Jump to content

User talk:Dalisays

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ashleyaak (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 29 March 2012 (→Donor Committee for Enterprise Development: response to advise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Your submission at Articles for creation

Baik Tae-Ung, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Aaron Booth (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Twomey

Dear Dalisays,

Please give me more guidance for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Twomeyrefused because "Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

I looked over the footnote section as you recommended, but it looks to me that the footnotes in this article follow the instructions. I would very much appreciate your help in figuring out specifically what is wrong with the footnotes. I would like to fix this article so that when I submit it again, it meets your criteria.

Thank you for your consideration, Norm HinseyNorm Hinsey (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norm,
To meet Wikipedia's standards, Chris Twomey must be a notable person (please reference Wikipedia standards's on notable people). To verify Twomey's notability there needs to be sufficient inline citations, and currently the article lacks sufficient inline citations to do so. The citations are too sparse to verify key material which support the argument that Twomey is indeed a notable person. Good news is I think this can easily be resolved, by going back through the article and adding inline citations throughout. You will notice now that the entire first half of the article has none and this is where the information that would have gone to prove notability is found. As such, this information must be supported by inline citations. To clean up the article--as it as been added---these citations should be added to ensure it is not deleted it in the future. Dalisays (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Wu

How do I resubmit my article on Gene Wu? WallopinWill (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'Center of pressure'

Per your comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center of Pressure (Balance), please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure - We can't have one article discussing two unrelated subjects: our existing article was about a specific concept within fluid mechanics, and the 'biological' CoP is another concept entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the two topics as distinct; in fact, I would argue that the topics are indeed interrelated, and that both are not sufficiently unique to demand their own article. I would continue the discussion you have initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure--it seems to be productive thus far--- and arrive at a consensus so the contributor for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center of Pressure (Balance) can find a happy home for the content. Dalisays (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campo-Formio (band) page

Hi Dalisays,

I invite you to review all of the sources I have used once again and take a closer look. The sources I have used are not at all only about concerts the band has performed, my sources are varied and solid. Some are interviews of the band, others are reviews of the band's EP releases. Most of my information is actually extracted from the many interviews I have cited. So, please, I invite you to review my sources again and let me know if you do actually find something wrong with my resources.

Also, the band has most definitely met Wikipedia's standards of notability. I have references in my articles that span from different websites, magazines, and blogs that mention Campo-Formio's achievements which all appear in the "Accolades" section of my article. Please, I have followed the instructions adequately, so I invite you to check again and see if my article can finally be moved to article space on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menor, A. (talk • contribs) 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Menor A, I reviewed the article again. In my opinion, it still does not meet the Notability Requirements For Music. I went through the article and then went through each requirement, and I just don't think it satisfies any. To this end, the only music notability req it would meet--based on the info in the article-- is the coverage req by independent critical review sources. But again, the main problem is that the notability of the band is not supported by the sources provided as of now. There are only two or three sources which present critical coverage of the band through reviews---and there needs to be multiple such sources (The different reviews cited from Puerto Rico Indie just count as one basically, since they are all from the same publication). I feel like you just need to find more independent sources that have provided critical reviews of the band---there must be some out there. Dalisays (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HI again, I understand the problem now and I apologize for my misunderstanding. I will address the issue promptly and resubmit the article for review once I have found more and different sources that attest to the band's notability. Thank you for the help. Menor, A. (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Louis Arslanian

I'm puzzled why you declined this one. The sources clearly document the notability of the subject. Sure it has room for improvement, but notability doesn't lack. The subject was chief of the BEA, (the French equivalent to the US NTSB). As such, he headed the investigation into Air France Flight 447 and many others. He's an Officer of the Légion d'honneur. For unelected public servants in democracies, that's about as notable as it gets. If you're going to decline such translations, the least you can do is make it clear what needs to be fixed. The translator put in significant effort in good faith. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one is a great puzzler. The subject may very well be notable, but the sources provided to this end are sparse as of now. All currently identified sources--except for one--just note the subject's position without providing additional coverage. In and of itself, this position isn't notable. The other one listed the chief as an investigator in the Air France Flight 447 incident. The Notability Guidelines are clear that involvement in one such incident in itself also does not merit notability all its own (his name can be included in the article for the incident). When considered as a whole, the subject's notability isn't supported solidly by the aggregate of these sources. Dalisays (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue was wp:ONEEVENT, you could have said as much. How are editors to solve unstated problems? This or this should be sufficient to see his involvement in grounding the Concorde. Here is another, relating to an Air New Zealand crash.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The greater problem with the article generally, in my opinion, is sourcing, and the form notice indicates as much. However, there is also a general comment on the article regarding the problem with wp:ONEEVENT. Cheers, Dalisays (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, translated articles have to be created before they can be changed. Otherwise, the process of attribution via the article history would be broken. We shouldn't comingle translation with editing.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution simply imputes that the original source of the translation be credited by tagging in the edit summary/talk page--assuming this is actually a derivative work and that the contributor didn't write the original as well. The chain of attribution is thus intact regardless of additional edits made before the article is created (additional edits don't change the edit summary). In fact, all attributed articles that are translated are subject to the basic acceptance requirements upon submittal and this process in some cases necessitates additional editing prior to creation. That is, just because a Wikipedia article exists in another language doesn't mean it will meet the reqs for inclusion in Wikipedia English. Dalisays (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Randall Roth (professor), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

StandardSwan (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Tom Herman (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Callanecc (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category Request: Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile

Hello Dalisays. Thank you for having accepted the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_Request:_Category:Alumni_of_the_École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile. Please, could you clean up the title of the category from Category Request: Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile to Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile. For the moment, it doesn't work. Thanks a lot. Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have moved it successfully to reflect your request. Please check to ensure it is working now, and please do let me know. Dalisays (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but unfortunately, it doesn't work. The final name should be Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile , so without"Wikipedia:" (for the moment, the name is Wikipedia:Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile). You can look for an example to this category : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_École_Centrale_de_Lyon. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The final name should be Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile instead of Wikipedia:Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile or Wikipedia:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile (the same as all the articles of the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_Grandes_écoles). Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have sorted this out, see Category:Alumni of the École nationale de l'aviation civile. By the way, thank you Dalisays for your work at Articles for creation.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is fixed. Thanks. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay. I really mucked it up when I moved it from Articles for Creation. Luckily, the big guns were able to fix it. Dalisays (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for your help at Articles for creation. Kind Regards. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Don Groves

Hi, i am trying to upload Don Groves' profile, as I believe it merits a Wiki place. I have quoted 2 sources, and he can be found on Wiki linking him to several Variety movie reviews. Can you please tell me what I need to do to make Don's profile available to the rest of the Wiki community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PW Moodie (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PW Moodie! So, to establish the notability of the subject, there needs to be multiple quality (independent and secondary) sources that provide coverage. As of now, it is hard to establish notability given 1) the quality of sources and 2) the coverage they provide. One source is from the subject's network, so it is not independent, the other two sources which appear independent don't provide coverage of the subject, they simply provide mention. So, to improve the article--you need to add better sourcing keeping in mind these reqs and then you should resubmit. I hope that is helpful. Dalisays (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for ViziApps, Inc.

Hello Dalisays,

I've made some improvements to the ViziApps article, including a rewrite for WP:NPOV. I've also trimmed the sources to better conform to WP:RS and demonstrate a level of notability for the subject that meets the WP:GNG threshold. I'll be making some ongoing improvements in the future, such as adding categories etc., but in the meantime, I wonder if you might help me redirect MobiFlex App Studio to this new article, since the company has verifiably transitioned from MobFlex Inc. to ViziApps Inc. Thanks! Annieh129 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from MobiFlex App Studio to the new article can only be done once it is created. It would probably be better if MobiFlex App Studio was merged with the new content (that is, you should add your content to the article rather than create a new one). When you are done, then the article can be moved, to reflect its new name. Dalisays (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Eric Yamamoto, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Aaron Booth (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation

Aggressive Legalism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 07:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BroadLight article pending approval

Hi!

Can you please suggest what texts should be removed from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/BroadLight in order for it to be approved.

I'm kind of losing direction as to how to proceed from here.

Thank you,

Didiivancovsky (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Didiivancovsky! No worries! Keep in mind, to establish the notability of Broadlight, there needs to be multiple independent secondary sources that provide coverage. So you have to nail the trifecta (Multiple, Independent, Coverage). So, right now, there are two problems w/ the sources. 1) Most are not independent. One source is a Broadlight forum; one source is a publication of Broadlight's press release. and 2) The remaining source only provides minimal coverage. So--don't be discouraged! You just have to locate some sources that are in no way connected to Broadlight that talk in detail about the company (they should do more than just mention the Broadlight or list it as a company (e.g. directories, etc). Try to hunt down at least 5 sources to this end. I hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

art sales index

Hello Dalisays Do you need email accounts of employees or customers to help the verification process? Best wishes Duncan Hislop duncan.hislop@talktalk.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchislop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan Dchislop! In short -no! To establish the notability of the subject of your article, there must be multiple independent secondary sources that provide coverage. I call this the trifecta: MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, COVERAGE. Try to identify/include many sources that aren't related to the subject--or simply echo what it says about itself---and that provide critical review of it (not mere mention). I hope that is helpful in your endeavor. Once you have, be sure to liberally cite your article with inlines. Currently, the sources identified are not independent and don't provide coverage, and there is not adequate inline citation. Dalisays (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antimalarial drug resistance.

Dear Dalisays

Thanks for looking at this draft for a new article.

I am confident that this article is needed but accept I have probably gone through the wrong process. Antimalarial resistance is a large and important subject in its own right, constituting a global threat to efforts to control malaria. In an analogous way there is an article on Antibiotic resistance as well as one on Antibacterials, and it is certainly not true that antibiotic resistance is significantly more important than antimalarial resistance.

Currently the section on antimalarial resistance is limited to three shortish segments within what is already a large article on antimalarials. In my view both would benefit from substantial revision, but I and presumably others are disinclined to do this if an article feels cramped and poorly structured (as is currently the case in my view). I also observed that the current resistance section has only one reference (for the statement that resistance is common).

What would be really helpful is to know what the best process is to separate this into two articles, with one obviously linked to the other. Relevant content from Antimalarials (of which there is relatively little) could potentially be transferred to the new article if there is an appropriate way to do this.

It would be great to get your advice on how to go about doing all this in the most efficient way.


Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientist2 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scientist2, So, I think you have two options. The first I would recommend, the second I would not, and I will explain why. 1) You can go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology and or Talk:Antimalarial_medication to initiate a dialogue with your peers about whether it would be best to merge the articles or to start a new one. This will ensure you have a consensus before you place you're article, which is always the goal in this collaborative effort. 2) You can resubmit your article to Articles For Creation, and perhaps a different reviewer might find that the article demands to stand on its own. I wouldn't recommend this option---because even assuming that the article was created---if a consensus of your peers does not agree going forward that it should stand on its own--then the articles could be merged without your input or it could be deleted all together, which would undermine your hard work. I hope that helps. Dalisays (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donor Committee for Enterprise Development

Hi. Thanks for reviewing my article. I am sorry to be a nuisance here. I have submitted the article on the DCED three times for review, but each time had it turned down due to copyright, most recently by yourself. I am grateful for the help here. I will now really look at the content I wrote and try and change it. However could I ask for more specific information on why you turned the page down? I really felt that the material was different enough to any other to not have any copyright issues. The structure of the page follows similiar other organisations. The content is laid out in a different manner to the organisation's website and with different wording. Some of it is the same, but this is as some of the wording in the sector is fixed (and used across all relevant wikipedia pages), such as private sector development in conflict affected environments or sustainable poverty reduction/economic development. Numerous references are made in the article. So Im not quite sure where Im going wrong. I imagine you are very busy, but any help would be really appreciated. Thanks very much Ashleyaak (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashleyaak, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, as copyright infringement imputes civil, and in extreme instances, criminal liability. Wikipedia software flags articles, by using software to compare information found on the internet with the content of articles submitted. The article you submitted--as you noted--was flagged after this process. Regardless if this is common wording used elsewhere in other sources, for the purposes of the article it must be rewritten in a novel way. My advice is to cross-reference the sources you used with the article to ensure that there are no more copyright violations, so the article can be reviewed on its merits. I hope that is helpful. Dalisays (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That is very helpful. Thanks very much Ashleyaak (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dalisays&oldid=484532291"