User talk:Cabayi

Flagged for Speedy Deletion

Hi there - I guess I'm a bit confused as to why the MoveIt Companies is being flagged for deletion. They are a company of note in Breda, IA, and I've provided various reliable sources. Perhaps you could help me improve the page or provide me with any suggestions? This aim of this article is to aid other small businesses in creating their own environmentally-friendly business plans.

Reply to Talk Page Message

Hi, I'm just pointing out an error that you left on my talk page. This error was when you said that Lordtobi told me no and I (according to you) claimed I didn't know what no meant. Well I was actually asking what it meant for a later revision which he fixed later on as he did not write clearly. This reply was him replying to me asking him whether something along the lines of 'during a takeover don't add sale to ________ pending' could be added to the template, to which he replyed.

'Is it a common error? Owner reflect current stands and parent is for "current and former" parents, which excludes possible future games, no?'

To which I replyed 'what are you on about by 'possible future games'? and what does the 'no' mean, is it a question or something? '

I asked what no meant here because he put a question mark after it.

and then Lordtobi replyed ' pardon, I wrote unclearly. Original statement fixed' And he fixed the statement to say 'Is it a common error? Owner reflect current stands and parent is for "current and former" parents, which excludes possible future parents, so I believe the exclusion is implicit and does not need to be stated explicitly.

Sorry if you did get confused when you did add state that on my talk page. But thats why I came to clear that up. Pepper Gaming (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of Muslim Students Organization, Pakistan

I don't see what it is that still needs to be cleaned up on this article. Please advise. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Frayae, the page still hasn't been patrolled. I can't read the references given, so I'm not going to do it. I want it to be clear the whoever reviews the article that the author has a conflict of interest, which may inform their decision as to whether the article merits WP:A7, WP:G11, an WP:AFD for lack of notability, or passed as meeting Wikipedia's requirements. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt for the author to be aware that we're trying to build an encyclopedia not to provide him with an advertising platform. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I have been trying to keep J.abbasi313 from adding his "mission statement" to the article. J.abbasi313 is simply translating content from ur:مسلم_اسٹوڈنٹس_آرگنائزیشن_پاکستان, which is wildly promotional, although this appears to be allowed on that Wikipedia edition since the other editors involved in that article since it was created in 2017 have not complained. I took the banner to mean there was something else unsatisfactory about the article content and didn't consider the reviewers. There is is a limited amount more sourcing available in Google, but what's currently in the article is:

• source 1 is a report on a demand by the MSO to the Pakistani government, it briefly outlines the organizations purpose.
• source 2 is a brief news report on an anti-America rally the organisation held, it chiefly focuses on ideological issues.
• source 3 is a very short article explaining that the MSO has complained about a rights issue in Burma (the Rohingya crisis) and organised a number of protests.
• source 4 just says "Muslim Students Organization organize protest against US president Drumpf in response to his stance against the people of Pakistan" (where people of Pakistan equates to Muslims).

If this helps at all. Other sources available are chiefly the same, the organisation does a lot of protest rallies. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of And No Quarter

You've advised me that the criteria are applied consistently. I'm happy to accept that but I would appreciate clarification in the interests of saving time in future. I realise this requires work but then I spent three or four hours writing it so I'm entitled to a few minutes of yours.

Specifically, you explained this article does not pass the Notability test because it (a) provides references only for the historical events that it relates to and that (b) saying it provides a good overview of Walsh's themes as an author as well as insights into why he fell out of fashion is original research and thus disqualifies it. But that these are not true of the article on Mackenzie's 'Whiskey Galore.'

Bearing in mind the notability criteria, can you explain to me the differences between this article and that on Whiskey Galore? Because I'm struggling and I want to make sure I understand for future reference, since the only difference I can see is some additional detail on the book's adaptation for the stage.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11, there's a few points and misconceptions to pick apart there...

I don't think I've ever claimed that anything is ever applied consistently on Wikipedia. In an ideal world it would be so, but Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and things get dealt with by whoever comes across the matter first and thinks they have something to contribute.

On the volunteer community point, you're not entitled to any of my time, but on the other hand I'm happy to volunteer some.

Your question conflates the points about notability and original research. They are separate issues.

• Notability: The notability of books is assessed under WP:BOOKCRIT. Whisky Galore (novel) passes under

criterion 1 -"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works", once in The Scotsman and another in The Stage both of which are reliable, verifiable, independent sources; and

criterion 3 - "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture" (twice over, for Whisky Galore! (1949 film) and Whisky Galore! (2016 film)).

And No Quarter, so far as I can see, and given the evidence you have provided, meets none of the criteria. The references you provided all relate to the historical events, not to the book itself.

• Original Research - you advanced the argument that the book offered insights. Either the insights are extracted in a reliable, verifiable, independent source (which should be cited, and which would be a point towards notability), or the insights are yours - which would be WP:OR.

While I have your attention, I'd recommend setting up archiving on your talk page. H:ARC Deleting talk page contents, while it's 100% ok (WP:OWNTALK), can create an impression that someone is trying to conceal something - especially when it's not your normal behaviour.

Regards, Cabayi (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Let’s reset; on reflection, I over-reacted, so my apologies for that. I think having one example of Walsh’s writing is useful but I probably haven’t made the case, so... I also believe there is a lack of consistency in application; that doesn’t change whether this article should be deleted but it is a source of frustration. There's not really a solution

I deleted the Talk Page stuff to stop me over-reacting and take a step back (hence this) but I take your point.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Robinvp11, Yes, lets. Our discussion up until the reset isn't one of my better on-wiki interactions, for which I apologise. Hopefully you'll find the following a bit more constructive.

In the deletion discussion James500 added some sources which show the book's notability (so I've withdrawn the deletion nomination) and would fortify the article if added.

The article's categories included a couple of redlinks. I've replaced them with live categories but the mix of Irish author, Scottish setting, and English civil war looks odd & might be improved. Probably a new subcategory of Category:Wars of the Three Kingdoms and of Category:War novels by war would be appropriate.

The section, Historical background is carrying a double burden and would usefully be split. It's covering the background to the writing of the book (which is where I would expect to find the bulk of the article's notability), and to the book's plot.

I hope that this is a bit more useful & helpful for you. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll take a look and update. This is a famous family story; my family is Irish and in the late 1950s while working near Inverness, my father went into a pub and was told by the landlord 'We don't serve murdering, thieving Irish here;' (or words to that effect). He specifically referenced Montrose's campaign, which is the subject of this book.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Haywards Heath Building Society

The article Haywards Heath Building Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Soft deletion is always fine by me, but the template does not allow for expressing preferences (it's up to the deleting admin). Now if we could find sources to demonstrate notability for other building societies, many are in an even worse referencing shape then this one was. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)