Jump to content

User talk:Sb2001

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 2 November 2017 (→‎NNS: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sb2001.


  • You may find it useful to send me an email for a more rapid response: I will endeavour to get back to you in a few hours (only between 11:00 and 23:00 UTC).
  • If you place a message on here, I will reply here and either leave a talkback post on your talk page, or mention you in my response, to send you a notification.
  • If you do not wish to receive a talkback post, please include 'no TB' at the end of your comment.
  • Please reply at your talk page if I leave you a message there. I would be grateful if you could ping me, in case I forgot to add the page to my watchlist.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

 Done –Sb2001 01:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

 Done –Sb2001 01:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Red

 Done –Sb2001 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

 Done –Sb2001 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:White

 Done –Sb2001 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I think you have been improving well recently. Keep up the good work. Alex ShihTalk 02:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alex Shih. That does mean a lot. I was very close to packing WP in at the end of August, so it is nice that editors are recognising change. –Sb2001 02:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Em dash vs. spaced en dash

You probably shouldn't make arbitrary stylistic changes such as substituting an em dash for a spaced en dash. Either one is acceptable according to MOS:DASH so you should retain the style used in an article as long as it conforms to the WP:MOS. Quale (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quale: I know. I was ensuring consistency in the article. There was an em rule in one section. My default is to change to em—it happened to be the first I saw. If it had been an en, I would have changed this way. –Sb2001 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a good reason to make a stylistic change. I'm sorry I poked you about this; carry on. Quale (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree w/ the "consistency" argument. En & em dash have different purposes or contexts. They're not equivalent stylistically, except in lists. --IHTS (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like I learned something. ;) "In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article." (MOS:NDASH) Thx. --IHTS (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

 Done –Sb2001 18:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:14:17, 25 October 2017 review of submission by Jobind


Wondering why the submission is rejected even after giving sufficient references. Jobind (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please suggest some examples?

Jobind (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jobind: I was not objecting to the number of references you have, rather the quality of them and how well they cover the points raised on the page. As far as I can tell, there is limited evidence of notability, and you need to work on establishing a more convincing base on which this may be built. My comment on the AfC submission was as follows:
More information needs to be provided about his works. Write this in paragraphs, rather than a short list. Aim for at least the same depth-of-coverage for career as personal life.
You have not responded to this, which means that it is unlikely that it will pass another reviewer's checks if you submit at the present moment. I strongly advise that you:
  • Expand out your list of bullet points.
  • Read WP:BLP and respond to the guidelines there.
  • Find a broader range of references, eg from different types of publication, and—if possible—from countries around the world.
  • Ensure that your references cover the facts on their own line, ie do not simply place a reference in the general vicinity of the fact; this may lead to them being removed.
  • Make sure that you explain how certain points are significant, eg 'He featured in [programme name], which is the most-watched programme on [channel].'
  • Write in chronological order, telling the 'story' of the person about whom you are writing.
Leave me another message when you have done some significant work, and I will look over it, or if you are struggling. It may also be to your benefit to contact the editors of some similar pages that look to be more detailed than JPP's (this is an area in need of cleanup work, so not everything is worth copying), and see if they are willing to help. If I were you, I would give me the link to any page before you replicate it, so I can assure you that it is a good target. –Sb2001 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review Hans Renders again?

Hi again, thank you for your previous comments. I edited the Hans Renders draft again, and was wondering if you could take another look at it and see if it is correct now. Madelonfranssen (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madelonfranssen: I shall certainly have another detailed look through it. From a first glance, I am pretty pleased. I am free most of tomorrow, so should have some feedback for you fairly shortly. Well done for your work. –Sb2001 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Madelonfranssen: I have thoroughly read the draft, and made some stylistic changes, in accordance with the Manual of Style. Some feedback for you:
  • You need to say Renders' nationality in the first line—'Hans Renders is a [nationality] professor ...'
  • You use some odd-looking punctuation in the titles of foreign publication names. I am no expert in Dutch, but doubt that his studies contain full stops in the title. Have a look at this, and check that they are not supposed to be colons.
  • You need to ensure that your writing is chronological. This helps with the flow, and is how you will find most good biographies are written on Wikipedia. See WP:BLP for more information on this sort of thing.
Specifically relating to the 'Career' section
  • The first paragraph could lose a few of the examples. If you like, they could be shifted to a footnote. Use the template {{efn|1=[insert examples here]}}.
  • There are not quite enough satisfactory references in the whole of the section. I have included one citation needed note, to guide you to an area which I think you should prioritise.
Specifically relating to the 'Work on biography' section
  • Your writing could be a little more concise. As I mentioned previously, dropping a few examples is a good start. They will not affect the coverage's depth too much.
  • Do not write as if a quotation is being continued. I have resolved this. It was the bit starting, 'Biography as a research area ...'
  • Make sure you are not capping the names of academic subjects.
Specifically relating to the 'Bibliography' section
  • I would lose most of this. It does not mean a lot to most English speakers, and feel like a 'heavy' addition to the end of the article.
There is some work for you to do, but not too much. Other reviewers would possibly have accepted this by now, but I would like you to have it at a good standard, so editors are less likely to query it or (worst case scenario) ask for it to be deleted. As always, if you are struggling, or do not understand something that I have said, leave me a message. Get back to me when you have has chance to work through what I have said. –Sb2001 18:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

 Done –Sb2001 17:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Hello Sb2001,

Thank you for helping to answer questions at the Teahouse. However, please be sure that your answers are accurate. You wrote "editors are not allowed to write about themselves" but that is not correct. Autobiographies are discouraged but not forbidden, and are usually subjected to a high level of scrutiny. Notable people can draft articles about themselves through the Articles for Creation process. Editors who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles are welcome to write about themselves on the article talk pages, or in any appropriate administrative forum. They can remove vandalism and correct obvious falsehoods. So, please check carefully to write answers that are correct. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328: Thank you for leaving me this message. I was unaware of WP:AUTO, to which another editor has directed me. My reading of WP:COISELF is that minor edits are allowed on an existing page. I was confident in my answer, so did not feel the need to check it. This does highlight that there is poor wording used at COISELF; I shall start a discussion on the relevant talk page to ask for this to be changed/clarified, in accordance with AUTO, to avoid such incidents happening again. –Sb2001 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Harjit Sajjan

 Done –Sb2001 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harjit Sajjan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:01:18, 2 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Brandfog


Thank you very much, appreciate the feedback! We're going to add some more personal details as you suggested, and it would be great if you could please take a look at it to give us feedback, when we're done. Appreciate your help!


Brandfog (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandfog: that is excellent. Just leave me a quick message to let me know when you're done, or—of course—if you are having difficulties. –Sb2001 21:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NNS

Where did I say you were a non-native speaker?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: email, 21 August. After criticising me for saying 'well-experienced' (I maintain, a perfectly acceptable construction). Not quite 'must' be non-native; rather expressing a suspicion. Even so, inappropriate and degrading. –Sb2001 21:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sorry you felt that way. I'm looking at the message right now, and it does not say anything about native speakers; rather it suggests that the usage is redundant and not normal English. This is pretty well sourceable:
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary: has no entry for "well-experienced" [1]
  • WordReference.com: has no entry for it [2]
  • Wordnik.com: has no entry for it [3]
  • Random House Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): just redirects to "experienced", and provides no definition but attests that the construction "well-experienced" exists. [4]
  • Online Etymological Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): Just has "experienced", no "well-experienced" [same URL]
  • Collins English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): Just has "experienced", no "well-experienced" [same URL]
  • American Heritage Dictionary: Has no entry for it [5]
  • Cambridge Dictionary: has no entry for it [6]
  • Oxford Living Dictionaries (OED database, minus most of the detailed content like usage examples): finally, a definition [7]. Oxford records pretty much every attested usage.
So, the usage exists but is very obscure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish: probably not the best thing to do, but I am assuming that you won't mind: 'I suspect it's not your native language.' Fifth paragraph. I understand what you are saying. I consider it standard; probably more of a colloquialism than I thought. I am pleased that we seem to have been able to work more productively in recent times, and hope this may continue. –Sb2001 22:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I should have searched for "native" rather than "speaker". OK, well I retract that; it's not an assumption I should have made, and I can see why it was insulting. Please also consider that I was responding to you accusing me of a "vicious and hurtful attack outburst" for what I said in this thread. It was not vicious, intended to be hurtful, an attack, or an outburst. I took a lot of time and patience to respond to you in that and other threads, and in e-mail, in an explanatory not "get lost" vein. Unlike some others involved – this was at a time when various editors wanted to take you to ANI for WP:DE, and I advised against it. To your credit, the issues I and various others in that and related threads were raising about your editing in August all appear to be resolved; nothing you're doing seems problematic now, and your talk page is devoid of fist-shaking. :-) I apologize for the "I suspect" comment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sb2001&oldid=808447568"