User talk:Frayae/Safn 9

Biology

ENTAMOEBA INVADENS - CELL AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY 29. September.

29 September 2018 from besnea@aol.com

Dear Robert, dear Frayae

dear Wikipedia reviewer,

thank you for the message. You write: ..... the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Entamoeba invadens instead, and further: We already have an article on this pathogenic unicellular eukaryote. Please compare this draft with the existing article and update the article as appropriate

That's wright, but the article you're meaning is a outdated school-parasitological review that merely describes ancient morphological and biochemical aspects, out of references to current cell biology and regulatory genetics / epigenetics. An improvement of this skinny parasitological article is hardly and antithetical, there are too many statements that do not fit together.

I must point out that recent studies advance E. invadens to a subject of modern cell biology. It could be shown that stemness was already developed by the common eukaryotic ancestor and not by metazoans, as thought until recently . The same applies to symmetric and asymmetric cell divisions, cyclic differentiation, oxygen control and much more.

E. invadens has become an pivotal orientation cell model for cancer research (see my four articles in the Romanian Wikipedia). I also planned to write a similar article about the recent life cycle theory in cancer for the English Wikipedia. However, this would not be possible without writing on the present reference article on modern cell biological knowledge in E. invadens.

It would be a pity if international readership and cancer communities would have to turn to the Romanian and not to the English Wikipedia and seek the Google Translator for helping.

Best regards

Vladimir

Cell biologist

Germany

29. September 2018, 12:57

Dear Robert,

Another possibilty would be the reformation of the article "Entamoeba" which is similarly chaotic. If you give me the permission to restructure it, I could introduce my own article into the chapter "Differentiation and cell biology". The resultIt would be precisely a well structured and well documented article. But it's a lot of work and I want you to get your approval in advance.

best regards Vladimir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Besnea (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Besnea: The best thing to do would be to update the existing article on Entamoeba invadens. If the article on Entamoeba is also out of date then it would be useful to update it as well. My only concern about you doing this is that your work so far is formatted as an academic essay and does not conform to Wikipedia's extensive Manual of Style. The main difference is that sections are separated and have short titles. The first section is the "lead" and contains a standalone summary of the entire article, there is no concluding remarks at the end. If you don't format your work using the Wikipedia house style then you will have problems with editors rejecting your additions. There is also special software for citations, I recommend reading Help:Footnotes. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The McClure Twins

Hello Frayae,

You recently rejected a submission for the McClure Twins stating that “the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.” Please advise as to which articles do not qualify so that we could better tailor this draft.

Best, LaWr123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo source is not independent. The other sources are acceptable, but there isn't enough coverage yet to meet the notability requirements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classic hip-hop

Don't know what happened with this swap, but it left a self-redirect and I don't know what the correct target should be. Lithopsian (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The correct target was Classic hip hop. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lisa Morrissey LaVange

Re Draft:Lisa Morrissey LaVange, you really should learn how academic notability on Wikipedia works before claiming that drafts don't satisfy the notability guidelines when they obviously do. Both president of the American Statistical Association and fellow of the American Statistical Association are clear and immediate passes of the guideline (#6 and #3 respectively), and her citation record gives her a pass of #1. Only one of these would already be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do see your point. I could not find a profile for her on Google scholar so did not check her citation record. I have no knowledge of the American Statistical Association, the article of which did not help me realise it was a major academic society. A clear oversight on my part to not see the WP:PROF pass and I have approved the draft now. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would have done it myself earlier but I was holding off until I had more time to make some cleanups (enough to get rid of the cleanup banners and citation needed tags). But there's nothing stopping those improvements from being done in article space instead... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Classic hip hop#Requested move 11 September 2018

Hello, Frayae. My proposal of moving the Billboard chart articles was opposed by just User:Feminist, who said the titles shouldn't deviate from the Billboard charts style. This is fine but currently, they use the style partially (the charts are called "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" and "Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums" but the titles are "List of number-one R&B/hip-hop songs of 2008 (U.S.)" and "List of Billboard number-one R&B/hip-hop albums of 2013"; "R&B/hip-hop" instead of "R&B/Hip-Hop", as in common noun instead of proper noun). If we were to follow the Billboard style, hip hop should have a hyphen and should be capitalized and if we were to follow the Wikipedia guideline, hip hop shouldn't be capitalized or have a hyphen. The current titling format doesn't follow either. No one else opposed my proposal to rename the Billboard chart articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars indicated support by proposing an alternative (I'm okay with it too) and the other voters (Cuchullain & Innotata) aren't against that. I don't see how there is no consensus to move when the proposal is only opposed by one editor but supported by the (four) others and is guideline-abiding. What do you think? Flooded with them hundreds 12:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Flooded with them hundreds: I personally would have liked to have moved them as well and agree there was only limited opposition to the idea. I personally think that a new discussion focused only on the Billboard chart titles would be best. This would allow more debate on the issue of whether Wikipedia should follow the title of the chart exactly, or if not, whether that / symbol could be omitted as well as Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars suggested. It's also unclear to me why titles such as List of number-one R&B/hip-hop songs of 2008 (U.S.) use parenthetical disambiguation and not the word 'Billboard' as other titles do since natural disambiguation is preferred. I could perhaps have moved them based on the discussion so far. The way I see it that RM had three different groups of titles. There was clear consensus to move one group, which I did. No definite conclusion to move the second group of Billboard album titles. And a potentially better option on the U.S. song charts. I think inconclusive sums up the discussion on the Billboard and song chart titles so far. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks. Flooded with them hundreds 10:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry about "R. Cengiz Ertekin" article

Dear Frayae, My question is concerned with an article entitled R. Cengiz Ertekin. It seems that you accepted the article, but now that I check it appears to be deleted. I am a little confused why this page would be deleted. This was about an internationally-distinguished Professor in Ocean Engineering who has made significant contributions and has been widely recognized, with appropriate citations and links to external references. Compared to other pages already published about this Professor's students or colleagues, for example, this article seems more in-depth, informative and transparent. If further corrections are required, I would be happy to make, but I am unclear why this would be deleted. I would be very grateful for your input. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottoKonotto (talk • contribs) 08:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RottoKonotto: I did approve the draft, as I believed that the subject was notable enough and the article could be improved while in mainspace. Other editors clearly thought otherwise. Atlantic306 tagged the article as unambiguous advertising and it was deleted by Jimfbleak under speedy deletion criteria G11. You should be able to write a less advertorial article on the subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X-on Draft

Hi Frayae,

Thanks for moving the X-on Sandbox article to Draft. Heeded your advice and have requested a username change - was trying to make it clear the sandbox article was by someone with a connection to the company.

X-onPH (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I highly recommend you read the WP:COI policy and correctly disclosure any connection to the company. There are templates and such which are better to use than a username which can be taken as promotional. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

about this—a butterfingered misclick I think! Thanks for catching it though. Take care! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Handelot page rejected

Hey there Frayae,

Thank you for pointing out my missteps with regard to trying to establish the page for the company Handelot. I do agree with the style, after reading through again it doesn't sound as neutral as I was aiming for. I'll fix that in resubmitting.

My issue is with the insistence that the topic show "significant" coverage" from "reliable secondary sources". I think these terms are vague, but I'm going to guess that you mean coverage in widely read publications (please correct me if I'm wrong). Parallel trading is a global phenomenon; it is its own world with its preferred methods of publicizing and communicating information about itself. It's not reliably covered in any of the major media (and when it is, it's typically negative coverage such as a fraud or theft case, which unfortunately happens but is far from the norm). The company that I'm writing about does have a good reputation in the parallel trading community, and it's unique in its function. Unfortunately, because it does deal in parallel trading, it's not likely to be covered in the major media. If the subject of parallel trading is good enough to have its own Wikipedia page, why can't that subject be fleshed out a little bit by adding information about entities that operate in the field? And is the information about it automatically useless if it isn't in a publication like, say, Bloomberg or Forbes?

Please help me, as I'm trying to write about this company in a way that lets the world know that it exists without seeming like an advertisement. I think it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I look forward to your answer. Thanks again. Tornadoboy156 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Tornadoboy156 | 03.10.2018[reply]

It takes time to fully understand what sources of information are considered suitable for supporting Wikipedia articles. Obviously coverage in a publication Bloomberg News is good. Coverage by a Forbes staff writer is good, a Forbes contributor is not reliable. Coverage in well regarded reliable industry publications is normally good, but anything that looks like a press release, brochure, or an interview is not. To look specifically at the article, issuu.com and superexpo.com are not reliable. handelot.com is a primary source. mobilitydays.pl, centralpointeurope.com, and itechnyc.com are sponsored sources. And www.web.gov.pl is a press release. None of these are good sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:51:46, 4 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 194.181.110.10

194.181.110.10 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Bluestone (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Frayæ,

Regarding the Bluestone (company) draft. Is there's a way we can improve this draft in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article? Is the main problem related to the lack of independent links? I'm asking because one of our competitors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimcore use what seems to be only internal materials as references.

194.181.110.10 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the main problem is the lack of independent links. You need to add enough to meet the requirements outlined in WP:NCORP. Your competitors article is ghastly spam and I expect someone will delete it in due course. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: The ROADEX Project

Dear Frayae, thank you for your contribution. I think that I am ready to request that the ROADEX Project page be moved back to the main Wikipedia. Do I do this? Or does the page need to be reviewed first? Any help or suggestions that you can give will be gratefully received. Ronmun (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ready. It will be nominated for deletion again by other editors if we don't add secondary sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Frayae. I will investigate to see what secondary sources can be added. The good news is that the technologies being promoted by the ROADEX project will be featured in an international award next month. I can't give any information at this time until the award has been made, but will be able to add the reference soon. Is there a deadline before the page is deleted? Ronmun (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page will only be deleted if no one edits it at all for six months. I have been making some edits every few weeks to keep the article active. Even if someone did delete the page, it is very easy to have drafts restored again. No need to worry. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Frayae.Ronmun (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mt Washington Fire Protection District

Recently, The Mt Washington Fire Draft Was Reviewed By Frayae On 10/4/2018, And It Was Rejected For A Lack Of Citations. I Would Like To Ask For Some More Guidance On The Page, As Well As Ask That They Look Over The Zoneton Fire Department's Page. --FlyingPanzer (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a small town fire department is unlikely to be notable. Read WP:ORGCRITE. Zoneton Fire Protection District was redirected to Zoneton, Kentucky as the area it serves. I think you could write a short amount in that article about the fire department. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Would Beg To Differ About A 'Small Town' Of 14,000, Mainly Because Residents Of The Area Like Me Are Waiting For A Wiki Article, And I'm Sure It Would Be Worth Publishing, Like The Zoneton, Kentucky Page In General. --FlyingPanzer (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that a Wikipedia article requires in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources and this is less likely to be possible if there are less newspapers and books covering the subject. A city like New York with 8.5 million people has a lot more written about their fire department than a town of 14,000. I am not saying this is impossible, just that you have to cite your sources and demonstrate the organisation is notable. This is combined with the problem that most news about a fire department is not about the fire department, instead about fires they put out, roofs they fix, and people they evict from unsafe buildings, etc. This coverage is not useful for showing notability. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]