This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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.
I have been away for the weekend which led me to being less active with this matter as a could (and wanted) to be. I am currently busy reading trough what has already been said (Or technically, written) and once i did that, i will join the discussion
FYI, I am drafting an RfC at the above page. If you would like to add your own statement, or indicate your support for an existing statement, please feel free to do so now. I would also strongly recommend that we avoid replying to other statements, since we would be likely to repeat what was already said on the CSD talk page, and that we should try to keep the background/proposal/objections section as concise as possible; we should not begin to pack these sections, but we should leave that for our own statements. Once we have some more contributions here, I'll see about posting it to the relevant noticeboards. Thanks! --Ryan Delaneytalk21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This article page is new and is under xonsideration for editing. The topic internship in india is relevant in the context of current times. I have initiated program informations from organisations such as EduCARE India and InfoSys as they are renowned and repected in their relevant fields of volunteer sector and information technology. But nevertheless, being new, there are issues of editing, style, references, notability etc that I need to get more informed with. It is suggested / contested that for the time being the page not be deleted but may be kept under some watch. The pages will be edited through the coming few days. Ib40 (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A PROD template gives you a week before an administrator will even look if the page should be removed so don't worry about not having any time to improve them! However it came to my attention that you created 3 pages about virtually the same subject, and each of those three borders or crosses the policies has for new pages.
The first issue is that the pages cross the WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT guidelines - they focus on the product or service from a single company and due to the wording promote that product or service. Secondly, products and services from a company should be incorporated into the main article of that company par WP:PRODUCT unless they are notable in their own right. Third: The sources you added are self published sources and are therefore not reliable. See WP:RSExcirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You're more then welcome. If you need any specific editing assistance feel free to ask. Alternatively you can use the Helpdesk or the New Contributer helpdesk for questions. The advantage of the latter is that there are multiple wikipedian's helping people round the clock over there. The advantage of directly asking someone is that it is easier to ask multiple questions in rapid succesion. Either way, Good luck with the article's and happy editing! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
First of, the page is indeed not advertising. It is in that right one of the better company articles i have seen today. However the main problem with this page is not that it is advertising, but instead it does not signify why the company should be on wikipedia. that is, why it is notable enough to warrant an article.
While this might seen strange to you (I assume you know/work or own the company. In that case make sure to read WP:COI) don't forget that there are literally millions of companies; If we don't draw a line between what is encyclopedic and what is not we would have several millions of articles that would not fit into an encyclopedia. How this affects you? There is a guideline for includion of pages, specifially The notability guidelines (Or the More specific one for companies. In short these guidelines state that in order to be included a company must have received non trivial coverage in sufficiently large reliable third party sources. For example: Microsoft has been covered on many websites, newspapers and tech magazines. Smaller companies such as Primavera Systems received substantional coverage in a reliable third party market studies.
Also keep in mind that people who read about your company on Wikipedia likely never even heard of it. Just give the structure of the article some thought: There is a four line introduction as to what the company is, before setting off on company locations, services and transponder chip keys;. An encyclopedic article should be a description of the company, not a listing about products, services et all.
Last: Are transponder chip keys a product specific to your company? If not you might want to leave the description out to avoid changing the scope of the article. After all you also would not want to describe what a locksmith or a key is. Thats what the locksmith and key articles are for! :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Your db-spam was deleted from the article. There are other single campus Law fraternities in the Philippines that are apparently worthy enough, but this one isn't written in anything near encyclopedic format. I'll drop the guy a line and suggest that he use one of the other Filipino Fraternities as a guide.Naraht (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the speedy as it was the creator of the article that removed the speedy template from the article, and subsequently nudged him with a standard template to notify him that he should use the hangon template in case he wants to challenge removal.
As you suggested it may be a good idea to give the user an example of a quality page regarding law fraternities; If it is notable i would rather have an article about it then just plainly removing it. Yet in its current form it would require a complete rewrite to comply with the guidelines - which is why i replaced the speedy. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and happy editing to you! :), Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Spelling quirk
Hi, I wonder why you consistently spell the word, "through", as "trough". Is it confusion about that word, or some sort of stylization? LadyofShalott15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As a non native English speaker and writer i am to a certain extend dependent on spell checkers and re-reads to spell some words correctly. The issue with "Through" and "trough" is that they are both valid words. The spell checker does not catch them as errors, and i am not always able to intellectually link each meaning to the correct spelling of it. Hence, its a rather silly situation; Im bound to write complex words correctly, while messing up on common words due to those having variations only one letter off. Examples of this are the words "to" and "too", and also "thats" and "that's" :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. I wondered if perhaps you might be a non-native speaker of English. I actually first looked at your user page to see if there was information about that, but if it's there, I missed it. (That's not to imply it should or should not be there - just that it could be and I looked.) LadyofShalott16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That is quite possible - As a non registered account Wikipedia tracks edits based on IP number. Such an IP number is often cycled trough the users of a single provider. Similarity it is also possible that a provider has the same external IP for all its users. Seeing that the warning you responded to is 20 days old it is cery likely the IP you were using has been re-assigned from a different user who did vandalize wikipedia. As a final note: Don't worry about a warning if you didn't do anything. Alternatively you can create an account so you will not receive warnings that are meant for other users. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is removed now, but believe me - it was attack page. In short it was about ********** (Not exactly a great thing to read since i was eating a rice cracker) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but best to send such detail via Email. Its always a bit difficult to discuss attack pages on wiki without repeating attacks. ϢereSpielChequers12:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the A7 template from the above article, and deleted the final advertising warning from the user page in question. There is enough assertion of notability to at least warrant a PROD. - also, what was that final spam warning for? The article is FAR from falling in the advertising guidelines, and it was certainly not a level 4im at once. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Check your diffs! and Check your facts! That CoI warning was placed two minutes before you tagged it, and according to the logs the page was never removed before. Even so, that page did meet the A7 guideline - It does not indicate explicit notability but A7 has a lower treshold. Also again, that page spam? it complies to WP:NPOV quite nicely. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Descriptive wordings are removed in Royal Park Hotel
I have to say, thanks for making this bot. If it can (re)place speedies consistenly then this is sure to be a very handy additional for new page patrol. I hope you don't mind me asking but: Coul'd this bot be easily adapted to work the same way for PROD tags? PROD's may be removed by anyone, but keeping track of each PROD is quite annoying. Maybe its an idea to notify editors if a PROD they placed is removed by the person that made the page / is removed within 7 days? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message, I myself am very pleased with the way it's going too :). Your idea about notifying PRODers about their PROD(s) being removed is interesting, the code could be easily changed to make it work in the same way as it does at the moment (only warning the nominator rather then the creator), so it shouldn't be too hard to add. But as it's in trial at the moment for tagging G7 articles and replacing deleted speedy tags, I think I'll wait until that's finished. Also because I've had a few other ideas for more tasks, and because it'll take me a while to code those things, but after that I'll do another BRfA. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The first reference is changed by adding a Name=ExcirialTalkPage parameter to the ref tag. This is what is called a named reference; These are used to identify a reference later in the text. Note that if you cite a reference multiple times, the first reference should be named as in the first line above, subsequent references should be in the second line format.
The second reference is changed by entirely removing the link, and instead adding the Name=ExcirialTalkPage to the ref tag. The wikimedia software will then "understand" that you mean to quote the same reference that you earlier named ExcirialTalkPage. As long as the name is indenical, they will show up on the same line in the reference list. If you want more named references, you can just give them different names.
Hi Excirial. Thanks for that. I created Cliffe Castle Museum yesterday, complete with a few duplicated inline refs as above, so I'm going to have to work on that (none of the bots seems to have found that page yet). Meanwhile please could you kindly now remove the "citations needed" tag from the top of Ilkley Toy Museum as I have since added the requisite citations, ext links and image links. Sorry I threw the page to the lions before it was quite finished, as the owner of the toy museum wanted to see it. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"Throw the page to the lions before it was completed"? Eh, Would it shock you if i told you that was one of the best new pages i patrolled today? As for the refimprove template: I removed it, but any editor is allowed to remove maintenance templates from a page if he or she does not think they are warranted anymore. If you are not sure if something is allowed just use common sense and Be Bold! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thx Excirial - much appreciated. And I've just had my first go at tidying refs on Cliffe Castle Museum and it worked, hooray! So thanks for that too. I'm relieved to know I can remove maintenance templates (thought I'd get botted for vandalism) so thanks for that also. I'll go and finish doing the Cliffe refs now. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The only templates (That i actively know of) you can't remove are the CSD and AFD related templates, but believe me, you will be both warned on your talk page and on the article itsself not to remove them in bold text. As for the maintenance templates: Unless you suddenly start removing them in huge amounts from masses of pages it is perfectly ok to delete them - just think of those as a quick notice for editors who might want to improve the page. Either way, good luck with the other article :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Kingpin13. When i was here yesterday (And again today) i noticed that you have a fairly large amount of messages on your talk page. I also saw that you archived them trough moving your entire talk page as an archive page. Might it be an idea to set up automated archiving instead? There are several bots that can automatically split and archive messages on your talk page, which saves a lot of time, while it also gives a talk page a cleaner look:). Im using MiszaBot for this purpose myself - in case your interested you might want to read the howto on archiving trough the bot: User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. An example is present in the source of my talk page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your suggestion, but I really kind of prefer it the way it is. I make sure when I archive my talk page that none of the threads are still active, and while the bots attempt to do this, by judging from the time since the last post, I find this fallible, and don't mind the price of doing it myself for the reward of not having conversations disappearing into the hundreds of subpages that the bots create ;). Thanks anyway - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Equinox
Hi, you recently requested speedy deletion of the article Equinox (The band MK). The author of this article has placed a hangon tag on the page, and therefore I have started a deletion discussion on the article's talk page, if you would like to contribute. Thanks, Seivad (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh, Deletion discussions are not held on talk pages, but should take place on articles for Deletion; The Criteria's for speedy deletion procedure is completely seperate from AFD. If an admin denies the CSD (Or if you think that the CSD a7 was misplaced) feel free to create a new discussion at WP:AFD. There is, however, little merit in creating a deletion discussion at a talk page, since nearly no editor will know that there is such a discussion there in the first place. :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
TOV
I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Threats of violence and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. As someone who has interacted with law enforcement extensively on numerous threats including several against elected officials, this is something I take very seriously. I hope you do too. Most of the times I've run across them, they're from anonymous IPs which is very easy for law enforcement to deal with. In the case of registered users, a quick RFCU gets the IP and the law enforcement take it from there. In every occasion (including suicide threats), law enforcement was very grateful for the information, even if I had to spend 20 minutes explaining what a diff was and how they worked, etc.
I am aware that there are some here on WP that feel that editors should not react at all. I could not disagree with them more strongly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume that working as a vandalism patrol gave me some form of resistance - or perhaps ignorance, if you will - against these kind of messages. I do not disagree with seriously handling some of these messages, but i wonder if we would have any form of effectivity with these. While we can extract IP numbers for anonymous users (And trough checkuser for registered users, though that can take a few hours) it would still provide us with limited information. In fact we would only know a country and a provider, provided that we do not encounter a proxy. Seeing general laws on privacy it might take hours, if not days, before any connection to a suicidal user can be made - Also seeing and the average police mentality regarding this form of messages(At least around here) i doubt that they will even write such a thing down. Then again - even if we have 10.000 fake ones to prevent one valid one its worth the time. Thought i am interested in one thing: Is there a threshold on what to report? Personally i would take a digital version of a Suicide Letter much more serious as a line say "OMG OMG, I'm G0nna go Suuuuiic1de! BYEBYE Cyasss :D" Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a good question. That's why I look for good judgment - not just solid contribs in an admin candidate. FWIW, with IRC, we can usually get a CU done in a couple of minutes for TOVs. I think you have the right idea in general. I think you'd be surprised in the police responses. They typically take great pride in using their tech crimes units to roll a response to the address involved.
In the last case I was involved with, the police determined that the computer was in a public area in a shopping mall. The mall had just closed when the police arrived at the mall, and after the security guards let them in, they confiscated the computer. They quickly ran some forensics on it and quickly ID-ed the person by their facebook posts before and after the edit on wikipedia and rolled to the individual's home. The parents were extremely grateful and nobody died that night.
I am pretty intruiged that such threats are taken seriously on the other side of the ocean. At this side of the ocean the law enforcement isn't handling these issue's so well - There are enough case examples where people went to police stations physically to report such cases in person (Preventing hoax idea's), only to be told "Its the internet, what do you expect"? or "Oh come on.. Do you really believe that?"
But since you indicate that it IS taken seriously in some countries, i will keep an eye open for these kind of edits - I won't report the unbelievable ones such as my latter example, but if it seems serious (or if i do not know for sure) i will report them from now on. I'm already glad i don't see those often, seeing from your example that some are actually real. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Aah, glad to see you actually wanted to put those on - I wasn't really sure if you had a "Standard" design such as those three templates in mind :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I was more concerned for the COI of the author... but went through and did some major cleanup of the advert and added multiple reliable sources that show the fellow actually does have coverage that meets the WP:GNG. I then removed the prod, moved it to the proper namespace, and advised him on his talk page of concerns with COI. It still needs work, but as long as the author does not try to puff himself up, it is probably okay to let it stay and be further improved. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Micheal. The author was indeed a clear CoI, but i marked it for rescue anyway since a quick search revealed clear notability. I will keep an eye on the article\creator for a while to see if he makes any CoI edits to the article, or if he tries to promote himself in other articles. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing my main activity is tagging things for removal and improval (Along with vandalism patrol) it may be a good idea to spend some time improving articles myself instead of just tagging them - Normally im patrolling between other work but if i have a couple of hours i could just as well try to keep some things for a change. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Bannout Article
Hi. Thank you for your attention to the article on Mohammad Bannout I started today. Perhaps it should be said for your knowledge
that Bannout is an up and coming bodybuilder, who has taken part in a number of bodybuilding contests. He is also cousin to the famous bodybuilder Samir Bannout. That article could be useful for people interested in sports. I don't see any reason why ignorance should be treated as an argument when deciding to mark a new article as qualifying for speedy deletion. Waiting for you reply. Please, remove the tag. Thank you! Denghu (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
On wikipedia, the threadhold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. A quick search revealed no reliable sources that have been included in independant, third party sources. Family relations ships are explicitely no indication of notability. Seeing that you edited the article and gave an indication that he won several contests, there must be some press coverage of these. Do you have any sources? Perhaps news articles? Or maybe websites that comply with the guidelines in WP:RS? If you can add those then i see no reason whatsoever to remove the article.
As for the tag, I will act as if i proposed deletion on the article, which means i will re-check the article in a week to see if there is any need to remove it. Good luck improving the article though! I very much prefer keeping articles over removing them :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)07:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to say that but you are surprisingly assertive yet not informed well enough. No problems with verifiability. I don't know why you added the tag without even knowing where to check if that bodybuilder is well-known. To check that go to http://www.musclememory.com/show.php?a=Bannout,+Mohamad
Do you want any more sources? Google is at your fingertips, then. Please, don't be quick to add speedy deletion tags. Especially, if you don't have enough information on the subject.
As i am working as a new page patrol i only do global checks for references on an article. In fact, those check are more of a way to determine if i should tag the article for WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:Maintenance, then that they are meant to source articles (Though if i found any that are undeniably good, i always add them). The difference between the tags is that CSD is tagging for immediate removal (In case there is not even a claim to notability), PROD is tagging for removal after a week (in case there is a claim for notability, but a quick search cannot establish it) and maintenance is mainly for adding non removal tags that indicate what work still needs to be done.
In this case the article (The version i tagged) had no indication of notability. It merely indicated that he was a bodybuilder from lebanon, which is about the same as "A kid from highschool" (notability wise that is! :) ). When i searched for "Mohammad Ali Bannout" i got a mere two results - can you already see the flaw? I accidentally included the middle name and did a literal search, which excluded a lot of results. Normally i would have made a variation on the name but it suddenly occured that the article you were writing might be about Mohammed Ali. In the few seconds it took me to realise that was an american boxer, and not a libanese bodybuilder, i completely forgot i had another check to do. If i would have left out Ali i would probably have given it some maintenance tags and perhaps a prod to see if it was improved.
Still, i would recommend always using this format for starting articles: Person X is a Y notable for Z. Sometimes admins are really fast with their removals and i am pretty sure that more then a few would have removed the article for wither having no context (WP:A1) or for having no notability (WP:G7). Alternatively you can use a user subpage, which has the huge advantage that those are not patrolled, which means you can work on an article in peace and quite. Last you can add the {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} templates to a page. Not every patrol respects those, but i virtually never go any higher then a PROD on pages tagged with those - unless i am completely sure that a page should be removed; But this is only on extreme pages such as articles that have a title that states "DFJKLSDHFJKLH" and a content of "TESTTESTTEST".
And before i quite babbling: Good job on the article! It looks a great now, a few inline refs and its about perfect. Also, my apologies for the quick tag - know that it was entirely based upon a misunderstanding. Happy editing to you :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The above is my latest baby. It includes my first ever shot at doing navboxes. Please could you kindly have a glance at the page and its navboxes, and let me know any general errors? With each new page I try to use what I learned from the mistakes of the last - but the tidiers-up always find something . . . (Please inform me of any reply on my talkpage). Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to respond to this - i have been actively working on a new prototype for Coreva-Bot which caused my on wiki time to shrink to almost nothing. I have read the article now and i admit it looks as fine as the previous one - which is a good thing. I still see room for a few minor tweaks, and perhaps one semi-major issue with the page:
Minor
A) The first one is already changed: Due to the long list of references the references section takes up a lot of space on the screen. A minor tweak to switch this is to set a number of columns to display when using the reflist template. In this article i set it to display two columns, effectively cutting the space references use in two.
B) When referencing an article, keep in mind that references should mainly be used to prove statements in an article. For example, references 10, 11 and 12 contain pictures's of a wasps and wasps nest. While this does indeed prove the details on structure and honeycombs it should actually reference the fact that there is actually a wasp nest in the museum - details on structure et all should be included and references on the wasp article. In other words: Only bother with references for statements that have a direct relation with the subject, or that are crucial to the subject.
C) Try to evade Peacock words such as "interesting" and "popular", as they are subjective in stead of being neutral
D) Keep in mind that images must be relevant to the article. While i personally love images keep in mind that an overload of them is a bad thing. In a large part of the article the images are "Sparse" enough to allow for an easy read, but headers such as "Reception and shop" and "Pond area" contain almost more images then words in the section - not only does this hinder readability, it also fills up the screen and takes a lot of scrolling!
E) The article currently had a great load of details in it, perhaps a tad to much. About everything is covered in the article, from the reception to the exhibit trough the small museum shop. As yourself: Should that really be covered into an encyclopedia? Is it important to mention there as a shop, or does this provide to much non required details?
Major
A) There is just one issue that i would call major in this further very nicely made page. The page currently read like a brochure, rather then an encyclopedic article. After reading the article it feels like i have just made a tour trough the museum, rather then that i have read an encyclopedic article about it. This actually has two reasons: First this is caused trough "Minor, section E", as the level of detail is perhaps a bit to much. Second, lines such as "the children put their hands in the holes, feel the items, and guess what they are. The answers are at Reception." is not exactly information you would find in an average encyclopedia, which adds to the brochure idea.
Well, that was it for the review - i hope you deemed it useful. As i stated before, i am only reviewing your articles on such an incredible detailed basis because they are high quality articles. Normally i review much briefer but in those cases article's are rarely worth reviewing in great length as they lack the basis such as wikifying or proving notability. So don't take this extensive list of comments as a bad omen for the article quality - most are minor, and i am already glad i can review in such detail for a change, rather then explaining the same guideline over and over :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thx Excirial - much appreciated. Very busy today but will look at it and put it right in a day or two. I agree with all that you said - except for the pond pix - would be reluctant to dump them because they're good. I guess I'll just have to find more to say about the pond. --Storye book (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi ten, It seems that i didn't link the guidelines i quoted in the tag i placed - my mistake. The tag was actually placed for two reasons: The first one was that at the time i placed it, the article had no real content: It merely restated the title of the page. Due to this the article did not pass the notability guideline, as there was no indication why Karen Newman was a notable person - that is, why there should be an encyclopedic article about her. Subsequent edits have addressed this issue, so the removal tag was removed. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I switched the CSD template with a PROD template, which means that the article will be checked after 7 days to see if it should be kept, or removed. I hope that this is enough time for you, but in case it is not: You can always create a subpage for your account and develop the article there; The advantage of that method is that it will not be tagged for removal or improval. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Booya
Apologies for accidentally overwriting your submission at WP:DYK. Since it was an excellent article i was trying to nominate it as well, but due to a rather slow internet connection i didn't notice you were doing the same - hence i kept overwriting your suggestion because i thought i accidently posted it twice. Should be fixed now though :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
you moved my page on the right place. Thank you for that. I'm lost with english procedures (Soory, i'm french). Actually i entend to translate my own new page from WP.fr about the french mathematician François Viète.I hope it 'll be better than the present one. I think there are a lot of specialists on WP.en about these sujects but how can i speak with them ? Have you got a tea-room ? Jean de Parthenay (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome; The french wiki actually has a tea-room? Quite a nice idea actually; it sounds so much less formal then the average administration related page we have over here. As for the question itself: Here is a small crash course on the area's that relate to your question - i have no idea if there are similar area's on the french wiki (It varies troughout the wikies) so excuse me in case i seem to be overstating the obvious.
François Viète - First things first. This is the currect article on François Viète.
WP:WPM, WP:BIOG and WP:FR - Wikiproject mathematics, Wikiproject Biography's and Wikiproject france. These are three wikiprojects that directly relate to your article. Wikiprojects are nothing more then groups of editors who share an interest for a common subject. We actually have masses of these groups. They are probally your best bet for article specific questions.
WP:HD - The wikipedia help desk. For basic Wikipedia related questions this is probally the best place. If they can't help you, they can point you to the correct section.
WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV - The absolute basic guidelines for creating and editing articles. I assume they are really similar troughout the wikipedia's, but to prevent any misunderstanding they are there in case you need them.
Your more then welcome :). Also a tad of advice on the article: I added a reflist to show the references yyou added, and lowered the headers to level 2 headers - which is the standard size for headers. Also, try to avoid creating a mass of sections in an article - it makes reading the article more difficult. See if you can merge some sections. For example, merge some sections in a new section called "Carreer". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean about merging sections. The reflist heading is also incredible! Thanks!!! I will leave the merging aspect for tomorrow. This is really fun and I really appreciate the guidance! You're awesome! Tomorrow I will also figure out the picture insertion process. Have a great night! Maresborrego (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Excirial, just a quick note to say I've removed the db template you put on Busan Foreign School, I've edited it a little, and believe that it should now be fine, if you disagree please do feel free to talk to me about it, great work in the new page patrol, all the best SpitfireTally-ho!13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How could i ever disagree with such a change? It looks a-ok to me. The initial page lacked even the most basic context to indentify what "Busan Foreign School" the article referenced to so i could not make a stub out of it. But that problem is obviously solved now. Great work! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that my article "Blark" seemed like jibberish. But as it is an actual used word in chatrooms and specifically topics on Gamespot.com, I think it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. Due to an "attack" by peers of mine, the page was defaced. I would like to repost, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss123 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I always check a page's history before tagging it for removal, for exactly the reason you stated above. I don't think the article would have a lot of chance once reposted though. The word "Blark" is a Neologism that has only very limited spread and use (Its limited to Gamespot.com). Even though it might be widely used in a particular place it is considered not notable unless it revcives a somewhat more mainstream coverage. Words such as LOL are commonly used and therefor warrant an article, but less common words should generally be excluded. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of "YourZone"
Hi, i don't quite understand was nyou mean by notability. I am the creator of the service discused and therefore own the copyright and make the content myself, therefore there are no references except for the website added. Thanks, Matt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgessm (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi matt, As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia we require each of our article's to have a certain amount of "Importance" before we allow its inclusion. In other words: Each article should indicate why the subject is important enough to warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Last, since you state you are the owner of the website, keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with the subject. In other words: You are inherently biases towards a certain viewpoint (In this case, you have a positive bias towards your own site). Keep in mind that wikipedia strongly discourages this as we have a strict neutral point of view policy to which all article's must adhere. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. However i advice you to use an user Subpage to develop article's in. One of the main issues of editing article's in the article space is that they are constantly patrolled, which makes them prone to removal (As you have already noticed). Subpages allow much more lenience before article's are tagged, and in most cases only pure spam is removed from subpages. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ex, the created page we edited keeps getting del. and red. please use your admin powers to stop this and send 3RR warning or a blockade. Appreciated, :-) Cheers! Cyrus111 (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Im a Rollbacker, not an admin, which means i do not posess any ability to block any user. Based upon what i see i would say you have an edit conflict over multiple articles with User:Dbachmann. In order to resolve this i would suggest contacting him on his talk page and request his reasoning for redirecting/removing while also stating why you feel these articles should not be moved or redirected.
I would strongly advice against undoing edits multiple times as this would leads to violation of WP:3rr, which in turn could lead to a permanent block in case of multiple violations. In case the two of you can't solve this i would open a case at WP:DR, but this should be a "Last chance" solution. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I did do some reasoning with this editor but he ended up writing:
this fellow is just a troll. 3RR blocks are too kind on him, since they seem to be implying that he is a Wikipedian in good standing who just reverted once too often. He should just be smacked with a block for adding nonsense. --dab(𒁳)11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact is Irano-Afghan and Nordic Iranian etc is used by antrop. while the term Iranid is less prominent. I could not even find one sorce on the net reg. "Iranid", while Nor-Ir and Ir-Af sources is in plentysome.
There is absolutely no reason why wikipedia and its admins should not alow an article titled "Nordic-Iranian or Irano-Afghan" to be created the term is used by many scholars, scholars from harvard university for starters and American School of Classical Studies at Athens(1971). It seems there is bias and personal issues playing a role here by some editors, please contact "power admins" regarding this, also a prevention of this article would actually be strange and "unwikilike" thanx Cyrus111 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since i didn't join this case until, say, an hour ago i lack sufficient context to draw any fact based conclusion what the exact issue is and who, if anyone, is to blame. Since this is aparantly an edit conflict i would suggest giving a talk page question another try. Instead of writing "Stop deleting this article!" i would suggest writing a more plain question why he deemed it should remain redirected, along with your stance why this should not be so. Do not make any demands on what he should do, but simply ask for a "Why" first. If the responce is nothing more then a snapped back insult i would suggest opening a case at WP:WQA. In each and every case, avoid violating WP:3rr. Violating that policy is seen as edit warring and is frowned upon, especially when man is trying a dispute resolution. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
As for contacting wiki admins: The administrators noticeboard is located at WP:ANI. However, since this is a content dispute they will be unlikely be able to help you. The admin noticeboard should only be used in either blatant cases, or for reporting matters that truely need an administrators immediate attention. Since we have other area's to handle content disputes, these are generally referred to WP:DRExcirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, regarding this article there is vandalism being made by user Dab, he insist on rev. to the "Iranid" even thogh he can not site any sources, another user fonkmonk claims there are sources in deutch. I had a debate with him and we reached cons. on rev. the page you edited on as well. But user dab keeps rev it, I could not find any source in American english you can read our debate I suggested moving the "Iranid" to the deutch lang. section since claimed non shown sources are in that lang, however after citing pleanty and pleanty of sources in American and English page still keeps being deleted. Please contact admin to remove the "Iranid" to Deutch German section and keep the American terms where it belongs, in the American section where American sources can be added not claimed deutch ones where cit temp cant hence not even be cited best reagrds
Your prod got taken off by the author. I would AfD it but I don't have any time right now just thought you would want to know. Whispering08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Exciliar for all of your help! Definetely took your suggestions and page looks much better. But I'm still unsure about what 'moving' a page entails. I would now like to take the page to the 'live' stage. I don't think I'm there now with the article. The article is still displaying my username before the title of the article. Any help will be appreciated.
It seems the page moved a-ok. I can see it is located at Edward Paul Reyes now. I took the liberty to mark your userpage for removal since it currently redirects to that article - and i assume you would rather use it for a new page or some personal introduction. Which brings me to this: Any editor can create a user subpage that acts as another page on his or her account. The advantage of this is that you are not restricted to just two pages, while it also allows to give pages a more descriptive name. For example, i develop my pages in User:Excirial/Playground2. The User:Excirial/ denotes its one of my subpages, while Playgound2 is the actual name of the subpage. More details van be found at WP:SubpageExcirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oki: The first thing i should tell you is that my entire userpage is build modular, which means that it is devided into several pages which are transcluded to form a whole page. The advantage of this is that if i, for example, want to update my statistics i can simply go to a seperate page instead of having to search a large section of HTML to find them. My menu bar itsself is located at User:Excirial/Navigation. The rounded borders around it are seperate divs that are placed into the normal code. In order to transclude a page into another one simply use this code: {{:<PAGENAME>}} This will include the page referenced to as PAGENAME into any other page. For example, {{:User:Excirial/Navigation}} loads my navigation in all other pages. Simple, Fast, and it prevent a load of HTML code from getting in the way :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Little Mountain 5; I see you created the above article with the comment move hangon tag to top of page. Was the recreation an accident/edit conflict or do you disagree with the CSD template itself? Thanks in advance, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Compliments on both article's! Even though new page patrol is my daily job i never saw a page specific to a type of roof before - much less did i assume that someone could ever fit a page regarding that topic within the all the guidelines i can actively think of. And above all, i enjoyed both article's texts and image's. Many thanks for creating somthing so unusual, yet so interesting. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the star and for the kind words! And im likewise happy to see confirmation that my CSD tags are apparently not as overzealous as they once were :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)
Thanks for helping me!
Abce2|AccessDenied has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Thank you! If everyone keeps giving cookies to eachother we would probally all become bloated - and whats better then a kitten except a turtle and an ostrich? On a more serious note: If you plan to use the menu on your own page feel free to drop me a note in case you need assistance with customizing or using it :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
<td width="8%" align="center">{{click|image=Computer Icon (IconDesigns).png|link=User:Excirial|width=55px|height=55px}}</td> Copy this line and adapt it. This will create a new image that wacts like a link. If you want to you can alter the "image=" to use another image. "Link=" changes the page it will link to. And Width and Height change the (Of course) width and height of the image. When you adapted your line place it back into the navigation, after another link.
<td align="center" style="color:#FF9900">[[User:Excirial | '''Home''']]</td> This line is the text link. Works exactly the same as above, except that you will just need to adapt the piped link and the text.
Hi 7, I saw you tagged Kouma Blaise for speedy deletion trough A7. I reworked the article and added a (Very weak, i admit) reference to it. Feel free to retag it if you feel it should be removed, as his notability is questionable at best. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. Your willingness to work to save articles is impressive (seriously). Before I tagged it I did a search for [1] which had only 8 results, which sealed the deal in my mind. After you saved it I searched for the name the other way around and it has a few hundred [2]. I'll leave it alone for now... plenty of other editors out there to take a fresh look. But I agree with what you said said - questionable notability. Thanks again. 7talk | Δ |08:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We recently put up a page on Janos Boros, the Hungarian politician from Kolozsvar and ex-vice mayor. But this has been notified by some users on Wiki for deletion. If they had asked us to improve the text, we would have happily obliged. But they are attacking the very credentials of the personality saying that his profile does not comply with neither WP:POLITICIAN nor WP:GNG. They also propose deletion as they see this page as a means to aggrandise Janos Boros. We searched the wiki for other vice mayors from Romania, to see if ex-vice mayors of Roamnian city councils and ex-vice presidents of political parties deserve and have their pages. Many of them, both ex and present have wiki pages dedicated to them. If these Romanian vice mayors can have their pages on wiki, while they some of them have not even served terms in office half of what Mr. Boros did, why not a page for Janos Boros? We are in the process of re-writing the page, as we agree with the critics that the page was poorly written. But outright request for deletion will be a biased one and unfair to our effort. If you find time, your help would be most welcome and appreciated.
I saw the request article you created. Wikipedia is an encycplopedia, and therefor it does not allow each and every article. It seems that the page you mentioned was removed due to notability concern. First, due to your comment regarding other articles, i feel obliged to point you to WP:WAX. Since Wikipedia is a work in progress we might at any time have article's that are not conform to our policies. The actual existence of these article's, however, is not a reason why everything should stay.
Now a bit more on point: There are three core guidelines in Wikipedia regarding article content: The subject must be WP:N:Notable, and have received verifiable coverage in Reliable sources. Since you mention that "We are in the process" i assume you are directly related to the subject; If you are, WP:COI is also a must read article. Since i haven't seen your article i cannot judge myself if there was enough notability to allow it. Have you read WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG? If so, did your article pass these policies? And above all, did your article reflect this?
Last, i see you are concerned about the Wikipedia removal process, and mention "Unfair treatment" and page removal. Page removal is actually very common on Wikipedia. Basing myself purely on my own experience i would say that every day we remove around 2.000 pages, and receive around 4.000 to 5.000 new ones. Due to Wikipedia's popularity we receive many new pages: If we would not have basic quality guidelines we would have had around 16 million article's by now, and the majority would be non encyclopedic.
I saw that the userboxes on your userpage didn't line up nicely (And in fact, on Firefox and Chrome they were placed over the text), so i decided to alter the page a little bit. I added a wikitable around them, and now they stand in a straith line. Feel free to revert if you don't like it :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Excirial, in case you were wondering why I deleted this under G10, the original author expanded it to an attack page after you tagged it. ϢereSpielChequers15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
talk:HellinaBucket|talk]]) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I left the user a standard CoI warning and also left a note at WP:UAA since its a group name used as a username. I believe that handles it? Or is there something else that needs to be done? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. Now that i think of it: Are you using the "Special:Newpages" include to do new page patrol? In that case you might want to use a script such as the excellent ones josh made. At the very least they automatically update without page refreshes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact it is pretty simple. Every wikipedia has a special addition to his account which is called the Monobook. This monobook allows for javascript scripts to be loaded as you add them to this page. This page cannot be edited by anyone except the account owner. For example, you cannot edit User:Excirial/monobook.js, but you can edit User:HellinaBucket/monobook.js.
To add and use a script edit your monobook file and add the script to it. In the case of the new page patrol script you would add importScript('User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewUserPatrol.js'); to your monobook (You can see an example at my monobook). After doing that refresh the page while forcing it to reload the entire page, and not just the cache. In most browsers that is done trough CTRL + F5. After that the script will work, and if everything works well you should see a constantly updating list of new pages in the left side of the screen, right under the main navigation.
You did it just fine - the only problem is that i fluked it a little bit. The line should be importScript('User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js'); . I accidentely added the wrong line. See the difference? NewUserPatrol.js NewPagePatrol.js. I gave you the line that allowed new user patrol instead of new page patrol. With that change it should work a-ok. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you take another look at the casual harmony article? Looks like we have another edior with a conflict of interest. See talk page/ Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I think its not such a bad page. The references are not the best quality, but at the very least the page passes CSD criteria (it still needs a cleanup though). I left a message on the talk page to explain the issues with the article to the creator. He or she does not seem to have pure promotional intent, so i just hope the page is adapted. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I saw you posted comments on several AFD's regarding removal of pages par WP:N, so i thought i should explain them (Or at least my perception). Starting at the basics we have WP:GNG and the various specialisations of general guideline. In order to stay on wikipedia an article must make a claim why the subject is important; Any article that does not make an importance claim is most times Speedily deleted under criteria A7. So what is exactly notability? Simply said, a claim to importance. For example the butcher on the corner is not notable, as much as i am not notable, and as much as random amateur clubs are not notable.
Your comment seems to be based that the notability guideline would not be a reason to remove a page. Technically taken it is, as par the WP:FAILN subheader. Note that WP:V and WP:N are closely interconnected. If people state "Par WP:N" it most times means that the article did either not claim notability, or that a good faith search did not manage to establish it. When citing N people indicate that they followed all the steps in WP:FAILN and established that an article did not meet the GNG and should therefor be removed.
Arguing "Par WP:V" is most times used in case an article actually makes a good claim, bur proving this claim seems to be impossible. Stating that "Person XYZ won notable award Y and Z so many times" is an indication of notability. Unless it is clearly a hoax claim such as "He invented the dinosaurs in 1771", an article cannot be removed trough CSD since it claims notability. When man argues WP:V on these cases they mean that an article might be notable, but that this notability cannot be proved and should therefor be removed. (See "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth")
Thanks. One issue that pops out at me right away are the steps that the notability guideline itself spells out in WP:FAILN:
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[1] for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable :about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
From what I see, just by obbserving a couple of days worth of AfD discussions, is that many people (most?) who nominate articles for deletion skip all of the above steps (and basically any other possible remedy) and go straight to "delete the article!!1!1!1".
Using WP:NOTN as a reason to delete things seems to be de jure, and that is a real problem in my view. I don't really support keeping half (if not more) of the articles that I've spoken out on just today, but the reasons given to delete them are hardly convincing (so far). A couple of people have (graciously) taken the time to retort with solid alternative reasons, which is great!
Anyway, my "problem" (so to speak) is not at all with WP:NOTN itself. I can and do see it's utility, and the way that it's written is perfectly fine. It's the manner in which some people seem to be using it that is creating an issue, in my view.
Hi Erical,
I am non wikipedia specialist.I created my wiki id yesterday and wrote on the only topic I am familiar with.You have left a proposed deletion on my page for being incomplete. Now, I have completed by page. Can you please review the same and comment on it?
Thanks in Advance --Intelz bala (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Intelz, The page looks a-ok now; If this is really your first page let me tell you i'm truely impressed. The amount of suggestions i can give are quite limited, simply because there is very little i would change to the article style wise. Still, i can see two very minor issues:
First and foremost, be carefull using wording sucj as "Authentic, fun brand, which was fashionable as well". These words are Peacock terms, and should therefor be avoided. If these words are quoted from someone to establish a context in which the brand was establishes, you should put them between double quotes. Second, the page contains no internal links to other pages. Wikipedia operates trough internal linking of article's, rather then trough the search function. If there is any relevant term in the article, you should link it.
All in all these are very minor issues - the article itself is quite excellent, and in fact (much) better then the average article younger then a week. Keep up the good work! With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Avoiding Deletionism, a suggestion
Hello Excirial,
I wanted to offer an observation and a humble suggestion, if I could. Let's just look at this example, since it's timely and convenient: Taking a look at Pongo cricket and the ensuing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pongo cricket as an example, a mere 6 minutes elapsed between the creation of the page and your first posting a deletion notice in accordance with WP:PROD. I would suggest to you that such behavior could easily be seen as disruptive. Why is there apparently such a rush to judgment?
So, my suggestion is that during your "patrol" rather then going straight to deletion why not use the {{notability}} tag and come back to the page in, say, a month? it's not as though the world will stop if (most of) these pages continue to exist for a short period of time. Ω (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ohm,
I think i have a lot to respond to, seeing i managed to miss your response to my previous post. First of, have a look at the exact wording of WP:FAILN. "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:". Specifically notice the word "or" in that line, as its the core of the entire line. The rule can be read as "Search for sources yourself, OR ask someone else to do so in case you cannot do so". This is why my prod templates often contain wording that indicate that i did a good faith search and found nothing, therefor passing the requirements in the FAILN guideline. Using both methods is not required, nor advisable. In either case it is expected that a deleting admin does the same, therefor always giving a second opinion.
Regarding the "6 minute tag" issue, there is actually some merit to this, and it is partly required when patrolling new pages. Generally taken only one in perhaps a hunderd pages end up at AFD. The absolute majority of the new page removals go trough either PROD or CSD - with CSD being dominant over prod. A very fair share of these pages are libel, vandalism, copyvio's and so on, and those need to be removed as soon as they are created. Due to this pages are checked and tagged is a matter of several minutes, but i ask you, is this a problem? A prod specifically gives an editor 7 days to improve an article before the article is even considered for removal. Similarly prods always contain a message what should be improved in order to keep the article. If an editor improves the article he or she can remove the PROD at any time. Even if the editor removes the prod before the end of that date, the article should be given the courtesy of a week's respite before taking further action - And as you can already see, i fluked that part on Pongo cricket, due to missing the date when checking my contribution history.
One of the reasons to avoid long term notability tags is their absolute lack of traceability, and the general lack of improvement. It is quite annoying to navigate trough a weeks worth of edits to find a tag, let along having to scan a month. We already have the PROD template, which is the recommended deletion method in case a page does not qualify, or does not entirely qualify for CSD. As for being a deletionist, i would disagree that i am one at this time. In fact, i am probably (much) more of an inclusion then the average CSD patrol. Seeing your worries about rush judgement i would switching your area from AFD to CSD. AFD article's are generally checked by many eyes, and therefor receive a fair judgement. CSD article's on the other hand, are often tagged and removed in a way that stretches the extend of the guidelines quite a notch. I think that there is more room for improvement and inclusionism in the CSD area, then there is on AFD; Seeing that any CSD patrol such aas myself is inherently part deletionist, i think that should mean something :). Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I more or less agreed with your conclusions... which is why I've removed the other conversation from my own talk page. I wasn't ever really this interested in the subject anyway... I guess that it just bothers me... It's peoples work that is being deleted. There should be some place for it, especially considering that there's no size limit to Wikipedia. I don't know. Notability seems like such a week argument, especially considering some of the trivia and minute that I use Wikipedia for.
Seeing amboxes scattered all over the place bothers me too, though. Someone should redesign the basic presentation of them so that their generally less obtrusive. Oh well...
Some things will never be notable enough to include, but i indeed regret the removal of article's which clearly involve a lot of work - regardless of notability(Though i agree with removing them). That being said we always have Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for article's that will never meet our guidelines. :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
True. Regardless, I tend to attempt to merge/redirect articles that I come across while stub sorting rather then PROD'ing them. Anyway, to each their own...
Exactly the way it should be done. If there is content worth saving then it should be angled out and put into an excising page - or as you already sayd, the article could be made into a stub or redirect. Sadly CSD article's rarely allow for such measures. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! Can you stop giving me 3 edit conflicts in a row? :D. I guess we did show some Wikipedia efficiency though. (Though i hope we didn't scare away a possible good faith editor) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm.... I was just looking at their talk page and thinking "Oh dear...". Too late now though (I'll leave a slightly more personalised message in a sec), we'll have to see what happens. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Excirial. Please could you kindly take a brief glance at Parkwood Hills and let me know if I can safely remove the construction template yet, without risk of deletion? I recently re-created the page, which was previously deleted in 2007, apparently on the grounds of notability (I've informed the person who deleted it, and the Ottawa project page, but no reply).
I think I've dealt with the notability (see the page's summary section). Apart from that, my main concern has been to see that the page contains sufficient content which is specific to Parkwood Hills - not an easy task, considering I'm doing this as a favour for a Canadian friend, and know nothing about the place as I'm based in the UK. Thankfully, user:Battyoldbat has added a para or two which I could mine for google-search cross-references. The result is that most sections are now specific to the Parkwood Hills neighbourhood. The only remaining material that has been lifted straight from other Wiki pages are (1) the climate table (from Nepean, Ontario) and (2) a couple of the external links at the bottom of the page. I put together the navbox (bottom of page) myself - and I almost certainly put the neighbourhoods in all the wrong positions - but the actual list of surrounding neighbourhoods comes from the River Ward page.
It needs proper photos, so I've put an appeal for those on its discussion page. I think the above should indicate how the page stands at present. If I've forgotten something obvious - please kindly let me know.
I have friends in Ottawa who want to add to the page in the summer when they will have time to do it - but between now and then I have run out of internet research options, so leaving the construction tag up from now on would be pushing it a bit. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks excellent, to a degree that i cannot simply cite some rules to give any improvement advice. To do that i would probably have to dive into the subject and find any things that are not covered yet. In other words, i highly doubt that the article would ever be tagged for removal, let alone that any editor would vote to remove it. I made a few minor edits to it (Splitting the reflist, removing two redundant underscores in a link, and removing a stub category), but there is little else that would require change. Excellent article!.
Also, seeing you created not one, but a mass of excellent article's, and similary made some excellent improvements to excisting article's, o think its about time you received one of these baubles. Congractulations! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Woo! My first ever barnstar. Thank you - and thank you so much for your kind help with Parkwood Hills. That will take the pressure off my Ottawa friends who would definitely have contributed more if they had had time.
Just one point (on another subject, really) - you have mentioned splitting the reflist before, and I've noticed you've put a pipe and a 2 in it. I imagine it arranges the references in 2 columns, but I don't see it happening - possibly because I use Chrome browser. Which browsers does it work in? Most of my friends use Firefox now, as IE is too slow. (Not important - no need to reply if you're busy). Thanks again for your kind help.--Storye book (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The multi column reflist uses CSS3 - which is currently still a proposed standard - to split the reference list into multiple sections. Currently only Firefox and other Gecko based browsers support it. The webkit layout engine, which is used in Safari and Chrome currently has a bug which breaks the dual column reflist. IE simply never had any support for it in the first place. You might ask "Why bother using it, when only around 20% of the Internet users can see it anyway?". The answer is that using it does not cause any side effects if its not supported by a browser. Similarly, once CSS3 becomes a standard web browsers will gradually support the feature(s) we need to display two columns - and its much easier to simply place a number in advance, then to track each and every article which could use this feature once it seems worthwhile. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
^Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent :source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help :there.
