Jump to content

User talk:StraussInTheHouse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 149: Line 149:


:::Further tone work but also the structure needs changing. You need to remove the bullet points and write in prose. Paragraphs of text, not bullet-pointed items. '''<span style="font-family: Arial">[[User:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: red">SITH</span>]] [[User talk:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: blue">(talk)</span>]]</span>''' 14:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Further tone work but also the structure needs changing. You need to remove the bullet points and write in prose. Paragraphs of text, not bullet-pointed items. '''<span style="font-family: Arial">[[User:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: red">SITH</span>]] [[User talk:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: blue">(talk)</span>]]</span>''' 14:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I have made further changes. Anything else to be done sir?


== Declined Draft:Bai_cao ==
== Declined Draft:Bai_cao ==

Revision as of 14:42, 31 March 2019


Welcome to StraussInTheHouse's talk page!

  • You can create a new thread by clicking here. Please give descriptive titles to new sections.
  • If you're leaving a message in an existing thread, please indent your posts with colons.
  • Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
  • Replies will be made here, please notify me of discussions elsewhere with {{ping|StraussInTheHouse}}.
  • Experienced users may stalk this page and answer any queries.
  • If you're contacting me about a draft, please read the FAQ page first.

RE: Proposal of Deletion

Hello SITH, thank you kindly for contacting me yesterday on the article about J-Subculture to point out about the deletion proposal. I have added an edit summary line for explanation today. If you could check it by occasion and consider it, I would much appreciate.

It was my first article and I tried to work it out carefully for format, references, inter-linkage with related articles etc., modelling it after similar Wiki articles. I'm aware that it may have consisted of deficiencies from the beginning, but always hoped others would help with contributions and improvements of content. It is an original text that I have created in person and put in research on the topic. The creation of the article took time & labor.

If the article is not deemed appropriate for the platform, I don't object the deletion per se, as I don't want to swim against stream. Nonetheless I would regret seeing all the labor & time invested disappear, so if you could advise what needs to be done to safe it and therewith could reconsider the proposal, I would be much obliged. Thank you very much for your time and guidance, greetings RockmanY RockmanY (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RockmanY, thanks for letting me know. No problem, I will send it to AfD instead, so other users, yourself included, can provide input on the matter. Regards, SITH (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StraussInTheHouse thank you for getting back to me speedily and your support by posting it to the AfD, so other users can have a look at it. Then I hope others can help to give some input on how to maintain the article properly. Greetings RockmanY (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close the discussion as no consensus? Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, because it'd been relisted twice and neither relist had generated clearer consensus. You're welcome to speedily renominate. SITH (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matt recommended Kampionato Bonaire while I suggest Kampionato (Bonaire). Other editors only state the source is Kampionato before first relist. My and Matt conclusion is similar. So I cannot believe this is a no-consensus RM. I know the discussion is not a vote per WP:NOTAVOTE Hhkohh (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hhkohh, very well, I've undone the closure. I'll leave it to another admin / page mover / uninvolved editor to determine. SITH (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round robins

FYI, please see Template:Talk page of redirect#Usage, which tells us that talk pages should have content when this template is used. When a round-robin set of page moves results in deleting the original talk page, and you need to re-create that talk page, it is best to re-create it as a hard redirect as I've done at Talk:Aashish Chaudhary. This saves editors a click and takes them from their link to the correct page where the RM has been closed. Thank you! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, thanks for letting me know, I've used {{tpr}} on a few RMs recently, should I fire up AWB and convert them to hard redirects? Best, SITH (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's kinda like when I go through my early contributions. I was so surprised at how many errors I made back then. I don't think I make as many mistakes now, but I still find 'em once in awhile. So I guess my point is... never think you're the only one makin' mistakes, because we all do. Best to you SITH! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined draft: Sedimentary Isostasy

Hi SITH, Thank you for your suggestions for improvement of my draft. I can see from the Wiki guidelines that your criticisms are valid although I had thought that my subject matter was already supported by primary and some secondary sources. My style became rather verbose because most readers, even professional geologists may not be familiar with all of the inter-related concepts and evidence that need to be treated carefully and together to assist comprehension. This explains your impression of an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. The fundamental observation of sedimentary isostasy was made by Darwin in his account of the Voyage of the Beagle, and many experienced geologists have touched on this difficult subject over the intervening 180 years. My submittal was an attempt to meet the challenge of thorough explanation head-on, as I have found no other encyclopaedia that attempts to clarify these concepts as an integrated whole. I should certainly appreciate any further guidance from you or other Wiki editors that might improve my draft. Geologician (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geologician, no problem, feel free to resubmit once it's been reworded a bit and we'll take another look at it. Thank you for your contributions! SITH (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StraussInTheHouse. Thank you for your interest in copyright clean-up. I noticed that you have recently listed some drafts at WP:CP. Perhaps you didn't realize it, but whenever you list something there for investigation, you have to notify the person who added the content. There's a template for you to do this - please see the instructions on the copyvio core template. Then the user is supposed to have one week to address the issue before an administrator deals with the case. WP:CP is intended only for the most complex cases. For most cases, the preferred action is for you to remove the copyright material yourself, notify the user of the problem, and then request revision deletion. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, apologies, I will do that in future. I'll look into the requesting revdel where possible in the ones I nominated today. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you notify people what they did wrong. Part of the job is educating users as to what our copyright policy is! A lot of people seem to assume that we accept copyright content, since many sites do. Thank you ! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa, I've converted them all to revdel templates and G6'd the log as I was the only person to report to CP yesterday. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding review of Draft:Bindumadhav Khire

  • Thanks for reviewing the draft, I have made some changes in it, can you have a look at it and let me know what else I should change?
  • I am still working on the tone of article too. But if you could see the current state and suggest changes needed, that would be great help to me. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QueerEcofeminist, that's much better, feel free to resubmit! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StraussInTheHouse, Thanks for taking time, I have resubmitted the draft. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 03:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jan Peterson

I see the Jan Peterson draft has been flagged for possible copyright violations, but a look at the Copyvio report shows that many of the flagged text sections are book titles, place names, organization names, and even dates. Not sure how these could be written any differently (?) Thanks VanIslander1234 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VanIslander1234, the copyvio report I've got (link) seems to suggest that the majority of the copying comes before the books section. Thanks, SITH (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's seems like there isn't an opportunity to make corrections? Can I ask why that is? VanIslander1234 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit in source mode (the little pencil icon in the top right), you'll be able to see the content between the template. SITH (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've edited the problem text. I'm not sure what needs to happen next. VanIslander1234 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look at the source text in due course and if it's clear we can replace the template with a revision deletion request to redact the page history. SITH (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Amrah bint Abdur Rahman

Hello StraussInTheHouse,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I would like to ask about the reason for rejection and as far as I see the reason for deleting the text. As far as I have understood the problem is in the copyrighted content or too big citation that I have used from the source Al- Muttawa. But I used the reference marks and it looked alike a long citation. Now I would like to see the text, is it possible to reconstruct it? Daria Lebedieva (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daria Lebedieva, the issue with the draft was that it heavily copied this. That text's copyright status is unclear so if there is reasonable suspicion that a submission isn't worded originally, we must assume that it is copyrighted. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StraussInTheHouse, I overturned the closure at this page, as I see there is continuing room for discussion. It was already a rather "close" consensus, if pressed I'd be leaning more on the side of "no consensus" then in support of the requester. I wanted to leave you a note in case my edit summaries were misleading, the additional listing is only for that reason, not because it was a "non-admin closure". I think there is room for more information, and left a specific question for one editor - would like to give them a chance to respond now. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 22:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, sure, I've no problem with a relist. SITH (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elad I. Levy Draft

Hi StraussintheHouse, you recently reviewed my articlr submission on Dr. Elad I. Levy on February 4th, i have made the changes you requested, i cut the article down quite a bit and added in the references for the notable research contributions, and also added in references for his awards and recognition's section. I had resubmmited it and apparently there a two pending submissions for Levy. I would like the one titled "Elad I. Levy" reviewed not the one titled "Elad Levy" reviewed. I appreciate your help with this project, please let me know any other edits you would like made, another reviewer did review it and said they would review the one titled "Elad Levy" since it was a duplicate, but i made all the revisions based on your comments to Elad I. Levy". Please let me know any other advice you have for this page so that it can get accepted! thank you so much! Ashamkhan123 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashamkhan123, please replace the content of the duplicate page you no longer require with {{db-u1}}. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft in wrong place

Hi, I have been working on an article on photographer, Jason Thrasher. I submitted a draft but I may have confused things by putting the template in my sandbox. Thank you for the inline citation recommendation. They are in the draft. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Thrasher)--I am not asking for special attention just making sure I complied with your suggestions. I am glad to wait my turn. Thank you for all you do to make this enterprise work.Kmccook (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you referring to Draft:Jason Thrasher? I don't seem to have edited it. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Amiran Patarkalashvili

Hi I wanted to add the information about Georgian Architect-designer Amiran Patarkalashvili, He has his pages in social media and is the founder of CPA Central PArtnership Foundationa. Why did u decline my article? I don't understand what is the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninogogitidze18 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I assume you're referring to Draft:Amiran Patarkalashvili. The problem is it's unreferenced. You need to cite significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined draft: Sedimentary Isostasy

Hi SITH, I have resubmitted my Sedimentary isostasy draft after making a careful edit to address the concerns mentioned your first review, using Evolution wiki as a model. The range of vocabulary and concepts used in this model have been around even longer than those of Evolution, although they are less familiar to earth scientists. Therefore a Wiki linked approach to publication is indispensible if these related, well-established, concepts are to be considered in their proper context by peers.Thanks Geologician (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geologician, no problem, I or another reviewer will take a look within the stated time frame. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Free Burghers

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft on the Free Burghers. The article is my first. In regard to the copy right violation on one of the items in the article, please accept my sincere apologies. Reason being purely lack of experience. Thank you for the correction thereof. Please accept my commitment to not repeat said again. Kind Regards Bhistory 14:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talkcontribs)

No problem and thanks for the coffee! SITH (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For taking the time to review the article on the Free Burghers. Bhistory 14:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Hans Baldauf

Hi Strauss, this is my first time working through the submission process. Can you please let me know what information I need to include inline citations for? Are inline citations the same thing as regular citations? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMa1234 (talkcontribs)

Hi PeterMa1234, inline citations are the preferred system of referencing on Wikipedia, and it's required for biographies of living people. You can find out how to use the system here. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anastasiya Makarevich

Hello! I added links and further refined the article in the draft that You checked Draft:Anastasiya_Makarevich. Please check the new version. Also in the future I will improve the article. Savcheg (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer will be with it in the stated time period. SITH (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WEB Marketing company page

Hi, you've just reviewed my page but I don't know how I could fix it and make it better? You wrote this: Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Relies too heavily on SPS / CORPSPAM sources. What does that mean? How can I make my sources better? I've already inputted 27 of them, so I feel like that shows coverage and they're all either from respectable news sources or It sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.97.136 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link please. SITH (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jacob Lipkin declined for peacock terms

Thanks for your feedback, and you are right. (Just learning Wikipedia protocols for new pages.) I will make the changes to this language and resubmit.CANdo-artreview (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Jason Lewis

Hello StraussInTheHouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Jason Lewis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyrighted text is mostly a list of books. The rest can be dealt with through revdel. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned consensus in your edit summary. Can you please point me to the discussion? Thanks. - PaulT+/C 21:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psantora, Special:Permalink/514597377 strongly suggests that, despite the lack of discussion, with multiple users finding the content to include original research and/or be unencyclopedic, a merge was conducive of consensus. If you want to challenge it and split out Apple evangelist, that's fine, but it's probably best to start afresh instead of reintroducing original research. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out but all I can see there (and all I saw when I removed the redirect(s) earlier today) are two editors disagreeing. Nothing approaching consensus, at least as far as I have seen. I agree that the article is/was in a sorry state – I was in the process of rehabilitating it – but there was never any substantive discussion about redirecting it. Now, I understand that the redirect happened back in 2012 and there doesn't seem to be anyone who even noticed or cared enough to comment on it, which in theory does count as the weakest form of consensus, and so I'll leave it as a redirect for now despite my disagreement that there was any consensus for the redirect in the first place. I think an XfD to support the redirect would have been the appropriate next step instead of a unilateral revert without discussion. I do intend to fix it up and turn it into an appropriate article. Unfortunately, rather than making those edits directly to the page I'll have to start in userspace and then I guess merge the page history?... Not the end of the world, but still annoying and pretty unnecessary. - PaulT+/C 21:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Psantora, I know, but it still technically is consensus because it wasn't totally undiscussed. If you want to do a userspace that's fine, there's no need for a history merge but I can assist with implementing your version as I will be able to do a round robin swap. SITH (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPEN community

Sir, you declined my draft stating that introduction is appearing more like an advertisement. This is the link sir - Draft:OPEN_Community

Sir, i have just stated the aims and motives of community. There is no other way they can be stated. I have not stated anything in favour of community.With due respect sir, i think stating the aims isn't advertising. Also, stating the aims is crucial so that people can know what our community is aiming to do. This is for informational purpose. I request you to accept my draft submission .

thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talkcontribs) 05:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a good place to start would be turning the bullet points into prose. The next thing to do is make the tone more neutral, so instead of using questionable terms like enrichment and innovative, just describe it and say (but don't copy) what reliable sources say about it. SITH (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I have changed the tone of bullet points. What can be done next sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talkcontribs) 14:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further tone work but also the structure needs changing. You need to remove the bullet points and write in prose. Paragraphs of text, not bullet-pointed items. SITH (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have made further changes. Anything else to be done sir?

Declined Draft:Bai_cao

Hi SITH, Thank you for your confirmation of my article. I had read your comment about why my article was declined. May you give me some advices as how to preference "Reliable sources". I'm new in making contribution to Wiki so I must be made some mistake in preference it. About the article that I submitted for review, I translated it from another Wiki's page, and Im a native and used to do what was wrote in the article so I can verified what in it was true. I'd glad to making more attribution to Wiki if you can help me on how to improve my article. Thank you. 113.161.84.98 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your translation. The issue is, on English Wikipedia we have a policy which prevents us from citing ourselves as a source (WP:CIRCULAR). A reliable source might be an encyclopedia entry on the game, a book written about it, or even a how to play guide found in a major publication on the internet. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]