Jump to content

User talk:KylieTastic: 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
Erlandau (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Obltkg4 (talk | contribs)
141 edits
No edit summary
Line 163: Line 163:


Can you explain to me what parts of Edie's entry were not cited to your satisfaction? [[User:Erlandau|Erlandau]] ([[User talk:Erlandau|talk]]) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what parts of Edie's entry were not cited to your satisfaction? [[User:Erlandau|Erlandau]] ([[User talk:Erlandau|talk]]) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

David O'Keefe (Historian)
A previous deleted image was reverted by me.
The contested file is for and by the subject author who is the historian of the article. The work should not have been removed and my undo yesterday June 15, 2016 should be restored. Regards,

Revision as of 18:46, 16 June 2016

It is approximately 6:33 PM where this user lives.

I try to answer all questions, but I also have a busy real-life and heath issues to deal with - If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse

Click to start a Question/section — Deleted image issue? Look up the files history here...

Ziggurat

Thanks. That's someone who not content with threatening me at Talk:Dogon is now stalking and reverting me. From what he's said at Talk:Dogon he seems to have searched for me on the web and I guess he knows I'm American. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • People like this really drive me close to leaving Wikipedia - Asserting a single point of view, attacking users, ignoring policies all while they just can jump anon addresses to avoid any long term issues. Although I agree with the general desire to let anyone edit, I'm now with the conclusion that especially with IP6 it just allows the idiots to do to much damage and takes up too much time. At least most just give up after a few days. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate IP6, but I see Bishonen managed to block an IP6 range which I didn't know we could do. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Floorplan

Hi KylieTastic,

I recently added our retail Floor plan company to Wikipedia. This is not for promotional purposes but more for informational. Please let me know what you will need from me to add FlexPlus back to the Retail Floor Plan section. My apologies for any inconvenience...

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.244.10 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:03, 4 June 2016 review of submission by JohnHagie


Hi Kylie,

I am requesting a re-review after having "cleaned up my act" by better referencing the article. I believe that I did it correctly...

Thank you - John

  • Hi JohnHagie did you see my answer to your last question here? I don't believe it's particularly fair to priorities one article over the others submitted - if you look at Category:AfC pending submissions by age we have over 700 pending and quite a few have been waiting weeks. Unfortunately either less people have been reviewing recently or we've just been getting more submissions (I think both), and I've had a lot of real lie issues.
However saying that I did have a quick look and frankly I'm not sure if they pass the relevant notability standard (see: Wikipedia:Notability (music)). I tend to be an Inclusionist but I would not want to accept it just to have someone (a Deletionist) flag it for deletion. If you can find any information with source that shows one of the points on Wikipedia:Notability (music) it would be easier - but I couldn't find any indication of chart success; or awards; or that the albums were released on a major record label or more important indie label; etc. So as such I would not be happy to decline per se, but I'm also not convinced enough to accept - I either would like to see something to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) more clearly or wait for another reviewers opinion. So I suggest trying to add more, and be patient, and if you want more advise from other more experienced editors try asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article is declined

Hi Kylie will you please tell me my article is declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav Alpha (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

• Thanks for guiding me kylie you made me clear about it all thanks once again  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav Alpha (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article "Skywhale (band)"

Hi KylieTastic,

I am sorry that my newly created article about the Bristol band Skywhale was not found to be acceptable for the Wikipedia guidelines. I only started to today do it is only a very bare-bones draft. I was hoping to add more information with reliable citations which would make the information more noteworthy.

Can I re-submit the article when I have filled it out?

--Cjcooper (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC) CJ Cooper[reply]

Denied Wiki Page

You denied my Wikipedia page for "unverified sources". The source is an official government web page listed as a reference.

What exactly do you consider verified for sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmc993150 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Djmc993150 the decline was not "unverified sources" but reliable sources - we generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42). Although a government site is not as biased as many corporate or personal sites they still have a bias. Also the information is hard to verify as it only has the single link and no Inline citations. So although as I'm sure you've noticed articles already exist is a similar style we generally apply higher standards to new articles. As long as the information is kept neutral and non-promotional then it could probably be accepted as long as you can at least add inline references to the sections to the page on the site they come from - See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information on this. I would help with an example edit or too but as you have noticed we are extremely backlogged at AFC at the moment. Hope that makes sense, all the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up/

Kylie,

Your rejection of my page is based on your violating the very references you gave me, specifically:

"Access to sources[edit]

Policy shortcuts: WP:PAYWALL WP:SOURCEACCESS

See also: Wikipedia:Offline sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). "

Just because YOU personally cant access the remainder of the government reference page, does not justify its denial.

Further, you seem to be asserting there is some bias or other reason for refusal. It is incumbent on you to prove the governments lying to make that claim. I am referencing official government sources for my information. You cannot arbitrarily declare them unreliable or biased because you don't like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmc993150 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Djmc993150, I did not say I could not access I said the relevant pages were not linked. Also I did not say they were biased, it's taken that all most all sources are biased. There is criticism of probably most government departments in most governments in the world on independent sites, however this independent view point is hardly ever mentioned on any government website. As a thought experiment, how much would just trust an article on a North Korean, Russian, or Iranian department sourced only with a single link to there website? You can either take what I actually said and add some inline references to sections, and preferably some external independent sources, or you can just wait and see what the next reviewer says - the choice is yours. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if you did not say you couldn't access the relevant pages, that tells me you made zero effort to look at the cited page. Further, "As a thought experiment, how much would just trust an article on a North Korean, Russian, or Iranian department sourced only with a single link to there website? " You are comparing North Korea and Iran to the US Military? I no longer need nor care about your advice on how to properly cite anything when you make such comparisons. I will wait for someone who has more intellect and deal with them.

TPConnects

Thanks for tiding up the TPConnects page. Contents from the following article caught my attention to this page. http://www.thebeat.travel/post/2016/06/03/No-GDSs-Or-TMCs-Are-NDC-Capable-Yet-Based-On-IATA-Certification.aspx. Please let me know if there is anything else I have to do. Raju Dubai (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Raju Dubai I didn't do a full review as that takes time and at the moment I'm just going though the new submissions to do basic tidy ups and decline completely non-yet suitable submissions. We are very backlogged at the moment probably because several of the regular reviewers are away or busy (that's the trouble with volunteer systems). Please be patient and someone (possibly myself) will get around to the full review and wither accept or give you feedback. In the meantime feel free to further improve the article or look at other articles. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:37, 12 June 2016 review of submission by Ladyyvone

brick money kingpin of utica N.Y. Raymond Garrett

Please let me know where to edit my article

Hello Kylie

Hope you are fine. The article I think is not coming under promotion. If you think you can underline the phrase/ words thats showing any promotional matter.

Regards Prasenjit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.123.12.113 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Money

Hi Kylie, Good Day to you.

I was recently referred to the AfC and I came up with an article about the company I represent. I was trying to give more insights about the company which may be useful. I have referenced it with the external links making it more relevant. I was not trying to promote my brand, nor did I advertise any services. Kindly help me in getting this thru.

Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed1809 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Syed1809 sorry for the delay in getting back it's been a busy day. Firstly let me say I understand, and although we have polices against promotion and advertising most is understood to be unintentional and done in good faith. All articles on Wikipedia need to meet certain polices to be acceptable for inclusion: the main ones for new articles are the notability policies. In this case its the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) polices that need to be met. Also in general "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42). Many companies just do not yet meet the requirements, others just need the independent reliable sources added to show that they do. Also note that Wikipedias notability standards are not related to how 'important' or 'good' a subject is. So have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and see if you think the company meets the acquirements. Also I recommend the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have other editing questions as you'll find lots of experienced editors that will try to help advise, and you don't have to wait for an individual to be about. Hope that helps - all the best KylieTastic (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Odoo_Community_Association

KyleTastic - Thanks for your review and feedback, it is useful and I will seek some more reliable external sources for Draft:Odoo_Community_Association and re-submit later. - SJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartJMackintosh (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:53:33, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Amy Jaworska


Hi Kyle,

thank you so much for reviewing my article. I would like to ask for your guidance on improving the existing referencing please. For example, if I was to upload an image (print advert) of the two references that were rejected, would they be then accepted?

thanks you for your help,

Amy

  • Hi Amy, you can only uupload the image if its not copyrighted or has a suitably 'free' licence (such as CC-BY) see Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. In some cases 'non free' images can be uploaded to English Wikipedia and used see Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it's difficult to tell from a file name like "1980 - New machinery.jpg". If you talking about your 'ref' "Punch, or the London Charivari" - which was more like a claim than a reference as I assume you are saying it was in some issues of Punch, or the London Charivari. To be a reference you would need something that either backs up the claim that they advertised their or some reference to the issue numbers and pages (so that someone could verify the information). I must admit I'm no copyright expert so you may have to seek guidence somewhere else to find out if you can upload images of the print adverts, such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse or maybe Commons:Village pump/Copyright over on commons. For more referncing help see Help:Referencing for beginners. Note that the standard for inclusing of this type of artciles is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) so have a look at that to so what reviewers will be lookiing for. Lastly if you have any other questions on editing I recommned the Wikipedia:Teahouse as lots of experienced editors answer questions asked there. Hope that helped, all the best KylieTastic (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you take a australian joke, are you able to put it back for a couple days.

Can't you take a australian joke, are you able to put it back for a couple days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcliff123 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchcliff123, no, this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. --NeilN talk to me 12:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:43, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Erlandau



Can you explain to me what parts of Edie's entry were not cited to your satisfaction? Erlandau (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Keefe (Historian) A previous deleted image was reverted by me. The contested file is for and by the subject author who is the historian of the article. The work should not have been removed and my undo yesterday June 15, 2016 should be restored. Regards,

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&oldid=725605952"