Jump to content

User talk:Ukexpat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorneliusWilliam (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 11 June 2012 (→Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ukexpat's Navbar: Home  · Talk  · Edit this page  · Purge cache  · Email me  · Suggest navbar change
 Skip to the bottom 
Back to the top
ukexpat is: Busy


Welcome to ukexpat's talkpage
on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

  ·  userpage  ·  
  ·  talkpage  ·  
  ·  sandbox  ·  
  ·  gallery  ·  
  ·  barnstars  ·  
  ·  service awards  ·  
  ·  camera collection  ·  

Tuesday

12

November

Click here to leave me a message
Remember to sign your name by typing ~~~~ after the message.
Committed identity: 6f8761281e3399c6ee75a2279dc503714e6bd729 is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

TUSC token 4ca061685a490899d158b1bcf22d9087

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Speedy deletion nomination of Maison Martin Margiela

Hi, regarding the recent speedy deletion nomination of Maison Martin Margiela, I think you notified the wrong person. I originally created the page two years ago as a redirect to Martin Margiela's page but recently, someone (who I can only assume is associated with the business as their ID is "Margiela") overwrote it and when I reverted to the redirect, they came back and reinstated their stuff, saying (in French) about it being for the company. It is a valid redirect because "Maison Martin Margiela" is the name of the business associated with Martin Margiela and is linked to as such from 7/8 other Wiki pages, so shouldn't be deleted, but should remain a redirect until such time as a proper article about the company (which is one of the most famous Belgian high-fashion labels) can be created. I've notified "Margiela" about the speedy deletion. Mabalu (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - Twinkle automatically notifies the original creator of the page when it tags for speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago.

Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

MetalCraft Marine

As this article has already been deleted as spam, is being recreated by a user with "mcm" in their name and appears to be about a company with little or no notability, it definitely needs keeping an eye on. But I procedurally removed your CSD tag because technically it did not apply: the infobox is content. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather more subjectively, I feel there is sufficient coverage of the coastguard contract to make this unsuitable for speedy deletion on notability grounds either; it should probably be considered at AfD. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I give up.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I see that you marked a page that I created for speedy deletion. I am not sure what the G11 criteria would mean for a "substantial re-write." I would appreciate your advice as I have only dealt with notability issues with articles and not "promotional" type content. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The page is John Harding (lawyer) --Morning277 (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it reads like a CV, resume, or profile page from the firm's website - all of which are promotional in nature.--ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. Do you have any suggestions? I see that you have over 80K edits so your advice would be appreciated. I am hoping to rewrite the article (as I did spend quite a bit of time working on it) prior to it being deleted. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based the outline on similar articles for attorneys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:California_lawyers). I have looked at some others closely and feel like it would read differently if I take the different "sections" and put them into paragraph form? Not quite sure but maybe collapsing the individual sections into a "biography" section would be better. --Morning277 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rely on other articles as precedent. Many of those articles have the same problems as this one. Collapsing into a single "Biography" section is ill-advised - the whole article is a biography so a biography section is IMHO redundant.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasnt bringing up (other stuff exists) as this is foolish for anyone to do. I was simply stating that I was using the format of those articles. I am not sure what is needed to make it "non-promotional" based on your G11 recommendation. He is not controversial so there is nothing to put in there about that. His notability is under the "creative professionals" of people so I guess I am at a loss. That is why I am looking for your advice. You tagged the article as you see it as promotion. Can you advise what it would need to look like for you to not have tagged it for promotion? This will help me make corrections to this article as well as keep them in mind for any future articles. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First a more basic question (and I am a lawyer myself): is the guy even notable per WP:BIO? I know plenty of lawyers with better credentials and coverage than Mr Harding, none of whom would qualify for their own articles.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I did consider that. I am not a lawyer myself as I have not yet taken the bar exam (July 2012 which is why I should be studying instead of editing Wikipedia) but I am a recent graduate of law school (and I never plan on having the type of credentials to include my bio in Wikipedia). There are attorneys that may have more credentials, but not as recognized as he is in his particular area of law. While his publications maybe "borderline" notable, the Super Lawyer award is something that I feel would qualify him under "Any Biography" (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times). The Super Lawyer award is coveted in the State of California and he has won it numerous years in a row (the award is based on recommendation from over 56K attorneys which shows that he is a peer in his field). The other notability aspect is that he is sought after as an expert in family law. He is the subject of many independent sources that quote him for his work in family law and the legal profession itself. I guess I do not see an issue with notability as much as I do with the promotional aspect which is the immediate issue that I need to deal with prior to the article being deleted. Again, any suggestions would be appreciated. --Morning277 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed most of the self-published refs that were talking about claims ("legal expert") or about 3rd parties. Just because Harding writes something for another publication, doesn't make the reference reliable or independent. The "Super Lawyer" award is for the top 5% of lawyer in Northern California, which would make him one of the top 3,000 in Northern California. He didn't make the top 100. Not much of an award. I have to agree with Ukexpat that the article is promotional and shouldn't belong. Bgwhite (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy - it's not quite spammy enough IMO, and considering how long the tag had been in place, other admins obviously thought the same. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or no one had actually looked at it. I tagged several other articles at the same time and at least two of them have not yet been reviewed.--ukexpat (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cdist article

Thank you a lot for you feedback. I'll revisit the article tomorrow to further clean it up and read more about the wp guidelines. Thanks again for pointing out the weaknesses!NicoSchottelius (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work through the given improvement hints on the article, starting at the notability issue. I've read Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines and again compared the cdist article to the other configuration management tools (as linked at the top of the article). As far as I can see the number of citations is pretty much equal, thus I was wondering what is expected to be added, if at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.183.249 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Holick

Hello Ukexpat,

I've written main parts of the article "Michael F. Holick" and I don't understand why you consider the article as promotional. It was and is my intention to summarize the most important aspects of the scientific oevre and I referenced everything extremely accurately. Why do you think the article should be deleted in total whe the pieces of information I was providing are absolutely accurate? If you think other aspects should also be mentioned, then it's in my opinion still no reason to delete the whole article. It's my first article, it was a lot of work. If you let me know what precisely should be improved, let me please know that! But I'd appreciate a litte bit more concrete criticism what exactely bothers you. For example, I agree that the references to the books could be considered as advertisment - I removed them. But I disagree with you that the whole article is promoting Dr. Holick. I simply summarize what he did - and as he did a lot of meaningful stuff, there are many positive aspects worth being mentioned. But that is a consequence of his contributions and not my intention!

So please help me improve the article but don't delete it. Would be nice to have the chance to change concrete aspects of the article instead of someone deleting it instantly.

Thanks, M--Matthias3110 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)att[reply]

First, I have only tagged the article for deletion, an admin will review and make the decision. I am not an admin so I cannot do that. Second, the problem is that while everything in the article may be factual, the tone makes it read like a cv, resume or website biography. It needs to be written in a summary style focussing on the salient points, not the minutiae of the guy's life and career.--ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that words like "leading" and "internationally recognized" sound as if I wanted to promote him - so I removed them, just as the reference to his bibliography as it might be considered advertisment. I'm definitely willing to improve the article and it's absolutely fine that you let me know this. But despite your criticism may be justified partly, a speedy deletion is not the appropriate reaction. I think my work is a good basis to modify the article that it meets the criteria of Wikipedia article more. At the same time I think I provided significant and extremely precisely referenced pieces of information. And that should also be appreciated and could be taken as a basic work that is perfectionized - not deleted. Thanks. --Matthias3110 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should make these points on the article's talk page, if you haven't already done so, where they will be reviewed by an admin.--ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite.

Yes - you beat me to it. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra Mozart

Hi Ukexpat, just a note to let you know that I feel you misapplied an A7 csd to this article yesterday that resulted in its deletion. There is indeed, imo, a credible claim to notability in both the orchestra is led by a notable, bluelinked conductor and has works distributed by DG recordings (tho this is not supported with references yet). I have restored the article. If you still feel that this is not a sufficient claim, please feel free to use prod or afd. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with User:Alexf who deleted it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ukexpat, inaccurate CSD tagging is a problem for both parties. That's not a particularly helpful attitude.
On a related note; for Astafix, two band members ex of notable bands doesn't just meet significance, but WP:BAND as well. Ironholds (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assigning blame, just letting you know. I tag quite a lot of things, and have my tags declined sometimes too. I personally like to know why the other admin disagreed even if I don't always agree with them. So that's all this note was. Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Ballyhannon Castle (aka Castlefergus)

Hi Ukexpat,

I have read your message, thank you for taking the time to explain the current situation. As I outlined in previous messages, the text I submitted of the history of this castle was researched and written by Mr. Martin Breen, local historian, as posted verbatim on the website of the castle. All I am now seeking to do, with Mr. Breen's permission (which he is independently emailing to Wikipedia to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) is to post this up on Wikipedia for all to see and enjoy. In that way, the author's own words are preserved.

Once his authorising email has been received by Wikipedia, Wikipedia will then have the author's own words in the published article. Is that sufficient? I don't know how there is any copyright issue/infringement when the author authorises its publication in accordance with Wikipedia's own terms and procedures, and in Wikipedia's own authorising wording (as per the template on Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries).

If I am missing something, do certainly let me know and I will make sure that whatever obstacle standing in the way of publications is removed. I'm thinking that the easiest way to satisfy this impasse is for Mr. Breen to post the article himself? I was simply doing it in order to absolve him of the time and effort involved in its publication on Wikipedia, which I was advised was somewhat onerous.

I completely understand why it is, and should be, because this ensures the veracity of the information published. In this instance, however, the position is that Mr. Breen is the copyright holder and he is authorising the publishing of his work on Wikipedia, which I am simply facilitating by doing the 'physical' uploading of it. There is no suggestion of copyright infringement in this case, whereas it is being treated and adjudged as such.

Therefore, am I correct in assuming that when you receive Mr. Breen's email (to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) authorising the unconditional use of his work, and to its posting on Wikipedia (as per the template on Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), that I may continue with this article, and request it's reinstatement? Or are there any other conditions that must be met for this article to be approved?

Best regards, CorneliusWilliam (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct -- as soon as permission is received and processed by the permissions volunteers, the article can be recreated, but please bear in mind my earlier comments at the Help Desk about tone and additional third party sources to demonstrate notability.--ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ukexpat & Canoe 1967,

That's fantastic. The historian, Mr. Martin Breen, has informed me that he has emailed his permission (to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org), so I'm almost there then it seems!

Once the permissions volunteers have processed his permission, do they (or you) inform me so that I can recreate the article? Or since my most recent version is what I'm looking to publish, is it simply the case that it will be automatically reinstated and published without anything more being required of me? I see that Canoe 1967 says that s/he has 'created the article', which I assume is my one which was deleted?

Sincere thanks again for your (and your fellow volunteers') help in directing me toward the finish line. The journey is a long one, but I know that the satisfaction of finally publishing an article on Wikipedia will be worth it!

Best regards, CorneliusWilliam (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I found sources and notability so I have created the article. May I put it back as a blue link?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ukexpat&oldid=497098238"