User talk:Sam-2727/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:Lymanalpha.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Lymanalpha.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Zero Point (photometry) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Stubs
Hallo, about this edit: the {{stub}} tag doesn't take a parameter like that: there are a lot of specific templates such as {{Astronomy-stub}}. And any stub tag goes right at the end, after categories etc. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey! Thanks. PamD 11:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
ok thank you!!! Sam-2727 (talk)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Sam-2727! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: NGC 3239 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DannyS712 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: NGC 1712 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: NGC 1714 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: NGC 741 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Gpkp (u • t • c) 13:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Hi there, I wanted to thank you for helping us with the edit of the page (GagaOOLala). I've changed the so it's not so "advertisy". Please, double-check and let me know if there is any way I can do to improve it since I'm a newbie :) Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
Thanks so much for your help. I'll start working on the edits. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sam-2727, This is an automated notification to remind you about unanswered peer review requests at WP:PR (Don't want these notifications? Click to unsubscribe or change your subscription).
| Natural sciences and mathematics |
|
You can see a list of all categories at WP:PRWAITING. We hope to see you soon Wikipedia:Peer Review. Happy Reviewing! KadaneBot (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
A kitten for you!
Hi there, I wanted to thank you for helping us with the edit of the page (Sofocle Technologies). I've seen them so it's so "advertise". Please, double-check and let me know if there is any way I can do to improve it and contribute more to society since I'm a newbie thanks, sam I really appreciate your valuable time for raising the concern.
Gojolly18 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response
Hi. I want to thank you for your fast response to my article for creation User:NeilCHF/sandbox. I have made the couple of changes you recommended and it would be great if you could take a moment to look back over it and help to see it published if all is OK with it?
Thanks NeilCHF (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- NeilCHF, I would be glad to look at it and change it around a bit. However, I generally don't review the same submission twice, so I'll let another editor review the submission once I've helped out on it. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the Review!
I appreciate the quick turnaround on the page for the Chimera mission concept, especially the part about my excellent formatting! This was my first-ever attempt to write a document in wikipedia, so I adopted the strategy of looking at other articles and adopting the strategies that looked the most straightforward. I guess that worked.
As to your concern, I see now that I committed a rookie mistake by not linking every reference possible for the mission concept. So, I went ahead and added links to a second meeting presentation, to two independent news articles in the popular press that describe it, and to the NASA proposal solicitation the concept was written for. In addition, I added external links to NASA small body missions, the NASA planetary mission program office, and the sub-categories to which the article and concept are relevant. Looking at other comparable articles for concepts in the Discovery (program) class, I am now confident we more than meet the bar for acceptance.
I see from your reply above that your policy is to not re-review an article, but I am wondering if you have any suggestions for how to expedite the review process. I am the principle investigator of the Chimera mission concept, and my team has been informed that selections for further study & development are expected in the next couple of weeks. Once I discovered that several of the concepts we are competing with had uploaded articles, I've been scrambling to provide one for ours in case someone in the NASA selecting official's office is reading them. It may not matter in the end, but, after 2 years of work, we don't want to leave stones unturned! If you have any thoughts on how to move this forward, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks again for your excellent work thus far!
Update: Thanks for the advice! I really appreciate it. I created the user page and included the conflicts. I was wondering how that was done. Now I'll just have to wait and hope it is reviewed in time to make a difference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1996Hyakutake (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the Review
Thank you. Fromzamoscwith (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Sam-2727
Thank you for creating Richard Tylden Auchmuty.
User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good redirect, Sam; I've just added the rcat {{R from birth name}}. You may find MJL's Archer script useful for categorizing redirects you've created.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Doug Mehus T·C 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) @Dmehus: thanks for the comment. I don't usually make redirects (I only created those because the author of an article at AFC requested them to be created when the page was created), but I'll use the script in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. Yeah, those were all good redirects to create, though. :) Doug Mehus T·C 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| thank you for your comments on the James Kanter page, I will find more references along the lines you suggested. Queenofboston (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you for having a look at WackoWiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WackoWiki Sam-2727 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved comment from top of talk page
Thank you for moving my COI to the correct location! ufdent98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufdent98 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Elizabeth Thompson (painter)
As reviewing administrator, I decided not to delete the article; the material that's thesame as her web page is a factual list of exhibitions that could be expressed in no other possible way, and is thus not creative content subject to copyright. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi Sam-2727. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
East Bengal the Real Power
How can I improve the article? Please help. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, your article is fairly good as it stands. There is just some promotional language in a couple spots that could be improved on. I would, as a primer, read WP:NPOV and WP:Peacock as this would help you understand more about what I'm talking about. Let's take an example of the sentence of the kind of problematic language I see.
- "To bring all the fans, spread all over the world under one roof, the group was formed"
This sentence is certainly a very all-encompassing statement. All the fans? "Under one roof" is dramatic language. As an example, I would change this sentence to (and condense the surrounding sentences as well) "with the purpose to condense fan support of East Bengal FC." Here's another example:
- "has numerous fan clubs and among them, East Bengal Real Power is the biggest and most active one"
This could again have less exaggeration and writing opinionated statements as if they were fact. "East Bengal Real Power is considered by some to be the largest East Bengal FC club (add a citation for this as well)" is how I would rewrite this. Let me know if you need more examples or some more specific advice! Sam-2727 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: ParsaPnp (March 24)
|
Hello, Sam-2727!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
|
lol this is funny. I meant to submit it for the other user. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Divertimento for Alto Saxophone has been accepted
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits, you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Sam-2727 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)To anybody looking at this: I thought it would be easier to push to the mainspace if I resubmitted something for another user, thus that is why it looks like I'm accepting my own submission. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Feedback on Gazeta Medica da Bahia
Hello, thank you for tagging the previous version of Gazeta Médica da Bahia as lacking in apparent notability. It is one of the most important medical journals in the country's history (having been the subject of countless historical research projects over the years), but i admit i made a poor job of representing that in the first draft. Could you check the article again and tell me if the new sources do a good job of showing it as noteworthy? And if you think it still appears to be non-notable, could you give me some tips on what it still needs?
Thanks! Kind regards,
YuriNikolai (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi YuriNikolai, thanks for reaching out. I don't speak Portuguese, so I'm going off of the translated versions of the articles you added. I certainly think all of the sources you added help immensely to establish notability. Thanks for taking the time to clean up the article! Sam-2727 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Duke Tour
Hello there Sam-2727,
I saw that you declined my wiki page on the Duke Tour, done to support Genesis' album of the same name. I would like to know what there is that I can do to improve it to eventually be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19D:303:E570:58F9:B83E:56A7:B91B (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi, Sam -- I appreciate your feedback and guidance on the page I've been working on "Kathleen Hamm." I've watched the tutorials etc. and I think (hope) I got it right this time! Thanks for your time and effort. Theo8436 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 28)
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 28)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AfC notification: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 28)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Tbiw
Explain to me what you mean by copied and pasted bureaucractship Tbiw (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Tbiw, the text that begins "Final (2/04/2020); ended 15:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Tbiw (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)" with a bunch of questions. This isn't necessary for Wikipedia users to put on their page. I don't think it particularly matters that you have it there, but I would recommend deleting it because it might confuse other editors. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Sam you are a good person. Tbiw (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Tbiw, there was still some text on the page that was part of the nomination. I went ahead and removed all of it. Feel free to revert me though (pressing the "undo" button in the edit history ["view history"]) if you want it to be there. For now, I think it's best to just have a couple sentences on it, nothing fancy. A picture is nice too (this is my personal opinion: see my user page). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
AfC notification: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 1)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your, "Close to a legitimate article." comment on this decline may give the author the impression that touching up the lead is all that is required to get the draft accepted. Do you think notability is demonstrated for this subject? ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng, you're right that the phrase "Close to a legitimate article" is likely misleading. I feel like I remember finding something that indicated she was probably notable, but now I can't find that source. I'll add another comment for clarification. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Siege of Exeter 1642; Request for Input
Thanks for your assessment.
There are three specific 'sieges'; this one, August 1643, 1645-1646. Here, the Royalists wandered up to the walls, hoping to be let in by sympathisers, but found that not to be the case. They withdrew.
Tbh, I only did this one because it was on the list of requests for articles, and its pretty dull. What additional detail do you suggest should be included? Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Robinvp11, it's a well formatted article overall. I would focus mainly on changing up the language some to create an encyclopedic tone. For instance, take the phrase "hindering the import of vital military supplies." (Disclaimer: I'm not in any way knowledgable in military history) While this is technically correct, I think you could write it using less "odd" language, if that makes sense. It could potentially be reworded as "preventing the import of necessary military supplies." These are very slight changes, but if applied to the article as a whole, could make it seem more encyclopedic. Also, make sure for any contentious statement you have citations. For example " arguably their most comprehensive victory of the war" can be reworded as "which some view as their most comprehensive victory of the war (insert citation)." Hopefully this helps! Sam-2727 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Problem with creating article
Hi Sam, I was writing an article about the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, but just as I switched back to the editing tab from another tab for researching, all my content had been deleted from the page. I'm wondering if that is a bug? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaladH (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SaladH:, that's really unfortunate that all of your content was deleted. Do you still have the page, or was the page deleted entirely? It looks like you still have material on it though, so at least that's good. I've never heard of that being a bug, so maybe for some reason your page just refreshed and when it refreshed it deleted all of your content? That's the only thing I can think of that could've happened. In the future, try to post questions to User:SaladH/Adoption so that we can keep things organized. I'll address the problems on that page currently on your adoption page. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:ARTIST
Hello! Just a note that I reverted the addition of a notability tag here. under the special notability guideline WP:ARTIST, artists in several notable museum collections are notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, thanks for the correction. Also I apologize for the sudden tag. Usually I review articles from the middle/end of the stack, but somehow I didn't notice that my settings were for the top of it, so I was reviewing a couple articles that had existed for very little time! Sam-2727 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- no worries at all! I don't move article from draft until they are ready.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Redirect
Hi, please create redirect Vladimir Titarenko from the page Volodymyr Titarenko. Thanks! --NatashaLee88 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- NatashaLee88, done. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Article rejected on Copula
- Sam-2727, Thanks for your comments on my article copula in signal processing. I would like to merge the two articles, but it is critical to note that the table I have presented is very different from the one in the original copula article on Wikipedia. Please note that the table in the original article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(probability_theory) describes "copula distribution functions," and the one in my article is "copula density functions". This was the main reason for creating a new page. Please advise... Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Earthianyogi, what I meant to say was that you should create a new table under the section "signal processing" since the description of uses is really just in the field of signal processing. If you add non-signal processing applications, you can add the table in its own section. But your table should definitely be separate from the table already present. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sam-2727, Thanks, Just added. Kindly have a look. Earthianyogi (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Earthianyogi, looks good. I did some minor cleanup to make it read more like a Wikipedia article. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
About my AoC for the OnePlus 8...
First of all, thank you for taking the time to review my draft. You said that it was denied because we don't know what will be in it.Actually, OnePlus did reveal all of this information. All that's left for tomorrow is the design unveil. I'll fix that un-encyclopedia like issue. I'm asking you to kindly reconsider your denial. Thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanoscar21, [1] says that many of the details are speculative. In fact, it says that the "refresh rate" is 90 Hz but the draft you created says 120, suggesting that this detail is still speculative. I would strongly encourage you to just hold off on editing the article too much. It's very likely that tomorrow a more experienced editor will create the article, and then you can go and add any verifiable information into that article. If you resubmit this article, it could take months to be reviewed again. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Article on Eleftherios N. Economou
Hello Sam-2727. Thanks for the feedback. I clearly understand your suggestions. The difficulty I have is finding sources which are not in Greek. Moreover, since the person is already 80 yers old and the name is very common in greek it's not easy to trace back many records online. I've added links 5 articles (in greek) in the archives of a newspapers as well as a interview in Nature Materials (nature.com) where the prominent position of Prof. Economou is evident. Would that be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcharmandaris (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vcharmandaris, having sources in greek is perfectly fine. I can usually translate the source enough so that I can understand if it qualifies the article under the notability guidelines. But a lot of the sources you have in Greek are books, for instance [2] so they don't really indicate notability. I saw the interview you added. In general, I would say interviews only count towards the general notability criteria if there is significant editorial commentary, which isn't the case for this one. This article seems kind of as if it was formatted like a press release, is that the case? [3] seems to be trivial coverage, as it only mentions him at the end. [4] to me seems like it's just a picture of him. Remember that the point of reliable sources is so that there is enough reliable information on the person to write a verifiable article. A lot of these criticism might not be true though if I'm just looking at a very rough translation of all of them. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I agree that it's a problem in general to find records online. Maybe you can just find an indication of his notability? So perhaps look him up on a newspaper archive that you might not necessarily have access to and see if there are any results. Then I could find someone on Wikipedia that has access to that source. Unfortunately I can't help you at that much with respect to finding sources since I can't speak Greek. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear :Sam-2727, Thanks a lot for the rapid response. I greatly appreciate it. I'll do my best to comply with the wikipedia requirements. Even though I've contributed to mature articles in Wikipedia in the past, I have very limited experience in contributing to new articles. Just to make the case though, I was under the impression that supporting an article to include in Wikipedia a scientist who wrote 13 text books (3 in English one of which in Springer top 40 list) as well as +250 refereed papers and more than 22,000 citations (with external links to all previous statements - that is the publishers and the Google Scholar link) while being the founding director for 21 years of FORTH, the best research institute in Greece, made me think that he was easily noteworthy. I'm not sure if you saw it but earlier today I've also added a link I found to a 2013 interview of his in the rather prestigious journal Nature Materials (citation 3) which states his past positions and background. I also added the links to the refereed articles in Physica B of 20 years ago (on the occasion of a conference for his 60th birthday) describing his seminal contributions in english (citations #2 from the President of the Univ. of Crete in 1980 on the admin part and citation #10 from his supervisor stating his impressive performance as a graduate student at the Univ. of Chicago and young scientist later) would be considered objective. I'm sure that you know best, so I'll see what else I can find. It's indeed hard to retrieve in archives direct contributions online in greek, for someone who retired from all his formal positions over the past 13 years. Thanks again. 00:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Menkes
Hi! Did you, I wonder, consider either discussing with me or adding to the discussion on the talk-page before making this edit? That might have perhaps been courteous in the circumstances. May I suggest that you restore her educational history to the page – it's soundly sourced and relevant to her career. As for the date of birth, who knows? People don't usually just get eight years younger in later life, do they? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, did you see the OTRS ticket (I see that you have access to the OTRS queue yourself)? Sam-2727 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- What I take away from it is that (1) part of the information in the source is incorrect so (2) the source shouldn't be treated as a reliable source and (3) WP:NPF says that for people who are relatively unknown, sources should be mainly high quality secondary sources, and sources that focus on information relevant to the notability of the subject. If you want to discuss the specifics of the ticket, feel free to bring this off wiki. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I'm aware of the ticket – this has been going on for quite a while now, and has been the subject of a number of discussions. Did you make sure to read all of those before deciding on the best course of action? Anyway, I sort of thought that after the advice you've received via the mailing list, you might have undone that edit, but no; since you haven't, I have. We don't remove content sourced to solid prime-quality reliable sources just because somebody doesn't like it. On the matter of the year of birth, if you have an opinion, do please add it to the discussion on the talk-page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, sorry, since I'm new to the whole OTRS thing I definitely made a mistake there. I didn't really check out the mailing list yesterday (nor my email) so I probably would've reverted it eventually. OTRS aside, see my comment on the talk page. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sam, it is I who should apologise – I was brusque when I had no call to be. I think one of the difficulties in attempting to resolve any long-running dispute or ticket is the amount of background that has to be ploughed through – in this case, there's already been lengthy and largely inconclusive discussion at WP:BLPN, but that isn't necessarily evident from the history of the page. Anyway, I'll make it no secret that I avoid those old-chestnut tickets like the plague; often I feel that the very best one can do with them is to close as unsuccessful. Oh, and I made a mistake too: I read your email as part of the group thread, and only later noticed that it was actually a personal message – sorry about that! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, no worries. Anyway, some sort of conclusion seems to be forming on the article talk page so hopefully this can come to a final conclusion. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sam, it is I who should apologise – I was brusque when I had no call to be. I think one of the difficulties in attempting to resolve any long-running dispute or ticket is the amount of background that has to be ploughed through – in this case, there's already been lengthy and largely inconclusive discussion at WP:BLPN, but that isn't necessarily evident from the history of the page. Anyway, I'll make it no secret that I avoid those old-chestnut tickets like the plague; often I feel that the very best one can do with them is to close as unsuccessful. Oh, and I made a mistake too: I read your email as part of the group thread, and only later noticed that it was actually a personal message – sorry about that! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- What I take away from it is that (1) part of the information in the source is incorrect so (2) the source shouldn't be treated as a reliable source and (3) WP:NPF says that for people who are relatively unknown, sources should be mainly high quality secondary sources, and sources that focus on information relevant to the notability of the subject. If you want to discuss the specifics of the ticket, feel free to bring this off wiki. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Moved message
Thank you so much!Carlton Colmenares (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Sam-2727/Farah Damji
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Sam-2727/Farah Damji. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Farah Damji. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Farah Damji. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)