You are incorrect. The existing article for the Teletype Model 33 ASR is defective on a number of critical points.
The most important point is the title of the article. The existing article is misnamed. Specifically, the manufacturer, Teletype Corporation, called this teleprinter a Model 33 ASR. The earliest known source for this Teletype Corporation equipment naming discrepancy comes from Digital Equipment Corporation documentation where the September 1963 PDP-4 Brochure calls the Teletype Model 28 KSR. This naming discrepancy continued from the Teletype Model 28 to other Teletype equipment in later DEC documentation.
It is not encyclopedic to continue this error.
In addition the existing article uses phrases such as "...introduced about 1963..." whereas my article has a specific reference and ties down the date of introduction. Also phrases such as "...an array of levers, cranks, and a type cylinder on a movable carriage..." and "...an assortment of rods and levers..." show that this existing article was written without a technical knowledge of the device.
Finally, the existing article has stood since August 2011 with a headline statement calling for additional citations for verification. My new article addresses these concerns.
If you persist in a denial of my new article, to whom do I escalate this issue?
Wa3frp ( talk) 06:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I know nothing about the subject, so i didn't know. All I knew was that Wikipedia does not allow two articles on the same topic to exist.
- What I would suggest you do is take the existing article I have pointed you towards, and move it to correct name. Since I noticed that your article is of way higher quality than the existing one, I guess you can blank the existing one and replace it with yours. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Biglulu ( talk) 07:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Wa3frp (
talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to review: WP:CUTPASTE. :- ) DCS 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Wa3frp (
talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am finished with the article for now. Organized it as best I know how. Took tag off; let me know if you think it needs more. Jacqke ( talk) 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks much better. May I suggest you make future new pages on a sub page of your user page? That way people won't post annoying tags or nominate your article for deletion when you're in the middle of creating it, and you can move it to the mainspace when you're done. Just a suggestion. Biglulu ( talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I added additional citations and references to this page, as noted when the article was posted. Other sources include The Des Moines Register (newspaper), the State Library of Iowa, American Libraries and Library Journal (trade magazines). Would it be possible for the "note" at the top of the article to be deleted? If not, please let me know and if you have any other suggestions, I would really appreciate it! Thanks for your help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_Public_Library
Ljwnoble ( talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need my permission to remove the tag. If you feel you have improved it to the point where the tag is not necessary anymore, you can go ahead and remove it yourself. Just make sure the problem is fixed. Biglulu ( talk) 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I do think it has been fixed, but I'm not sure how to remove the tag. Could you advise? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljwnoble ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out. Sorry! And thanks again!
Ljwnoble ( talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Those two sources at the bottom are independent, reliable sources (sources do not have to be inline sources), that do show notability for the footballer. If you wish to add sources, feel free to do so. ~ Feedintm Parley 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Independent just means that the source is third-party. The sources are independent as they are completely unrelated to the subject at hand (being connected to the sport does not necessarily make it not be independent). ~ Feedintm Parley 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added external sources and removed tags accordingly. Did not remove the non notable tag, although I believe this person is notable and should be on wikipedia. What should I do? Remove it too?
Eracekat ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you added the {{ update}} tag to the Kingdom Tower article. The article is actually quite up to date, so I thought of removing the tag. However, before I do that, could you explain what aspects of the article you think are in need of an update. Many thanks, Astronaut ( talk) 17:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I found statements such as "The enabling works are expected to begin before the end of 2012 and take about 10 months to complete." in the timeline section that are not up to date; the "Construction" section adds to this. The article's information seems to stop at a point in late-2012, and does not report on the current progress of the construction work on the tower. If there is no further progress to report, than I would at least advise that all future tenses be changed to past tenses in the relevant areas.
- Bwinterbotham ( talk · contribs)
Hello Biglulu, You have recently declined my article pertaining to Lillian Masebenza, citing that it wasn't ready for publication due to not being "adequately supported by reliable sources". I was wondering if you could be more specific with regards to the changes that need to be made so that I may fix these problems as quickly as possible.
Thanks
Bwinterbotham ( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- As an overall guide to sources, the links included in the reason lead to various article on Wikipedia regarding the proper way of using and adding sources to articles. Reading through those should be a good starting point to building a general understanding of what is acceptable and what isn't, and that should help you understand what you need to do for your article.
- But as for your article in particular, I noticed that almost all of your sources are affiliated with the subject being chronicled. According to WP:THIRDPARTY, sources must be entirely independent of the subject being covered. Perhaps if you can find some talk about your subject in general newspapers or newsites or what have you, then everything will be fine.
- And remember, you don't need to go crazy with the sources. You don't need as many as you have now. Just three or four really good, independent and reliable sources should suffice for an article similar in size to your own. Just find what you can in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.
The stub has been expanded and sourced and now shows the company meeting WP:ORG through WP:NRVE and WP:NTEMP: See HERE. You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Many thanks for reviewing the article. I have changed one of the sources to an academic paper rather than the weblog it was citing previously. As you can appreciate, there is extremely limited source material from this period and region. The Iraq Directory of 1936 remains one of the only publications on commercial activities in Iraq during that time and is cited extensively elsewhere from scholarly articles to books. I will continue to search for more relevant sources, however!
Best wishes, Ed.
Edfram ( talk) 22:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going over the page for Tapani Bagge, and noticed that all the book names listed on the page are in English. I found this curious, as Bagge is a Finnish author, all the ISBNs point to the Finnish language works, and I can't find any information on his works being translated to English. I appreciate that this is referencing edits you made nearly a decade ago, but is it possible that the book titles got translated to English by accident, e.g. through machine translating the Finnish language page? - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the page was originally machine translated, but I can't be sure if I'm remembering right. If you feel like the titles would be better in Finnish, go ahead and change them. Biglulu ( talk) 06:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
You are incorrect. The existing article for the Teletype Model 33 ASR is defective on a number of critical points.
The most important point is the title of the article. The existing article is misnamed. Specifically, the manufacturer, Teletype Corporation, called this teleprinter a Model 33 ASR. The earliest known source for this Teletype Corporation equipment naming discrepancy comes from Digital Equipment Corporation documentation where the September 1963 PDP-4 Brochure calls the Teletype Model 28 KSR. This naming discrepancy continued from the Teletype Model 28 to other Teletype equipment in later DEC documentation.
It is not encyclopedic to continue this error.
In addition the existing article uses phrases such as "...introduced about 1963..." whereas my article has a specific reference and ties down the date of introduction. Also phrases such as "...an array of levers, cranks, and a type cylinder on a movable carriage..." and "...an assortment of rods and levers..." show that this existing article was written without a technical knowledge of the device.
Finally, the existing article has stood since August 2011 with a headline statement calling for additional citations for verification. My new article addresses these concerns.
If you persist in a denial of my new article, to whom do I escalate this issue?
Wa3frp ( talk) 06:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I know nothing about the subject, so i didn't know. All I knew was that Wikipedia does not allow two articles on the same topic to exist.
- What I would suggest you do is take the existing article I have pointed you towards, and move it to correct name. Since I noticed that your article is of way higher quality than the existing one, I guess you can blank the existing one and replace it with yours. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Biglulu ( talk) 07:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Wa3frp (
talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to review: WP:CUTPASTE. :- ) DCS 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Wa3frp (
talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am finished with the article for now. Organized it as best I know how. Took tag off; let me know if you think it needs more. Jacqke ( talk) 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks much better. May I suggest you make future new pages on a sub page of your user page? That way people won't post annoying tags or nominate your article for deletion when you're in the middle of creating it, and you can move it to the mainspace when you're done. Just a suggestion. Biglulu ( talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I added additional citations and references to this page, as noted when the article was posted. Other sources include The Des Moines Register (newspaper), the State Library of Iowa, American Libraries and Library Journal (trade magazines). Would it be possible for the "note" at the top of the article to be deleted? If not, please let me know and if you have any other suggestions, I would really appreciate it! Thanks for your help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_Public_Library
Ljwnoble ( talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need my permission to remove the tag. If you feel you have improved it to the point where the tag is not necessary anymore, you can go ahead and remove it yourself. Just make sure the problem is fixed. Biglulu ( talk) 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I do think it has been fixed, but I'm not sure how to remove the tag. Could you advise? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljwnoble ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out. Sorry! And thanks again!
Ljwnoble ( talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Those two sources at the bottom are independent, reliable sources (sources do not have to be inline sources), that do show notability for the footballer. If you wish to add sources, feel free to do so. ~ Feedintm Parley 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Independent just means that the source is third-party. The sources are independent as they are completely unrelated to the subject at hand (being connected to the sport does not necessarily make it not be independent). ~ Feedintm Parley 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added external sources and removed tags accordingly. Did not remove the non notable tag, although I believe this person is notable and should be on wikipedia. What should I do? Remove it too?
Eracekat ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you added the {{ update}} tag to the Kingdom Tower article. The article is actually quite up to date, so I thought of removing the tag. However, before I do that, could you explain what aspects of the article you think are in need of an update. Many thanks, Astronaut ( talk) 17:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I found statements such as "The enabling works are expected to begin before the end of 2012 and take about 10 months to complete." in the timeline section that are not up to date; the "Construction" section adds to this. The article's information seems to stop at a point in late-2012, and does not report on the current progress of the construction work on the tower. If there is no further progress to report, than I would at least advise that all future tenses be changed to past tenses in the relevant areas.
- Bwinterbotham ( talk · contribs)
Hello Biglulu, You have recently declined my article pertaining to Lillian Masebenza, citing that it wasn't ready for publication due to not being "adequately supported by reliable sources". I was wondering if you could be more specific with regards to the changes that need to be made so that I may fix these problems as quickly as possible.
Thanks
Bwinterbotham ( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- As an overall guide to sources, the links included in the reason lead to various article on Wikipedia regarding the proper way of using and adding sources to articles. Reading through those should be a good starting point to building a general understanding of what is acceptable and what isn't, and that should help you understand what you need to do for your article.
- But as for your article in particular, I noticed that almost all of your sources are affiliated with the subject being chronicled. According to WP:THIRDPARTY, sources must be entirely independent of the subject being covered. Perhaps if you can find some talk about your subject in general newspapers or newsites or what have you, then everything will be fine.
- And remember, you don't need to go crazy with the sources. You don't need as many as you have now. Just three or four really good, independent and reliable sources should suffice for an article similar in size to your own. Just find what you can in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.
The stub has been expanded and sourced and now shows the company meeting WP:ORG through WP:NRVE and WP:NTEMP: See HERE. You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Many thanks for reviewing the article. I have changed one of the sources to an academic paper rather than the weblog it was citing previously. As you can appreciate, there is extremely limited source material from this period and region. The Iraq Directory of 1936 remains one of the only publications on commercial activities in Iraq during that time and is cited extensively elsewhere from scholarly articles to books. I will continue to search for more relevant sources, however!
Best wishes, Ed.
Edfram ( talk) 22:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going over the page for Tapani Bagge, and noticed that all the book names listed on the page are in English. I found this curious, as Bagge is a Finnish author, all the ISBNs point to the Finnish language works, and I can't find any information on his works being translated to English. I appreciate that this is referencing edits you made nearly a decade ago, but is it possible that the book titles got translated to English by accident, e.g. through machine translating the Finnish language page? - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the page was originally machine translated, but I can't be sure if I'm remembering right. If you feel like the titles would be better in Finnish, go ahead and change them. Biglulu ( talk) 06:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |