This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The article Cactus wren you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cactus wren for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf ( talk) 10:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
I see that the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) has been declined for lack or references. Actually I also checked out two Philippine newspapers that covered the event before I created the page, I just did not put them in the reference section as they can't be accessed online. I cross-referenced the information I got from the two newspapers (Times Journal and Expressweek) to that of the New Straits Times archives (available online). That's how I came up with the medal winners and medal table for the boxing competition of the 1977 SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur. Anyway, I have updated the reference section and added the two Philippine newspapers that I used as reference materials for this entry. I also added another online source that has a list of Singaporean medalists in the SEA Games.
Thank you very much,
PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again CaptainEek,
I really can’t understand why you again declined the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) despite the fact that I added more references. Can you explain to me why my page can’t be accepted while the following related pages were approved?
Archery at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Archery_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
Athletics at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Athletics_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
Basketball at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Basketball_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
All three pages only have one reference, mine has five. And I researched them myself in the library using contemporary reports. And also, the athletics and basketball sections were filled with errors before I fixed them myself over the past week. Now tell me, why do those error-plagued pages exist while you continue to decline mine? No problem with being strict and setting guidelines but please also be fair.
PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Brain Injury Medicine article
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... this article is specifically about the subspeciality of Brain Injury Medicine. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) only refers to traumatic causes of brain injury. Brain Injury Medicine is specialty that treats more than TBI. It treats Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), which also included non-traumatic etiology such as anoxia, encephelopathy, brain cancer, hematoma, CVA, edema, etc.
Refer to ' A specialist in BIM should also have special expertise in the treatment and management of other central nervous system insults (eg, encephalopathies, anoxia) with similar neurocognitive presentations.' from [1].
Refer to other forms of brain injury that are not classified as Traumatic Brain Injury: https://www.healthline.com/health/head-injury#types
If necessary I can provide peer-reviewed medical articles showing there are non-traumatic causes of brain injury.
-- Sadhia430 ( talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sadhia430 ( talk) 07:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for approving the article for APM Monaco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ada Wan ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the review and the message. I am not sure what you mean by better sources. Sally Helgesen is clearly an important figure and renowned author in women's leadership field.
1. This Forbes article calls her "gold standard among women’s leadership experts." [1]
2. This Forbes article calls her "the world's premier expert on women's leadership" [2]
3. This Times Union article describes her as "a leading expert in the women's leadership arena for three decades" [3]
4. Global Gurus has named her among the world's 30 best leadership speakers (male and female). [4]
5. Her book How Women Rise became the top-selling title in its field within a week of publication. [5]
6. Wall Street Journal has called her book The Web of Inclusion as one of the best books on leadership. [6]
I think she fully deserves an article as she is a notable enough author, speaker and leadership coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for writing a detailed closing statement for 5G RfC. However, how did you find out that there was a CONSENSUS for including the paragraph in question when the majority of editors who commented there were against it? Have you checked the definition of WP:CONSENSUS? By my reading, there was anything but consensus there. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Captain Eek,I want help while editing a random article, I came across an article where internal linking is given to another language Wikipedia article, can you please guide me as to how to get the other language Wikipedia article to English. Grandsedona ( talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you for your contributions and collaboration regarding the close of the Australia RfC about including religion in the infobox. It was a pleasure to work with you. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC) DannyS712 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For excellent work on the committee close of RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox? in Australia Chetsford ( talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, I have trouble understanding why did you introduce so many duplicate references with this edit to Pristimantis repens? Cheers, Micromesistius ( talk) 10:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
In consideration of your well-reasoned and detailed analysis of the RfC regarding inclusion of text about Donald Trump's mental health. — JFG talk 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC) |
Nice to meet you ~ | |
~ Thanks ~ I do respect EEng as one (LOL) ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 17:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Your opinion at Talk:Lawrence Summers helped clarify the situation greatly! — WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you have not too long ago edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box. The page seems very outdated, without suggestions being discussed or going anywhere. Is this still the place to go to make a suggestion about changing something on Wikipedia (specifically I have a suggestion regarding creating a new template or something similar)? Any directions about where to post this would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Texner43 (
talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Captain,
Thanks very much for responding and your suggestion.I will proceed accordingly.
Thanks from Texner43
Texner43 (
talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've built it out to be a start-class, but I usually like a second opinion before changing a class rating. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand the concerns regarding the comments on this article, but I made a constructive post, it was deleted and I made another comment asking why I couldn't voice my own questions. I don't think it's an overly controversial position to say I should be able to politely make a point and defend it - and that's exactly what I did. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine, but they shouldn't be deleting my comments unless it's a clear instance of trolling, hostile, or irrelevant, etc. conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want a change to the article. I just wanted my comments to be visible on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I never said anything to suggest I was engaging in general discussion, or attempting to. I do indeed have a disagreement with how a particular point was articulated in the article, and I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation. The intended upshot of my above post is that it's fine if nobody wants to take my suggestions into consideration, but to the extent that my comments are relevant and don't violate Wikipedia rules, I should at least be able to keep them up. Saetia95 ( talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Konstantin Bushuyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stalin Prize ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've declined several NFL player stubs created by an IP who has created dozens of similar pages. Almost all of these players pass WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in an NFL game, which is shown in the references. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment, but most of my references are not self-published, in that they are peer reviewed and published in Journals or proceedings of conferences (typically Springer or Elsevier). I admit, I *have* recently fallen foul of a "predatory publishing" 'scam' whereby my work (probably my 'best' paper?) is behind a paywall, but it has not had a sufficiently rigorous review process - but I haven't used that as a reference for that reason. The "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" page does say that reliability of sources falls on a spectrum, which I would wholeheartedly agree.
So, possibly my only independent reference is the first one - that Enguage won the 2016 BCS SGAI Machine Intelligence Competition! One down, 99 to go! ;-) Further, my work is open source so anyone is able to reproduce my experiments independently.
Again, thanks for your comment! And, I'm not down hearted -- I've spent a lifetime of people saying "no, you can do that!" Occasionally, they'll say, "no, try it this way instead." Along that vein, can I *request* that a page is created, would that be a better way forward?
(P.S> I'm also wondering what would happen if someone did write something on Enguage, but got it "all wrong"? Presumably, I couldn't reply to put the record straight?) MartinWheatman ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Shabana (Hejazi Tradition). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Shabana (Hejazi tradition). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Shabana (Hejazi tradition). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek, I am very grateful for the fact that you approve my creation of article APM Monaco. Though a template message has been placed in the article saying that it have multiple issue. I already added more sources and references to support the article, can you kindly review it and remove the notice on the top? Many thanks!
Hello, if the reason that you mentioned is the reason as to why you reviewed the page Emblem of Maharashtra, then this page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh should also be reviewed because I had created the page Emblem of Maharashtra considering how the page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh had managed to stay on Wikipedia despite it having the same amount of information that I had used for the page Emblem of Maharashtra. Prat1212 ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CaptainEek! I really appreciate you taking the time to review my article. I have thought all along that maybe there was too much technical detail as I am an engineer - so I will work on that. I am having a hard time distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. I thought that showing that this technology is offered in the marketplace by different sellers and that there are articles from trade publications indicating that this technology is widely used in many types of places that would be familiar to a lot of people would be sufficient. I am not sure where to turn next. For example I have first hand knowledge (because I work in an industry the utilizes this technology) that huge organizations like Wal-Mart and Amazon are adopting this technology for their conveyor systems in lieu of "traditional" conveyor technologies. I do not know how to translate first hand knowledge into something that is "verifiable".
Any advice on sources and references would be greatly appreciated! PK2112 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
PK2112 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, CaptainEek.
Thanks for taking the time to review my article. The issues you cite are the need for more independent news coverage and the article needs to be written in a neutral voice. The news coverage I can understand. A lot of the articles that I cited can seem self-generated and can be interpreted as press releases. I will find better references from more independent sources. On the neural-voice issue, can you tell me where the voice of the article becomes advertorial. I did my best to remove any positive spin in the verbiage, preferring to make objective statements. After a reread, the links to ROKU, the App Store, and Google Play don't really need to be there. I may be too close to the subject matter after writing the article to notice subtleties that are more obvious to you. Please let me know.
Ubiquitouslarry ( talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I'm going to take your advice and add it as a paragraph to the Bookbinding article. That will need also need citation, and I'll link to a site that lists it in their glossary of printing terms. While a reference to Flexibound may be found on most book printer and bookseller websites, I can find no reference to it other than those in the business. For the term to be so widely used, it may be a shorthand or technical slang. Often such words eventually find their way into newly published dictionaries. P.S. Read your userpage. You pocess a well cultivated mind. I'm honored by your response CaptainEek - Agricultural Scientist. 83Gulf ( talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Forum for Democracy Members of the European Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek, thank you for your help with my last set of questions. Very much appreciated. One more question, I have permission in an email from a government agency in Canada to use images they released to the media. They are aware it is for Wikipedia. If that suffice or do I need to seek permission another way? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. RettK ( talk) 21:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.
|
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.
I added additional materials and research. Does it work now? What additional changes would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhickey94 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear sir, thank you for your support and advices for my first submission on wikipedia in english The same pages in French were published two months ago I just finished to change all characters and corrected the general presentation using paragraph I'll continue shortly to add more references many thanks again for your help best regards, Jean Pierre De Neef — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPDeNeef ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
If you could, please look at the latest revision on J. Long page. This Bueller 007 guy seems to have some sort of bias here. If you look at one of the revisions on the J. Long page, he replaced terminology for the wife’s conviction with “executing” instead of shooting.
I am new to Wikipedia. When the media flurry started about two months ago and I couldn’t find anything on who J. Long was on Wikipedia, I decided to make one. I’ve never done anything like this before, so Cerebellum had to help me make sure it was acceptable. I don’t know either J. Long or his wife and I’m not a paid editor—I work admissions at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. So I’m not sure where all this is coming from.
I don’t know why this guy is trying to tear the page up but I provided sources for everything I put on there and this guy seems like he has an agenda. Can you help me at all? Candi Jones ( talk) 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. I’m not too proud to acknowledge that I really don’t know anything about Wikipedia. I’m not a computer genius either. So I really appreciate you and Cerebellum for helping me the way you guys do. Candi Jones ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
I would kindly ask for some clarification about why you do not believe the subject of the article Draft:Debbie Brooks meets the notability threshold for a musician according to WP:MUSICBIO.
I believe the subject specifically meets Criteria #6 and #11 for musicians and ensembles. I explain my reasoning in-depth on the talk page of the article: Draft talk:Debbie Brooks.
Essentially, the subject is a member of two or more different notable ensembles: Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra, Casa Mañana, and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra and/or played in an ensemble with two or more independently notable musicians: Miguel Harth-Bedoya and John Giordano (conductor), either of which would confer notability under Criterion #6.
I also think the subject should be considered notable under Criterion #11. This is because the subject's work has been featured in "notable media" such as for the national tours of notable artists which are listed and cited on the draft page. Brooks hired the orchestras to play on stage with the notable artists for the national tours, therefore her work has been featured in "notable media."
I believe meeting either criteria should be enough to confer notability as a musician.
Thank you for your time Ars Combinatoria ( talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I do not believe she has been a reasonably prominent member, having been only an assistant principal cello. Per #10, she does not appear to have performed a notable work of media. If for instance she had recorded the original theme for a TV show, #10 would apply. But I don't see what she performed. And her hiring orchestras doesn't count. Also, her business should not at all be advertised in the page. Wikipedia is not a ad platform. If you disagree, you may seek a second opinion at the AfC Helpdesk or the friendly WP:Teahouse. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
6 sources in Draft? and many actor in wikipedia are add with imdb or elcinema! , And others without any sources !!! here is 6 sources ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.48.36.126 ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
This message is regarding the decline of the page we have created for Lotus Eye Hospital & Institute. I see a status mentioned as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." We have added sufficient third party links & we are a public limited company (service oriented hospital) for 30+ years. All the references are from third party sites including some Government sites. I don't understand why it is repeatedly getting declined. Please suggest us if we want to add or remove more links or any content update needs to be done.
Thanks,
Subash — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Discovergeeks (
talk •
contribs) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have declined the article submitted by me. I would request you to please help in improving it by at least pointing out a few specific portions of the text which seem unacceptable to you. Almost all the references that are given by me are from reliable newspaper sources. I didn't use any peacock term which can't be verified. All those words such as 'renowned', 'greatest' etc which I have used were actually written about him in those references. I will try to improve the formal structure of the article, but other than that, I fail yo understand why the article was declined. I have not added a single line of appreciation of my own. All have been taken from reliable and independent sources. So why do you think this is not written from a neutral point of view ? Kindly help in the best way by providing specific guidelines referring to specific portions of the article which needs to be improved. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 04:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I will make all the necessary changes as mentioned by you. Please do keep up with me in making this article perfect from all Wikipedia standards. I really appreciate you pointing out the peculiar details.
Just one more thing: The subject in question has actually found out a cure for dandruff as per Ayurvedic principles. This is a fact and not a lie. Here in India we know about this, but may be outside of India it might not be known to everyone. In that case, how do I present this fact ? Because dandruff cure has actually been found by him. It was reported in various newspapers of our country. Many doctors also confess to it publicly that the medicine works.
Please guide me regarding this.
I will fine tune the article and then request you to again have a look at it before resubmitting for review. Hope you will help me in this.
Thanks
Princehr999 (
talk) 06:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay so that means that if the result is published in, say may be a recognized medical journal, then we can write it as a cure. Right ? Princehr999 ( talk) 07:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the requisite changes as mentioned by you and I hope that you find it befitting. I request you to please go through the draft article again and if you find more possible corrections, kindly pinpoint those specific areas so that I can change them accordingly before submitting the artice again for review. Thanks for your help ! Princehr999 ( talk) 16:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have improved the overall structure of the article, removed all the pea cocking terms and also presented the subject in a neutral way. Kindly share your view. Thanks ! Princehr999 ( talk) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. Yes I have to improve the citation and grammar work. I was more focussed on improving the overall structure and establishing neutrality. I guess that now both the structure and neutrality issues are sorted as per your review. Right ? I hope I can submit the article for review after improving on the remaining small errors in grammar, and hope that it Will be accepted this time ! Princehr999 ( talk) 18:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I will take one more day to fine tune the article as per your recommendations before submitting for final review. I really hope to get your full support in getting this first article of mine published without any further objections raised. And thank you so so much for your kind support and fairly quick response time as well. Your clean and organized way of explaining things is spectacular and something I really appreciate. Thanks once again !!! Princehr999 ( talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Captain, I have submitted the draft article again for review after carefully looking for all the possible grammatical errors and citation formats. Also I have uploaded few more citations in the places requested by you. Kindly go through it once again and let me know if something else needs to be done in this regard. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have made some edits in the article draft. Are you done with the editing ? You have made certain changes which I need to discuss with you. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah hi ! Yes you have changed the naming convention, but Kumar seems awkward and he is never known by this name. He is mostly called as 'Gurudev' which is a nicer way of referring to a saint. If you don't find it objectionable, I would rather like to substitute the word Kumar with 'Gurudev', or atleast with complete word 'Kumar Swami', or rather not use it at all and simply use 'he' wherever possible. Please suggest any one of these three options.
Secondly, you have inserted a 'failed verification' tag with reference number 17. May I know why you couldn't verify ? The newspaper cutting clearly talks about Swami Ji's claims of curing dandruff through this medicine. This is also in the newspaper headline in reference number 19. So I don't find any justified reason to insert a failed verification tag. On your recommendations only, I used the word, 'he claims', with the dandruff cure.
Also, I noticed that you deleted the section of the BBC Asian Network Interview in 'Diagnosis by voice' section. Please go the reference link and listen to the interview on youtube. It's clearly there. So please explain why can't this fact be presented in this section ? I didn't use any peacocking terms for this rather I presented it in a fairly straightforward tone.
Thanks ! Princehr999 ( talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But the references 17 and 19 do provide you with at least a hint that the subject claims to cure dandruff. So if you find the current references (17 and 19) as inappropriate, it would be better to just remove those references and rather add a 'citation needed' tag instead of 'failed verification'. Meanwhile when I come across a source which discusses the treatment methodology in detail as well, I would add it then.
Regarding the BBC interview, I don't think it appropriate to just remove that complete line. The interview is at least there for everyone to see. So there has to be a line which talks about this interview. I am not saying that we should be writing that 'he diagnosed people's diseases by listening to their voice on BBC radio'. But there needs to be a mention of this thing in some way. Otherwise the whole section 'Diagnosis by voice' becomes awkward. The only point of creating this section was to highlight this interview.
One more thing, I do appreciate your help and I understand that the subject in question is not known to you AT ALL. This is sort of creating an 'unintended bias' on your part by cutting out all his major achievements. I see that your edits have essentially cut down the 'Contributions in field of Ayurveda' and deprived it of its main content. If this subject was from your country, you would have certainly known him and these lines wouldn't have seemed inappropriate to you. But I would again like to inform you that He is really a huge figure in India and thousands of people have been cured through his treatments, including dandruff. This is a fact and not an exaggeration. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to sing praises for a person, but presenting facts in a neutral way is definitely allowed. I don't want to be harsh but please don't create an unintended bias by cutting off things which 'you' don't agree to. At least allow the facts to be presented as is. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 05:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed ! You're point of view is absolutely right, such a big achievement would have certainly attracted huge investors. But the thing is, He is a saint and not a businessman, that's why (in my opinion) he would never sell this formula for monetary benefits. Okay so I will add the interview portion again, and I also intend to add a line regarding Charak Samhita, because it is the main text of Ayurvedic treatment, so it certainly needs a mention because of all Kumar Swami Ji's cures are based on this Ayurvedic textbook. So I would like to add this information in a way which seems okay to you as well. Other than that, is everything else fine ? Princehr999 ( talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the changes. Please have a look at the article. I guess all the issues raised by you are resolved now. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 08:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Captain, Have you gone through the draft article ? I made all the final changes.
Princehr999 (
talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much ! Regarding the interview section, I have tried my best to incorporate it in a perfectly neutral way. I hope it is acceptable to you now. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that the article has been created but it has been marked as a C-class category article. Can you please shift the status to at least a B ? Because all the references I have used are from newspapers or reliable journals. What shortcomings did you see that you put it under a C-class category ? Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 03:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your guidance was an important factor in achieving this feat. However, I am not satisfied. At least tell me what can be done to shift it up one ladder to a B-class ? Also, I see that you have added a line in dandruff section that "The nature of his treatment is unknown, and does not align with any existing medical practices regarding dandruff". I mean this line kind of degrades the quality. The treatment method is simple, he has developed a medicine based on Ayurvedic formulations and we simply have to wash our heads with it. Even in the Guinness World record reference numbered 20, it is mentioned that a hair wash was conducted. So it basically sums it up: The treatment involves washing your head with an ayurvedic medicine. Please remove that line. Because it is making the quality go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The line can be modified to: "The treatment involves washing head with a medicine developed on Ayurvedic guidelines. However the exact formulation has not yet been revealed." I request you to substitute this line for the one you have written. Because it is completely false that the treatment does not align with current medical practices. What do all current medical treatments for dandruff look like ? All of them are simple hair wash formulations, right ? So this is also a hair wash formulation, the reference of which is clear in number 20. So please make that change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Captain, someone has raised error on the page created by me. A user with the name Harshil169 is interfering with the article content in a negative way. He has changed the title of the page, and requested to delete it. As I already told you, the subject in question is a world famous spiritual leader, and people who are followers of other spiritual gurus will try to degrade this page. This user is trying to purposely degrade the quality of the page. Please tell me how to protect this page from hateful users such as these who will constantly try to delete it.
You yourself have gone through the article and removed all the promotional/biased content and terms used. How to add security to this page so that other users don't try to edit it with false intentions ?
Please help me in this regard. Thanks !
I am not a follower of any Guru. This is my first article which has been written with much much research. I do know the subject and I have read much about him in newspapers. This is what prompted me to do research on him and create an article. You're clearly showing that you are trying to edit this page with a personal agenda. Please don't spoil this page for no reason. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
By 'knowing' the person, I mean that I know about the subject through newspapers and online media. I haven't met him in person. Is it wrong to know a person through media ? I am not associated with him but I did a whole lot of research on this subject to gather information about him. Is there anything that can be done to improve the article so that it is neutral in everyone's view ? Please point towards the issues in the article. I am willing to learn and improve. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that much of the content has been edited by you. Can the POV tag be removed now ? What needs to be done in this regard ? Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you accepted the article named Kumar Swami in article for creation which was named as Bhagwan Shri Kumar Swami Ji which is violation of basic policy like NPOV. Did you check WP:NCIN before accepting it? Bhagwan means God, Shri means honorable, Ji means honorable. How could you accept that article? Most of the claims in this article are bogus and verifications have been failed. Did you check who had uploaded the photograph of person? The one who made it, isn't it obvious violation of COI policy? Please be responsible while accepting new articles and that too when they saw too much respect extraordinary claims. I am contesting it for speedy deletion for promotion, if rejected then I will nominate for deletion. Regards,-- Harshil want to talk? 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
Thank you for the review. I accepted your remarks. I changed completely the presentation of the basic ideas, and add a number of intra and extra links.
I would like to explain the importance of B. Haites' theory of Geological Perspective Correlation. It claims that in sedimentary basins, which cover the big part of Earth's surface, the geometry of the layers follows the strong geometrical law. It allows reconstructing the underground geometry more precisely and with less expenses.It is worth to mention that expenses in oil, gas, and ore exploration are gigantic. But more important is that the Perspective Correlation represents the first mathematical law in geology.
After its publishing in 1963 it was described in many reviews and PhD theses, there were published a dozens of proof, and not a single disprove, but the geological society didn't accept this theory - the geologists are sure that nothing on the Earth can be described in mathematical terms. That is why it is important that the theory of Perspective Geological Correlation appear on so respected publisher as Wikipedia.
Regards
Nabatoff ( talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for so long not responding: it is my first attempt to write for Wiki, and all week I can't find your message. What I want to say is: the geological community nor accepted Haites' Theory, neither rejected it, it neglected it. Once in decade one review briefly describes the Theory, and from time to time the Theory appears in PhD theses (because it looks very scientific), but not a single publication demonstrates a negative example of correlation based on this Theory. I have to ad that in biostratigraphy is very popular the correlation based on the same ideas but in different graphical presentation. I suppose to describe this method in a new paragraph of the article (the title is already included in my text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabatoff ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kumar Swami, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
∯WBG converse 04:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the
NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some
really cool awards.
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm not following the correct protocols (brand new user, but I've added a few more sources now).
Jamesor2 ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek. Thank you for reviewing my draft page. I'm working on beefing up the bio of this artist, with your suggestions in mind. Will resubmit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonwoods13 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
El Capt. Eek,
As per your suggestions I've removed all subjective language and made the article less adversarial. Creating a full "summary style" article before this parent article is approved seems a little confusing to me. Once this article is up to snuff, I'd certainly begin that process but then once it's live I'd hope the community could work on that as well.
Please advise.
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Capt. Eek,
At your convenience I'm hoping you could check the MGD page to see if anything else is needed for approval. Thanks!!
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It's found here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)
If by "sounding like an essay" you mean the article is clear and well-written, that doesn't seem like it should be a problem. If you think it's a persuasive essay with subjective language, please identify where that language is and I'll be happy to fix it.
And spinning this off into summary-style articles is something that I imagine the community would be able to help with, is that a universal requirement for articles? That has to happen before their initial approval?
Thanks again for all your help!
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 14:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the template!
Sephiroth storm (
talk) 04:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Capt. Eek,
Thank you so much for the clear and thorough response! Sorry about the continued back-and-forth, but after first making all your specific fixes and then finding as many similar ones on my own as I could, I then took your advice and swapped two of the lower sections with each other since I think that makes it flow more from narrow to broad, with important facts upfront and broader implications later.
Along those same lines, I made sure to add all the main implications and points right at the top of the article, and additionally added a secondary source that's linked in a few places. That secondary source also had a somewhat speculative criticism which I also included at the end.
Thanks again and let me know what else you need from me! -Lt. Dan
/info/en/?search=Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a message about the Hunter Commission disambiguation page. I think there actually were two commissions called the "Hunter Commission." E.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=IDNeW78fedkC&pg=PA69 or this page (though it's some random exam prep site). I actually knew nothing about this stuff except what I just Googled, but it looks legit to my eye.
2601:647:5600:748:3061:F8E5:29DB:1CF4 ( talk) 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt.
Thank you so much for your incredibly prompt help and editing, after I submitted the article I hitched up my britches and got ready to wait until after X-mas due to the really long queueueueueue, but luckily enough you sailed along and got this all done wwaaaaaayyy faster that I expected. Kind regards and we'll certainly be in touch!! -Lt. Dan
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you if you've already been pinged by the Talk page, but I just wanted to check in for any further guidance about how to make further improvements to the page. Thank you again!! /info/en/?search=Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear CaptainEek, thanks again for your support I did many changes 2 weeks ago following your last advices, would it possible to know if I'm on the right track please? best regards Jean Pierre JPDeNeef ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I've read your note on the above-mentioned article, studied Wikipedia:Inline_citation policy and still feel myself unsure of what I did wrong. Will you please be so kind as to point me to the exact place that you don't like?
Best regards McGrizzly ( talk) 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry this message was posted before you changed the link FROM Daniel Egbunike to Draft:DK that was the correct link. Sorry for the confusion and thank you submitting the page for review. Do you have any feedback on the article? Wowletmebe ( talk) 18:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I really appreciate your help and advice - thank you.
Carlduff (
talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for reviewing my article on Choo Yilin a few weeks ago (okay a month and a half ago). I know that you rejected it because it sounded like an advertisement, although I did not mean for it to be. I've since edited it (but not submitted for review again yet), but was wondering if you could give more feedback on why you thought it sounded like an ad. Draft here for reference. Thanks! One Red Line ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek,
This is a puzzling deletion and I hope you will share more on your reasoning in taking this action. Six of my eight sources meet the standards of reliable, secondary and independent. (The other two are the GrayRobinson and Capitol Insight websites, which should be acceptable as a small part of the mix.) Three of the sources meet the substantial coverage criteria since they are exclusively focused on GrayRobinson. Please tell me what this entry needs to satisfy your standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I reviewed the Wikipedia pages of six other law firms in Florida that have about the same number of lawyers in the state. None of them had as many independent references as the entry I submitted. None had as many references that could be regarded as satisfying the criteria for substantial coverage. All followed the same approximate format with some variation: a brief overview of the firm that includes history, number of lawyers and offices, followed by sections on services offered, prominent alumni or current attorneys, awards and other recognition. A few firms had sections explaining past or current client matters that are significant. My entry was, if anything, more conservative than these other firms, and avoided all promotional language.
Lawyers, especially those at larger firms that take on complex matters, are front and center in every social, political and economic issue. They turn the wheels of public policy, for better or worse. If I read a news story about a class-action lawsuit against a big company or a criminal defendant going to trial, I want to know something about the law firm behind it. Where is it located? How big is it? What is its history? Who are its influencers? People turn to Wikipedia for these answers. Law firms that represent clients in significant matters should be in Wikipedia and we hope you would agree that the readers of Wikipedia should be provided with basic information about these firms.
If you are against all law firms being in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia needs to treat all firms equally. It is not fair for many law firms to be in Wikipedia and to reject others that have substantially the same profile. I hope you will regard this as an opportunity to have a constructive conversation about the GrayRobinson deletion. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
WikiEditorJena — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorJena ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I sent you a message about autohotkey but I'm not sure if it was delivered? If not send me a message from my page then I'll reply to that email, cheers carlin 🕺 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlinmack ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I was wondering if you could take a look at Joseph Church: Musical Director again. I added more sources and wanted to know if it addressed your concerns about the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPiano ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day CaptainEek - Sir, why did you close my ANI report here? What made you conclude that it was a "content dispute" - although one responding editor gave everything to derail discussion into direction of "content" dispute, I was prevented from attempting to get it back on track as "conduct"issue because you were faster? Is it really "content dispute", a situation in which one editor for months completely preventing another from making any constructive, and souurced in valid mainstream scholarship, edits - again, completely suppressing any constructive and referenced edits on my part - all the while abusing "edit-summary", and not just ignoring "TP" initiated "point-by-point" discussion, but instead responds with ad hominem attacks? Thanks, all the best.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
here's my policy - i am using only valid, legitimate contemporary mainstream scholarship in article on topic of Balkan history, rarely primary and tertiary sources, unless they are covered with good secondary in scholarship, and I believe that's the only proper policy in editing history which is contested by POV's - this means that you would need to check validity of statements in sources and sources themselves (in terms of their legitimacy). In that case wouldn't need extended knowledge of history of the region--
౪ Santa ౪
99° 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt. My Capt.
If you have a moment I'd profoundly appreciate any advice you might have on the MGD page, I think I have the whole "primary" source thing down as discussed at the bottom of the Talk page, but wanted to loop you in since you've been my sensei this whole time.
And just in general I've put a bunch more work on it, but would like to keep improving where need-be. Thanks again!! /info/en/?search=Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In regards to: /info/en/?search=Draft:Indentation_size_effect
Hi CaptainEEk. Thanks for you time. In response to your question, the image is entirely my own. I added a caption to clarify its meaning. Also, I understand that the page may be challenging for those without any background in mechanics, but I am unsure how the language could be further simplified while still being factually correct. Could you recommend any specific words you think I could substitute without losing meaning? I have added crosslinks so many words are easily defined to the reader.
Regards Bob Clemintime ( talk) 01:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I will continue working on the page. I am making other supporting pages as I can't explain too much more about the effect without context. This area of materials science is not well represented on Wikipedia even though the effect was first reported almost 40 years ago. I made a figure which helps explain geometrically necessary dislocations, but I don't think I can post that figure as it is too derivative of another person's diagram. I am still thinking of another way to clearly draw the effect. Bob Clemintime ( talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
THanks for your help in the process of putting this (my first) wikipedia page together: Least dangerous assumption. The gate-keeping process on wikipedia is strong and I appreciate that. I'm looking forward now that it has been created to both developing it and seeing it being developed/improved. I am, however, struggling to figure out the ins and outs of chat and revisions and so on and so forth.... but, hey ho. Many thanks. Iorek 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have multiple times removed the content that was contributed regarding two important aspects of why Maj. Mathew Golsteyn probably even has an article on Wikipedia to begin with (with the exception of possibly his valor commendations) - the issues surrounding the charges for murder (beyond its basic description), and the issues surrounding his defense (of which there is none presented in the article at all, even though this is part-and-parcel, and definitely precedes the foundation of why a pardon was even considered). According to the history of the article, these issues are what created the controversy that brought about Maj. Golsteyn Wikipedia page. There were summaries within the article before I edited, that gave summarized statements, that were sourced, and outlined a few of the issues surrounding the charges for murder. In an article, it is not POV to include controversial topics as long as they are cited, and summarized in a straight forward way, and their presence contributes to the overall article for the reader. What can be POV is to remove information so that only one point of view is present - even if that point of view is subtly stated between the lines. I included some points that were missing in regard to the defense part of the killing. Although the summary I provided could stand alone with its citations, I believe that summary was what you were feeling was POV and not neutral, although it was heavily cited, and even when summarized it only restated what was already present in the sources themselves. The Quotations presented mainly Golsteyn himself, his lawyer, or the actual rules of engagement, all of which are central aspects to the defense, give broader context to the defense side of the issue, and all of which are part of the controversial characteristic of why Maj. Golsteyn has an article, and what lead to his consideration for pardon.
It seems that you are advocating that to be neutral is to not address the very centrality of the controversy itself. I reviewed /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and found nothing that I had written would have violated these terms as they are defined. What I contributed described, with citation, one of two central aspects of the controversy through cited sources. By having two sections, it allowed contributors to provide appropriate sourced material in both areas - the murder charge itself and to describe what prompted it or what may be relevant regarding it, and the defense (that is the salient issues regarding the case). While you have generally pointed to terms such as neuturality, POV, over uses quotes, or undue weight, I would be nice if you would actually outline exactly cases within the contribution. In other words, not broad statements about neutrality, but actual specifics (or how would you suggest, by way of an example, the core of the information be able to be presented without having to be fully removed from the article). The full removal of the contributed content's context, that the sources and summary give, can contribute to a type of point of view itself - by restricting information that is central to the killing of Rasoul, so that it gave the impression of murder. I will admit that your latest edit totally removed any area of either murder charge issues (other than Golsteyn was charged) or the defense issues. This made it more sanitary, but the article is missing key elements. It also allows certain statements that meet the type of "when did you stop beating your wife?" inferences to stand without providing a broader context - such as:
but removed a counter-balancing statement from Golsteyn himself, in the same CIA interview, which gives broader context, that the situation met the rules of engagement regarding terrorists, such as:
The point is to describe both aspects (murder charge and description of defense issues), while also providing balance using context. For instance, the inference of the first two bullet points above is that Golsteyn "shot and killed him", and when combined with he "acknowledged he knew his suspect was unarmed" leaves the impression that what he did was murder (as it would be seen in peacetime), and outside any situation that the rules of engagement would allow for. Yet, once the broader context is considered, it balances these statements with other sourced material that show the facet that allowed for Rasoul to be treated as a legitimate threat under the rules of engagement. While each of the bullet points above are sourced, the lack of context definitely gives an impression in the first two bullet points that is counter balanced with other sources pointing out the fuller context (and even using specific interview material from the same CIA interview as the first bullet point quote). Each of the bullet point quotes above provide information that is helpful to the reader in understanding a major aspect of the life events that brought about the public awareness of Maj. Golsteyn (again, besides his valor commendations). My main point in my contribution was to provide a further area of description for the two central aspects of the killing - the murder charge, which had already been somewhat stated (but in the current version is removed); and the defense, which brought about consideration for pardon as well as is part-and-parcel complementary to a sub-section on the murder charge, within the larger section of "Killing of Alleged Afghan bomb-maker".
Within my contribution, even if I had removed the quotes themselves, and went only with the highly cited summary which itself almost is verbatim from the sources, I believe you were still thinking it was not neutral (even though it does meet every point in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as it defines neutrality for the purpose of editing). Yet, the absence of allowed sources or summary that give broader context, and the sanitation of the relevant issues surrounding the controversial aspect of the killing, actually in and of itself influences the article with a point of view, through surpression, by allow specific subtle inferences and prohibiting other material that may give broader context to the prior inferenced information. In this case, the inference, where the broader context is surpressed, is that Golsteyn murdered Rasoul and the President unjustly pardoned him. That in and of itself is a way of pushing a POV through inference and suppression of information. My main point was to provide broader sections to the murder charge, as well as to issues surrounding the the defense, that would allow both aspects to be represented and furthered described through other future edits of other editors. Thank you so much for reading and for your consideration
Hi, with reference to my draft - Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - I searched around a bit today and found some references which appear to be relatively recent, and none of them are interviews. 4 of these came across as independent, while one, Glitz, am not so sure about. Can you please take some time out to check if they can be used? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes ( talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt,
So as per MGD's talk page, it sounds like I'm being asked to change all the language you had me make definitive and clear into being fuzzy and waffling. I understand that MGD is a hypothesis, but changing all the language around it to be "well, maybe..." isn't how science writing is done. Explaining things simply means just making factual statements, without including every single possible caveat.
And it sounds like the mods are applying their own opinion of what Primary sources are, because based on the quotes I provided from Wikipedia's own definition the MGD page has loads of secondary sources and a tertiary one. /info/en/?search=Talk:Maximum_genetic_diversity
Based on the what's being said in the talk page, it sounds like what needs to be created is a page dedicated to explaining the differing views of MGD versus the neutral theory's molecular clock. But I'd need some help or at least direction to start that kind of thing
Because I've spent some some on other genetic pages and if anything the MGD is clearer than average, and there are loads of other pages that contain really, really fundamental mistakes (the definition of an allele, which I fixed. If the mods attacking MGD know science so well, how had that gone unnoticed for so long?) that need additional work which apparently no one has noticed or cares about. Instead a novel article that presents a different paradigm is being nit-picked to pieces - when based on the overall state of the genetic pages I can't see how the mods are speaking like they know the hard science. Because if they did, why are so many of the genetic pages such a mess? If these mods want to further science, shouldn't they be working on that instead of trying to just condemn something they don't seem to understand?
I've done some work improving other pages, but I'm not gonna spending any more time running myself into a window built by people who are telling me water isn't wet. The science around the neutral theory's holes is very well established, and clearly cited in the MGD page. I'd be happy to work on a page contrasting the Neutral Theory and MGD, but since the last directions from a mod in the Talk page seem to contrast the ones you gave me as I was first writing the article I'm reaching out. Thanks again Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The article Cactus wren you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cactus wren for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf ( talk) 10:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
I see that the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) has been declined for lack or references. Actually I also checked out two Philippine newspapers that covered the event before I created the page, I just did not put them in the reference section as they can't be accessed online. I cross-referenced the information I got from the two newspapers (Times Journal and Expressweek) to that of the New Straits Times archives (available online). That's how I came up with the medal winners and medal table for the boxing competition of the 1977 SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur. Anyway, I have updated the reference section and added the two Philippine newspapers that I used as reference materials for this entry. I also added another online source that has a list of Singaporean medalists in the SEA Games.
Thank you very much,
PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again CaptainEek,
I really can’t understand why you again declined the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) despite the fact that I added more references. Can you explain to me why my page can’t be accepted while the following related pages were approved?
Archery at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Archery_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
Athletics at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Athletics_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
Basketball at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games /info/en/?search=Basketball_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games
All three pages only have one reference, mine has five. And I researched them myself in the library using contemporary reports. And also, the athletics and basketball sections were filled with errors before I fixed them myself over the past week. Now tell me, why do those error-plagued pages exist while you continue to decline mine? No problem with being strict and setting guidelines but please also be fair.
PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Brain Injury Medicine article
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... this article is specifically about the subspeciality of Brain Injury Medicine. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) only refers to traumatic causes of brain injury. Brain Injury Medicine is specialty that treats more than TBI. It treats Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), which also included non-traumatic etiology such as anoxia, encephelopathy, brain cancer, hematoma, CVA, edema, etc.
Refer to ' A specialist in BIM should also have special expertise in the treatment and management of other central nervous system insults (eg, encephalopathies, anoxia) with similar neurocognitive presentations.' from [1].
Refer to other forms of brain injury that are not classified as Traumatic Brain Injury: https://www.healthline.com/health/head-injury#types
If necessary I can provide peer-reviewed medical articles showing there are non-traumatic causes of brain injury.
-- Sadhia430 ( talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sadhia430 ( talk) 07:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for approving the article for APM Monaco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ada Wan ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the review and the message. I am not sure what you mean by better sources. Sally Helgesen is clearly an important figure and renowned author in women's leadership field.
1. This Forbes article calls her "gold standard among women’s leadership experts." [1]
2. This Forbes article calls her "the world's premier expert on women's leadership" [2]
3. This Times Union article describes her as "a leading expert in the women's leadership arena for three decades" [3]
4. Global Gurus has named her among the world's 30 best leadership speakers (male and female). [4]
5. Her book How Women Rise became the top-selling title in its field within a week of publication. [5]
6. Wall Street Journal has called her book The Web of Inclusion as one of the best books on leadership. [6]
I think she fully deserves an article as she is a notable enough author, speaker and leadership coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for writing a detailed closing statement for 5G RfC. However, how did you find out that there was a CONSENSUS for including the paragraph in question when the majority of editors who commented there were against it? Have you checked the definition of WP:CONSENSUS? By my reading, there was anything but consensus there. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Captain Eek,I want help while editing a random article, I came across an article where internal linking is given to another language Wikipedia article, can you please guide me as to how to get the other language Wikipedia article to English. Grandsedona ( talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you for your contributions and collaboration regarding the close of the Australia RfC about including religion in the infobox. It was a pleasure to work with you. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC) DannyS712 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For excellent work on the committee close of RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox? in Australia Chetsford ( talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, I have trouble understanding why did you introduce so many duplicate references with this edit to Pristimantis repens? Cheers, Micromesistius ( talk) 10:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
In consideration of your well-reasoned and detailed analysis of the RfC regarding inclusion of text about Donald Trump's mental health. — JFG talk 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC) |
Nice to meet you ~ | |
~ Thanks ~ I do respect EEng as one (LOL) ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 17:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Your opinion at Talk:Lawrence Summers helped clarify the situation greatly! — WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you have not too long ago edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box. The page seems very outdated, without suggestions being discussed or going anywhere. Is this still the place to go to make a suggestion about changing something on Wikipedia (specifically I have a suggestion regarding creating a new template or something similar)? Any directions about where to post this would be much appreciated. Helper201 ( talk) 22:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Texner43 (
talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Captain,
Thanks very much for responding and your suggestion.I will proceed accordingly.
Thanks from Texner43
Texner43 (
talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've built it out to be a start-class, but I usually like a second opinion before changing a class rating. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand the concerns regarding the comments on this article, but I made a constructive post, it was deleted and I made another comment asking why I couldn't voice my own questions. I don't think it's an overly controversial position to say I should be able to politely make a point and defend it - and that's exactly what I did. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine, but they shouldn't be deleting my comments unless it's a clear instance of trolling, hostile, or irrelevant, etc. conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want a change to the article. I just wanted my comments to be visible on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I never said anything to suggest I was engaging in general discussion, or attempting to. I do indeed have a disagreement with how a particular point was articulated in the article, and I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation. The intended upshot of my above post is that it's fine if nobody wants to take my suggestions into consideration, but to the extent that my comments are relevant and don't violate Wikipedia rules, I should at least be able to keep them up. Saetia95 ( talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Konstantin Bushuyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stalin Prize ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've declined several NFL player stubs created by an IP who has created dozens of similar pages. Almost all of these players pass WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in an NFL game, which is shown in the references. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment, but most of my references are not self-published, in that they are peer reviewed and published in Journals or proceedings of conferences (typically Springer or Elsevier). I admit, I *have* recently fallen foul of a "predatory publishing" 'scam' whereby my work (probably my 'best' paper?) is behind a paywall, but it has not had a sufficiently rigorous review process - but I haven't used that as a reference for that reason. The "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" page does say that reliability of sources falls on a spectrum, which I would wholeheartedly agree.
So, possibly my only independent reference is the first one - that Enguage won the 2016 BCS SGAI Machine Intelligence Competition! One down, 99 to go! ;-) Further, my work is open source so anyone is able to reproduce my experiments independently.
Again, thanks for your comment! And, I'm not down hearted -- I've spent a lifetime of people saying "no, you can do that!" Occasionally, they'll say, "no, try it this way instead." Along that vein, can I *request* that a page is created, would that be a better way forward?
(P.S> I'm also wondering what would happen if someone did write something on Enguage, but got it "all wrong"? Presumably, I couldn't reply to put the record straight?) MartinWheatman ( talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Shabana (Hejazi Tradition). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Shabana (Hejazi tradition). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Shabana (Hejazi tradition). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek, I am very grateful for the fact that you approve my creation of article APM Monaco. Though a template message has been placed in the article saying that it have multiple issue. I already added more sources and references to support the article, can you kindly review it and remove the notice on the top? Many thanks!
Hello, if the reason that you mentioned is the reason as to why you reviewed the page Emblem of Maharashtra, then this page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh should also be reviewed because I had created the page Emblem of Maharashtra considering how the page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh had managed to stay on Wikipedia despite it having the same amount of information that I had used for the page Emblem of Maharashtra. Prat1212 ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CaptainEek! I really appreciate you taking the time to review my article. I have thought all along that maybe there was too much technical detail as I am an engineer - so I will work on that. I am having a hard time distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. I thought that showing that this technology is offered in the marketplace by different sellers and that there are articles from trade publications indicating that this technology is widely used in many types of places that would be familiar to a lot of people would be sufficient. I am not sure where to turn next. For example I have first hand knowledge (because I work in an industry the utilizes this technology) that huge organizations like Wal-Mart and Amazon are adopting this technology for their conveyor systems in lieu of "traditional" conveyor technologies. I do not know how to translate first hand knowledge into something that is "verifiable".
Any advice on sources and references would be greatly appreciated! PK2112 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
PK2112 ( talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, CaptainEek.
Thanks for taking the time to review my article. The issues you cite are the need for more independent news coverage and the article needs to be written in a neutral voice. The news coverage I can understand. A lot of the articles that I cited can seem self-generated and can be interpreted as press releases. I will find better references from more independent sources. On the neural-voice issue, can you tell me where the voice of the article becomes advertorial. I did my best to remove any positive spin in the verbiage, preferring to make objective statements. After a reread, the links to ROKU, the App Store, and Google Play don't really need to be there. I may be too close to the subject matter after writing the article to notice subtleties that are more obvious to you. Please let me know.
Ubiquitouslarry ( talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I'm going to take your advice and add it as a paragraph to the Bookbinding article. That will need also need citation, and I'll link to a site that lists it in their glossary of printing terms. While a reference to Flexibound may be found on most book printer and bookseller websites, I can find no reference to it other than those in the business. For the term to be so widely used, it may be a shorthand or technical slang. Often such words eventually find their way into newly published dictionaries. P.S. Read your userpage. You pocess a well cultivated mind. I'm honored by your response CaptainEek - Agricultural Scientist. 83Gulf ( talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Forum for Democracy Members of the European Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek, thank you for your help with my last set of questions. Very much appreciated. One more question, I have permission in an email from a government agency in Canada to use images they released to the media. They are aware it is for Wikipedia. If that suffice or do I need to seek permission another way? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. RettK ( talk) 21:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.
|
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.
I added additional materials and research. Does it work now? What additional changes would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhickey94 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear sir, thank you for your support and advices for my first submission on wikipedia in english The same pages in French were published two months ago I just finished to change all characters and corrected the general presentation using paragraph I'll continue shortly to add more references many thanks again for your help best regards, Jean Pierre De Neef — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPDeNeef ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
If you could, please look at the latest revision on J. Long page. This Bueller 007 guy seems to have some sort of bias here. If you look at one of the revisions on the J. Long page, he replaced terminology for the wife’s conviction with “executing” instead of shooting.
I am new to Wikipedia. When the media flurry started about two months ago and I couldn’t find anything on who J. Long was on Wikipedia, I decided to make one. I’ve never done anything like this before, so Cerebellum had to help me make sure it was acceptable. I don’t know either J. Long or his wife and I’m not a paid editor—I work admissions at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. So I’m not sure where all this is coming from.
I don’t know why this guy is trying to tear the page up but I provided sources for everything I put on there and this guy seems like he has an agenda. Can you help me at all? Candi Jones ( talk) 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. I’m not too proud to acknowledge that I really don’t know anything about Wikipedia. I’m not a computer genius either. So I really appreciate you and Cerebellum for helping me the way you guys do. Candi Jones ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
I would kindly ask for some clarification about why you do not believe the subject of the article Draft:Debbie Brooks meets the notability threshold for a musician according to WP:MUSICBIO.
I believe the subject specifically meets Criteria #6 and #11 for musicians and ensembles. I explain my reasoning in-depth on the talk page of the article: Draft talk:Debbie Brooks.
Essentially, the subject is a member of two or more different notable ensembles: Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra, Casa Mañana, and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra and/or played in an ensemble with two or more independently notable musicians: Miguel Harth-Bedoya and John Giordano (conductor), either of which would confer notability under Criterion #6.
I also think the subject should be considered notable under Criterion #11. This is because the subject's work has been featured in "notable media" such as for the national tours of notable artists which are listed and cited on the draft page. Brooks hired the orchestras to play on stage with the notable artists for the national tours, therefore her work has been featured in "notable media."
I believe meeting either criteria should be enough to confer notability as a musician.
Thank you for your time Ars Combinatoria ( talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I do not believe she has been a reasonably prominent member, having been only an assistant principal cello. Per #10, she does not appear to have performed a notable work of media. If for instance she had recorded the original theme for a TV show, #10 would apply. But I don't see what she performed. And her hiring orchestras doesn't count. Also, her business should not at all be advertised in the page. Wikipedia is not a ad platform. If you disagree, you may seek a second opinion at the AfC Helpdesk or the friendly WP:Teahouse. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
6 sources in Draft? and many actor in wikipedia are add with imdb or elcinema! , And others without any sources !!! here is 6 sources ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.48.36.126 ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
This message is regarding the decline of the page we have created for Lotus Eye Hospital & Institute. I see a status mentioned as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." We have added sufficient third party links & we are a public limited company (service oriented hospital) for 30+ years. All the references are from third party sites including some Government sites. I don't understand why it is repeatedly getting declined. Please suggest us if we want to add or remove more links or any content update needs to be done.
Thanks,
Subash — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Discovergeeks (
talk •
contribs) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have declined the article submitted by me. I would request you to please help in improving it by at least pointing out a few specific portions of the text which seem unacceptable to you. Almost all the references that are given by me are from reliable newspaper sources. I didn't use any peacock term which can't be verified. All those words such as 'renowned', 'greatest' etc which I have used were actually written about him in those references. I will try to improve the formal structure of the article, but other than that, I fail yo understand why the article was declined. I have not added a single line of appreciation of my own. All have been taken from reliable and independent sources. So why do you think this is not written from a neutral point of view ? Kindly help in the best way by providing specific guidelines referring to specific portions of the article which needs to be improved. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 04:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I will make all the necessary changes as mentioned by you. Please do keep up with me in making this article perfect from all Wikipedia standards. I really appreciate you pointing out the peculiar details.
Just one more thing: The subject in question has actually found out a cure for dandruff as per Ayurvedic principles. This is a fact and not a lie. Here in India we know about this, but may be outside of India it might not be known to everyone. In that case, how do I present this fact ? Because dandruff cure has actually been found by him. It was reported in various newspapers of our country. Many doctors also confess to it publicly that the medicine works.
Please guide me regarding this.
I will fine tune the article and then request you to again have a look at it before resubmitting for review. Hope you will help me in this.
Thanks
Princehr999 (
talk) 06:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay so that means that if the result is published in, say may be a recognized medical journal, then we can write it as a cure. Right ? Princehr999 ( talk) 07:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the requisite changes as mentioned by you and I hope that you find it befitting. I request you to please go through the draft article again and if you find more possible corrections, kindly pinpoint those specific areas so that I can change them accordingly before submitting the artice again for review. Thanks for your help ! Princehr999 ( talk) 16:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have improved the overall structure of the article, removed all the pea cocking terms and also presented the subject in a neutral way. Kindly share your view. Thanks ! Princehr999 ( talk) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. Yes I have to improve the citation and grammar work. I was more focussed on improving the overall structure and establishing neutrality. I guess that now both the structure and neutrality issues are sorted as per your review. Right ? I hope I can submit the article for review after improving on the remaining small errors in grammar, and hope that it Will be accepted this time ! Princehr999 ( talk) 18:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I will take one more day to fine tune the article as per your recommendations before submitting for final review. I really hope to get your full support in getting this first article of mine published without any further objections raised. And thank you so so much for your kind support and fairly quick response time as well. Your clean and organized way of explaining things is spectacular and something I really appreciate. Thanks once again !!! Princehr999 ( talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Captain, I have submitted the draft article again for review after carefully looking for all the possible grammatical errors and citation formats. Also I have uploaded few more citations in the places requested by you. Kindly go through it once again and let me know if something else needs to be done in this regard. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have made some edits in the article draft. Are you done with the editing ? You have made certain changes which I need to discuss with you. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah hi ! Yes you have changed the naming convention, but Kumar seems awkward and he is never known by this name. He is mostly called as 'Gurudev' which is a nicer way of referring to a saint. If you don't find it objectionable, I would rather like to substitute the word Kumar with 'Gurudev', or atleast with complete word 'Kumar Swami', or rather not use it at all and simply use 'he' wherever possible. Please suggest any one of these three options.
Secondly, you have inserted a 'failed verification' tag with reference number 17. May I know why you couldn't verify ? The newspaper cutting clearly talks about Swami Ji's claims of curing dandruff through this medicine. This is also in the newspaper headline in reference number 19. So I don't find any justified reason to insert a failed verification tag. On your recommendations only, I used the word, 'he claims', with the dandruff cure.
Also, I noticed that you deleted the section of the BBC Asian Network Interview in 'Diagnosis by voice' section. Please go the reference link and listen to the interview on youtube. It's clearly there. So please explain why can't this fact be presented in this section ? I didn't use any peacocking terms for this rather I presented it in a fairly straightforward tone.
Thanks ! Princehr999 ( talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But the references 17 and 19 do provide you with at least a hint that the subject claims to cure dandruff. So if you find the current references (17 and 19) as inappropriate, it would be better to just remove those references and rather add a 'citation needed' tag instead of 'failed verification'. Meanwhile when I come across a source which discusses the treatment methodology in detail as well, I would add it then.
Regarding the BBC interview, I don't think it appropriate to just remove that complete line. The interview is at least there for everyone to see. So there has to be a line which talks about this interview. I am not saying that we should be writing that 'he diagnosed people's diseases by listening to their voice on BBC radio'. But there needs to be a mention of this thing in some way. Otherwise the whole section 'Diagnosis by voice' becomes awkward. The only point of creating this section was to highlight this interview.
One more thing, I do appreciate your help and I understand that the subject in question is not known to you AT ALL. This is sort of creating an 'unintended bias' on your part by cutting out all his major achievements. I see that your edits have essentially cut down the 'Contributions in field of Ayurveda' and deprived it of its main content. If this subject was from your country, you would have certainly known him and these lines wouldn't have seemed inappropriate to you. But I would again like to inform you that He is really a huge figure in India and thousands of people have been cured through his treatments, including dandruff. This is a fact and not an exaggeration. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to sing praises for a person, but presenting facts in a neutral way is definitely allowed. I don't want to be harsh but please don't create an unintended bias by cutting off things which 'you' don't agree to. At least allow the facts to be presented as is. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 05:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed ! You're point of view is absolutely right, such a big achievement would have certainly attracted huge investors. But the thing is, He is a saint and not a businessman, that's why (in my opinion) he would never sell this formula for monetary benefits. Okay so I will add the interview portion again, and I also intend to add a line regarding Charak Samhita, because it is the main text of Ayurvedic treatment, so it certainly needs a mention because of all Kumar Swami Ji's cures are based on this Ayurvedic textbook. So I would like to add this information in a way which seems okay to you as well. Other than that, is everything else fine ? Princehr999 ( talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the changes. Please have a look at the article. I guess all the issues raised by you are resolved now. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 ( talk) 08:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Captain, Have you gone through the draft article ? I made all the final changes.
Princehr999 (
talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much ! Regarding the interview section, I have tried my best to incorporate it in a perfectly neutral way. I hope it is acceptable to you now. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 03:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that the article has been created but it has been marked as a C-class category article. Can you please shift the status to at least a B ? Because all the references I have used are from newspapers or reliable journals. What shortcomings did you see that you put it under a C-class category ? Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 03:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your guidance was an important factor in achieving this feat. However, I am not satisfied. At least tell me what can be done to shift it up one ladder to a B-class ? Also, I see that you have added a line in dandruff section that "The nature of his treatment is unknown, and does not align with any existing medical practices regarding dandruff". I mean this line kind of degrades the quality. The treatment method is simple, he has developed a medicine based on Ayurvedic formulations and we simply have to wash our heads with it. Even in the Guinness World record reference numbered 20, it is mentioned that a hair wash was conducted. So it basically sums it up: The treatment involves washing your head with an ayurvedic medicine. Please remove that line. Because it is making the quality go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The line can be modified to: "The treatment involves washing head with a medicine developed on Ayurvedic guidelines. However the exact formulation has not yet been revealed." I request you to substitute this line for the one you have written. Because it is completely false that the treatment does not align with current medical practices. What do all current medical treatments for dandruff look like ? All of them are simple hair wash formulations, right ? So this is also a hair wash formulation, the reference of which is clear in number 20. So please make that change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Captain, someone has raised error on the page created by me. A user with the name Harshil169 is interfering with the article content in a negative way. He has changed the title of the page, and requested to delete it. As I already told you, the subject in question is a world famous spiritual leader, and people who are followers of other spiritual gurus will try to degrade this page. This user is trying to purposely degrade the quality of the page. Please tell me how to protect this page from hateful users such as these who will constantly try to delete it.
You yourself have gone through the article and removed all the promotional/biased content and terms used. How to add security to this page so that other users don't try to edit it with false intentions ?
Please help me in this regard. Thanks !
I am not a follower of any Guru. This is my first article which has been written with much much research. I do know the subject and I have read much about him in newspapers. This is what prompted me to do research on him and create an article. You're clearly showing that you are trying to edit this page with a personal agenda. Please don't spoil this page for no reason. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
By 'knowing' the person, I mean that I know about the subject through newspapers and online media. I haven't met him in person. Is it wrong to know a person through media ? I am not associated with him but I did a whole lot of research on this subject to gather information about him. Is there anything that can be done to improve the article so that it is neutral in everyone's view ? Please point towards the issues in the article. I am willing to learn and improve. Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I see that much of the content has been edited by you. Can the POV tag be removed now ? What needs to be done in this regard ? Thanks Princehr999 ( talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you accepted the article named Kumar Swami in article for creation which was named as Bhagwan Shri Kumar Swami Ji which is violation of basic policy like NPOV. Did you check WP:NCIN before accepting it? Bhagwan means God, Shri means honorable, Ji means honorable. How could you accept that article? Most of the claims in this article are bogus and verifications have been failed. Did you check who had uploaded the photograph of person? The one who made it, isn't it obvious violation of COI policy? Please be responsible while accepting new articles and that too when they saw too much respect extraordinary claims. I am contesting it for speedy deletion for promotion, if rejected then I will nominate for deletion. Regards,-- Harshil want to talk? 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi CaptainEek,
Thank you for the review. I accepted your remarks. I changed completely the presentation of the basic ideas, and add a number of intra and extra links.
I would like to explain the importance of B. Haites' theory of Geological Perspective Correlation. It claims that in sedimentary basins, which cover the big part of Earth's surface, the geometry of the layers follows the strong geometrical law. It allows reconstructing the underground geometry more precisely and with less expenses.It is worth to mention that expenses in oil, gas, and ore exploration are gigantic. But more important is that the Perspective Correlation represents the first mathematical law in geology.
After its publishing in 1963 it was described in many reviews and PhD theses, there were published a dozens of proof, and not a single disprove, but the geological society didn't accept this theory - the geologists are sure that nothing on the Earth can be described in mathematical terms. That is why it is important that the theory of Perspective Geological Correlation appear on so respected publisher as Wikipedia.
Regards
Nabatoff ( talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for so long not responding: it is my first attempt to write for Wiki, and all week I can't find your message. What I want to say is: the geological community nor accepted Haites' Theory, neither rejected it, it neglected it. Once in decade one review briefly describes the Theory, and from time to time the Theory appears in PhD theses (because it looks very scientific), but not a single publication demonstrates a negative example of correlation based on this Theory. I have to ad that in biostratigraphy is very popular the correlation based on the same ideas but in different graphical presentation. I suppose to describe this method in a new paragraph of the article (the title is already included in my text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabatoff ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kumar Swami, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
∯WBG converse 04:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the
NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some
really cool awards.
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm not following the correct protocols (brand new user, but I've added a few more sources now).
Jamesor2 ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek. Thank you for reviewing my draft page. I'm working on beefing up the bio of this artist, with your suggestions in mind. Will resubmit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonwoods13 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
El Capt. Eek,
As per your suggestions I've removed all subjective language and made the article less adversarial. Creating a full "summary style" article before this parent article is approved seems a little confusing to me. Once this article is up to snuff, I'd certainly begin that process but then once it's live I'd hope the community could work on that as well.
Please advise.
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Capt. Eek,
At your convenience I'm hoping you could check the MGD page to see if anything else is needed for approval. Thanks!!
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It's found here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)
If by "sounding like an essay" you mean the article is clear and well-written, that doesn't seem like it should be a problem. If you think it's a persuasive essay with subjective language, please identify where that language is and I'll be happy to fix it.
And spinning this off into summary-style articles is something that I imagine the community would be able to help with, is that a universal requirement for articles? That has to happen before their initial approval?
Thanks again for all your help!
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 14:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the template!
Sephiroth storm (
talk) 04:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Capt. Eek,
Thank you so much for the clear and thorough response! Sorry about the continued back-and-forth, but after first making all your specific fixes and then finding as many similar ones on my own as I could, I then took your advice and swapped two of the lower sections with each other since I think that makes it flow more from narrow to broad, with important facts upfront and broader implications later.
Along those same lines, I made sure to add all the main implications and points right at the top of the article, and additionally added a secondary source that's linked in a few places. That secondary source also had a somewhat speculative criticism which I also included at the end.
Thanks again and let me know what else you need from me! -Lt. Dan
/info/en/?search=Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon ( talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a message about the Hunter Commission disambiguation page. I think there actually were two commissions called the "Hunter Commission." E.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=IDNeW78fedkC&pg=PA69 or this page (though it's some random exam prep site). I actually knew nothing about this stuff except what I just Googled, but it looks legit to my eye.
2601:647:5600:748:3061:F8E5:29DB:1CF4 ( talk) 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt.
Thank you so much for your incredibly prompt help and editing, after I submitted the article I hitched up my britches and got ready to wait until after X-mas due to the really long queueueueueue, but luckily enough you sailed along and got this all done wwaaaaaayyy faster that I expected. Kind regards and we'll certainly be in touch!! -Lt. Dan
Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you if you've already been pinged by the Talk page, but I just wanted to check in for any further guidance about how to make further improvements to the page. Thank you again!! /info/en/?search=Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear CaptainEek, thanks again for your support I did many changes 2 weeks ago following your last advices, would it possible to know if I'm on the right track please? best regards Jean Pierre JPDeNeef ( talk) 17:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I've read your note on the above-mentioned article, studied Wikipedia:Inline_citation policy and still feel myself unsure of what I did wrong. Will you please be so kind as to point me to the exact place that you don't like?
Best regards McGrizzly ( talk) 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry this message was posted before you changed the link FROM Daniel Egbunike to Draft:DK that was the correct link. Sorry for the confusion and thank you submitting the page for review. Do you have any feedback on the article? Wowletmebe ( talk) 18:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I really appreciate your help and advice - thank you.
Carlduff (
talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for reviewing my article on Choo Yilin a few weeks ago (okay a month and a half ago). I know that you rejected it because it sounded like an advertisement, although I did not mean for it to be. I've since edited it (but not submitted for review again yet), but was wondering if you could give more feedback on why you thought it sounded like an ad. Draft here for reference. Thanks! One Red Line ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello CaptainEek,
This is a puzzling deletion and I hope you will share more on your reasoning in taking this action. Six of my eight sources meet the standards of reliable, secondary and independent. (The other two are the GrayRobinson and Capitol Insight websites, which should be acceptable as a small part of the mix.) Three of the sources meet the substantial coverage criteria since they are exclusively focused on GrayRobinson. Please tell me what this entry needs to satisfy your standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I reviewed the Wikipedia pages of six other law firms in Florida that have about the same number of lawyers in the state. None of them had as many independent references as the entry I submitted. None had as many references that could be regarded as satisfying the criteria for substantial coverage. All followed the same approximate format with some variation: a brief overview of the firm that includes history, number of lawyers and offices, followed by sections on services offered, prominent alumni or current attorneys, awards and other recognition. A few firms had sections explaining past or current client matters that are significant. My entry was, if anything, more conservative than these other firms, and avoided all promotional language.
Lawyers, especially those at larger firms that take on complex matters, are front and center in every social, political and economic issue. They turn the wheels of public policy, for better or worse. If I read a news story about a class-action lawsuit against a big company or a criminal defendant going to trial, I want to know something about the law firm behind it. Where is it located? How big is it? What is its history? Who are its influencers? People turn to Wikipedia for these answers. Law firms that represent clients in significant matters should be in Wikipedia and we hope you would agree that the readers of Wikipedia should be provided with basic information about these firms.
If you are against all law firms being in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia needs to treat all firms equally. It is not fair for many law firms to be in Wikipedia and to reject others that have substantially the same profile. I hope you will regard this as an opportunity to have a constructive conversation about the GrayRobinson deletion. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
WikiEditorJena — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorJena ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I sent you a message about autohotkey but I'm not sure if it was delivered? If not send me a message from my page then I'll reply to that email, cheers carlin 🕺 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlinmack ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I was wondering if you could take a look at Joseph Church: Musical Director again. I added more sources and wanted to know if it addressed your concerns about the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPiano ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day CaptainEek - Sir, why did you close my ANI report here? What made you conclude that it was a "content dispute" - although one responding editor gave everything to derail discussion into direction of "content" dispute, I was prevented from attempting to get it back on track as "conduct"issue because you were faster? Is it really "content dispute", a situation in which one editor for months completely preventing another from making any constructive, and souurced in valid mainstream scholarship, edits - again, completely suppressing any constructive and referenced edits on my part - all the while abusing "edit-summary", and not just ignoring "TP" initiated "point-by-point" discussion, but instead responds with ad hominem attacks? Thanks, all the best.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
here's my policy - i am using only valid, legitimate contemporary mainstream scholarship in article on topic of Balkan history, rarely primary and tertiary sources, unless they are covered with good secondary in scholarship, and I believe that's the only proper policy in editing history which is contested by POV's - this means that you would need to check validity of statements in sources and sources themselves (in terms of their legitimacy). In that case wouldn't need extended knowledge of history of the region--
౪ Santa ౪
99° 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt. My Capt.
If you have a moment I'd profoundly appreciate any advice you might have on the MGD page, I think I have the whole "primary" source thing down as discussed at the bottom of the Talk page, but wanted to loop you in since you've been my sensei this whole time.
And just in general I've put a bunch more work on it, but would like to keep improving where need-be. Thanks again!! /info/en/?search=Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In regards to: /info/en/?search=Draft:Indentation_size_effect
Hi CaptainEEk. Thanks for you time. In response to your question, the image is entirely my own. I added a caption to clarify its meaning. Also, I understand that the page may be challenging for those without any background in mechanics, but I am unsure how the language could be further simplified while still being factually correct. Could you recommend any specific words you think I could substitute without losing meaning? I have added crosslinks so many words are easily defined to the reader.
Regards Bob Clemintime ( talk) 01:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I will continue working on the page. I am making other supporting pages as I can't explain too much more about the effect without context. This area of materials science is not well represented on Wikipedia even though the effect was first reported almost 40 years ago. I made a figure which helps explain geometrically necessary dislocations, but I don't think I can post that figure as it is too derivative of another person's diagram. I am still thinking of another way to clearly draw the effect. Bob Clemintime ( talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
THanks for your help in the process of putting this (my first) wikipedia page together: Least dangerous assumption. The gate-keeping process on wikipedia is strong and I appreciate that. I'm looking forward now that it has been created to both developing it and seeing it being developed/improved. I am, however, struggling to figure out the ins and outs of chat and revisions and so on and so forth.... but, hey ho. Many thanks. Iorek 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have multiple times removed the content that was contributed regarding two important aspects of why Maj. Mathew Golsteyn probably even has an article on Wikipedia to begin with (with the exception of possibly his valor commendations) - the issues surrounding the charges for murder (beyond its basic description), and the issues surrounding his defense (of which there is none presented in the article at all, even though this is part-and-parcel, and definitely precedes the foundation of why a pardon was even considered). According to the history of the article, these issues are what created the controversy that brought about Maj. Golsteyn Wikipedia page. There were summaries within the article before I edited, that gave summarized statements, that were sourced, and outlined a few of the issues surrounding the charges for murder. In an article, it is not POV to include controversial topics as long as they are cited, and summarized in a straight forward way, and their presence contributes to the overall article for the reader. What can be POV is to remove information so that only one point of view is present - even if that point of view is subtly stated between the lines. I included some points that were missing in regard to the defense part of the killing. Although the summary I provided could stand alone with its citations, I believe that summary was what you were feeling was POV and not neutral, although it was heavily cited, and even when summarized it only restated what was already present in the sources themselves. The Quotations presented mainly Golsteyn himself, his lawyer, or the actual rules of engagement, all of which are central aspects to the defense, give broader context to the defense side of the issue, and all of which are part of the controversial characteristic of why Maj. Golsteyn has an article, and what lead to his consideration for pardon.
It seems that you are advocating that to be neutral is to not address the very centrality of the controversy itself. I reviewed /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and found nothing that I had written would have violated these terms as they are defined. What I contributed described, with citation, one of two central aspects of the controversy through cited sources. By having two sections, it allowed contributors to provide appropriate sourced material in both areas - the murder charge itself and to describe what prompted it or what may be relevant regarding it, and the defense (that is the salient issues regarding the case). While you have generally pointed to terms such as neuturality, POV, over uses quotes, or undue weight, I would be nice if you would actually outline exactly cases within the contribution. In other words, not broad statements about neutrality, but actual specifics (or how would you suggest, by way of an example, the core of the information be able to be presented without having to be fully removed from the article). The full removal of the contributed content's context, that the sources and summary give, can contribute to a type of point of view itself - by restricting information that is central to the killing of Rasoul, so that it gave the impression of murder. I will admit that your latest edit totally removed any area of either murder charge issues (other than Golsteyn was charged) or the defense issues. This made it more sanitary, but the article is missing key elements. It also allows certain statements that meet the type of "when did you stop beating your wife?" inferences to stand without providing a broader context - such as:
but removed a counter-balancing statement from Golsteyn himself, in the same CIA interview, which gives broader context, that the situation met the rules of engagement regarding terrorists, such as:
The point is to describe both aspects (murder charge and description of defense issues), while also providing balance using context. For instance, the inference of the first two bullet points above is that Golsteyn "shot and killed him", and when combined with he "acknowledged he knew his suspect was unarmed" leaves the impression that what he did was murder (as it would be seen in peacetime), and outside any situation that the rules of engagement would allow for. Yet, once the broader context is considered, it balances these statements with other sourced material that show the facet that allowed for Rasoul to be treated as a legitimate threat under the rules of engagement. While each of the bullet points above are sourced, the lack of context definitely gives an impression in the first two bullet points that is counter balanced with other sources pointing out the fuller context (and even using specific interview material from the same CIA interview as the first bullet point quote). Each of the bullet point quotes above provide information that is helpful to the reader in understanding a major aspect of the life events that brought about the public awareness of Maj. Golsteyn (again, besides his valor commendations). My main point in my contribution was to provide a further area of description for the two central aspects of the killing - the murder charge, which had already been somewhat stated (but in the current version is removed); and the defense, which brought about consideration for pardon as well as is part-and-parcel complementary to a sub-section on the murder charge, within the larger section of "Killing of Alleged Afghan bomb-maker".
Within my contribution, even if I had removed the quotes themselves, and went only with the highly cited summary which itself almost is verbatim from the sources, I believe you were still thinking it was not neutral (even though it does meet every point in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as it defines neutrality for the purpose of editing). Yet, the absence of allowed sources or summary that give broader context, and the sanitation of the relevant issues surrounding the controversial aspect of the killing, actually in and of itself influences the article with a point of view, through surpression, by allow specific subtle inferences and prohibiting other material that may give broader context to the prior inferenced information. In this case, the inference, where the broader context is surpressed, is that Golsteyn murdered Rasoul and the President unjustly pardoned him. That in and of itself is a way of pushing a POV through inference and suppression of information. My main point was to provide broader sections to the murder charge, as well as to issues surrounding the the defense, that would allow both aspects to be represented and furthered described through other future edits of other editors. Thank you so much for reading and for your consideration
Hi, with reference to my draft - Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - I searched around a bit today and found some references which appear to be relatively recent, and none of them are interviews. 4 of these came across as independent, while one, Glitz, am not so sure about. Can you please take some time out to check if they can be used? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes ( talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
El. Capt,
So as per MGD's talk page, it sounds like I'm being asked to change all the language you had me make definitive and clear into being fuzzy and waffling. I understand that MGD is a hypothesis, but changing all the language around it to be "well, maybe..." isn't how science writing is done. Explaining things simply means just making factual statements, without including every single possible caveat.
And it sounds like the mods are applying their own opinion of what Primary sources are, because based on the quotes I provided from Wikipedia's own definition the MGD page has loads of secondary sources and a tertiary one. /info/en/?search=Talk:Maximum_genetic_diversity
Based on the what's being said in the talk page, it sounds like what needs to be created is a page dedicated to explaining the differing views of MGD versus the neutral theory's molecular clock. But I'd need some help or at least direction to start that kind of thing
Because I've spent some some on other genetic pages and if anything the MGD is clearer than average, and there are loads of other pages that contain really, really fundamental mistakes (the definition of an allele, which I fixed. If the mods attacking MGD know science so well, how had that gone unnoticed for so long?) that need additional work which apparently no one has noticed or cares about. Instead a novel article that presents a different paradigm is being nit-picked to pieces - when based on the overall state of the genetic pages I can't see how the mods are speaking like they know the hard science. Because if they did, why are so many of the genetic pages such a mess? If these mods want to further science, shouldn't they be working on that instead of trying to just condemn something they don't seem to understand?
I've done some work improving other pages, but I'm not gonna spending any more time running myself into a window built by people who are telling me water isn't wet. The science around the neutral theory's holes is very well established, and clearly cited in the MGD page. I'd be happy to work on a page contrasting the Neutral Theory and MGD, but since the last directions from a mod in the Talk page seem to contrast the ones you gave me as I was first writing the article I'm reaching out. Thanks again Harvard2TheBigHouse ( talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)