User talk:Sintaku/Archives/2014/March

Current Version: Prelude (0.2.0) [History]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

RE Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spider Project (software)[edit]

Dear Sintaku,

thank you for reviewing my article. You declined it with the explanation, that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopaedia"

I must say I tried to be neutral and provided references for all statements I was making (but obviously I didn't quite succeed). At the same time I wanted to give a background for a product, where it is coming from, what it its history, so that it is clear why the product is the way it is. These are all the things which I value in Wikipedia articles, that they give insights of the products, not just the staff you can read on the companies site.

Can you somebody please give a hint on where exactly I need to improve the article?

Is just a tone?
Do I need to bring section "criticism"?
Do I need to get more references?
Does complete/all article "read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopaedia" or only part of it?

Thank you for your help in advance Ev2geny (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my own judgement now to improve the article. I do not not know exactly whether it now has to be reviewed by the person who has initially declined it or it goes back into the queue, but in any case case, this is just to let you know, that it is re-submitted.

I still would appreciate if you could look at my questions.

Ev2geny (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I was planning to come round to your article. You have resubmitted it so it will be reviewed by someone (probably not me).

It will probably take a while for the article to be reviewed, but we can improve it while it is in the process. I think more reliable independent sources are needed see WP:RS. Also the list of specifications, seems somewhat advertising and has no sources at all. Also the websites of the company and connected companies isn't a reliable source. Do you think you can find any third party reliable ones like a magazine or newspaper, it doesn't have to be online... offline books, newspaper, magazines work fine too. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 13:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I will look at this, but before I have the following question: I noticed, that you have modified Wiki markup text in the references section by removing all line breaks, so it is very difficult now to go through them. Originally I thought this was a kind of a mistake, so I restored the original list, but I now see that you have done the same modification again. What is the reason you are doing this?

Ev2geny (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the AfC Helper script to clean up the article. Normally that's how it is. You can revert if you want. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a link to the AfC Helper script, you used? I will play around with it in my sandbox (I strongly suspect it is doing something strange with named references).

Ev2geny (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sintaku, I think you missed my above message. Can you look at it please?

Ev2geny (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of specifications for now. They have been taken directly from the company web site and, even thought I have no doubts that they are correct, one can probably consider them somewhat advertising.

Regarding Reliable Independent Sources. Whilst there are some references to company web sites, there are also references to the sources, which I though can be treated as reliable and independent.

In relation to features and functionality

* Steve Cotterell. Spider Project Professional. Project Manager Today.JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

* {{Cite book | isbn = 9781300044444 | title = Spider Project 4th Edition | trans-title = | last1 = Possi | first1 = Marcus | authorlink1 = | coauthors = | editor1-last = | editor1-first= | editor1-link = | year = 2012 | origyear = | publisher = Lulu | location = | url =

Re: How did you get AFCBuddy to work?[edit]

Hey! And yes I am adding manually (some) my reviews, so that I can see that all my entries are counted throughout the contest. And also I am little worried if the AFCBuddy did not count some of it. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hill Plantation Warren County.[edit]

Hello, Sintaku. You have new messages at Jdricha3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

74.66.80.223 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC) March 6, 2014[reply]

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sinan_Aral[edit]

Hi Sintaku,

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate and edit this submission. I have having some trouble understanding your comments about the references and want to do my best to get it right. When establishing that someone holds a particular position or serves in a given role, it seems from looking at other wikipedia entries that websites that profile that person's employment or role, or alternatively reputable newspaper articles that refer to that person in that role are routinely used to reference and establish the validity of a particular claim. For example, in this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Duflo) the first several references establish her employment or roles and responsibilities at particular organizations (e.g. refs 1-6). I originally attempted to establish evidence for these types of roles for this submission by making such references. But, your comments indicated that "I didn't go through all of them but the majority seemed to be from places he has worked at, youtube or his own publications. These are not reliable and independent," So, I attempted to replace these types of references (which seem legitimately used in other published articles) with references to independent sources (e.g. The Washington Post) that refer to the subject of the article as 'professor at MIT' or 'chief scientist at Humin.com' etc. So, given what was published in other Wikipedia articles at legitimate references and what I tried in response to your comment, how precisely am I to legitimately establish things like where this person works and/or what roles they serve in?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Wikicontributor74 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have a look at WP:RS and WP:PROF. The article you are linking to Esther_Duflo is only a stub class article, basing your article on another article (especially one is at the bottom of the classification scale) is not ideal. If you want to see what a Good Article should look like see WP:GA. Also he shouldn't just be mentioned in passing, the sources should talk about him. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sintaku,

I appreciate the advice and thank you for your help. I reviewed all the links you provided and though I understand some of your issues with the references I have used in this article, I am still unclear about others. For example, when referencing research, the guidelines indicate that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." However, the guidelines also indicate that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." And, that "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." The scholarly articles that I used as references are published in reputable journals and have hundreds of citations. Are these considered reliable?

Also, I am unclear how to establish, through reliable references, the employment and roles of this person... I thought it would be legitimate to reference the institutions websites (e.g. MIT, where this person is listed as a professor). Is this not the case? If not, how should I establish the employment and roles?

I think this person is clearly notable. The guidelines there indicate that, for example, for academics, " The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." This person holds a named chair at MIT. Also, these guidelines indicate that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And, that "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." He seems to have done both of those things based on the awards listed on his MIT bio and CV and the citations to his work listed in the Web of Science and Google Scholar. How can I establish these through references?

Thanks again.

Wikicontributor74 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome Everyone!

Hello, Sintaku/Archives/2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Rudisill[edit]

Hello there. Kristen Rudisill certainly sounds like an interesting and ambitious person. But for Wiki, she must quality for notability as a professor. And that means (as it happens, I'm married to an academic) she must have tenure. Try again once she has cleared that hurdle? All best to you. Gecko990 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of her notability, with or without. But perhaps you can get another editor to say yes. Gecko990 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willam Mandeville Austin[edit]

Please let us know which copyright you have found Pierre_Francois PUECH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.56.242 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a copyright violation, based on the first source used. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 13:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowling Green State University Department of Popular Culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masters (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) 09:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Smillie[edit]

Hi, i deleted some stuff that was posted about mason smillie would be greatfull if you could help me delete all the deleted articles pages about him. im just an intern from his management and have no idea how this works. thanks in advance sara hayes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.83.236 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link me to the relevant pages? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mason_Smillie ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is a profile on mason smillie from mtv http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/5318-video-interview-shanika-warren-markland-anna-nightingale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.83.236 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, what exactly do you want me to help you with? You can't deleted discussions about Articles for Deletion. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to delete those articles as I cant do that is it possible to create a page for him now? as ive been asked to do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.83.236 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article_Wizard. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo i didn't mean to post that[edit]

Yo i was tricking my friend and didn't mean to put that on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.241.107 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB ON-LINE[edit]

"The online version has an advanced search facility, allowing a search for people by area of interest, religion and "Places, Dates, Life Events". This accesses an electronic index that cannot be directly viewed. Unfortunately a recent analytical examination of selected ODNB articles has revealed them to be both inaccurate and incomplete, particularly the older biographies; this issue will have to be addressed by new Editor Sir David Cannadine who takes over the editorship from October 2014."

CAN YOU PLEASE CREATE AN ARTICLE ON "SIR DAVID CANNADINE" AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO HELP O.D.N.B.? 2.30.190.118 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you use Wikipedia:Article_Wizard and try it yourself. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War movies[edit]

Thanks for the correction (even though I admit I have not understood which was), I am not a Wikipedia user so I may have done some mistakes. I guess that the page requires a bit of review, because it states that it should comprise only movies about WW2, while movies about Holocaust should be in another page, but instead there are plenty of movies about the Holocaust that are included in the WW2 movies page, and even a few movies about Nazism before WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.224.127 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Sintaku -

I apologize for having made amendments to the page in question.

I will refrain from conducting to these petty acts of wiki-vandalism in the future.

- This IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.138.47 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert disruption[edit]

Hi could you explain to me why you did this revert and how on earth this could be disrupive. I was wondering because I saw this warning which to me seems hard to understand (seems wrong). QED237 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, was accidental. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 15:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWB edits[edit]

Why are you making so many changes with AWB without even trying to fix those? Tito☸Dutta 17:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up and fixing typos. I'm confused, what am I supposed to be fixing? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think I understand what you're saying. You mean like what is mentioned here User:Tito_Dutta/AWB_or_bot_spammer? I'm not making 1000s of edits per second/minute/hour (that would be impossible). Well I'm tagging it so other people can fix it. I am working while I am running AWB, so I keep switching tabs when it blinks so I can see what suggested edits it recommends. I don't think it is against the rules, but if it is annoying you I can stop tagging. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) No, I am not talking about that essay. That essay needs to be renamed. Calling "spammer" was a bit excessive. But, frankly speaking, you just tagged many articles of this initiative Wikipedia:Meetup/International Women's Day, India (2014) — it was a bit disappointing (not policy-related). The editors are facing very difficult time. Tags like "Uncategorized", "Underlinked" are easily fixable. Orphan tag can not be solved in most of those articles, as there is no link in Wikipedia so far (per this tool). Tito☸Dutta 18:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to target that particular thing. I was targeting something completely different with 1000 articles (of which only 80 were actually tagged), the rest skipped. I'm sorry if I made things harder, I had no idea I had. How can I help make things easier? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa20?diff=599786948[edit]

Hi, first and foremost sorry for the lousy request-for-help-disguised-as-addition, you were right reverting it. The point is that "perform even better", while technically true, is imho subtly misleading, for the following reason. The original cipher, salsa20/20, works generating 64 bytes at a time like this:

   repeat 20 times:
       loop_body # mixes the bits as explained in the paper; details not important

salsa20/12 is a modification that works this way:

   repeat 12 times:
       loop_body # identical operations as salsa20, only repeated 12 times instead of 20

salsa20/8 does the same thing 8 times, the idea being that more rounds give the cipher a better security margin at the cost of reduced speed.

That's why "perform even better" sounds weird to me - OF COURSE they "performs better", doing anything 12 times will always be faster than doing it 20 times by definition!

I tried to explain that, came up with an overly long explanation - bad; tried to search for a general explanation of what it means to reduce the number of rounds, couldn't find it - gave up.

I'd be very thankful if you could find a way to express the above in a clear and not overly long manner.

PS re the "quantify": the link I added in the 1st edit gave the results of benchmarking salsa20/12/8 on various platforms; the reason I added a link rather than a number is that, well, on first approximation it depends by the number of rounds, so eg salsa20/8 should be 8/20 = 2.5 times faster; in practice different machines give different results, sometimes due to having a hand-optimized assembly implementation.

Sorry for the long message :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.133.154 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if you wanted to add notes about the page you should use the talk page of that article rather than in the article text itself.

I think the best thing would be for you to express it in your own words in the article, and someone will come around and probably refine it and reword it, etc... That's how Wikipedia works, it is a combined effort. Maybe you would like to make an account, and join us with editing? I'd be happy to assist you in any questions you have. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eXosip and article for creation[edit]

Link to submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/eXosip

Exact reason I declined: "References are to downloading the software. Looks like a website page for the actual software itself"

What, if anything, you've done to better the submission: My initial article was rejected because there wasn't enough reliable sources. I have added 6 references from thesis document (Usage in academic research) and 5 Citations from Books to proove notability and reliablity.

When I declined it: Submission declined on 10 February 2014

It looks strange to me if I had to remove the download link for latest version. Should I?

Other reference are not for downloading "the" software but references to other software: does this really makes it a website for eXosip?

I would be glad if you can advise me minimal changes to get the article approved. For example, should I list those third party software without any "link/reference"?

Aymoizard (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all primary and affiliated sources unless they expand on what reliable independent (WP:RS sources tell you. Keep things in prose if possible, try and put everything into one section for now called History. Show when and how each software used eXosip, if you mention a major release then what was it major about? Keep things WP:NPOV. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have followed your advises and made the description more WP:NPOV. I submitted again for creation. Tks.

Aymoizard (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing typos on Dr. M. Mohan Babu[edit]

Hey Sintaku, Thanks a lot for fixing those typos :)

Salsa20(2)[edit]

In the end I made an account - just thought I'd let you know :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useurandom (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bowling Green State University Department of Popular Culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowling Green

Fundrise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to OnLive's Wikipedia page[edit]

Hello,

I made some edits to OnLive's Wikipedia page recently. That article is pretty old with some out of date or incorrect information. I am admittedly new to editing Wikipedia pages, so I'm not sure about how it works even after reading some of the how-to articles suggested. And, full disclosure, I work for OnLive, and I'm aware of how important it is to keep our page factual, and not use it as a PR vehicle. I looked at the Wikipedia pages for some other companies in similar fields as OnLive to get some references on tone and style, and tried to follow their example. What can I do to make edits to the page that are acceptable and won't get reverted? I'd like be be a constructive contributor.

Thanks,

Robin

ps. I just signed up for an account under username bonfirenation. Hopefully that will help with my efforts?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.144.253 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there bonfirenation, what have you noticed got reverted? Using an account can help, and describe major edits in the summary box so people can understand what you have done. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 11:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sintaku, I'm referring to this note on the OnLive article's history page:

(cur | prev) 23:13, 15 March 2014‎ Sintaku (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (39,415 bytes) (+3,164)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 192.195.82.76 (talk) to last revision by 50.185.207.242 (HG)) (undo | thank)

I updated the opening paragraphs of the OnLive article, and you left a note that you reverted the changes because you didn't find them constructive. Sorry if I'm not replying in the right format. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and am not sure the best way to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonfirenation (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the note you left along with your change:

Hello, I'm Sintaku. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to OnLive, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~~ Sintaku Talk 23:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Bonfirenation (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)bonfirenation[reply]