User talk:Ringbang
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
14:14:54, 2 June 2016 review of submission by Ahuang8
I thought there are already quite a lot of external links. OriGene Technologies has close to 70M revenue and lots of offices over the world.
I read through the Wikipedia:Notability section and feel like OriGene Technologies page meets the guideline. There are quite a lot of guidelines given. Can you please let me know which part I need to improve? Thanks a lot.
00:36:07, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Wilton96
Multiple, non-primary references and external links have been added to the article.
14:03:12, 27 June 2016 review of submission by Nicwin10
Hello Ringbang,
I am a new user and would really like to edit this to make it an acceptable page. Could you please give me some guidance on what content I can change to diminish the "promotional" quality? Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
16:01:55, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Eddwagner
Am not sure if I have any good reliable sources or if I need to remove certain ones. Thank you Edd
02:28:17, 5 February 2017 review of submission by Jacopobelbo1234
The article is well-sourced, does not include any superlative statements, so I have difficulty understanding which parts read as "puffery." Can you please specify?
17:37:40, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Elvisbrandenburgkremmen
I don't understand the hesitance of wikipedia mods in cases like this. A short technical stub article is in effect better than nothing. Asking for a full rewrite simply causes author to not put information up, leaving the public with a loss of valuable information.
A case of "i don't work for you".
File:Screenshot of the WorldCat.org homepage, 29 March 2017.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot of the WorldCat.org homepage, 29 March 2017.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors at RuPaul's Drag Race and Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race this year (2017) that an RfC on sourcing and citing has begun at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Changes made to Sloppy disambiguation page
Hi I am the creator of the Sloppy (disambiguation) page. You may have been right about removing some of my edits claiming that they were unambiguous (I attend to later write articles on those as well). But the ones with Sloppy as the first word shouldn't have been removed. Also the one's that don't have the world sloppy in the front can go in the see also section. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Hi David, thanks for writing. Listings like Sloppy joe and the "See also" additions are specifically what WP:PTM says not to add. The only time to add partial title matches is when the partial match is an alternate name for the subject. Since no one calls a sloppy joe "a sloppy", it's a partial title match and not to be included. Sloppy the Psychotic can be included since the title character's name is Sloppy. (That entry should probably be revised accordingly.) Sloppy Giuseppe is an appropriate entry only if there's evidence that its commonly known as "a Sloppy" in the UK. Template:In title is an appropriate substitute for listing PTMs in the "See also" section.Also, per MOS:DABORDER, section headings are for lengthy lists that require grouping to make finding the desired sense easier. In a short dab page like this, they're unnecessary and can even be counterproductive. —Ringbang (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I have moved the foods that are named sloppy to the "See also section". There is a "See also section" on most disambiguation pages, so they do belong there, I would still like to keep the other "sloppys" as part of my article in any way I can, can you think of some ideas that I can use? Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:PTM? Having a "See also" section is fine, but there are guidelines about what is appropriate to put there. Template:In title and Template:Look from are the alternative to listing individual partial title matches. Beyond that, users can use the search interface (which has autocomplete). If there were only one or two PTMs, I would probably add them instead of using the PTM templates; I believe that approach is supported by MOS:DABSEEALSO, too. In this case there are too many to list, and doing so would be counterproductive; so the templates are a good alternative. We might ask ourselves: How did the person get to the disambiguation page in the first place? Where were they trying to go? How can we help them get there as easily as possible?I understand if you think of the page as yours, but remember that no one owns a page. —Ringbang (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, if you look at these disambiguation pages Spider (disambiguation), Wonder (disambiguation), Beast (disambiguation), and Boston (disambiguation) you will see that under wonder is the wonder years, small wonder, and wonder woman, under spider is spiderman and spider woman, and under beast is Beast Man (I had put Beast Man on "the beast" disambiguation page, but it was moved to beast page by an administrator) and under Boston is the title Boston pizza which is the same format that I was using. So why then is my formatting wrong? I may have to contact an administrator for help to resolve this issue. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi David,Looking at other dab pages is not an ideal way to learn about Wikipedia policy and best practices. After all, how can you know whether editors on that page followed best practices, especially since dab pages aren't graded? Policy and MoS pages are much more reliable; for disambiguation pages, that means WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB, and the policies that apply directly to this particular question are WP:PTM and MOS:DABSEEALSO.Of course you're welcome to ask other editors for their help or perspective on an issue! Three places you can do that are at The Teahouse, WT:WikiProject Disambiguation, and WP:EAR. You also might find WP:THIRDOPINION helpful. As for administrator requests, WP:RAA lists the kinds of situations that administrators can help with.Cases like this sometimes result in a refinement of policy. I've started a conversation about it at WT:MOSDAB#Clarification of policy on partial title matches. —Ringbang (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, if you look at these disambiguation pages Spider (disambiguation), Wonder (disambiguation), Beast (disambiguation), and Boston (disambiguation) you will see that under wonder is the wonder years, small wonder, and wonder woman, under spider is spiderman and spider woman, and under beast is Beast Man (I had put Beast Man on "the beast" disambiguation page, but it was moved to beast page by an administrator) and under Boston is the title Boston pizza which is the same format that I was using. So why then is my formatting wrong? I may have to contact an administrator for help to resolve this issue. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:PTM? Having a "See also" section is fine, but there are guidelines about what is appropriate to put there. Template:In title and Template:Look from are the alternative to listing individual partial title matches. Beyond that, users can use the search interface (which has autocomplete). If there were only one or two PTMs, I would probably add them instead of using the PTM templates; I believe that approach is supported by MOS:DABSEEALSO, too. In this case there are too many to list, and doing so would be counterproductive; so the templates are a good alternative. We might ask ourselves: How did the person get to the disambiguation page in the first place? Where were they trying to go? How can we help them get there as easily as possible?I understand if you think of the page as yours, but remember that no one owns a page. —Ringbang (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I have moved the foods that are named sloppy to the "See also section". There is a "See also section" on most disambiguation pages, so they do belong there, I would still like to keep the other "sloppys" as part of my article in any way I can, can you think of some ideas that I can use? Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Brideshead Revisited into Brideshead Revisited (TV serial). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
RE: Kurt Riley
Hello, Ringbang! Thanks for overseeing the Kurt Riley entry and advising regarding the notability guidelines. The sources used on that page include The Cornell Daily Sun (a leading college newspaper, ranked #1 in the nation by The Princeton Review in 2013), WVBR (one of the most reputable radio stations in Central New York) and The Ithaca Journal (a notable newspaper in publication since the 19th Century, now part of the USA Today Network). Do these sources not establish notability?
Thanks for your guidance. I'm a long-time Wiki user (since the early 2000s), but I've just joined the community!