User talk:CNMall41

Request for Realtor.com article

Greetings, CNMall41. On behalf of Move, I am still looking for a neutral editor to assist with reviewing a proposed draft to replace the current Realtor.com article. I have made many improvements and trims to the draft I put forth back in September, based on feedback from a few editors. I see you are an active editor and member of WikiProject Companies. I am curious if you might be willing to take a look at the proposed draft and copy over content appropriately. If not, I will try to find other WikiProject Companies participants who may be able to help. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Inkian Jason - I took a look at the proposed draft and it is a great improvement of the current page. The only issue I have is that it appears you are already engaging in a conversation with an editor on the talk of both articles. If Spintendo has no issue with another editor taking a look, I will be happy to do so. But, only if, as I am not sure if your message here would constitute WP:CAN or not, being that you left it here with a single editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for complimenting the draft and offering to help. Sorry, I am not trying to canvass, or go around any specific editors; my hope is to get feedback from more editors, especially since I was not getting replies to my pings on the article's talk page. Several editors have participated in edit request discussions on the article's talk page, and I would welcome any of them to return with their thoughts or concerns. If you decide you're up for the task of implementing the draft appropriately, of course you are more than welcome to ping other editors so they can participate in the discussion. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean the comment to accuse you of canvassing. I meant that I didn't want others to see it as canvassing. Since one editor seems to have declined to implement many of the changes, I don't want to create an appearance of canvassing. If the editor - pinged above - doesn't object, I would be glad to review and implement what could be implemented (this doesn't mean it would be implemented as a whole as I would need to review the references more in detail). Other than that, I wouldn't want to get involved as it looks like they have already spent a great deal of time reviewing the drafts. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. I invite you to review the draft's sourcing in detail, as well as the previous edit requests. Please keep in mind, some editor comments are about previous versions of the draft, so you might take a look at the edits that have been made since then. If User:Spintendo has not replied here in 2 days, I am not sure they will, but you could ping them on the article's talk page if you think that is best. More than one editor has complimented the draft, so I'm really looking for additional feedback and forward movement from any editors who are willing to help out. Thanks again for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand you have discussed with others. I also pinged Spintendo already (and again now) and I am familiar with what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia. To be clear, I am not comfortable doing ANYTHING unless the editor EXPRESSLY states they have no objection with me reviewing the content. This is not about Wikipedia guidelines with me. It is about a COI issue that is already somewhat being addressed by another editor and I am not going to jump in the middle without them saying it is okay. Sorry I cannot be of more help at this point.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The request begins with "I am still looking for a neutral editor to assist with reviewing a proposed draft to replace the current Realtor.com article. I have made many improvements and trims to the draft I put forth back in September.." The fact is that a neutral editor did review this re-write and found that additions were acceptable. Additions which I made to the article. Subsequent to this, additional requests were made to add more facts and figures to beef up the article. These items, even if true and verifiable, would not automatically be made suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The later proposals in this request constituted minutely detailed ephemera which would not have improved the article. An article should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements like the ones in this request were reviewed according to their appropriate weight and were found, based on their weight, to be insufficient for inclusion in the article. The statement above makes it seem as if there is new material being proposed here (i.e., "I am still looking for an editor to assist in reviewing....have made many improvements....") but I believe this may be asking for a WP:THIRDOPINION (3rd Op), in which case a review may indeed proceed, as long as it follows the guidelines set in place for 3rd Op Regards, Spintendo     

00:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Spintendo. Inkian Jason, looking further, the sentence "still looking for a neutral editor" sounds pretty bad since a neutral editor did already review the content. I would suggest that you follow the 3rd Option as stated above and begin the discussion on the talk page. It looks like you made a request which was declined, then no further dialog was attempted. It sounds like you should probably start there and then request a 3rd opinion if you cannot come to an agreement on what you would like to add to the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 06:09:14, 13 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonivy

• Jonivy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm confused over the rejection of the article. I don't often contribute to wikipedia, and I definitely don't enjoy wasting my time. If the article is deficient in some way, please let me know. Else, approve of it.

The stated notion that the subject of the article is not noteworthy is obviously erroneous. The subject, David Hildebrand, is listed as a candidate for U.S. Senate in California on more than one page on Wikipedia already and has been featured in news reporting, including those cited on the draft page along with others. California has a population of 36 million people. If our statewide elections are not noteworthy subjects of this encyclopedia, then your standards are objectively poor.

Thanks

Jon Ivy (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jonivy. From your tone, it sounds like you are not confused, but upset that the draft was not approved. If you don't enjoy wasting your time, I would suggest that you don't. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, there are rules that need to be followed and guidelines that need to be met. You are correct in that statewide elections are notworthy and therefore covered in Wikipedia as you can see with United States Senate election in California, 2018. The problem is that not all candidates are considered notable for Wikipedia. The references you provided show that he is a candidate, but that he has not won. Based on that criteria, he would not be notable for his own page. If you have other references which show he is notable for something other than being a candidate, please include those in the page and then resubmit. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad for trying to use this process. You obviously don't understand the rules, and by your tone, I can tell you don't have the qualifications to edit anything I write. Thanks for your time, all the same. Jon Ivy (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)