Jump to content

User talk:Waggie/Archives/2018/October

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

Talkback

Hello, Waggie. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 08:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBGconverse 08:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion Dinaman

Hi Waggie, thanks for your contribution, I saw your message here I can understand your surprise on comments of this editor but please understand that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and AfD templates are not an alternative to maintenance templates. Misuse of valuable AfD resources may lead to some other articles un-attended and deleted for lack of participation, hope you understand, cheers and regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello DBigXray, thank you for your message. Frankly, and I don't wish to be rude, but I want to point out that your comment comes across as somewhat condescending. I'm not new, and am well aware that an AfD tag isn't the same as a maintenance tag. Respectfully, I disagree with your decision to SNOW close the Dinamani AfD discussion, I think that more valuable discussion would have, and should have, occurred. Perhaps you should re-read WP:SNOW, particularly the section titled "A cautionary note"? It's also worth noting that the only source in this article still appears to fail the policy set forth it WP:V as the source in the article doesn't appear to mention Dinamani at all, but perhaps I'm missing something. It's also worth noting that WBG apologized for their comment, and offered useful sourcing, which would have come into the AfD (a more useful location than WBG's rather long talk page). As I mentioned there, I will try later to incorporate them into the article. Thank you, and best wishes. Waggie (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ekenbabu

you wrote...The main body of content in this is entirely unsourced, and doesn't appear as though any proper sourcing will be found. Yes, you are right, Unfortunately, the main source are in Bengali Script. Here are two newspaper articles, where the fictional character of Ekenbabu was discussed thoroughly with links... [1]

[2]

Not sure if this is good enough, but the content is not entirly unsourced. Perhaps I should have included these Bengali references in my article. Thank you Deshebideshe (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Deshebideshe

  1. ^ From ebela newspaper from Anandabazar group. Ebela is the second Bengali daily published by ABP Group after Ananda Bazar Patrika. https://ebela.in/entertainment/a-new-detective-character-ekenbabu-is-filmed-for-a-new-web-series-dgtl-1.774035
  2. ^ Bhorer Kagoj (Bengali: দৈনিক ভোরের কাগজ Bhorer Kagoj "Dawn's Paper") is a major Bengali-language daily newspaper, published from Dhaka, Bangladesh. (from Wikipedia) http://www.bhorerkagoj.com/2018/05/06/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%8B%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D/

Gilbert E. Metcalf

I'd welcome your thoughts on how to make this piece less "promotional" as it follows the style of many bios that are posted on Wikipedia. Was there particular content you objected to? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmetcalf19 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gmetcalf19. Firstly, please understand that I will be blunt and direct. Please don't take this the wrong way, I just am short on time and want to reply quickly. There's a great number of issues here. We strongly discourage autobiographies because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about yourself or someone you're connected to. That's why it's difficult to see the promotional nature of the draft you wrote. Next, you cite far too many of your own works, which are primary sources and aren't considered reliable. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what independent and journalistic sources say about a topic. Too many statements about how you've published so many of this, written so many of that, etc. Promotional statements like that should be sourced to an independent and journalistic source, not a link to the list of publications or CV. Also, we do not allow external links in the body of the text, except in very rare circumstances. There are other issues, too, but those are the biggies. You should probably read WP:TONE. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmetcalf19 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Deferment rate

Hi. Reverting to original account as apparently the Eumaeus username was 'promotional'. Sorry, I honestly didn't realise that. Regarding Deferment rate this is an absolutely standard concept in financial mathematics, and I am surprised the article didn't already exist in this very large encyclopedia. Also, the draft did not reference any promotional website, only the Law Commission and Prudential Regulation Authority consultation papers. There are many others. Would appreciate if we could get the article into mainspace as soon as possible. Thanks. IFRS17 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

PS you just commented 'needs better sourcing and encyclopedic writing'. (1) Sourcing is from the most recent document available from the Law Commission (as well as PRA). On 'encyclopedic writing', I paraphrased the definitions given by both authorities as accurately as possible while avoiding plagiarism. So don't quite see the problem. IFRS17 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi IFRS17, I left some notes on your user talk page regarding the alternate account and such. The problem with Deferment rate is that two of the sources are to your own website, which is a no-no (for several reasons) and that we need independent and journalistic sourcing that is comprehensive and can be summarized. Are there financial journals that discuss this? And PLEASE stop making copies of your draft into mainspace, it loses the page edit history (which is very important on Wikipedia) and causes more work for administrators to have to clean up. I saw the discussion on the AfC helpdesk (though I had to go hunting for it), and it does not address the issues I presented. I'll leave it in mainspace for now to give you a little time to come up with better sourcing, but I may nominate it for deletion later. I moved it back to draftspace for a reason. Waggie (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could you clarify "two of the sources are to your own website". What are the sources, and what is the evidence for it being 'my own website'? Thanks IFRS17 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
To be specific, I do not work for the PRA, nor the Law Commission, nor Cluttons. I am not, and never have been, a member of the property valuation profession! IFRS17 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I have added a third reference for the definition. I can't find 'journalistic' sources, given it is a fairly technical subject. Do you require journalistic sources for maths or science articles? IFRS17 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Woman Who Walked in Sunshine

Hi

You have recently rejected a draft article for "The Woman who Walked in Sunshine" citing that "The main body of the content is completely unsourced". I understand that by the "main body of content" you are referring to the sections - Plot Summary and Characters. I went through the other existing articles in the series - The Ladies' No. 1 Detective Agency. Some of the links are given below: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No._1_Ladies%27_Detective_Agency 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No._1_Ladies%27_Detective_Agency_(novel) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_the_Giraffe 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_for_Beautiful_Girls I found that the Plot Summary and the Characters list in unsourced in all these approved existing articles. Also, this is the right thing to do. Otherwise, the only option left is to cope or paraphrase the summary from another source, which is not allowed. Please check and let me know if there is something that I may have missed. --RijuBansal (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello RijuBansal. I refer you to this essay, which is useful in this case. Also please read MOS:PLOT. And no, full inline sourcing isn't required for a plot or synopsis. However, the only sourced content is the one sentence summaries of the reviews at the end, which isn't sufficient. The article should be balanced through-out with sourcing. Also, I'm sorry, but pointing out that there are other problematic articles on Wikipedia isn't useful. There are lots of problematic articles on Wikipedia. Also, are you affiliated with or being paid by McCall or his publisher? If so, the Terms of Use require that you disclose this. Best wishes and thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for the response and the reference article. I have made some changes to the article and added more referencing. Please let me know if this works. I am not affiliated with or being paid by McCall or his publisher. I have been reading the series- The Ladies' No 1 Detective Agency - and found that it has not been updated on Wikipedia. Hence I have taken this up. RijuBansal (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Waggie/Archives/2018, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waggie/Archives/2018/October&oldid=875527371"