Jump to content

User talk:Wiae

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbosramek (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 24 May 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Useronline

Peter Azur

Thank you for your well-reasoned and helpful response. I think we both realize that Azur's contribution to cinematic history ranks somewhat short of stellar. I tend to agree with you on all points you raised, particularly the notability requirement. We'll simply abandon this mini-project unless you can locate an interested third-party.

A Barnstar!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for keeping my user space clean of vandals. Name Omitted (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Name Omitted: Thank you for the barnstar! /wia /talk 01:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd-Warshall algorithm question

My correction of the Floyd Algorithm are correct. The entire artcle needs a rewrite to be both understandable and correct. As it remains, it is confusing my students and I spend a lot of time correcting their errors gleaned from this article. This is a simple to understand algorithm when explained clearly. Instead we don't only have mathematical snobbery, but truly inaccurate information. I am SICK of wikipeadia inability to just tell wrong from write. Mathematical truth is not a matter of a VOTE. When k = 1, it is not equal to zero. Fixing this page requires a complete rewrite because the graph and the agorthms don't match and the explanation doesn't inform the reader of facts. Not having fixed these problems in the article has been called not passing a litmus test. The only litmus test here is if the article is informative and educational. It is NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to dust off my graph theory textbook tonight and discuss the mathematical details. But I reverted your edits because you are not going about your proposed corrections the right way. Writing that the article "is incorrect" within the article itself is not the place to do so; rather, the talk page is where you want to start.
Are you familiar with WP:BRD? Be bold in your editing, but once you've been reverted, it's time to discuss and seek consensus at the talk page, instead of trying to push through your changes. As you can see, you've been reverted by multiple editors, many of whom have technical mathematical backgrounds, meaning that it's time to discuss and forge real consensus. Until you do that, your proposed changes to the article simply won't stick. I hope this clarifies the administrative side of the issue! /wia /talk 02:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I apologize for my cruel edits... Sorry! wont happen again

15:22:17, 18 May 2015 review of submission by Minkyumthemaster


Minkyumthemaster (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Minkyumthemaster: Hello, can you explain exactly what your question is? /wia /talk 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human Right Self Defense

Wikiisawesome - ---

Why Did you delete my analysis on the Uniquely American Human Right Self Defense what's protected by the 2nd Amendment ? 1) are you an American ?

@Ai6pg: The content you added to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was unreferenced original research that was not written in the formal style that Wikipedia requires. I suggest reading WP:NPOV. /wia /talk 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot to read. Could you be more specific ?

@Ai6og: Well, contributing to Wikipedia usually entails a lot of reading, and sooner or later it's advisable to read all of Wikipedia's policies to get a good handle on them. But two parts of that page that are important are WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBJECTIVE. I would also add WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the list. They're not long sections and I think they'd be helpful to read. /wia /talk 00:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Dias

Dear WIA,

Thank you for your feedback.

This is in regards to the "Comment: IMDb and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. The remaining references don't discuss Kaitlyn Dias in enough detail to prove that she's notable. They only mention her in passing, in at most one sentence. To make out notability, you'll need to find and add reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)"

I understand the situation, but part of the problem I am having is that she is a new comer in Pixar's up coming (june 19th) movie Inside Out, and no one has started talking about her in detail yet. I would like for them/the public to have a place (Wikipedia) that they can go to start getting accurate information on Kaitlyn.

Best Regards, RichardGDias1 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Richard Dias[reply]

@RichardGDias1: If there is no detailed information about Kaitlyn Dias on the web, then what content could we possibly put in a Wikipedia article? Therein lies the problem with some subjects (especially up-and-coming people) on Wikipedia; they're just too soon. If there's no substantive content about Dias available yet, perhaps there will be more once the film opens. The good news is that there's no deadline or rush when it comes to drafts. Once enough has been written about her, the articlesubject will become notable and it the article will likely be accepted. /wia /talk 00:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WIA,

Agreed. We should see more press on Kaitlyn next month.

Thanks again, RichardGDias1 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Richard Dias[reply]

Request on 06:14:13, 19 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MacMason


Hi Wikiisawesome! I think I got it this time-- resubmitted today…

MacMason (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) MacMason (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Christian Foundation

Hi WIA,

Thanks for your feedback to my AFC for National Christian Foundation. Your notes were helpful, and I updated the verbiage in the article:

  • Removed buzzwords like, "solutions" throughout the article. You're right - that screams "buzz".
  • I decided to capitalize "Asset-Based Giving" because that's how I saw it used on their website and throughout the web. From what I gather, "Asset-Based Giving" is not limited to $$, but also tangible products. Still, I went ahead and removed it from the article.
  • ......reworded other items and made small changes throughout the article.

Would you mind reviewing once more? Additional feedback is welcome!

Should I resubmit? Or is notifying you enough? Since you've been sort of overseeing the article, I especially want your feedback.

Thanks in advance.

Talk soon, Copeland

@Copeland.powell: Sorry I didn't respond right away; I've been busy. The article's reading better now. I typically don't review an article twice in a row but I've gone ahead and resubmitted it for you. Another reviewer should be along within a few weeks to have another go at the article. In the meantime, you're more than welcome to continue tinkering with the draft or working on something else on Wikipedia; there's always something to be done!
Also, you can sign your talk page posts by putting four tildes after your comment, like this: ~~~~. /wia /talk 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K Rend

Hi WIA

Thanks for your comments. They are very helpful. I'm hoping you can steer me in the right direction. I had previously rewritten the History section of my draft as suggested by you previously. As suggested I didn't paraphrase, however there are some phrases that need to remain the same as the K News article because they are peoples names etc. Is there any other way around this, or any other suggestions that you might have. I really need this article to go live and am willing to make the necessary changes to do so.

Hi I have also noticed that you have pointed to JP Corrys website for copyrighting. This is actually copy I have written for submission on their website. Any suggestions? I could ask them to remove it until this article makes it through the submission process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbie M Wilson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks in advance Debbie M Wilson (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debbie M Wilson: Names aren't a copyright issue, so you're good there! The sentences I have flagged for copyright issues are as follows:
  • "The K Rend silicone range incorporates silicone water repellents as an integral part of the cement based render system. This silicone technology imparts a high degree of water repellency to the render surface whilst allowing water vapour to pass through the render allowing the substrate to breathe. The water repellent surface ensures a freshly rendered appearance for a prolonged period. The finish is drier and thus more resistant to algae growth and the natural phenomenon of limebloom."
  • "K Rend Silicone Scraped Textured Renders - a range of one coat applications which can be plastered directly on to block work. They can also be used as a finish in conjunction with a K Rend Base Coat. There are 20 standard colours for the scraped texture range. Special colours are also available from a customisable pallet, upon request."
  • "K Rend Silicone Thin Coat (TC) Renders - Silicone Thin Coat is a pre-mixed, silicone based, ready to use organic resin render which is usually hand applied. It provides a low maintenance, decorative finish, is available in two different textures TC 15 & TC 30 and in a wide range of colours. Silicone TC holds the prestigious kitemark licence to BS EN 15827:2009"
  • "Uses High performance decorative textured finish for application onto a prepared substrate. Particularly suitable where lightweight render systems are required, such as an external wall insulation system Benefits Water repellent Low maintenance Allows structure to breathe Natural looking finish Extensive colour range"
  • "Silicone Thin Coat can be colour matched using the Natural Colour System offered users a wider range of colour options."
These should be rephrased or removed entirely. If you have written those texts yourself for the company website, it's likely that copyright has fallen to your employer. In that case, you aren't permitted to use it on Wikipedia unless your employer licenses the copyrighted text to Wikipedia. See WP:PERMISSIONS for details on how copyright-holders can license text to Wikipedia. I've never done it myself, but I hear the whole process takes a bit of time. If you've got any other questions, I'm happy to field them here as best I can! /wia /talk 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiawesome:

Hi WIA Thanks so much for pinpointing to the issues. I have email K Rend marketing manager who has approved use of the material and submitted the links to Wikimedia commons. Fingers crossed. Debbie M Wilson (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Bashir review

Hi Wia, First of all I would like to thank you very much for the time you've taken to review my article. As for the sources, most of the article is based on a booklet written on Abdulaziz Al-Bashir, but the booklet is in Arabic. We've also taken some information from well known Arabic newspapers in Kuwait. If you would like me to scan the booklet for you, I would do so. Here are two links of newspaper articles in Arabic, but I have more.

http://alwatan.kuwait.tt/articledetails.aspx?id=414585 http://www.alqabas-kw.com/Article.aspx?id=1016865&date=15012015

Thanks again

Radbleu (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Radbleu: You are allowed to cite the booklet if it is a reliable source. If it is indeed reliable, you wouldn't need to scan a copy, per WP:RS:
I'm not familiar with many Arabic newspapers, but if these two meet the reliability standard, then they can certainly be included in the references and will help. Another thing you should do is add inline citations whenever you make claims about the subject that are contentious or likely to be challenged. Inline citations are important because they help readers track down the reference to the specific claims made in an article. Those sources you mentioned above will help, but I'd consider trying to find even more references to convincingly demonstrate his notability.
I fear there is also some original research scattered throughout the draft. Simply put, original research can sneak into an article when there are subjective claims, opinions, value judgments and the like about the subject. For example, the Draft:Abdulaziz Al-Bashir article claims that "He constantly encouraged employees to enrol in training courses and higher studies, which was also a helpful element in keeping up with latest developments in the field". This needs an inline citation or else, to be blunt, it might appear to the reader that the author has made it up. The "Favorite pastime" section also contains original research, which should be either supported by references that explicitly back up those claims, or it should be removed entirely. /wia /talk 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A useful tool for the disambiguation contest.

Have I told you about this list? bd2412 T 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Is this essentially a continuation of the list from which the first thousand DAB pages (the ones that make up the DAB challenge) are culled? Cool! I haven't been as active as I'd like recently (real life creeps in now and again) but I will bookmark this page and take a stab at it when I can. Thanks! /wia /talk 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no - this is a list of articles containing the most disambiguation links that need fixing, and that count for the contest. Go through two dozen of these pages and you'll have fixed a hundred links. bd2412 T 21:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:09:19, 22 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Craiger19


Thanks Wia for your help with my first submission (Emil Milan). It is accepted now. I deleted/rewrote everything I thought could be seen as promotional or original research. But it is still tagged as sometimes a problem in those respects. Can you take another look at it? Any guidance from you would be appreciated. Thanks, Craig. Craiger19 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craiger19 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Craiger19: The article looks pretty good to me, although a few more references in the "Use of Wood and other materials" and "Tools and Techniques" sections would help show that the content of those sections is not original research. Once you feel that you have cleaned up those sections according to Wikipedia's standards, you're welcome to be bold and remove the cleanup tag yourself! Ah, Primefac has suggested that another user remove the tag themselves. Okay, how about this: if you can find some more references, add them and then let me know here on my talk page and I'll re-review that section. /wia /talk 13:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Bahsir _Radio Program

Dear Wia, Thank you very much for your prompt reply and constructive advice. I am including an audio file, which is a weekly radio program. This program was broadcast by the second Kuwaiti official radio station about 2 months ago, the program is well known as well as the presenter by all Kuwaitis. We received a copy from the station itself that I uploaded to dropbox. Here is the link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sez8rpibx8r9v7k/AAB-loA920RAKFTi3uSEAxzaa?dl=0

The program has everything mentioned in the article and more. I hope will help so that we can publish the article. Thank you. Radbleu (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Radbleu: You can cite a radio show as long as it's an independent, reliable one, and as long as there is an archived copy of the show. You can cite AV media using the {{Cite AV media}} template. /wia /talk 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:58, 23 May 2015 review of submission by 110.148.117.189


To Whom it may concern, I am requesting a re-review as I have written this as neutral as I believe necessary. As a female architect, there is a general lack of female representation in the field prominently male. It is not my intention for the entry to read as an advertisement for Dr Maturana, I believe this may be due to many of her opinions as most of her work expresses these opinions. The book publication can also be deleted if this will help with the entry, this was a major publication for her and it seemed relevant to include but if it is against the wikipedia guidelines then I can remove it with no issue. I am happy to edit out the sections which you feel the entry is not subjective enough or rewrite sections altogether provided you feedback. I would not like to see an architect with such global influences and a history of social justice not be more freely known to all wikipedia users. I do hoipe you reconsider or provide some feedback for a more balanced entry that you would deem appropriate for wikipedia. Thank you Chris Buchhorn 110.148.117.189 (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to resubmit any time you'd like and someone else will take a look at the article in the next few weeks. In the interim, however, I'd suggest taking a look at the comments I've left on the draft itself. In particular, there is some non-neutral content and some synthesis that should be dealt with. /wia /talk 13:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you my friend.

Thank you Wikiisawesome. I read your user description and it is really awesome. I appreciate your presence. Thank you and I still hoping that my page will approve :(. God bless. :( Systemupdate101 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Systemupdate101: Keep working on the article! And even if you are unable to find the references need to prove the subject's notability, there's always plenty of things to do on Wikipedia. We'd love to have you help out! /wia /talk 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you.
Thank you for your sharing. You motivated me well. Have a nice day and God bless. I hope that you will help others also like me. Thank you. I will never forget. :) Systemupdate101 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:21:42, 23 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Craiger19


Thanks Wia. I shortened the "Use of Wood" and "Tools and Techniques" sections and added more references. Please take another look when you can. Craig Craiger19 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craiger19 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Craiger19: Looks good. I've gone ahead and removed the tags at the top and bottom of the page. Congrats on the article! I hope you continue contributing on Wikipedia—we desperately need more writers! /wia /talk 23:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:44, 24 May 2015 review of submission by Bbosramek


I am the author of the copyrighted Hemodynamic Management Chart at hemodynamicsociety.org (I am the Society's Chairman). I have removed the "copyright" logo form the Chart at Wikipedia article and uploaded it under Commons, so I hope the article is now acceptable for publication. Thanks, Bo Bbosramek (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Bbosramek (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbosramek: It's not just the table at http://www.hemodynamicsociety.org/syshemo.html that's at issue; there's also some text that's been copied. Since the content on that website is copyrighted, you can't use it on Wikipedia just yet—even if you are the copyright-holder. What you need to do is follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Specifically, WP:DONATETEXT is the section of that article that will probably be the most help to you. I hope this has cleared things up, and thanks for your contributions! /wia /talk 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:09, 24 May 2015 review of submission by Bbosramek


I have just remove the copyright from the corresponding web site at the hemodynamicsociety.org. Will that, together with removing the copyright symbol from Fig.10, resolve the copyright issue? Please let me know. Bbosramek (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Bbosramek (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiae&oldid=663742534"