User talk:Onel5969/Archive 4
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onel5969. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Archive 4: March 2014
March 2014
Barrias
Hi
I have completed another listing of the work of a French sculptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_of_Louis-Ernest_Barrias I have made every effort to cut down on unnecessary text. Hope you can see difference. Thanks again for guidance. Weglinde (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Weglinde: Hi. I cleaned up the lead section (added some page links, mostly). And reformatted the first table to conform with the other lists you'd created. Was there a particular reason you went down to the 3 columns? Also, rather than break it into individual lists, you could put a "key" in like the other list pages.Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I just preferred 3 columns as the image larger. I will consider "key" as you suggest but will only use a "key" when there are at least three individual lists. Thanks for clean-up etc. I am most grateful and hopefully my learning curve will gain momentum as I have an excellent teacher.Weglinde (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Had another look at article after your efforts and think on reflexion that four columns better. Weglinde (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Precision in climate editing
In your mostly commendable revamp of Phoenix, Arizona#Climate, "Over the last 30 years, the temperature reached or exceeded 100 °F (38 °C), over 107 days each year" implies there was no variation whatsoever in that statistic from year-to-year, which is obviously false. That is the 1981–2010 average, instead. As a statistician in training and frequent editor on climate stats, you can count on me to cover your back in Climate sections, but let's hope I don't have to do so every time. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
| The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
| For finally implementing guidelines from Wikiproject Cities that reached consensus years ago!! Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC) |
New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Message added 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just click on my name in the blue box and it will take you straight there! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
FAC for Phoenix
Onel, I feel somewhat responsible for Phoenix not being ready for FAC. Given that I was the main participant in peer review perhaps I should have made more clear what I was not doing. I didn't check the refs at all. I just went over the prose. This issue of paraphrasing is new to me and I didn't even look for it.
Anyway, my advice is: don't give up. Don't even look at the article for a week or two to catch your breath and then come back to it and systematically go through the refs to address the concerns raised. I'll help! I've got nothing else going on right now except waiting for a couple of articles to pass GAN. Congrats on the work done thus far. Dontreadalone (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Dontreadalone: Thanks. But the fault is all my own. Like you, I was unaware of the paraphrasing issue. In fact, when I started on Wiki 2 months ago, I got involved with GOCE, and in doing copy editing, I also tried to improve articles. While doing that, I saw quite a few articles where not only were certain segments simply cut and pasted from other sources, the entire Wikipedia article was cut and pasted. So I didn't think there was anything wrong with that. In fact, in my early edits for Phoenix, I might have done exactly that.
- I don't mind criticism, in fact I welcome it. As long as its constructive. I don't intend to give up working on Wikipedia, but in my experience, the "editors" who participate in FAC do so not to improve articles, but to feed their own heads. Since I learned about the paraphrasing, I was systematically going through the article and making corrections. It's tedious, because the article is so well sourced. I was up to the Climate section when the article FAC was archived. I'll finish it, simply because its the right thing to do. I'd also made my first pass through the photos, and corrected all but 2: the flag and the montage in the infobox. The only reason I haven't corrected them is I haven't figured out how yet. If I knew how to make a montage/collage myself, (which I'll learn on photoshop), I'll use only commons images and make sure they're all sourced properly. The flag issue I don't know how to fix.
- I had one editor give me some very helpful suggestions (they are up above on my talk page). After I get through the paraphrasing and the photo thing, I have to work on improving the prose of a couple of sections, particularly the Sports (which is almost all my own work at this point, and he's right, it does not read well - I cut the length down by about 2/3, and now have to improve the actual writing style).
- Again, you were very supportive, and your effort during the peer review was invaluable. Thanks.Onel5969 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just want to make sure you don't feel unfairly targeted. Some wikiprojects (like mine, WP:MILHIST) can manage to maintain a collegial atmosphere. That will never be true for FAC as a whole ... it can't be, because FAC only works if it's open to everyone, and not all productive Wikipedians are collegial. Worse, FAC can't work unless nominators are also willing to review, and not all nominators make good reviewers. Still ... these days, we make things work more often than not at FAC, and I hope you'll be comfortable returning some day. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you were very supportive, and your effort during the peer review was invaluable. Thanks.Onel5969 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"
Thank you for your interest in reviewing the article. I am pleasantly surprised at how quickly it was picked up. I am in the middle of attempting to broaden the coverage in the production section. If you would be so kind as to give me at least 24 more hours to complete that or have some patience and added suggestions for such broadening during the review I would so appreciate it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: - I'm a big fan of the flick. Take your time, I'll look back in a day or so, or you can leave me a message if I don't get to it in a couple of days.Onel5969 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- This was my very first major contribution to Wikipedia ( and still the largest collection of my edits it appears) and was able to raise it to GA once before. Many things came to light about sources and claims that clearly showed (with a more focused look) that the article was not ready at that time and was demoted for good reason. Since that time I have become much more familiar with our sourcing guidelines and other policies. I have not taken much time on it over the last few years but felt it was ready to begin a more serious round of editing. Thanks again for taking this on.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller:I'll take a look tomorrow. In the meantime, I uploaded some pics which are CC 3.0, which you can use if you'd like:
- Your ping got buried and I didn't see it until just now. I have had a few issues come up and I may not get back to the article until much later tonight or tomorrow. I had uploaded images before for the article by the way, and I requested it be deleted as the author of the non-free image which I had a full NFCC rationale for, but the image was then used elsewhere in places that were so numerous that I could not ignore that the copyright was being violated from our image. This is probably something that happens often but I felt really bad about it. I have been thinking about adding at least two non free images again, but will wait until I can find a good one that represents the film well but may not be something that would be useful elsewhere. I also have many images of costumed fans but I have been hesitant to upload them. I will reconsider what would be an improvement to the article and perhaps use one or two I have of the theatre I used to go to. These images are all from 1978 and are not of any current theatre and would not be promotional in anyway.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually...I just remembered a series of photos I took in 79 in San Francisco of the same group that appears in the Bill Henkin book and some of these images are pretty good...even though I was like 17 when I took them. But I still keep in touch with most of the subjects and don't think they would mind at all, although I own the rights to the images and there are no other concerns that I can think of. I did meet Richard O'Brien once but sadly no one thought to take pictures. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your ping got buried and I didn't see it until just now. I have had a few issues come up and I may not get back to the article until much later tonight or tomorrow. I had uploaded images before for the article by the way, and I requested it be deleted as the author of the non-free image which I had a full NFCC rationale for, but the image was then used elsewhere in places that were so numerous that I could not ignore that the copyright was being violated from our image. This is probably something that happens often but I felt really bad about it. I have been thinking about adding at least two non free images again, but will wait until I can find a good one that represents the film well but may not be something that would be useful elsewhere. I also have many images of costumed fans but I have been hesitant to upload them. I will reconsider what would be an improvement to the article and perhaps use one or two I have of the theatre I used to go to. These images are all from 1978 and are not of any current theatre and would not be promotional in anyway.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller:I'll take a look tomorrow. In the meantime, I uploaded some pics which are CC 3.0, which you can use if you'd like:
- This was my very first major contribution to Wikipedia ( and still the largest collection of my edits it appears) and was able to raise it to GA once before. Many things came to light about sources and claims that clearly showed (with a more focused look) that the article was not ready at that time and was demoted for good reason. Since that time I have become much more familiar with our sourcing guidelines and other policies. I have not taken much time on it over the last few years but felt it was ready to begin a more serious round of editing. Thanks again for taking this on.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
RE:70th Academy Awards
Hi there,
I read your comments regarding the 70th Academy Awards for featured list promotion, and I have fixed the problems you have suggested with annotations listed in the FAC nomination page. Thank you for the help.
In my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Hameeduddin I requested the nominator to try to comply more closely with the advice in WP:BEFORE. In case you don't return to discussions after you nominate them, I am repeating that request here.
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan:... thanks for that... I did. He does not meet ANY of the 4 criteria as per WP:POLITICIAN. I actually should have nominated him for speedy deletion.Onel5969 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I explicitly recognized Hameeduddin didn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say local politicians can't be considered notable -- only that that notability has to measure up to the criteria of WP:GNG. World-wide coverage of Hameeduddin -- which I think you would have found if you had complied with the advice of BEFORE, establishes that Hameeduddin meets the criteria of GNG.
- I urge you to comply with the advice of WP:BEFORE, even when you think an article qualifies for speedy deletion.
- Please consider my gratitude to you for acknowledging my comment proportional to the extent to which your reply shows you paid attention to what I said. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan:... I understand your position, simply disagree with it. The mayor presides over a municipality in arguably one of the biggest media markets in the world. Of the 12 citations used in the article, 1 is simple bio info from the township's website, 2 are of the type that he is simply mentioned in passing, 6 are simply because of the accident of his ethnicity. Only 2 deal with any actual accomplishment of his (#9 and #12). I don't find any of them compelling to his notability. Being the "first" of something in a small town (and I know Teaneck intimately), is not, imho, of such notability as to be included. I see no "world-wide" coverage, or perhaps I missed it. A single citation from an Australian news source, and a very brief reference in an Indian publication are hardly "world-wide". (btw, if the article remains, might I suggest that you change the page # in the Australian piece? While it is on the 13th page of the abstract you link to, the page # in the article itself is something like 84 - just a suggestion, I honestly don't know what the wiki standard would be there). While I think this is borderline, as I said in my (unfortunately unsigned) comment, there have been other local politicians with more coverage, who have been deleted. Onel5969 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let's be clear, your comments about WP:POLITICIAN, above, clearly demonstrate you didn't bother to read my position, so your comment that you understand my position and "simply disagreed with it" was simply not credible.
- You use the phrase "the accident of his ethnicity". Well there's your problem.
- You are fully entited, in your private life, to consider his ethnicity and his religion as trivial details, unworthy of mention, beneath notice.
- But verifiable, reliable sources trump your personal opinion. When, while covering the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, reporters and scholars chose to quote him, interview him, and ask him to participate in debates on national TV, based on his ethnicity and his religion, they are showing they disagree with you. They are the RS, you are just a contributor, who has to set aside your personal opinion, and accept this coverage did establish notability. Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan:... Just to be clear, there's no reason to be nasty or get personal in a discussion. The fact that you do not understand something, doesn't qualify a statement as "not credible". I read your opinion, and disagreed with it.
- A person's ethnicity and religion, in and by themselves, for any human being are not trivial to that human being, but on the grand scale of things are inherently trivial, due to scale. Never said that it was not worthy of mention. Only said that when this is the only measure to rise this particular politician to notability, that scale, as per wiki guidelines, is not acceptable for notability. The fact that a person is quoted from a single event by multiple sources does not make them notable, again, per wiki guidelines. At best, that would rate a mention of him in an article relating to that topic, not a separate article. Regardless, due to your incivility, any further comments by you will be deleted and ignored. Sorry to have to do that, but nastiness is never warranted in discussions on Wikipedia, imho.Onel5969 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
unsigned
Could you please try to make sure you don't forget to sign your comments, particularly at the deletion fora? I am sure none of us would like the closing administrator to consider your views twice. Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Thought I had. Should have reviewed, however.Onel5969 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Chandler Photos
You know, after thinking it over I decided that you are right. Even though the photos that I added are of buildings which are considered historical by the Chandler historical society, some of them are not really so "historical". I therefore removed the not-so historical ones from he gallery. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Marine 69-71: Looks better. I'd lose the AZ Railroad museum shot... the locomotive should suffice (I'd also lose the crane shot), and if you want to include the McCormick building (I wouldn't), then one pic should suffice. I really like the top row. Part of the issue is that the Suhwaro, Monroe, and Hotel Chandler are all so similar, you might consider only keeping one of them (either the Suhwaro or Hotel Chandler - the cars in the Monroe shot lessen its quality). Anyway, that's my .02.Onel5969 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A pick-me-up!
I noticed this remark when reading what was new via my watchlist. Painful articles are just that, but as a great philosopher once said, "[Beer is] the cause of, and solution to all of life's problems!" Cheers! :) As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that... cheers!Onel5969 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Lord Cantabrigian British
The reference you reverted provides the source of "Lord Cantabrigian British". While "Lord British" is a well known name, "Lord Cantabrigian British" is not and rarely known. Please don't revert my edit again.
Wavingdragon (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Wavingdragon: You're right, sorry about that. When I simply looked at the "difference" between the edits, I failed to notice it was a reference. My apologies...Onel5969 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
picture
Hi. i want to know that how to upload a picture to any page.pls inform me on my talkpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABUBAKAR SIDDIKI MONDAL (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)