User talk:Tseung Kwan O

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tseung Kwan O (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 8 July 2016 (→‎15:14:51, 8 July 2016 review of submission by 38.124.250.3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Tseung Kwan O, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Tone 13:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wan Chai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Happy Valley (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) 11:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

After proposing merger of X into Y, you should start discussion of it at the talk page of Y giving your rationale. That is missing at Talk:Chandratre. Please do so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Just wanted to say you've got a cool name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it does meet the notability guideline because I don't see how it does.107.77.222.66 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Talk:2016 Tejano Music Awards. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:40:55, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Ex-paparazzi


Dear Tseung Kwan O, Thank you for your review on my article. Unfortunately, this was the second or third time that my submission has been rejected afren an enormous number of changes and adding a ton of independent references. Nothig seems to work. It would be really, really great if you could help me fix this at last. English is not my native language and I might not know how to write things in a simple way so that they would not sound as a promo material. I really want this to get published and seek your help. Thank you in advance for your understanding. --Ex-paparazzi (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. Well, there seems to be a multitude of issues with your article. First of all, the subject of your submission is unnotable, and Wikipedia does not include these articles. For guidelines on how to demonstrate notability of the subject involved, you might want to read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability to understand whether this article is fit for submission. If the subject cannot comply with any of the notability guidelines, then I'm sorry to say there is no way to solve this problem.
If the subject does in fact comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then include sources that show demonstrate this in your submission. Next, you need to fix the formatting of the article. I noticed that the heading BE OPEN Inside the Experiment is way too large; you can consider shortening it by adding an = sign on either end of the heading to make it smaller. Also, you have double-spaced some of your words, please correct all of these. For some links to other articles, you might want to use the original name of the article, unless changing the name of the link allows the reader to understand it better (for e.g. Milans State University can be changed to University of Milan). Also, each section of your article is very short; you may consider expanding them with more information obtained from reliable sources and references.
Last but not least, the major problem of your article. When I read this article, I thought that it was an advertisement for an otherwise unknown organization. To make this article more like an encyclopedia entry, you can consider telling us what makes this company valuable, or what the importance of this company is. For example, ask yourself this question: If I'm a person unacquainted with the subject of this article, why should I read about it? What would it have to do with me? (Reminder: you should show the importance of this company in a neutral manner, please do not express your opinions on Wikipedia). In your submission, you have only shown what this company has done, and nothing concerning the effects of such activities. For this reason, your submission sounds a bit like an advertisement, with only superficial explanation of what this organization has done. Remember, whether an article sounds formal or not does not depend on whether English is your mother tongue. It depends on how you intend to develop the subject so that it becomes a proper encyclopedic entry.
I understand that you have spent quite a lot of time creating this article, and that it is very discouraging to have your article declined by reviewers. However, I hope that you can keep up the good work and improve on it, and if it fits the requirements for a Wikipedia article, your next editor will undoubtedly accept the submission. Cheers! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage for Draft:Hong Kong Esports

Sure being featured in stories from Apple Daily and South China Morning Post qualified as "significant coverage" in reliable sources?--Prisencolin (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Daily and SCMP are huge newspaper syndicates that basically churn out news stories for everything (especially Apple Daily; SCMP likes talking about irrelevant stories every once in a while through YoungPost and City). If coverage from only two newspapers out of >10 local newspapers (I only count the ones with a significant readership, excluding newspapers like The Epoch Times) is considered significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm afraid I would probably be eligible for a Wiki page (a lot of other people and things as well), as I've gotten a particular award before, and that was featured in an article. Needless to say, I'm only a Wikipedian who likes sitting at home all day long :)
To make my case a bit more clear, I should explain that there is ultimately a distinction between whether something (news articles in this particular case) gives a topic inherent notability as per Wikipedia guidelines, and whether the same material is usually associated with such topics. For example, the Amoycan Industrial Centre fire received widespread coverage in the media, and is considered notable enough to be included in WP. However, establishing a link between press coverage and the notability of the incident would be a misnomer. Applying it to this case, just because HK Esports was featured in Apple Daily and SCMP, doesn't make it notable (to say nothing of Apple Daily's inclusion of almost everything that isn't considered important by anyone's standards). Therefore, I'm afraid a bit more will be required to establish notability of the subject involved. You can consider talking about how this has revolutionized HK's gaming industry (if it has, of course), and I would be happy to accept the submission (given enough proof of its notability). Thank you. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By Western standards, we can assume topics covered in The Times or New York Times are of importance to someone, and honestly, coverage in reliable sources are all that's needed for WP:GNG. Anyways, related to the content, doesn't the article already talk about the organization's role in the HK eSports' scene?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid comparing Apple Daily and The Times would be a bit of a stretch. As other Hongkongers would note, the news quality and selectivity of Apple Daily is even worse than the tabloids in Britain. Anyway, I guess if you would only like to meet WP:GNG guidelines technically, quoting from this news source would probably allow you to bypass the notability guidelines. Again, if you lowered the requirements to such an extent, then even I would have a WP page, despite having completely no notability. It really depends on whether you want to follow Wikipedia guidelines rigidly, or uphold the spirit of the guidelines and include only topics that are significant enough for WP to handle. I don't whether this is the case, but I'm pretty sure when admins started drafting these guidelines, they wanted to make more room for people to demonstrate notability for topics, and therefore they set really lax standards concerning this guideline. However, I personally do not think that HK eSports is much a notable thing, just because it appeared in two newspaper articles does not make it more notable than the person who sells ice cream down the street (of course, under WP guidelines it does). I guess it's up to you. I won't decline your article again, now that you insist an article in Apple Daily and SCMP respectively can demonstrate notability of a subject, but I sincerely hope that you won't add unimportant and unnotable articles to WP for the sake of adding them.

Request on 18:28:59, 7 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PaintbrushArt


Hi Tseung, I am not a technical person. So I do not understand how to create these tables that you are recommending. I did reference tables on this site however I am not clear on how to do this. There is am interview with Ralph that will be published in the near future so I hope this will suit the notability. I see many artists pages that do not have all that you are requiring and they are published here.

Thank you for any help you cas provide. Regards, PaintbrushArtPaintbrushArt (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC) PaintbrushArt (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more details on how to make tables here in WP, check how to make a wikitable. As for the notability of the subject involved, you need to check the guidelines for notability. If the article satisfies the requirements listed in that page, and you genuinely believe that your topic has sufficient notability, then go ahead and make another draft.
As for this statement: I see many artists pages that do not have all that you are requiring and they are published here, I have to tell you that I (and a lot of other people) am already submitting tons of unnotable articles for PROD and AfD.

02:36:30, 8 July 2016 review of submission by RoyBNZ


Re: Draft Manuka Health New Zealand Hi there. I rewrote this article based on previous feedback from editors. Those editors that I spoke to via questions said to include more NZ Herald references and Stuff.co.nz - the 2 major news sources in New Zealand. I don't understand your feedback about adding more reliable sources given that I only referenced New Zealand government websites, NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz (as recommended)? Also -this is one of New Zealand's largest companies, our largest honey exporter and one of the largest honey exporters in the World - so it is a notable company, but what more in terms of information do I need to add i.e. how can anyone verify that information? I based the article on a similar company on wikipidia Trimax Mowing (which is actually smaller). thanks

Actually if you add enough reliable sources, I think it's ready to become a Wikipedia article. However, there is something you can improve on (but it's not mandatory, your article will probably go through AfC anyway), you can make the lead paragraph a bit longer, and write a summary in that section. Also, you can consider adding pictures or an Infobox to make the page more user-friendly. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:57, 8 July 2016 review of submission by Stuartlipo


I would kindly ask for you to review the submission for my GATCA definition, which was intended to clarify that GATCA is not the same as the Common Reporting Standards (CRS), whoever made the original re-direct is incorrect, the two are not the same, which is explained in the submission. I would also like to ask why if GATCA has a re-direct to CRS then why is there also not a re-direct when GATCA also includes BEPS, FATCA and AEoI?

GATCA includes CRS, BEPS, AEoI, FATCA and CDOT, which we is why we have submitted a separate Wikipedia page for GATCA.

I'll see what I can do about this. In any case, the re-direct page will have to be deleted to make way for your page. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:51, 8 July 2016 review of submission by 38.124.250.3


The rejection was unwarranted. The article as drafted (and rejected) contains substantial references to third party sources, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Bloomberg, as well as Washington Technology, and Chiefexecutive.net. It is a fairly straightforward description of a software company and is not akin to an advertisement. It is very similar to other DC-area software company Wiki pages: Applied Predictive Technologies[1]; Tenabale [2] and GridPoint [3] The description of the company's software is derived from the report of a third-party analyst who covers the BPM field at a website dedicated to the BPM industry (BPM.com) that covers the industry as a neutral.

If there are portions of the text that read like advertisement and not from third party sources, they should be identified in the reasons for the rejection so they can be addressed.

Given that Appian is reported to be a "unicorn," http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2016/01/08/appian-crosses-1-billion-valuation/, it is clearly a company worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

I have no question of the notability of this company. Please read my review more carefully: it reads like an advertisement. If you refer to the section Products and capabilities, you will understand what I mean. It sounds like outright promotion of the company, something you would expect on its own webpage. Wikipedia only has a place for neutral articles. If you want your submission to be accepted, you must present a neutral article.
Also, there are minor formatting errors in your article. Normally, you should not use single "=" as a heading, and its also pointless to make the heading as it's already included in the article name. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]