User talk:Vrac/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Vrac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors

Hi there! I came across your edits and noticed that you do a fair amount of copy-editing. I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors, a project dedicated to managing the sizable backlog of articles needing a copy-edit. We're always looking for new members, and you'd make a great addition to the project! We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you're interested, you can help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

Thanks, and happy editing! BuddingJournalist 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Orozco_Hidalgo_mural.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added appropriate copyright info, I took the photo myself. Vrac 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French special retirement plan

Looks good thank you! Jackaranga 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing translations

Hi Vrac, what you are supposed to do is change the "Translation Status" parameter to 4 in the page. Then a bot should come along and move it to the archive page. I've taken the liberty of doing it for you on Wikipedia:Translation/French_special_retirement_plan. Hope that helps! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure... I know there is (or was?) a bot to do it. I *think* it doesn't archive translations until the end of the month in which they're completed (at least that's what WP:TRANSL seems to indicate!) ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small question

Hello! You undid a change i made regarding the Avignion Papacy in the France article,I figured out that it was somewhat important to stress that there were other claims to the papal see in Venice and in Rome. So that`s why i`m asking you why did you undid my version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCo (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your version because the sentence didn't make much sense to me in English. " The French city of Avignon was part Western Schism between 1309-1377 , during witch it was the see of one of the persons claiming to be pope." From what I understand the Western Schism ocurred after the papacy moved back to Rome, so how could Avignon be "part Western Schism between 1309-1377"? (I'm assuming you meant "part of the Western Schism") Also, there were 7 popes during the Avignon papacy, "one of the persons" is misleading...and was there someone else somewhere else who claimed to be pope during this time? If you clarify your message I would be happy to help you formulate it. Regards Vrac 07:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marino Morosini

Hello Vrac -

I proofread your translation of this article and also filled in the parts that were left out. You were right; the sixth crusade wasn't the right one, it was the seventh, so I made the appropriate changes to the caption and link in the text. I checked the dates and such on other pages of the English Wiki. (Maybe I'll try to get one of my German-speaking friends to change the German site, or you could do that.) Please feel free to look over the changes I made and fix anything.

Thanks. Scbarry (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omigosh! I'm glad you checked what I wrote. It was four women, not three. Thanks for changing the German site. But besides the text in the German site, there's also a reference to the wrong crusade as a caption to the second picture. If you're in the mood, you can change that one, too.

Danke. Scbarry (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mino

lol, its perfectly alright, I had actually forgot about it! :0. Keep doing a great job! Coffeegirlyme (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Hyacinth

Hi Vrac:

Actually, I didn't know about the translation request page until just recently, so I just translated the page on my own ( :) Oops) Anyway, I see that you went ahead and translated the quotation, which is something I didn't do. All of your work looks good, feel free to update/edit/amend/augment any of my earlier translation work. Your translation read well. Let me know if I can help you with anything -- and I'll be sure to use the translation request/status page in the future. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll proofread the article today... Lazulilasher (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great translation. Your work is good and reads very well. It looks finished to me. By the way, would you be willing to proofread my Mark Curtis translation from French? I completed the translation and now it just needs to be proofread (I'm poor at proofreading my own translations...I miss things like "et" and "caracteristiques")....the article is mostly just a direct translation from the French, as I don't know much about the topic. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks and good work! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't really know. I found the page with the present spelling, but there might be alternative names. bibliomaniac15 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the translation. I will look into the English equivalents of the terms. bibliomaniac15 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explication ?

Fact tag ? Autant faire gicler tout le second paragraphe... Sebjarod (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oui t'as raison Vrac (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh where is the tilde key again? I've got a french canadian keyboard.... :-D Vrac (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pied-noir

Hi Vrac, I have another favor if you have the time :) I just finished a major edit of the pied-noir article where I added sources and some more material, as well as copy-editing. Considering that your specialty is NPOV, I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it and let me know if you thought that it was NPOV enough....thanks a lot! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hunter Thompson

Hi, could you please explain why you felt the need to alter the page? The information there is at best the posting of an unsubstantiated rumor and at worst is a downright lie. Im quite sure Hunter though would fine this all very amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.243.169 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You removed information that was valid which is why I reverted your edit. Paul William Roberts did in fact write that, see [here]. Since Paul Roberts is a well-known journalist and was a friend of Thompson's, what he said regarding Thompson's death is notable. Whether or not he is lying is a separate question... Vrac (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boliguayo

Hola Vrac. Un gusto. "Era medio boliguayo", en ese contexto despectivo, significa "era medio tonto, era un poco lento, un poco retrasado". Te mando un abrazo, --Roblespepe (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Roth

I'll put him up at WP:AIV.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Hi, I noticed that you have broken the 3 revert rule on the Buenos Aires article during your content dispute with Yaho. I'm sure it was not intentional, but in future you should try to avoid reverting the same article 3 times within a 24 hour period because it is considered to be edit-warring. If you have trouble with content repeatedly added by a particular user, it would be preferable to seek the assistance of an Admin or a user in good standing. Regards English peasant 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi Vrac,

I have two problems, hope you can help.

1: I'm unable to create an account. I did create one about a year ago, but stopped my activities at the en.Wiki; perhaps that's the reason for the confusion in the database. (No matter what I try, the message is, "invalid password," over and over again. And I don't know where to turn for help, unless to a living, breathing person.)

2: Without being able to log in, I can't ask my main question: how to go about translating an article from the en.Wiki, from the English into Hungarian, for the hu.Wiki. I'm editor there, helping them out from the US where I live.

I need to know if I need permission for doing the en.Wiki translation of the article, and related things.

Thanks in advance for your help. Please reply to gmpalos@wmconnect.com if you have the time.

Best, Marta Palos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.102 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Confusion

Hi Vrac

I'm new to Wikipedia and am having a go at translating, and wonder if you can help, as I'm finding the Translation pages rather confusing (and judging by other people's articles, so are they!). I've managed to work out how the tracking process goes as far as translations in progress, but I can't get the proofreading section to display anything relevant in the summary section on the Translation Request page. I've come across at least one of your edits on which this info is correct (the Death is my trade one) so I assume you must know how it's supposed to work!

Thanks in advance

Jane

JaneVannin (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groupe Bull, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Servers and Hafnia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Falcon

For the record, the subject matter of this article does not offend me. The fact that I'm a member of the Pornography Project along with my track record of edits on related articles should be ample evidence of that. I was truly questioning the GNG of the article and its basis. From the discussion, I became convinced that not only was the article worth keeping, but precedent it sets is important as well. As much as I lobbied for the article's deletion, I think the discussion helps to better define exactly what is Notable or not. By the way, thank you for your comments and participation in the discussion. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for the clarification. Vrac (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:33, 9 December 2014 review of submission by 77.86.86.38


Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. Just need a few pointers as to which parts are deemed irrelevant/sales related.

It's not meant to be an advertising exercise, so apologies it's been viewed this way.

Happy to make all amendments to reverse the decision.

Regards 77.86.86.38 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left some feedback on the article's talk page. Vrac (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igneri language

Hi Vrac: Igneri language has been deleted per your speedy deletion request, to allow for a page move of Draft:Igneri language to this title. So, if you want to approve the AfC entry, the page can be moved to this title. NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vrac (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:17, 11 December 2014 review of submission by Univrankings


I wanted to be sure whether the references are correct now before the article gets declined again after waiting for another two months. The primary sources are heavily reduced, any text that could give the feeling of an advertisement is now left out. Only the university reputation and ranking remain backed up by several sources. Could you let me know if it is correct this way? I would really appreciate it. Thanks a lot in advance!

Univrankings (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:43:06, 15 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by NokiaMEC


Dear Vrac,

Thank-you for your review of the draft article: Mobile Edge Computing. When creating the draft, I had studied the Edge Computing article that you suggest merging with. Although this article is relevant, I felt Mobile Edge Computing was different and unique enough for its own submission within Wikipedia. In addition, Mobile Edge Computing has recently been acknowledged by the European Telecommuinications Standards Institute (ETSI), considered as an important and strategic initiative within the telco and IT industry and resulting in the creation of an Industry Specifications Group (ISG). Since the formation of the ISG of the six founding members (Nokia, Vodafone, IBM, Intel, NTT Docomo and Huawei), over twenty companies have joined the group, meeting for the first time in Munich on Dec 2nd-4th.

I would very much like to seek your further guidance on refining this article further in order to secure its place within Wikipedia, for the reasons outlined above and also for the potential this topic will have in terms of interest and growth moving forward.

I look forward to your further comments.

Kind regards, Rob McManus.

NokiaMEC (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NokiaMEC, there are a number of practical issues with accepting this submission as a stand-alone article:
  • Neutrality - The article does not have a neutral point of view. I suggest reading Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and usernames.
  • The article reads like an advertisement. Take this sentence for example: "RAN characteristics such as proximity, context, agility and speed can be translated into value for the various stakeholders in the value chain." This is clearly marketing language, an encyclopedia contains articles about a topic, not for a topic. See WP:ARTSPAM.
  • Notability - Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are documented here. A topic is deemed acceptable for an article if it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only reference in this submission is a whitepaper which is not a reliable, independent, secondary source for the sake of establishing notability.
  • Unsourced claims - See WP:REF about how to use citations. For example: "Application and service hosting at the edge of cellular networks will reduce the volume of signaling offloaded to the core network, as well as reducing Operating Expenditure (OPEX) for the cellular operator compared to hosting applications and services within the core." According to whom?
And then there is the issue of whether mobile edge computing is different enough from edge computing to warrant its own article, but that would be a debate for another time. Vrac (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:30:48, 15 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Dino-lite


Hello, Thanks for reviewing the article 'Dino-Lite'. Unfortunately you only gave the same standard reply as your colleague Joe Decker early october and since then i have added a whole list of references and i do not think this reads like an advertisement, this is just the plain information. I think sufficient proof of the validity of the information is that Dino-Lite was mentioned as one of the eight 'microscope manufacturers in the standard text book 'Fundamentals of Light Microscopy and Electronic Imaging': http://books.google.nl/books?id=e2PNx8w1MqQC&pg=PA510&dq=%22Dino-Lite%22&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=hOhhVJPPGsXKPbT3gIgB&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Dino-Lite%22&f=false. Also on the wikipedia pages on USB microscopes and digital microscopes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_microscope you can see a picture of a Dino-Lite as the example of a miniature USB microscope. It would be grea tif you can give me some more specific guidelines such as where you find the text to promotional and what references are not correct? Best regards, Jan Boers


Dino-lite (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DinaLite, although your most recent changes have made it better, there are still problems with WP:POV in your article submission. For example this sentence:
"By creating different models for professional applications, Dino-Lite has many fields of use. Examples are:"
An editor with a neutral point of view would write:
"Dino-Lite makes the following models: 1,2,3..."[citation]
Note the citation. Information in articles needs to be verifiable. I know it is difficult to see the difference when there is a connection with the topic, which is why Wikipedia has policies on conflict of interest. See also information for usernames.
There are more issues with the article:
I suggest reading the general guidelines on notability. Significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject is needed. Regards, Vrac (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biohabitats Review Question

Vrac, thanks so much for your review of the draft Biohabitats article. I can see the marketing language and will fix it immediately.

I am still struggling with the idea that "cited sources available online are about other subjects that make only passing references to this company," and I wonder if I am misunderstanding something fundamental. I read dozens of entries from US architecture firms as a guide (found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_architecture_firms), and I thought the press coverage of Biohabitats projects was better than many of them.

Generally, I sought citations that offered independent coverage of the work of Biohabitats. For example, the Biohabitats project in the Baltimore Harbor has been the subject of multiple articles in the Baltimore Sun, so I used one of them as a citation along with 2 science journal articles on Biohabitats work and 2 magazines that covered Biohabitats projects, and a televised news piece about another Biohabitats project.

After the first revision, I removed some references that were more about Biohabitats, but I thought they weren't as independent- such as articles profiling the company in Landscape Architecture magazine. I talked to some editors on the live chat for guidance. But based on your feedback, I wonder if I should put it back in.

My question is this: Biohabitats is notable for its actions in the world, the projects and techniques it is responsible for creating. Many of them have gotten press and televised news coverage. I thought those news items would be the right citations to establish notability, but is your critique that Biohabitats has to be the subject of news for something other than its projects? As you point out, the subject of those articles is not Biohabitats- it is work Biohabitats did, and they are mentioned only as the designer of the wetland or organic wastewater system or whatever that is the subject of the article.

Thank you so much for helping me clarify this!Bioecojess (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I just want to be sure I understand it before the next round of revisions. I can add a bunch more newspaper articles about things Biohabitats built, if that helps, but I want to be sure it could help![reply]

Hello Bioecojess, I am sorry that you have been receiving conflicting feedback about your article. The cited sources that cover Biohabitat's projects would serve to establish the notability of the projects themselves, not Biohabitats, with the possible exception of this [2] which quotes someone from the company. The rest make only passing references to Biohabitats itself; it all adds up to very thin coverage. There is nothing wrong with citing these sources to show what the company's projects are, but given that they just mention the company, they don't go far in establishing notability. Are the projects themselves notable for an encyclopedic article? Articles in something like Landscape Architecture, if they are independently written and cover the company in-depth, would help, but trade magazines are not usually weighted heavily in these debates.
The article has other sourcing issues, it makes a number claims about Biohabitats: it has expertise in x y and z areas, it helped to develop some technologies/practices like bioretention, it won some awards, etc... You probably know all this because you have a connection with this organization. But if I were to write an article on this company, with no inside knowledge, where would I find this information? The citation for the bioretention seems to be from a self-published manual, which is a primary source. If I wanted the information to be verifiable, I would need to get it from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the company. A useful exercise might be to look at every assertion in the article and make sure it has a reliable source, if it doesn't have one and one cannot be found, it shouldn't be in there. A primary source like the company's website is acceptable for facts like number of employees, but claims of invention, expertise, awards, etc... need to be backed up by something with independent credibility. If you struggle to find reliable, independent, secondary sources then perhaps Biohabitats does not pass the notability guidelines for Wikipedia.
I understand the tendency to want to compare this article to others already on Wikipedia but this argument is not considered a valid rationale for inclusion. Regards, Vrac (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. As I've been away from WP the past few weeks with some RL issues, getting a notification was a big help to me. I owe you. :-) --Eliyahu S Talk 03:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Souza

Hello Vrac, my English is not very well, sorry for this. I write this article in the german vision, a girlfriend translate my article and i send it under rthe acc carmenreport to wikiengl. No I get a mail from you, that this article dont come in the wiki.en... I ask me wy? Is the english to bad...the girl is profitranslater! MAy be you answere me by a mail, cause I m not often in Wiki.en--Markoz (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der Artikel hat keine Inline-Zitaten noch Referenzen; auf der englischen Wiki Artikel über lebende Personen müssen ordnungsgemäß referenziert werden. Ich glaube, dass die Politik auf der deutschen Wiki ähnlich ist. Vrac (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
may be is it possible to bring the references now..... all references are from the internet. I saw Souza on a concert and look after in the inet..what i find. i used for the the article in the german i use the websides as references...is this also possible in the englich wiki? Thank you for the answere--Markoz (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ja natürlich... Wenn Sie die Nachweise übertragen, können wir die Relevanz des Artikel bewerten.. Vrac (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please give me the link to the article, cause i don't find..Thank you--Markoz (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Carmen Souza Vrac (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 10:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Blade (company)

Hey @Vrac:, was hoping you could help me out with the page I just created. This is my first wiki page, so I was hoping you could explain to me why you think the page is promotional in nature? the original version I prematurely posted had no links or citations for verification. I was unaware I had even posted it, thinking I just saved it and would click publish later. I have made the appropriate edits now and it is properly sourced and referenced from all major publications. Thanks for looking and cheers! Appreciate the constructive criticism.

I replied on the article's talk page but I guess it was deleted before you had a chance to see it. The article contained numerous unsourced claims and marketing language inconsistent with a neutral point of view. Do you have a relationship with this organization? Editors with conflicts of interest are encouraged to use the articles for creation feature of Wikipedia. Regards, Vrac (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hey @Vrac:, thanks for the reply. I do not have a relationship with the company, just have been following their growth from a tech-entrepreneurial standpoint. I submitted the article too early, as it said 'save' not 'publish', little did I know, 'save' means both on Wikipedia. I went ahead and sourced all information after I realized the article had been prematurely published. I will attempt to reread through the page and attempt to make it more neutral, although to be completely honest, I felt it was very encyclopedic to begin with. Were there certain parts of the page you found particular issue with? Always good to get a second set of eyes on it; fresh perspective. Cheers! JoeyBoy1982 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite examples on the talk page but they are gone... as I remember the lead had laudatory language, articles should report on a subject not extoll its virtues. WP:NPOV is a good reference. Also there were numerous unsourced claims. All information in the article needs to be verifiable. The articles for creation feature would include feedback from established users. Regards, Vrac (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Vrac:, I am currently redoing the page and implementing both your and @FreeRangeFrog: suggestions and concerns. I'd appreciate it if you could give the page a quick look before submission, so that it is up to your neutrality standards. Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to work with me!

RE:Nomination of Joshua Berry for deletion

Read the message at the top of my page before doing it. It says don't delete Smartstop riders. He's a Smartstop rider. Read the message.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I read your talk page before nominating an article for deletion? And if I did, what difference would it make? Are you somehow special and don't have to write articles that abide by the rules of WP:GNG? Vrac (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FINE. another mean person on wikipedia. What a surprise.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]