Jump to content

User talk:Nightenbelle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Mowen3278 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 104: Line 104:
::: I do mean the titles of the articles. Number 3,4,6,7,9,11, and 12 need to be translated. [[User:Nightenbelle|Nightenbelle]] ([[User talk:Nightenbelle#top|talk]]) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
::: I do mean the titles of the articles. Number 3,4,6,7,9,11, and 12 need to be translated. [[User:Nightenbelle|Nightenbelle]] ([[User talk:Nightenbelle#top|talk]]) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: The third reference for example: "Филипп Дзядко: "Быть чисто медиа неинтересно, быть университетом еще рано" is the original russian title generated automatically and "Filip Dzyadzo: "It is boring to be just a media and it is too early to by a university" is the translation.--[[User:DonGuess|DonGuess]] ([[User talk:DonGuess|talk]]) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: The third reference for example: "Филипп Дзядко: "Быть чисто медиа неинтересно, быть университетом еще рано" is the original russian title generated automatically and "Filip Dzyadzo: "It is boring to be just a media and it is too early to by a university" is the translation.--[[User:DonGuess|DonGuess]] ([[User talk:DonGuess|talk]]) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

== Request on 09:03:44, 11 September 2020 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Mowen3278 ==
{{anchor|09:03:44, 11 September 2020 review of submission by Mowen3278}}
{{Lafc|username=Mowen3278|ts=09:03:44, 11 September 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:Actonians_RFC}}

<!-- Start of message -->
Hi, thanks for reviewing my submission.
Can you please let me know if there's a particular part of the page that requires verification, or something else that I could focus on to get the page approved?
I'm struggling to think of any other ways to add sources to the page, because there really isn't much content available.
I'd really appreciate any pointers, as this is my first attempt at creating a wikipedia page.
Thanks!
Marc

<!-- End of message -->[[User:Mowen3278|Mowen3278]] ([[User talk:Mowen3278|talk]]) 09:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:03, 11 September 2020

User:Nightenbelle
User:Nightenbelle
   
User talk:Nightenbelle
User talk:Nightenbelle
   
User:Nightenbelle/Userboxes
User:Nightenbelle/Userboxes
   
User:Nightenbelle/Awards
User:Nightenbelle/Awards
   
User:Nightenbelle/Tools
User:Nightenbelle/Tools
   
User:Nightenbelle/Sandbox
User:Nightenbelle/Sandbox
   
User talk:Nightenbelle/Archive
User talk:Nightenbelle/Archive
 
                         


In appreciation

The Civility Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of civility way beyond any reasonable expectations. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lmao thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777 and Nightenbelle case request declined

The case request "Jenhawk777 and Nightenbelle" that you were a party to has been withdrawn by the filer Jenhawk777.

The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and you can view the withdrawn request using this permalink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the original dispute sort of went away. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I meant to say..... You mean I was right and it really had been resolved by the time I closed it... almost like I knew what the freak I was doing? AMazing.... But of course.... it just took someone with your special way of handling people to explain it, you are better at that than I am usually. I will work on that. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Controller

Well, well. A certain portion of our cases are "requests" that we convince "the enemy" of the rightness of the Original Poster or that we order the enemy to do something or stop doing something.

I think if I had seen the case at DRN, I would have closed the case rather undiplomatically, rather than .... Oh, wait a minute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol amazing that it was resolved.... as I said it was. But okay. Having someone else point that out made them happy. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I get for replying on my phone... I didn't see what I was responding to. LOL Were you saying I closed it undiplomatically? well.... I tried not to come right out and say "GROW UP AND ACT LIKE YOU KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE IN PUBLIC."..... but someone needs to say it sometimes. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nightenbelle - It needed a close that was civil but undiplomatic. Your close was civil but undiplomatic. I would have used more words than you did, and the result would have been the same, a civil but undiplomatic close. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Discussion Before Filing

We are getting a lot of cases that have to be closed as inadequate discussion. I just closed a request having to do with South Asian food where the previous discussion seems to have been on a web chat. That is neither good nor bad. It just doesn't count. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... maybe we can expand the instructions? Provide more definition of adequate discussion? Then again- that assumes they read the discussions. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might help to expand the instructions, but it wouldn't help much, because, as you note, they sometimes haven't read the instructions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the close ...

... at Dimple Kapadia. If my posts there showed a lack of AGF, or for that matter of concision, I apologize. In my halcyon days on WP, I participated in quite a few DRNs. (I remember one about whether India should be described as the "largest democracy" or "the most populous democracy.")

I simply don't have the time. As the top of my user page states, I've been trying to take the summer off to devote myself to some off-Wiki writing; other than that as this this talk page discussion from June shows, I'm staying away because I promised my wife. My reluctance to participate also had nothing to do with a sense of shame. (I wouldn't have created so many articles, or stubs, on the talking cure if I thought talking was shameful.)

Mainly, though, I wanted to thank you. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad to hear it was due to lack of time and not lack of faith in the process. I wish you luck in your off-wiki endeavors! Nightenbelle (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Hey Nightenbelle, Thanks for looking over my article for creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Se%C3%A1n_Hewitt I've made a lot of changes now - and would really appreciate it if you'd take a second look. Let me know if there's any thing I can help with in return! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchicore90 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to eliminate the afc backlog. So I am sorry- but I'll be focusing exclusively on that for a while. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Darling

Hi Nightenbelle - you recently disapproved the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Darling - citing "sources are all press release or publicity type articles" - of the sources, only 1 of the 15 articles / references could be classed as "publicity", the remaining are news reports from industry or reputable news sources, or case reports. In fact, five of them are either government or official court decisions, not even news reports. Please could you review and/or let me know what you mean by "publicity"? Thanks. In the meantime I have resubmitted for review. Stuartwilks (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartwilks And I have denied yet again. I did go through each source when I denied this. You really need to review WP:RS before you submit this again
Here is the break down of why the sources are unacceptable:
https://pauldarlingqc.co.uk/practice-areas/ - Personal website.... not acceptable at all to be on WP. needs removed completely
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/hat-trick-obes-cleadon-family-370882 - Questionable at best- this is a publicity release rather than an actual news article.
https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=33777 - This is his resume- not a WP:RS. Not acceptable as a source.
http://www.internationaladvocacy.org/paul-darling-qc/ - again... resume/publicity blurb- not a WP:RS
https://iclg.com/cdr/people-and-firms/7516-darling-of-the-bar - Yet another publicity press release- not an actual news article. Not a good WP:RS
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/alfred-mcalpine-v-panatown.php - Court decisions are primary sources.... we need reliable SECONDARY sources.... so a news article about this decision would work- but not the desison itself. This would be Original Research which is not allowed
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/320.html - Another primary source... see above
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/526.html - Another primary source.... see above again
https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/598931/monkey-madge - I can't access these at work... but from what I remember- they are profiles of horses... which are basically resumes.... but these are pretty much the only thing that passes for a reliable source on the article... but they arn't about the subject of the article- they just give him a passing mention- so by themselves they do not qualify Mr. Darling as notable.
https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/579664/book-matched/form - see above- not enough to establish notability
https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/718350/belle-choisir/form - see above again
https://www.racingpost.com/news/paul-darling-returns-to-levy-board-as-new-chairman-of-racings-funding-body/430607 - see above
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trading-places-6b0mdxpdfsl - This is a press release- not an independent journalist written article.... not a WP:RS
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/secretary-of-state-appoints-paul-darling-obe-qc-as-chair-and-anne-lambert-cmg-as-an-independent-board-member-of-the-horserace-betting-levy-board - Another publicity release- not an independently written article- this would be considered a primary source.

I hope this clears things up. As of now- there are 4 acceptable sources- and none of them prove notability. Now- the press releases might be okay as secondary support.... IF you can find enough WP:RS to prove notability without them. Best of luck. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure the rudeness is needed, but will take a look and revise now that you have taken the time to give some reasons, some of which are valid. Stuartwilks (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse bluntness with rudeness. You did absolutely no research on your own about what is a WP:RS before asking me to re-create the hour of research I did when reviewing your article. To me, that is the height of rude entitlement. You did not do your own homework to learn what WP considers a RS. What you did do is get mad that someone else said your article subject was not notable. And that is not something I can do anything about. I have no opinions on 99% of the articles I review.... but I do check hundreds of sources to see if they are reliable.... 3-7 days a week. If your article is notable- there will be secondary sources that discuss them in depth... if those don't exist- he doesn't need an article, but you could find a relate article and add a section on him. What I suggest you don't do again- is have a thin skin when someone who is frantically trying to reduce the 2 month backlog answers your question with no frills, but no rudeness either. WP is not known for its warm fuzzies. We are all very busy, passionate people who usually reply quickly and bluntly. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now revised the article and would be grateful if you could review again when you have time. A polite response or any extra constructive feedback will be great. The subject is one of the most significant figures in the UK judicial system, so there should be no doubt with regard to the notability. I have changed or updated many links where appropriate, but cannot agree on some points where independent journalists have written articles about the subject and case law in which he has been involved. It may be that familiarity with the British judicial and legal system as well as our system of public appointments is a point causing some of the confusion, so would definitely encourage you to perhaps follow some of the links to other wikipedia entries in the page if anything is unclear before rejecting again. Thanks. Stuartwilks (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you can disagree with me all you want. It’s not lack of families that is causing the problem- it is you not using secondary resources. Period. I’m not arguing his importance- I’m telling that you hadn’t proved it yet. I will review again tomorrow- but if the primary sources are still there- it will be declined for a third time. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity. Darn phone autocorrect Nightenbelle (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-checked every source..... again.... And you have only managed to have 1 clear, obvious WP:RS there is a second that I'm 99% sure is a press release, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a really positive journalist. All but those two sources are not acceptable to prove this subject is notable enough to merit a WP page. Its not my lack of familiarity with British law. If you were using secondary sources that give more than a passing mention of darling- I would be able to see it in the sources as notable even if it was about something I had never heard of in my life. I'm sure sources that proove Mr. Darling's noteability exist- I encourage you to find them. He sounds like an interesting guy.... but right now- you are not using souces that meet WP's requirements. Please... take time to look, do more than get mad at me, and find the sources to get this guy a WP page.... But do not ask me to look again- I am trying to focus on articles that have been in the queue for at least 2 months.... I will not look at Darling's page again until it reaches the end of the line. Someone else may- but not me. I've spent hours of my life checking those sources... I am moving on. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arzamas

Hello Nightenbelle, you declined Draft:Arzamas (website) and it says that the reason is lacking reliable sources, you also wrote "Please translate title of sources into English" but aren't they already translated? So what should I add/change for article to be accepted? Thank you, --DonGuess (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The titles were not translated when I looked at them- if they are for you, I think it may be your browser automatically doing it. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightenbelle, you mean the titles in the references, right? (see the screenshot)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGuess (talkcontribs) 17:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean the titles of the articles. Number 3,4,6,7,9,11, and 12 need to be translated. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The third reference for example: "Филипп Дзядко: "Быть чисто медиа неинтересно, быть университетом еще рано" is the original russian title generated automatically and "Filip Dzyadzo: "It is boring to be just a media and it is too early to by a university" is the translation.--DonGuess (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:03:44, 11 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mowen3278


Hi, thanks for reviewing my submission. Can you please let me know if there's a particular part of the page that requires verification, or something else that I could focus on to get the page approved? I'm struggling to think of any other ways to add sources to the page, because there really isn't much content available. I'd really appreciate any pointers, as this is my first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. Thanks! Marc

Mowen3278 (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]