources in these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you recently rejected a page I created. This is the 2nd time it has been rejected. After the first time, I had removed anything which could be deemed promotional and added a lot more citations. There are lots of 3rd party links where he is being interviewed as an "expert" in his field.
I have just made a few edits to it now with reducing down anything further which could be thought as promotional. However there are plenty of notable citations. If I am misunderstanding, and you are expecting something else can you please elaborate so I can get this approved.
I have based writing this from looking at a number of other similar person profiles, all of which were approved, and didn't have anywhere near as much citations. VinceWakeman76 ( talk) 13:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for your draft review. I would like to know what makes you think that this event series is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
-- zeno ( talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, This really takes the cake for one of the most absurd statements in articles on the Waffen SS. The article claimed that kindly Mr Hitler allowed Estonians who wanted to stay at home to fight the Soviets when German forces retreated from country to do so, and the high rate of take up of this offer led an Estonian SS division to be greatly weakened. Checking a RS shows that Estonian volunteers in the SS were actually forced to retreat with the Germans, and the division was greatly weakened because Soviet forces almost destroyed it during fighting in the campaign... Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ K.e.coffman: as I am sure you are aware from my talk page I created draft:goldgenie under full COI disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You deleted the draft because you believed it was "unambiguous advertising". I created the draft by going over everything that had been written about the topic in independent, reliable sources and aggregating that information into an encyclopaedia entry. Could you please specify which parts of the draft you believe were an advertisement? So I can re-create the draft without the offending sentences. Thanks Turtle neck ninja ( talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you undid my edit. What does 'non-defining' mean in your edit note? For the record Kamenev had a Jewish father [1] Not sure what 'non-defining' could be referring to in this context. For instance, if I decided to identify as non-Russian, that wouldn't actually make me a non-Russian given that one of my parents was Russian.
I look forward to your clarification. TorontonianOnlines ( talk) 02:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
References
You have neither responded to me nor addressed my points and have furthermore proceeded to delete further biographical information off the same page. I don’t wish to edit war so can you please respond here. Thanks. TorontonianOnlines ( talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See this comment. Paul Eisen's record is rather clear. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the 'Minetest' article, K.e.coffman. The link to 'WP:NGAME' will be helpful in my further editing. Again thank you and have a wonderful day, -- Gryllida ( talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you have nominated Megargee for GA, I think you might need a cite for his year of birth. I was interested to read of Inside Hitler's High Command; do you have a copy and is it an engaging read? I purchased The Myth of the Eastern Front last year based on your references to it and found it interesting and easy to get through (I struggle with books that are a bit dry). I've been meaning to use the Myth book to improve the Fritz Bayerlein article. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello - Congratulations on your award for distinguished editing. I've trimmed my entry on Peter G Demers considerably. I also have full rights to the image and the context pictured in the certificate. I am submitting the page for your review. Thank you. MarionPB ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving article quality in March - click on "March" for travel pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindevogelTaho ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello @
K.e.coffman:,
I am reaching out in response to your March 12, 2019 rejection of my page for National Storage Affiliates Trust. You noted that it did not pass
WP:ORG. I would like to offer some clarifying information as well as inquire about any specific steps you might advise I take to better position this page to succeed.
Extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I previously submitted the article, a separate editor, @
Drewmutt:, placed it back in the sandbox with the direction to ensure all sourcing was third party sourcing. In response, I replaced one of the links and clarified that the company's Form 10Q, which I cite twice, is considered factual by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All other citations are to news reporting and interviews with unbiased reporters in unrelated, independent trade publications and national publications that comment upon the self storage space or the commercial real estate industry. None of these news articles appear to me to be sponsored articles or advertising, but rather seem to be organic coverage of deals or an interview responding to the industry's interest in the CEO. I then re-submitted the page and received your reply.
|
Of course, those concerns may not have been the issue with the submission at all, and I would be happy to address any of your questions - I just wanted to make sure you had all of the relevant information. If you have any thought on how I might proceed with re-submitting the page for consideration, or edits to the page to better clarify, I would greatly appreciate your time.
Thanks very much, and apologies for the novel-length message.
Aislinnlily (
talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Aislinnlily
Hi!! Hope you are well. I wrote the following page: /info/en/?search=Draft:Cervecer%C3%ADa_Dos_Aves and you rejected it. I found all of my sources online, and none are written by me. I used the following page as a template to write mine: /info/en/?search=Baja_Brewing_Company I'm not sure what more I can do. Please advise. Thanks!! Fkameko ( talk) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Deportation of the Kalmyks has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Saw this on your userpage. While generally the Polish underground was opposed to Nazi Germany, in the narrow circumstances of (modern day) Belarus (particularly Nowogródek) and Lithuania - from the end of 1943 and particularly in 1944 - some Polish units were allied and supplied by Nazi Germany (Pilch and Swida are notable examples) - and fought against the Soviet advance. See Zimmerman 275-298. Now - I'm not sure how I'd place these Polish partisan units in the order of battle, but they did exist. The Polish underground were in a complex position - to an extent, their "game plan" at this stage in the war was to delay the Soviet advance in the East while trying to gain control of turf in the West. The failed Warsaw Uprising being an attempt to present "facts on the ground" of independence, supported by the US/UK - if the Nazis were more rational (by this stage of the war in the East - rationality was the last thing one could say of Hitler's strategy) then they would've pulled back (as opposed to crushing the rebellion themselves, which they did) - leaving a Polish buffer rebellion/state between their retreating forces and the Soviets (instead of committing a few divisions and losing some 25k casualties to the rebellion). As someone with Game theory/finance background - this is a rather clear failure of rational choice theory (as the desperate Polish move (which could be seen as a rational calculus) had a chance of succeeding if the Nazis were a rational player). Icewhiz ( talk) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac ( talk) 03:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The Hidden Valley, Negev | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
Thank you for article improvements in February! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear KEC, I find this rather worrisome. I do not believe any part of WP:COI requires an editor to disclose any COI to be allowed any topics they want. While as you know I am active in 'hunting' for WP:PAID-violators, this is a bit different, as we are not dealing with a spam-entry creator. While it is possible that User:Tatzref works for CPC, it is also unlikely - citing works of an NGO doesn't mean one works for them, one just may agree with their POV or such. It would be nice if Tatzref disclosed something about himself on his userpage, but AFAIK he is totally within his rights to be as anonymous as he wants to. As you are of course well aware, I, for one, do not edit under any anonymous protection, I fully reveal who I am - but if others chose not to do so, they have the right to remain anonymous, and we should respect it.
On the other hand, as I said elsewhere, I believe CPS may be a notable NGO and warrant an entry. And further research into it may shed more light on whether its publications would be reliable or not. I think that would be a more constructive line of thought to pursue rather than demand that another editor reveals facts about themselves they are clearly not interested in doing anyway (nor, again, as far as I know, can they be required by us to do so). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to submit it. Take your time, I'm in no rush.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your comment on the rejection of the draft for Colin Guillarmou's page. The page is analogous to the one of many mathematicians on Wikipedia. It cites Guillarmou's papers that are published in prestigious scientific journals (Duke Math. J., Inventiones, J. Amer. Math. Soc.; these are among the best 5 mathematical journals). The page also mentions, with due references, two prizes won by Guillarmou (the CNRS bronze medal, the Paul Doistau-Émile Blutet Prize), the invitation to the International Congress of Mathematicians (the congress where the fields medals are awarded; every 4 years the most prominent mathematicians are invited to speak), and the ERC grant. Compare this entry, for instance, to the one of the following mathematicians: Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, Serge Cantat, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 00:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that we refer to a mathematician's accomplishments by quoting its publications is normal. What gives credit to them is the fact that the publications appeared in prestigious journals. For a mathematician, the very top journals are: Acta Mathematica, Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Duke Mathematical Journal. The caliber of these journals correspond to the one of, say, Nature (journal) for a natural scientist. If you check the Wikipedia page of the other mathematicians that I mentioned, you will see that they all cite the person's best papers. Also, beside the publications, Guillarmou's draft lists the prizes he won and its invitation to the ICM, all with references to independent and official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you at least check the pages of Guido De Philippis, Vincent Pilloni, Fanny Kassel, or Serge Cantat? Could you tell me what is different in terms of sources in these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.181.164 ( talk) 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you recently rejected a page I created. This is the 2nd time it has been rejected. After the first time, I had removed anything which could be deemed promotional and added a lot more citations. There are lots of 3rd party links where he is being interviewed as an "expert" in his field.
I have just made a few edits to it now with reducing down anything further which could be thought as promotional. However there are plenty of notable citations. If I am misunderstanding, and you are expecting something else can you please elaborate so I can get this approved.
I have based writing this from looking at a number of other similar person profiles, all of which were approved, and didn't have anywhere near as much citations. VinceWakeman76 ( talk) 13:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for your draft review. I would like to know what makes you think that this event series is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
-- zeno ( talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, This really takes the cake for one of the most absurd statements in articles on the Waffen SS. The article claimed that kindly Mr Hitler allowed Estonians who wanted to stay at home to fight the Soviets when German forces retreated from country to do so, and the high rate of take up of this offer led an Estonian SS division to be greatly weakened. Checking a RS shows that Estonian volunteers in the SS were actually forced to retreat with the Germans, and the division was greatly weakened because Soviet forces almost destroyed it during fighting in the campaign... Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ K.e.coffman: as I am sure you are aware from my talk page I created draft:goldgenie under full COI disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You deleted the draft because you believed it was "unambiguous advertising". I created the draft by going over everything that had been written about the topic in independent, reliable sources and aggregating that information into an encyclopaedia entry. Could you please specify which parts of the draft you believe were an advertisement? So I can re-create the draft without the offending sentences. Thanks Turtle neck ninja ( talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you undid my edit. What does 'non-defining' mean in your edit note? For the record Kamenev had a Jewish father [1] Not sure what 'non-defining' could be referring to in this context. For instance, if I decided to identify as non-Russian, that wouldn't actually make me a non-Russian given that one of my parents was Russian.
I look forward to your clarification. TorontonianOnlines ( talk) 02:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
References
You have neither responded to me nor addressed my points and have furthermore proceeded to delete further biographical information off the same page. I don’t wish to edit war so can you please respond here. Thanks. TorontonianOnlines ( talk) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See this comment. Paul Eisen's record is rather clear. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of the 'Minetest' article, K.e.coffman. The link to 'WP:NGAME' will be helpful in my further editing. Again thank you and have a wonderful day, -- Gryllida ( talk) 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you have nominated Megargee for GA, I think you might need a cite for his year of birth. I was interested to read of Inside Hitler's High Command; do you have a copy and is it an engaging read? I purchased The Myth of the Eastern Front last year based on your references to it and found it interesting and easy to get through (I struggle with books that are a bit dry). I've been meaning to use the Myth book to improve the Fritz Bayerlein article. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello - Congratulations on your award for distinguished editing. I've trimmed my entry on Peter G Demers considerably. I also have full rights to the image and the context pictured in the certificate. I am submitting the page for your review. Thank you. MarionPB ( talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving article quality in March - click on "March" for travel pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you removed the article I wrote about Triangle Factory, I'm quit upset about this since I worked on it with other creators. I got help and advice from other wikipedians to remove certains things, such as peacock words and I did. I'm under te impression the article could not be seen as an advertisement anymore. I admit that in the beginning I used too much peacock words and internal links, but after 2 weeks of cleaning up the article (and having creators tell me it was good now) I am sure that it was a factual article with enough references to establish notability. However, you seemed to think otherwise and just deleted the whole article instead of marking it for improvement. The article told me to to contact you if I wanted to have the contents back for improvements, so I would like to do that. And If it is possible I would like to ask you to give me some feedback on what caused you to just delete the article when it clearly wasn't an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindevogelTaho ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello @
K.e.coffman:,
I am reaching out in response to your March 12, 2019 rejection of my page for National Storage Affiliates Trust. You noted that it did not pass
WP:ORG. I would like to offer some clarifying information as well as inquire about any specific steps you might advise I take to better position this page to succeed.
Extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When I previously submitted the article, a separate editor, @
Drewmutt:, placed it back in the sandbox with the direction to ensure all sourcing was third party sourcing. In response, I replaced one of the links and clarified that the company's Form 10Q, which I cite twice, is considered factual by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All other citations are to news reporting and interviews with unbiased reporters in unrelated, independent trade publications and national publications that comment upon the self storage space or the commercial real estate industry. None of these news articles appear to me to be sponsored articles or advertising, but rather seem to be organic coverage of deals or an interview responding to the industry's interest in the CEO. I then re-submitted the page and received your reply.
|
Of course, those concerns may not have been the issue with the submission at all, and I would be happy to address any of your questions - I just wanted to make sure you had all of the relevant information. If you have any thought on how I might proceed with re-submitting the page for consideration, or edits to the page to better clarify, I would greatly appreciate your time.
Thanks very much, and apologies for the novel-length message.
Aislinnlily (
talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Aislinnlily
Hi!! Hope you are well. I wrote the following page: /info/en/?search=Draft:Cervecer%C3%ADa_Dos_Aves and you rejected it. I found all of my sources online, and none are written by me. I used the following page as a template to write mine: /info/en/?search=Baja_Brewing_Company I'm not sure what more I can do. Please advise. Thanks!! Fkameko ( talk) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Deportation of the Kalmyks has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Saw this on your userpage. While generally the Polish underground was opposed to Nazi Germany, in the narrow circumstances of (modern day) Belarus (particularly Nowogródek) and Lithuania - from the end of 1943 and particularly in 1944 - some Polish units were allied and supplied by Nazi Germany (Pilch and Swida are notable examples) - and fought against the Soviet advance. See Zimmerman 275-298. Now - I'm not sure how I'd place these Polish partisan units in the order of battle, but they did exist. The Polish underground were in a complex position - to an extent, their "game plan" at this stage in the war was to delay the Soviet advance in the East while trying to gain control of turf in the West. The failed Warsaw Uprising being an attempt to present "facts on the ground" of independence, supported by the US/UK - if the Nazis were more rational (by this stage of the war in the East - rationality was the last thing one could say of Hitler's strategy) then they would've pulled back (as opposed to crushing the rebellion themselves, which they did) - leaving a Polish buffer rebellion/state between their retreating forces and the Soviets (instead of committing a few divisions and losing some 25k casualties to the rebellion). As someone with Game theory/finance background - this is a rather clear failure of rational choice theory (as the desperate Polish move (which could be seen as a rational calculus) had a chance of succeeding if the Nazis were a rational player). Icewhiz ( talk) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)