This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul W. 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.
It appears it's already out of the sandbox and in the AFC process - the article has been flagged as breaching copyright provisions, but I have used the article Talk page to call for a little patience while the issues are fixed. Paul W (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi - the article got deleted by an administrator in view of copyright violations. I didn't get chance to save my revisions, which also included additional references from The Guardian and other works. :-(. Paul W (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul! The article is back but it's been declined as she doesn't meet notability criteria. Do you think that there is anything I can add to convince administrators that she meets the criteria? Thanks so much for all your help!! KatieERoberts (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I messaged the admin who deleted it and asked for it be reinstated so that further work could be done to address the copyright violations and the notability points. Before and since that brief deletion, I worked at beefing up the references (found references in the Daily Express and the Guardian, which were particularly useful). The article can be resubmitted for a further review by other editors (it's not admins who determine such things) by clicking on the blue button. But perhaps before this happens, is there anything else that might usefully be added - has Vivian published her work, for example? Paul W (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Once a page goes live, good things to do include adding categories, and also linking from other articles (this would also be good for most of the recently CRUK created articles) - so that they aren't "orphans". For example, I added Thea Tlsty to the list of alumni from one of her universities; not all institutions have such lists, but where they do it's an easy addition to make - some secondary schools have lists of notable former pupils, too. Paul W (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dial911 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear Paul W/Archive 6,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal into Crewe Alexandra F.C.. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa. I was/am the sole author/editor of the content that was copied from the main scandal article. Paul W (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Page protected
hi Paul W (talk) your inputs have been great help, i need help recently was trying to edit a page (it has extended protection) but it is being reverted by an individual repeatedly despite me telling that i have 10 yrs of exp. in wiki with over 1000 edits, pls help what to do. Joydeep ghosh
`````
Hi, Joydeep ghosh. Without seeing the article, it is difficult to be specific about why your edits are being reverted. Changes to an article may be rejected if assertions aren't supported by citations, if they contain grammatical errors or change conventions such as how dates are formatted, or overly focus on current/recent events (I am currently contributing to a page which is prone to 'recentism' - see WP:recent). Sometimes editors do get protective about articles they've extensively edited - but "no one ... has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page" - see WP:Own, which has some useful advice. Paul W (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
hi Paul W (talk) thanks or the sane advice will try to present my case on the subject. btw i have a doubt can we use slideshare ppt as source in any wiki article.Joydeep ghosh
No problem, Joydeep ghosh. I think Slideshare would not usually be a reliable source - as with blogs, too often material is self-published by individuals or businesses that may have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). Paul W (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for all your help with the article, Paul. I'm told that Benwell will make an offer for the club tomorrow and that the proposed phoenix club will be shelved. They were a bit premature with that but understandably feared the worst. I understand the judges are not best pleased with HMRC who need to get their act together. This is all speculation, of course, but who knows. You might get to manage the team after all, ha! Have a good Xmas and New Year. Regards, Roy. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Roy. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome. As a Crewe fan, I don't want to see another small northwestern club fail. Paul W (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Construction Industry Council logo 2016.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Construction Industry Council logo 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Happy to help. Have made a few more edits, including a link to his burial place church. I amended the tense to say "was buried" as there is mention of some burials being disinterred, with some relocated to Brookwood. Paul W (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
All looks good to me - thank you. I have a couple of tweaks to add at some point, but I reckon that's about it. Maybe a touch more in the lead. Again, much appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, Keith D. I edited your template revision so that it didn't have Everthorpe listed in both the active and defunct sections. It is now listed only in the defunct section. Paul W (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paul, unsure if you remember but back in 2012 you assessed Stockport County through a GAN, after your assessment it failed the GAN but became a GA a few years later. I am now looking at making this a Featured Article and I have opened up a peer review - Peer review/Stockport County F.C./archive1. I have already had another user go through the page and I have already made amends based on their comments. It would be great to have another set of eyes on it. Also If you could assist with the referencing and citations that would be great, as it has been noted that the style is inconsistent. No worries if your can't. Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Wna247. Happy to help on this. I've started with a whole load of copy edits to the history (mainly correcting grammar, making the prose flow, removing some cliches, etc; also fixed one misdirected link), and will continue when I get a little more time. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed you have done some edits already. Thanks for doing this. I have added some citations to the article and have added a bit more to the prose in a few areas, if the prose doesn't flow feel free to amend it. As mentioned previously appreciate your help. Wna247 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Spent some more time on this today. More copy editing, etc. I noticed some repetition of the same book titles in the references, sometimes the only difference being page numbers. I have contributed to articles where, for brevity, the book is listed once among 'Sources' or 'bibliography' and only the author and page number is given as a citation - I have taken two of the most commonly cited references in this article (Guy Nelson and Freeman & Harnwell) and used the abbreviated format. Most other books are only cited once or no page number is given, so it's not widely applicable, but it does cut the article size a bit. I also used an alternative footnote template for the two notes. Hope this is all OK. Paul W (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed this today, thanks. There were times today where I was making edits myself, adding more detail to references, and was getting edit conflicts, but its fine. I do need to continue with the sources for Freeman & Harnwell to add page numbers to the other references to this book but will follow your citation style for this. I will also do this for references to Stockport County 100 by Carol Ann Perry as I have a copy of that book also. I will then check the reliability of all web links in the article. If you could just write a few lines on the peer review located: Peer review/Stockport County F.C./archive1 just to summarise your edits from the last few days that would be great. Appreciate you doing a little tidy of the article as well. Thanks again. Wna247 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Burnley F.C. peer review
Hi Paul, I'm trying to make the Burnley F.C. article into a featured one, and therefore I've requested a peer review. There are still flaws, but I believe it has the potential. I noticed you improved the Stockport County page after a peer review was requested and I was wondering if you would like to improve the Burnley article as well.
Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Happy to have a look at it (my late father was a Burnley fan and once even tried to convert me to being a Claret - but I was already doomed to be an Alex fan!). Paul W (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello PaulW - I'd appreciate any support you can give to my draft article. I did a lot of local archive research on this building (it's in Tranquil Vale SE3) and its various community uses over the years. I feel it's notable enough architecturally to deserve an entry. I'm also working on a draft for the architect who designed it and supervised its construction, Charles Canning Winmill. Many thanks in advance! CourtauldGill (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi CourtaulGill. Happy to help on this if I can. Many years ago, I licensed images from the Mary Evans Picture Library for a civil engineering history project; only later did I move to SE London and see where they were housed. I think there may also be scope for an article about All Saints Church itself, while Winmill is also a worthy subject (I've edited pages on other London Fire Brigade subjects in the past). I will try to take a look later this week. Paul W (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi PaulW - really appreciate your interest, thank you! I've lived in the area for over 40 years, and worked inside the building for over 20 years, for the picture library itself, so I'm glad to know of your use of images. The research I did on the building was originally for the two Open House London events we took part in a few years ago. I agree, the church itself definitely deserves an article, will bear that in mind! Great to be in touch with you - many thanks. CourtauldGill (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've removed some text you added and explained why on the talk page. Do revert if you think I'm wrong. --Cavrdg (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Cavrdg. I have had a look, as has Martinevans123 who also made changes around the same issue. I think his recent edits provide as accurate a view as is possible at the moment. Paul W (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Charles Canning Winmill
Hello Paul - I've at last completed my draft article on the architect Charles Canning Winmill, at User:CourtauldGill/sandbox-y, just submitted for review a few minutes ago! Would really appreciate your input and support. It's the longest article I've written so far, there was so much to say about him. Thanks in advance and best wishes - CourtauldGill (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks CourtauldGill. I have made a few edits. I suspect Winmill may have worked with Robert Pearsall at LCC - is Pearsall mentioned at all in the Winmill biography? Paul W (talk)
Hello Paul W - many thanks for your input and support. I'm thrilled that my article was accepted so quickly. I've read your article on Pearsall, and realise that he was Winmill's boss at LCC. I don't have access to the Winmill book at the moment (it's in the office, where I'm currently not going!). I made extensive notes from the book, and it's those notes that I based my article on. I'll see if I can add a reference to Pearsall, as I can see he had a big influence over the design of the new fire stations. Thanks for the heads-up! CourtauldGill (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth Hadly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Paul, I've created a new page for the ACLT, but someone has immediately changed it to the US spelling of Leukaemia, even though it's a UK charity. I've also realised that they mostly refer to themselves as ACLT, so wanted to add that to the title, but I didn't know how! Can you help?
It was listed on the Articles for Creation review page, and then later moved to draftspace (PS, you can sign your Talk page messages by using 4 tildes, ie 4 x ~). Paul W (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, KobiNew. Do you mean wikilink? So that you can see, I have wikilinked from the Stockport page to the page for the 97-98 season. Depending upon the editor tool you use, it's either (in Visual editor) clicking on the chain link icon to add a link, or (in Wikitext editor) putting double square brackets around the words pointing to the target page. Hope that helps. Paul W (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Angela Flowers, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
This article had some COPYVIO issues and you seemed to do a Wikipedia:Copy and paste move from the draft which creates attribution issues. I believe I have fixed all this but want a second pair of eyes given these overlapping concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Barkeep49. As per the Talk page, I believe my edit happened while User:Praxidicae was moving it to Draft, requesting revdel after removing a copyright violation. This has resulted in there being two articles - one in mainspace and in draft. I think the mainspace one needs to be deleted by an admin while the draft is developed. Paul W (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I moved it to draft; the first draft had got deleted (I lost a few edits, but I was able to recall what I'd added). Paul W (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for editing Draft: Relevent Sports Group
Hi Paul W: Thank you so much for taking the time to improve the content, organization, and overall quality of Draft: Relevent Sports Group. I like your suggestion to divide the history section as well. Since you seem to believe the subject is notable, could you take the next step and accept the draft into Wikipedia’s main space? That would be much appreciated. SylviaatRSG (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, SylviaatRSG. I have had a look at the Sillman draft and done a bit of fine-tuning, but I don't think it yet meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO requirements regarding notability ("worthy of notice" ... "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"). Much of the draft relates to his work for RSG but notability cannot be inherited by association with a subject described in a Wikipedia article. I had a look at what past reviewers have said (the most recent was in December 2020), and I can't see that the addition of one piece of coverage since then makes Sillman any more notable. Moreover, as a general rule, editors will also be wary of media coverage that appears derived from public relations work: they are dependent sources rather than independent, and some of the referenced sources display little independent analysis or comment about Sillman. But, ultimately, it is not about coverage - it is about Sillman himself being or doing something sufficiently worthy of notice to warrant a biographical article. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi Paul, I'm happy to help with the article and to have a look at it. Some quick things I've noticed:
Some sentences/sections are unsourced, e.g. "and securing a ... to earn promotion." (Done) and the honours section - Done
History: can do with some trimming in the "stepping back" and "2011 to present day" sections, e.g. "Although the season ... their Development League." can be removed as it's not about the first team. Some sentences are redundant, such as their finishing positions from 2017 to 2019, because mid-table finishes won't really be relevant in 10 years time. - Done
Stadium: can do with some expansion. E.g. development of the stands, record attendances, it is an all-seater? - Done
Supporters and rivalries: maybe something about the average attendances, the supporters' demographics - partially Done
Sexual abuse scandal: I agree it should be part of the article, but needs trimming as it's too large right now. - Not done (yet) The subject remains newsworthy and I don't want to trim it significantly yet, in case it is seen as air-brushing recent history, particularly by a self-acknowledged Crewe supporter. Now Done
Club records: maybe write it in prose? - Done
References: needs some fixes in the formatting; e.g. at some refs it's "Guardian" and at some it's "The Guardian" - Done
I'm missing information about Crewe's colours and crest. - Done (started)
The article already looks quite decent but needs some polishing. I'll take a look further into the article somewhere this weekend (and leave some comments in the peer review) as I'm short on time this week. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, WA8MTWAYC. You have already confirmed some of my thoughts, and I look forward to your comments in due course. Meanwhile, I will start to tackle one or two of the points. Paul W (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for working through my comments so quickly. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know; I'm happy to help. I think the article is in GA range and worth a shot. Good luck. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Parlanti Foundry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
