User talk:Kilopi/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2

An Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Kilopi! You're receiving the Invisible Barnstar because you reviewed 91 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sierra Wireless edits

Hello! Thanks much for the explanation of the reversion on the Sierra Wireless article; it was very much appreciated. We'll try to ensure that those words don't make it into any other revisions. We do have a number of other suggested edits to the article that are visible in my Sandbox page; would you mind taking a look and seeing if they would be acceptable or suggesting changes to the edits we'd recommended so that we can better adhere to the neutral POV that Wikipedia is looking for?

Again, thanks for the explanation, as it was very helpful. Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Message for Kilopi Regarding Shon Brooks Wiki Page Draft

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Shon Brooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Kilopi -- I have been assigned to make your recommended changes to the Wiki page draft for Shon Brooks of Brooks Financial & Entertainment. In your remarks, you say that the text is too self-promotional. Can you tell me more what you mean since the text and his accomplishments to me seem very straightforward and factual and is supported by reference evidence.

Thank you. Michael Dabney ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeldabney (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The writing is promotional, which is unsurprising because the majority of the sources it's based off are themselves promotional. Many are unreliable and often they don't confirm what the text says. You have:
  • 1. An alumni magazine: usable, but with caution since the college has an interest in promoting its alumni.
  • 2, 3. WSJ article. This is by far the best source, and probably the only one which advances notability.
  • 4, 7-9, 13, 15, 18: Press releases are inherently unreliable.
  • 5: BBB is probably reliable for basic facts, but a directory listing won't count for notability.
  • 6, 10, 14, 17, 21-23: all self-published sources
  • 11-12: Interviews are the subject talking about himself, so like the above, subject to WP:SPS.
  • 19-20: Press releases? Couldn't read them. Is there any evidence that the contract they refer to is of interest to anybody who isn't a party to it (like, say, a Wikipedia reader)?
So there's one and a half good sources and the rest are junk. The writing is also problematic:
  • For quotes like "game-changer", see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Is he generally regarded as such, or is this one writer's opinion? It helps to specify.
  • Source 6 does not say he composed any questions.
  • According to source 3, his games are scheduled for release in Dec. 2013, so how can they have "have helped students thrive"? Is he a time traveler too?
  • "helping schools fund field trip outings" No, according to the sources, he sponsored one outing, which was covered only by Brooks himself and a local free monthly. The press release implies there might be more if he gets enough donations from the public.
  • "to motivate and empower youth" No, he created it to make money. Sure, nobody says that in press releases (unless they're soliciting venture capital), but that's why we don't use press releases as sources.
-- Kilopi (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, due to previous abuse, my approval won't be enough. You'll have to also convince an admin that lifting the protection would benefit Wikipedia. Kilopi (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Healthy Paws Pet Insurance may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Weber Shandwick

Thanks for looking into Weber Shandwick for me. You're completely correct that CorporateM's rewrites have substantially improved the quality of the page with respect to neutrality and tone. 94.12.56.203 (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking J.L. Smith

Hello Kilopi, I received your notice blocking the post I created for the J.L. Smith company history and was hoping you could clarify what the problem was. Is it simply that I used an ip address associated with the company? I was rather careful to read and examine dozens of other company histories and I'm fairly certain that I did nothing contrary to Wikipedia's standards. Please let me know what I can do to amend the situation. All the best 72.243.98.146 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Jlsmithco Kilopi (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fresh Healthy Vending

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

One-way keg section

Dear Kilopi,

I have noticed you deleted almost all the information on one-way kegs. The current information leaves the wikipedia reader though empty handed. And the last sentence 'They may use either bag in ball or bag in box technology' is misleading incomplete and not correct. There is no one-way keg with bag-in-box technology.

The last thing we want is to deliver 'spammy information' . We tried sincerely to be objective. So please advice us what we can do better to take care that there is more and reliable information available on one-way kegs.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twee en een (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand you were acting in good faith. One problem is that most of what I removed was either unsourced original research or "sourced" only to the homepages of companies selling that product. It's hard to write objectively when none of your sources are objective. The other problem was formatting -- look at the table of contents of this version. If the details you added can be well-sourced (say to a quality reference book titled Innovations in Beermaking, not to the homepage of ecopub.com), then an alternative might be to write One-way keg as a standalone and linking to it in. That way the detail wouldn't overwhelm the other 6 types of keg that have a paragraph each.
Sorry for introducing factual error in the process. I'm not an expert on kegs and was trying to preserve the information, but must have misread it. If I change bag-in-bos to spear, would that be correct? Kilopi (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kilopi. The sentence is now correct. We'll do our homework and write a stand alone using quality references wherever possible. Thanks for your advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twee en een (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

bubble tea

Thanks for the bubble tea! Yes, that was a bit odd, and it has happened to me a couple times as well. Wish I could tell you what causes it. Glad to help in a small way, and know you'd do the same. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordan Older

You suggested "scans of newspaper clippings"? The thought is appreciated, but in most cases providing such scans means posting them somewhere, and in most cases that would be a violation of copyright, not something to be encouraged. Thank you. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sierra Wireless

Thanks very much for the feedback on the Sierra Wireless article; I appreciate it. The explanation and the example you provided was extremely helpful. We'll look for additional non-primary sources to add to the one we've currently cited. Thank you again for the help and the info - we'll figure this out yet. Mdrozdowski (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of OnResearch Inc Inquiry

Hello Kilopi,I would like to inquire about the reasoning behind the removal of the OnResearch Wikipedia page. Can you please help me understand specifically why the page was taken down? In addition, I would appreciate learning about how to make the page more Encyclopedic? For instance, I would like to understand why and how this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EResearch_Technology_Inc is different? Thank you for your time. Mkhabaz (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Mkhabaz

If you want specific details, you'll have to ask an admin since I can't view the articles after they've been deleted. However I'd recommend not modeling it on ERT (company) -- an article with a fair deal of puffery and very few reliable sources. Kilopi (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

STiki emergency