User talk:Seraphimblade: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:57, 25 May 2019

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade.

Please read before posting

Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Speedy deletion of PENOPT

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

1. The software is listed in List_of_optimization_software and (not by me) in Mathematical_optimization_software - I have merely added the missing links; without them, any such list of software doesn't make much sense. Isn't that the main goal of Wikipedia - to deliver information to interested audience? These lists and tables are very useful but only when they contain links to further information, not just the name of the software.

2. All other software listed in the above tables have Wikipedia pages - most of that software is commercial (Tomlab, Midaco, WORPH, Mosek, Gurobi, ...) - what is then the difference???

3. The new pages (PENNON,PENBMI,PENSDP) contain the very basic information of what the software does, together with a reference to published articles and link to a relevant website; I don't see any promotion there.

4. The software is free for academic users (some for limited time but with renewable license), it does not need any promotion

5. The software is the only available software for nonlinear semidefinite programming - so if researchers is looking for a software to solve their problems, they should be able to find this information on Wikipedia

6. The PEN* software has been around for almost 20 years, it's being used by hundreds of mostly academic researchers, has hundreds of citations in scientific journals; I believe it deserves a Wiki page with a basic information (just like all the software in my point 2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talk • contribs)

Mkocvara, no, providing an "about us" page is not the purpose of Wikipedia (not "Wiki"), nor are all subjects appropriate for articles. Articles should be supported by a substantial amount of material from sources that are reliable and fully independent of the article subject. If such sources don't exist, we should not have an article on the subject at all, let alone a whole string of them. (The fact that similar items might be appropriate for articles is not relevant). From other messages you've written, it's very clear that you're affiliated with the products in question, and while not prohibited, it is in practice very difficult to remain neutral while writing about a subject one is close to or has an interest in. Probably best to leave that to someone not involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, thanks for your reply. OK, I understand that you (Wikipedia) don't like when authors of software write about their products, even if it's supported by hundreds of (independent) citations. However, I would like to argue (for the sake of generality) that articles published in reviewed international scientific journals are reliable and, in some way, also independent sources, as they had to go through the scrutiny of the refereeing and editorial process. These are not self-published websites. Other reliable sources are, of course, the citations of the software in other articles by other authors ("our problem was solved by software xxx") such as https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=8363910107581940526. But these, however independent, do not give much information about the software itself (algorithm used, what problems can it solve, etc).

The other point is that, in my honest opinion, a sentence "xxx is software solving yyy" is neutral. Michal.

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

#1Lib1Ref
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry carbine

Please DO read the discussion. That's why the site exists. It is very unpolite to start a edit war without discussion! --Tamarin (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?... https://centerofthewest.org/2018/06/29/karl-may-henry-carbine-myth/ ...? (against my better judgment...I don't even know if I'm allowed to type anything here...) is the link I just input something in English that's required by wikipedia for the Henry Carbine page?MagicRifleResearch (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MagicRifleResearch, you certainly can post on my talk page if you like. The issue isn't being in English (non-English sources are fine if they meet the requisite standards), but with reliability. The piece you cite there is a blog post, so is not reliable for use as a reference. For reliability, we'd be looking for something in a fact-checked and editorially controlled or peer reviewed publication, not just posts on websites or blogs. It is very likely that this item is not notable. Most fictional weapons aren't; while there are a few exceptions, they'd be on the order of something like the Batarang or Excalibur, and this weapon doesn't appear to be studied in the same way as those are. Normally, heavy in-universe detail like this goes on a fan Wikia rather than on Wikipedia, and I do note that one exists for this author: [1]. Material like this is probably a better fit there; extremely heavy in-universe detail is not generally appropriate for Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seraphimblade (I don't know how to make the name go in colour) for the explanation. That goes way beyond me. I'm long past my 'use-by-date' and the requirements are way beyond me. There are heaps of 'research papers' in German language, but all connected to a German Karl-May body, of which there are several, the scouring of which requires time I don't have. What happens to the text now? While the page was up I downloaded a wikipedia PDF of it and have uploaded it to my own Karl May website - the links to the places are clickable, so that'll do me. I've also included a link to the 'view history' page where the comparisons are visible, so people can still find the text. Other than that it'll take 'an expert' now. I also have put a 'help' request on my facebook page, so there might be someone out there who knows of the required item and knows how to properly drive Wikipedia (I don't) - your link goes to the Indonesian Karl May Club (very nice people) - the country of origin, Germany has Karl May Society, Club, Museum, Publisher, and more https://www.karl-may-gesellschaft.de/index.php, https://www.karl-may-museum.de/en/, https://www.karl-may.de/Startseite, and that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May. And that's the end of my wisdom. MagicRifleResearch (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mia Scozzafave

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (I only google her name and got information on published interviews and actors databases - like Actors Access and IMDB. I referenced everything under. If gives the idea promoting, I'm wondering why. I wrote based on many wikipedia actors pages of actors with less references/materials and less known than her. I also read the guidelines but couldn't figure it out what's wrong. How this can be improved instead of deleted? Thank you. Talent media (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talent media, it appears that you may be being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If this is the case, you'll need to make the required disclosures before we continue or you edit further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I am not being compensated direct or indirectly by any subject. It's just an attempt to contribute to Wikipedia with media/talent subjects and get to know the editing process here. Thank you Talent media (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. So far as the article itself, it looks like the "profile" style spam that we get very frequently. It uses inappropriate tone (e.g., reference to a person should be full name on first mention and last name thereafter, so "Scozzafave", not "Mia"), it cites a "resume" style site with relatively irrelevant "talking up" factors such as languages spoken (if actual third-party sources haven't seen fit to cover those, it's not important enough to go in the article either), and cites other inappropriate sources such as a site that explicitly states it's a gossip site. You'd need to stick to sources that meet the definition of reliability, and go with only information verified by those, written in a neutral tone. If multiple independent and reliable sources don't cover her in reasonable depth, she's not an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve GCTools

Hello, Seraphimblade,

Thanks for creating GCTools! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

I don't know if this is still being worked on, but it isn't currently ready for the mainspace.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, this was created as a merge target for three articles for which the consensus at AfD was to merge into this single page. I thought my edit summary made that quite clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Nawaraj Subba"

It appears you deleted a page I created- "Nawaraj Subba". I created the page by translating some parts of the corresponding article from Nepali wikipedia "ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/नवराज_सुब्बा" as requested by the translation project. I didn't pay much attention to the resulting page, except trying to make it resemble the original as closely as possible; and I published it before the translation was complete. It seems that precisely might have been its downfall. I don't remember much about what's in it. And I don't think I can review the content once it's deleted. So, I request you to kindly revive the article to a draftspace, so that I can go over the article once again and improve it to comply with the standards of English wikipedia. Thanks. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, I don't normally restore advertisements or promotional articles, and it doesn't give me much confidence that you state in a very blase way that you're not paying careful attention to what you're doing. It is entirely your responsibility to ensure that your translations comply with English Wikipedia content policies before you place them into mainspace. Other projects have different content policies, so work beyond just translating may be necessary to ensure that happens. Is that something you're willing to do in the future? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Shatown"

You recently deleted a page of mine entitled "Shatown", stating G11 and A7 as the main reasons for doing so. However, the page was not self promotion, as I am not the artist the page was talking about, and I checked to make sure my sources were good. If there is any way I can edit this article to make it up to Wikipedia standards, please let me know, as I am willing to change the article to keep it up. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultralordmaximus2001 (talk • contribs)

Ultralordmaximus2001, "self" has no bearing on it. We don't permit promotion of anyone or anything. As this was a promotional article, please first note that if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, thank you for your expeditious response, but I can assure you I am not getting paid to write this article. I'd be LUCKY if I was getting paid to write, but I am merely someone trying to make an article on this important artist. As stated in the article, she had enough accomplishments that other artists with articles have, including her own record label. Having a business like this is surely enough of an accomplishment to pass the biographical notability guidelines. Thank you again for your speedy response, and I hope we can work this out.

Well, no, that doesn't. What makes someone notable is extensive coverage in reliable and independent sources. So, you'll need to start from finding those. From there, encyclopedia articles should be written in a formal tone, not an informal "get to know ya" type. Someone is not "taken by the feds", they were arrested by federal agents; someone was not "released by the feds", they were released from custody or prison, and so on. (Also, per our biographies of living persons guideline, that type of claim absolutely must be supported by a solid reference, as must any claims about her going to jail). The very first sentence of the article is "ShaTown is an R&B/Hip-Hop artist/engineer/songwriter from New York that has such hits under her belt as "Ain't No Way", "Ain't Real", and "Selfish"." She does not have "hits under her belt", she has written songs. Similarly, leave out fluff like "coming out with a passion to pursue music." Stick to facts and leave out any promotional language, and stay to only facts explicitly verified by those references. If substantial amounts of such source material don't exist, she's not yet a suitable subject for an article at all, but even if it does, the article must be written in a way that's neutral in both tone and content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of %Arabica

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Hi Seraphimblade. This was my first time creating a wikipedia page. I put the page up in good faith and can confirm that to the best of my knowledge everything in there was factual and non promotional of % Arabica, all was based on accurate historical info etc. I am wondering if the page was deleted because of content or because it is not allowed for an organisation to create a page for themselves as a general rule?

I contested the flagging of the "

This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. This criterion also does not apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.

If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Stwtc (contribs | logs) at 17:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (5 years ago)[reply]

" and explained why - and also just requested a little help explaining what I would need to remove/change in the article to be accepted......so to then just be deleted with no secondary explanation leaves me unable to work out how to move forward and improve and get this right

Hope I have posted this on your page correctly !? As someone who doesnt code or have any experience on wikipedia I am finding this whole process extremely difficult and to have lost the article is also disheartening.

Thanks