User talk:APerson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for User:APerson:

A page for Vadivu[edit]

Hi APerson,

I had submitted a topic page for Ashta Vadivu, the eight fundamental positions in Kalaripayattu, the ancient martial arts form of India. It has been rejected. Can you please help me improve the areas so that the context is more robust and worthy to be published?

Thank you Aymym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talkcontribs) 15:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Aymym, sure! I declined the submission because of notability; that is to say, I couldn't find enough sources talking about it. The article cites two sources, but neither provide significant coverage (see also this footnote). Both books seem to discuss the martial art in general, not the eight fundamental positions in specific. Note that I may be wrong here: the books may indeed be good sources, but I can't check that since neither are available online. (Wikipedia's "verifiability" policy says [r]eaders must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up.)
So, all you have to is find more sources that discuss this in depth. If there aren't any, maybe it's possible that these positions don't really need their own article and that they could simply be described (at length, even) in the main article. APerson (talk!) 19:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi APerson,
I understand the grey area of proving authoritativeness of any reference cited. And I do understand the articles need to be substantial for any publication.
Let me take a step back and describe what a Vadivu is. As a student of Kalaripayattu, I know the importance that is placed on these Vadivus. Hence whatever I am writing is not heresy but something I have learnt through experienced teachers. These eight techniques are the foundation stones of the ancient martial art. Though they sound simple when each of them is defined, i.e. a Lion stance is an imitating movement to gather strength and concentration, these very movements become the cornerstone of advanced learning in Kalaripayattu. Hence I thought of creating a separate page instead of trying to include it the main Kalaripayattu page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaripayattu . Also, if you will notice the page is more an overall description of the martial art, and bringing in the nitty gritty details of basic movements would not be recommended.
Next is my choice of books. The Phillip Zarrilli one is a in-depth book on Kalaripayattu where he describes the eight movements as an integral part of the martial art. The second book from which the images have been released for publishing in Wikipedia, is a pictorial one which actually illustrates the movements. But then, Vadivus are a section of that book too, and not the entirety. The author has emailed to Wikipedia releasing the pictures of the very book to be published here with the article. Wouldn't that sufficient enough to be authoritative and good for a publication?
Aymym (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You just asked whether the books you're using are authoritative enough. My answer is yes, even though whether they're authoritative doesn't matter when deciding whether the topic of Vadivus gets an article here. What matters is whether there are secondary sources that cover the topic in some detail. For example, if there were a bunch of newspaper articles that talked about these techniques, then that would count as "significant coverage in reliable sources. At the moment, neither source used in the article is a secondary source, as both authors are connected to the topic. I hope this clears it up a bit! APerson (talk!) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, APerson, for your patience and time in explaining about the secondary sources. Since the Vadivus are usually not subject of newspaper articles or similar secondary reference sources, I should rest aside my attempt to create a page for the same. As I mentioned earlier, print media or otherwise do not carry these details about the martial art since their larger audience will not fnd any use for it. It was nice talking to you. :)
Aymym (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

13:18:39, 8 June 2015 review of submission by Pthealth wikimaker[edit]


Hi, just wanted to request for a re-review of the page I was making. I have added a good number of both content and citations in the hope to make it a more comprehensive and verifiable page.

Pthealth wikimaker (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pthealth wikimaker, so you've definitely done a lot of research since I last reviewed the page - nice work! In the comment I left when I reviewed, I noted that you needed more sources that provided significant coverage of the topic. What I meant was that sources have to be about the community clinic network or devote a significant amount of attention to it. This means that sources that are only about some health technique used by the network don't provide this sort of coverage. So, for instance, a newspaper article about the network would be a great source to add to the article, but a scientific paper about something the clinic does (unless it discusses the network in some detail) wouldn't be. TL;DR I can't accept it because the sources don't specifically talk about the network. APerson (talk!) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks so much for your direction. I have asked help from our local clinics with the citations so we can improve our page. I will let you know when we are ready for another review. Again, thank you!
Pthealth wikimaker (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Pthealth wikimaker
No problem, and thanks for your contributions! APerson (talk!) 18:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Help improving articles[edit]

Hi, since I was blocked from editing, due to lack of experience. I think you should help these people who wrote to me about their AFC pending. Here are the articles...

> Draft:The Naked Convos[edit] Hi, someone asked questions at the teahouse about this draft and so I was looking at its sources. You rejected it for lack of notability and independant sources. However, it has recieved or been nominated for some impressive awards, and these are backed up by sources independant of the topic. Also, while the draft uses lots of non-independant sources (which I agree is not great), there are some good independant review etc. type sources from newspapers in there. Can you let me know more details so I can properly help the author? Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

> Draft:Nadeem_Bhabha[edit] Hello, Please take a look at the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nadeem_Bhabha and let me know if it is better to submit. I appreciate your help. thanks Nadeembahoo 3:17 am, June 8, 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 22:41:00, 8 June 2015 review of submission by Mrbusiness95[edit] Mrbusiness95 (talk · contribs)

> Draft:Carl James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to get in contact with you to get some input on how I should go about fixing up the page for "Carl James" in terms of finding more reliable sources. I realize now that the Wiki reference to "Living Colour" can not be used, I thought it would be useful since the link was right there and his name was being referenced. So at your earliest convenience can you please get back to me for further instructions. Thanks in advance. Mrbusiness95 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Mrbusiness95 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC

Thank you.Adyoo3 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft on the Hungarian Residency Bond Program[edit]

Dear APerson, I tried to fix the things you showed me. Would you please take a look at it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hungarian_Residency_Bond_Program) to see it it is alright now? You know this is my first wikipedia article and I want to do it as it must be. Thank you very much and kind regards, Tucanus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucanus (talkcontribs) 13:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tucanus, I looked at the new version of the draft, and you've definitely improved the article! However, I think it still needs some work before it can get approved. The decline reason I put on the draft six months ago explains that [t]his submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. In particular, I was referring to the part that says Wikipedia isn't a place to publish original research you've conducted. While this may apply to your article, I think a better explanation for why your article needs some work is the related policy section WP:NOTHOW. Most of your article talks about how the residence permit can be obtained, not general encyclopedic information about the permit program. By contrast, Wikipedia articles should ideally contain more general encyclopedic information, as opposed to specific instructions. I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! APerson (talk!) 01:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemy Lebedev[edit]

Hi. Just curious because I have this AFD watchlisted. You indicated "!voted for deletion" in your edit summary but did the opposite on the AFD itself. I am not sure which you mean. Pls. clarify. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, sorry if my edit summary caused any confusion. I left a note there clarifying that as I said in the discussion, I wanted to recommend that the article be kept. Maybe I should switch to "!voted" as the summary I use. APerson (talk!) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The new version of Magging[edit]

Dear APerson, I have already fixed the things that you show me. I added some references that appear with a large number of scholarly citation. I hope the new version of the Magging should be suitable for wikipedia. Best regards User:xiefushuai — Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Xiefushuai, from what I could determine, exactly one of the sources in the article even mentions the word "magging". Without sources that talk about the topic (like a newspaper article), magging shouldn't get an article. APerson (talk!) 19:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, :APerson, actually, there is an academic paper talk about the magging. You can see it in the 5th reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiefushuai (talkcontribs) 00:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Already deleted APerson (talk!) 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

afdstats tool[edit]

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up, but I have a question about the afdstats tool. I don't think it is counting the "snow keep" votes. "Snow keep" is basically "speedy keep" by saying it has a snowball's chance of being deleted. Can you look into this? Thanks for this great tool! МандичкаYO 😜 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, I had no part in developing the tool and I'm just here for maintenance, but sure, I'll look into it. It should be pretty simple to add another synonym for "speedy keep". APerson (talk!) 18:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! МандичкаYO 😜 19:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)