User talk:Beatley

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roselidah Obunaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SvG drafts

Above, you claim that you verify Sander v Ginkel drafts before you moved them. I just had to move Draft:Amina Fouad back though, as it clearly wasn't checked. I hope this was a one-off error and not an indication that you don't check these drafts thoroughly enough? Fram (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the error report. i've added a better reference. as a sign of good faith why don't you move it back to article space? i see you are following my edits closely, it that just the one?

i see you are moving other articles to drafts, where the references are correct; are you sure you want to do that? Beatley (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "following your edits closely", I'm checking on some SvG drafts from time to time (though less than I used to, as it os too depressing). I move articles to draft individually when they have clear problems not solved by the ones moving them back to mainspace. I move articles back to draft en masse when an editor makes too many mistakes in his moves to mainspace only. In those cases, I move them all back, the good with the bad, as they can't be trusted and haven't been checked thoroughly.

Looking at your recent moves, you should activate the categories again, and I don't get why Roxana Iosef is at that name instead of at Roxana Bacsis, which isn't even a redirect. At Ioana Baciu, only her year of birth is sourced, not her date of birth (which has been wrong on too many SvG articles). Insuch a case, you should either source the full date or remove eveything but the year. But in general the articles you move seem to be in better shape than many other groups of SvG articles. Fram (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for moving that draft back to mainspace: you have added a good source that a player with that name played at the 2002 championships. The source has no information about her otherwise, so 90% of the article is still unsourced. Todor66 is, as far as I can tell, not a reliable source but an expansive one-man hobby site with probably lots of correct information, but also incorrect information. In this case, it doesn't even mention Amina Fouad, so leaving it in the article is wrong on many levels. So no, that page is not ready at all to be moved back to mainspace, and that you believe it is after it has already been moved back as problematic is worrying. Fram (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just from yesterday: Muna Muneer has the club unsourced (I removed it); that she retired is not sourced. I have seen a dozen of other pages having the same problems, for example Umeda Juraeva. If you continue I will unfortunately have to take you to ANI. This is not what the whole SvG exercies was about. I do not even mention the fact that the players of the Maldives team are likely not notable since they never played in the highest competition in their sport (per WP:NSPORT) and never received enough attention to pass WP:GNG. To avoid misunderstanding, I found these articles in the unreviewed queue.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your translations

Hi, Beatley. I see that you have created some new articles by translating from Wikipedia articles in German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Polish. That's great, I do some of that as well. This is just a reminder that translations from other Wikipedias are governed by the translation guideline, and by policies about providing attribution.

Right now, I'm working on one article you created a while back which was translated from German. The English article has a lot of gobbledygook in parts, and was obviously translated by a software program like Google Translate. Copyediting done since then by you and others has fixed up the beginning portion of the article, so at least half of it reads like proper English now, but much of it remains completely inscrutable. I'm not sure what happened here, were you in a hurry to move on to something else? Please be aware that the policy on machine translation says that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. And it's not enough just to copyedit the result, you have to refer back to the original article to make sure that Google translate didn't screw up not only the wording, but also the facts, and you have to be able to understand the original language in order to do that.

I'll have a look at the German article in this case and retranslate the sections of it that need it. I can handle that and don't need help. I'd just like to request that you avoid using machine translation and that going forward, you stick to languages you understand well enough to produce accurate translations from.

Also, please remember that translations from one Wikipedia to another require attribution in the edit summary; you can also use the {{translated page}} template for this on the Talk page once the translation is complete. In addition, it can be helpful to add the appropriate Translation template to the top of the article page. I would suggest one of these: {{Rough translation}}, {{Cleanup translation}}, or {{Proofreader needed}}. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anne Andrieux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 2001 European Championships

Martel Schwichtenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to November group

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

^{[April Fools!]} --DashyGames (contribs) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please update categories

Hello, I see that you've recently moved several draft articles from the Czech volleyball player's biographies to their mainspaces, that I've marked as patrolled; however, the categories need to be cleaned up as all articles have categories with a colon (:) at the beginning, which is restricting them to assume their rightful position.
Could you please look into the same and have them rectified? Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good work Victuallers (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabriela Zazueta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2015 Universiade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SvG drafts (again)

Beatley, either drastically improve your checks and corrections of the Svg drafts, or stop moving them to the mainspace. Too many still have fundamental problems, explaianed to you already in the past but not improved since. The articles need a reliable source for the information (Todor66 is not a reliable source), and everything in it that is not sourced should be removed (e.g. the claim that a player is "retired" when this is often unknown or even contradicted by the remainder of the article; or the list of clubs). Please alo only move articles back about sujects which are clearly notable. Participating in the Asian Games is not sufficient to be considered notable, for many of the contestants it seems to be very hard to find actual indepth coverage about them.

I am close to simply moving all your SvG cleanups back to the draftspace, as spotchecks reveal too many problems. See also the above post by Ymblanter, and comments by Alsee. Fram (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i will follow policy. i will retain uncontroversial unsourced statements. you delete these articles, and i will take them to AfD, and we will see if you have a consensus. Beatley (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hey, that's great. let's see if you have a consensus for your statements right now. what is the consensus about the reliability of Todor66 ? what fundamental problems ? i see notable athletes with at least one source. Beatley (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beatley: You're not helping - all you're doing is creating more work for other editors. You could at least submit the drafts to Articles for Creation for review, because currently all you're doing is churning out awful articles to prove some kind of point. The point of a collaborative project is to work with others - the point is not to create unnecessary pointless "busy work" for my fellow New Page Reviewers. Please abide by the spirit of the AN/I discussion that caused these awful, low quality, machine-created articles to be moved to Draft space in the first place, because you're currently a net negative to Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is crystal clear, who is helping and who is not. i win awards for collaboration, what would you know of it? Beatley (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]