Jump to content

User talk:Anarchyte: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m message was sent to the wrong person
No edit summary
Line 261: Line 261:


<!-- End of message -->[[User:Carvalho1988|Carvalho1988]] ([[User talk:Carvalho1988|talk]]) 12:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:Carvalho1988|Carvalho1988]] ([[User talk:Carvalho1988|talk]]) 12:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ring Learning with Errors Signature
Anarchyte, I understand you comment about the article appearing to be opinion. I went back through the lead and the introduction and cited the source for most of the sentences. Many of the sources were from other wikipedia articles which I had not cited because I linked to them. I have now added those citations and other citations. I also modified a few sentences to take out adjectives like "rich." Hopefully you may find this less of opinion essay. If you still feel it contains too much opinion it would help to know where so I can improve it. [[User:Carvalho1988|Carvalho1988]] ([[User talk:Carvalho1988|talk]]) 12:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:10, 5 July 2015

Your GA nomination of Taman Shud Case

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taman Shud Case you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaciemonster -- Kaciemonster (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anarchyte, just wanted to let you know that I put up the first part of my GA Review for Taman Shud Case, just in case you haven't seen it yet. Since the article is long and I'm noticing quite a few things that need to be addressed, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at my current feedback and make some changes to the article. I'm going to hold off for a day before continuing my review, just because this particular review is going to be long and time-consuming, and I want to give you a chance to be able to respond before I overload the review with text. :)
I also noticed that it looks like you've only made 1 edit to the article. Are there any editors that have contributed significantly to the article recently that you think would be interested in getting involved in the GA process? If not, I might make a post on the talk page to ask about it. Have a nice day! Kaciemonster (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the decline of Spark (XMPP client) article

My submission has been declined again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spark_%28XMPP_client%29). I've added a few external links, but probably it is not enough. As i said to the previous reviewer, this is a software and newspapers are not usually posting articles about this. The most you can cite is various guides and reviews maybe. So this means that this article probably will never get approved. That's ok, though what nags me, is that there are a large number of articles with no cites or with limited information or notability and they still can live here. Another thing is that this software already has 6 articles in other languages (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_%28Instant_Messenger%29). Some of them are half-baked, some outdated. But a visitor can find them and see that they provide outdated information, or maybe not in a language he/she can read. Most probably a visitor will seek for EN version of this and won't find it. I think this is hurting the face of Wikipedia. Wroot (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wroot: Hello, thank you for contacting me about the issue. I asked for the removal of the "Releases" section per WP:LISTCRUFT but by all means use the references in different parts of the article. Yes, there are articles with no references (and rightfully tagged with {{noref}}) but please don't use that in favour of your AfC. I would've probably accepted it if you had removed that section and beefed up the lead a little more. Once done, resubmit it for review if you want another person or myself to look over it again. --Anarchyte 09:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte:Thanks for the clarification. I haven't noticed your comment on the first glance. I will remove the Releases section. Added it based on the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openfire As i also watch and update that page (i'm not the original author), maybe i should remove Releases section there also? Should i remove your comment myself or leave it for you or other reviewer? Will add more information to the lead section and resubmit later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroot (talk • contribs)
@Wroot: I'm currently watching the Draft page, so I'll get a notification when it goes back up. Although... a) I cannot guarantee that it gets accepted by me or anyone else after the resubmission. b) I cannot guarantee I review it. --Anarchyte 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:51, 23 June 2015 review of submission by 2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0


Hi, just want to ask for some advice, since our article has been rejected multiple times. Are the third parties that we are citing not independent enough? I know that not all these sites are very publicly know, but they are experts in our industry (e.g. Customer Experience Matrix for instance is industry analyst David Raab, a trusted source in our field). What should I seek to improve, is it the number of citations, the quality of citations, or are there also concerns with the text?

Thanks for your help, Best, Ruud BlueConic

2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0: Hello. I'm really not the best person to talk to about issues like this since this is my first day doing these reviews. I declined the AfC because of the amount of useless references cluttering the page and the fact that a few of them don't really explain that much about BlueConic. [1] is just a press release and wouldn't help the article in any way except to prove the value of the company in question. [2] shows nothing, just a VERY basic run down of the value of the company (again, pretty much useless). The other references are alright, although if possible they should be expanded upon. There is no lead summarising the entire article which makes it even harder to distinguish notability. --Anarchyte 12:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article on Mikrotron Gmbh

Hello, Any suggestions to improve the article on Mikrotron Gmbh would be appreciated. I now understand (from visiting the chat) that I must seek secondary sources and remove information that clutters and is not directly related to the company.

Thank you very much

Javage11 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Javage11: I can't really help you outside of what you just said ([...] must seek secondary sources and remove information that clutters and is not directly related to the company.) apart from the fact that you should probably tone down the advertisement-like style of writing in some sections. --Anarchyte 10:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:57:34, 24 June 2015 review of submission by KJacobi1121


KJacobi1121 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your response. I did attempt to make it an informative, neutral piece on the book but will go back and rework it. I can also use more links from outside sources.

Once ready I will re-submit for review.

Talkback

Hello, Anarchyte. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 — Calvin999 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:09:32, 24 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mttocs


Hello,

I'm a little confused as to how to address the issue of insufficient context. Do I need to add more text to explain terms such as "console sever," "power-distribution-unit" and "automatic transfer switch," or do I merely need to link to existing Wikipedia articles that explain these terms ... or is there something else that I'm missing?

Thanks,

Mttocs Mttocs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mttocs: Hello, sorry for the late-ish reply; I tagged it as insufficient context because all the article tells me (as someone who doesn't know anything about the company) is that it a device manufacturer and produces the 3 objects/devices/etc that you mentioned in the draft. The brief history of the company (quicklink) just advertises the company and the last line in the section, (WTI and the WTI logo are registered trademarks of Western Telematic, Inc.) doesn't give me any information at all and looks like a disclaimer more than anything. --Anarchyte 08:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

We do not peddle in allegations that have been proven to be false.

I have removed your content at Gamergate Controversy that merely regurgitates allegations against a living person have been shown to be false by every reliable source that has covered the issue . WP:BLP .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Template:Z33

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I'm going to strongly urge you to redact/comment out the above statement (above the warning). There was absolutely nothing about begging the question of the statements made by Kotaku regarding the allegation against Quinn/Grayson in this edit; the question - a fair one - is if Kotaku is involved enough in the controversy to use them as a source. It's a fairly simple answer and did not need removal from the talk page (since the editor exceeds 500/30). --MASEM (t) 03:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to believe that someone familiar enough with the events to be linking to archived copies of the articles is not also familiar enough to know that the allegations are completely false. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between Quinn and Grayson has been affirmed by Kotaku and Quinn (plenty of sources on that), and that's all the post was referring to (though yes, they used "editor" as opposed to "reporter" but that I'd AGF as a mistake of Grayson's position at Kotaku, as the posed question still stands). The posting here made no attempt to question the refuting of the claim of using the relationship to gain positive press. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FALSE implications that there were some improper conflict of interest happening due to personal relationships is indeed a BLP matter. That the claims of such improper influence have no basis has been fully and widely acknowledged and covered in all of the sources since the story began. To continue to attempt to drag people's reputations through the mud be repeated implication (in particular by naming and only naming the one person who could not possibly be of any relevance to COI and use of the source) is improper and unacceptable per WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored from Talk:Gamergate controversy

@Anarchyte: is there a reason why you didnt link directly to the Kotaku article? [http://kotaku.com/were-all-tired-of-gamergate-1648624281 I have spent the last 20 minutes clicking from the links on that page and going back and from all my devices and they all seem to work. has anyone else tried? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Must've just been my end then, Kotaku wasn't loading properly for me when I archived it. It's also (IMO) easier and more reliable if it's archived, just personal preference. --Anarchyte 06:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It must just be you. I have had several friends go through clicking on everything from all of their devices from multiple browsers on each and no one has reported any issues. Why dont you try it again and see if whatever might have been causing your issue has been fixed?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored from Talk:Gamergate controversy) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Yeah, it's fixed now. Should I just remove the archived copy and make it the normal link? --Anarchyte 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anarchyte, Just an FYI that TRPoD may choose not to respond on this topic. My own perspective is that you do not necessarily need to change the link; but may choose to do so. If you do so, you should mention that it was changed. With something like "<small>link updated by ~~~~</small>". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biz2Credit

Thanks for your feedback. I agree - will revise and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysian1503 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:14, 26 June 2015 review of submission by 80.168.131.194


What is wrong with the changes made? More references were added from reliable sources?

Thanks

80.168.131.194 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@80.168.131.194: Your references aren't very reliable, that's all. One is primary which should normally be avoided. I don't really know what I can tell you apart from that. You might wanna check out the comment left by Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) BTW.--Anarchyte 10:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:21, 27 June 2015 review of submission by Enactus IPCW


Kindly suggest how to improve the article and remove the essay-like element from it. Enactus IPCW (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Enactus IPCW: Hello, I'll gladly help you with this matter. For one, try and look at some other articles, such as; Art, Ayapana triplinervis, Neil Druckmann, etc.. These articles show the way of writing that's common on Wikipedia. The titles of your sections do not help the average reader and are essay-like titles, "What is Aipan", for one, that should be shown in the lead of the article (which at the moment, you do not have). Off the topic of essay-like, your references all come from primary sources, which should normally be avoided unless they're used sparingly. The Facebook pages are very unreliable so they should be replaced with other reliable sources. Facebook, blogs, etc should normally be avoided when referencing your article.
The article is also very "advert-y" which is a bad thing. Again, have a look at those articles I listed before and have a look at how they are written.
The section called "WHAT IS AIPAN?" would normally be in the article called Aipan and would only have to be basically explained in this article, although because the Aipan article doesn't exist it doesn't help establish notability of your company/article.
I hope these points help you, if you have any more questions, don't fret to ask me or ask at the Help Desk. --Anarchyte 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2015)

A party in celebration of the Chinese Year of the Ox at a restaruant
Hello, Anarchyte.

The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections:

Previous selections: Fat • Nightlife • Sport

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote

  • Hello Anarchyte:
This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 30 of 2015. Thanks for participating!
Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 02:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:46:04, 29 June 2015 review of submission by 119.120.72.49

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hoping to understand in more depth why the article was rejected. Streacom has been on the market for about 5 years, is sold Globally and is perhaps one of the best knows examples of fanless pc's on the market today. What does it take to be notable ? Thanks 119.120.72.49 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

119.120.72.49 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@119.120.72.49: I can't really help you more than what's been written on the draft, sorry. It's just that some of your references are unreliabke (such as YouTube). Read the links provided on the page. --Anarchyte 06:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraya Pandey

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know I declined your speedy nomination for Ashraya Pandey as the article in no way qualifies for WP:G10. Thanks! --Non-Dropframe talk 11:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: Eh, I tagged it as that because it was referencing a minor and had a "location" as such. I still think it should be blanked as courtesy for privacy but that's your choice. --Anarchyte 11:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I've blanked the page and added a blanking template. --Non-Dropframe talk 11:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:28, 29 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Penmanpr



Penmanpr (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I see you kicked back the LiquidCool Solutions page I created. I emulated another site - using it as a template - so was surprised by the kickback. Taking into consideration your request for references, I added some YouTube videos developed by LiquidCool Solutions CEO that demonstrates the technology. Please let me know if you're looking for something different.

Respectfully.

@Penmanpr: Hi, your references aren't included in the article, it's just a list. As for YouTube videos, they're normally things you want to avoid. --Anarchyte 09:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thalie Tremblay

Hi. I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. To say she's not notable when she's competed at not one, but two Olympic Games is nonsense. Please read WP:NOLYMPICS. And it might be worth looking at the user who created articles you tag. My user page states I've created more than 23,000 articles to date. Now I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I do know abit about basic notability guides for each article I've created. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox Screen Junkies

How do I get this ugly pink rejection box to disappear from the top of my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewjshick: I removed it, for later, if you're just testing editing etc, don't submit the work to AFC otherwise people review it and re-add the "ugly pink box". --Anarchyte 23:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I didn't want to do a copy, but my edits to the original were being deleted. I give up though. I'm just gonna maintain my sandbox, even though I think the reasoning for the deletion of the edits is total crap. Cheers! Andrewjshick (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your decline of Draft:XARA

does not make sense to me

The article was modified to include documentation and citations for notability, a much higher standard than claim of significance.

What citations, specifically, would satisfy you? What is wrong with the numerous 3rd party citations documenting notability.

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XARA

Pc.techguru (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pc.techguru: It's not about the references, it's that the draft doesn't tell me why the company is notable. Half the page is just lists. --Anarchyte 09:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anarchyte, I had a quick look over this one, and I'm not sure that WP:CCOS applies - reading through it, it refers to WP:CSD reasons A7, A9 & A11, which cover individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events; musical recordings & obviously invented subjects, respectively. The Draft:XARA article is on a concept or technical term, which doesn't fall into these categories. Might be worth reviewing again. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now I am even more confused -- the article "Draft:XARA" is (1) not about a company, (it is a security flaw in computer systems that lets rogues steal your passwords, among other things), and (2) in the domain of computer users -- it is a "zero_day" attack, as referenced in paragraph 1 (and defined elsewhere in wikipedia, meeting its own notability requirements), establishes the significance of the XARA attacks on your computing devices.

The citations were added specifically to address the notability concerns of a previous reviewer.

Pc.techguru (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is a page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xara" -- which does refer to a "company" -- this is different than "XARA", and they are already separated on the disambiguation page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xara_(disambiguation)

Pc.techguru (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pc.techguru and Ryk72: Hi, sorry about that, I thought WP:CCOS was viable for everything. I've since re-read the article and accepted it. I've tagged it with "Technical". --Anarchyte 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:32, 2 July 2015 review of submission by TZ56060


TZ56060 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup

Hey, I was just checking out your New Melones Dam review and just wanted to let you know that you should wait until all issues are fixed before passing. This is just because theoretically the nominator may not care to fix the issues since you passed the article anyway. Just letting you know for future reviews. :) --Dom497 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Must Love Me

Hello, I'm the user who created this sandbox, I'm here to tell you it shouldn't be nominated for speedy deletion as it was by no means a "new article", nut an expansion of the original, already existing "You Must Love Me", IDK why that user Valleysgirl even submitted my sandbox for review as she didn't even bothered to tell me she had done it.--Chrishm21 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishm21:  Done Fixed. --Anarchyte 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:46:44, 4 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Carvalho1988


Hello Anarchyte, We have updated the Ring Learning with Errors Signature Draft and believe it is ready to be reviewed again. We believe we have improved it in the ways you have suggested. Luiz Carvalho1988 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carvalho1988 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Learning with Errors Signature Anarchyte, I understand you comment about the article appearing to be opinion. I went back through the lead and the introduction and cited the source for most of the sentences. Many of the sources were from other wikipedia articles which I had not cited because I linked to them. I have now added those citations and other citations. I also modified a few sentences to take out adjectives like "rich." Hopefully you may find this less of opinion essay. If you still feel it contains too much opinion it would help to know where so I can improve it. Carvalho1988 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anarchyte&oldid=670042739"