User talk:Britishfinance/Archive 10

Olympia Campbell
Can you please explain to me how this model may not meet GNG guidelines despite several reliable British newspapers profiling her career? It more than suffices the significant coverage requirement. Trillfendi (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Trillfendi. For WP:GNG there has to be "significant coverage" in high-quality sources independent of the subject. I think the article does have some of these (otherwise it would be a WP:AfD), especially the Telegraph and Vogue articles, but I was not sure whether there were enough.  If you could add one or two more that were specifically on the subject, and from other equivalent sources (e.g. Guardian, Times, BBC), then that would do it. kind regards.Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Page mover
Hi Britishfinance,

Have you considered applying for page mover? You appear to meet the requirements and I would be happy to give it to you as it appears that it would be a benefit to the project given the number of pages you have been draftifying. If you want it, just let me know here or apply at WP:PERM. -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I did apply a few weeks ago but unfortunately was turned down by Dekimasu and Galobtter on a combination of lack of experience, and need not proven (see ).  I do find the draftying page mover tool very useful in the NPP process - it is a good alternative to a deletion route when an article is devoid of references. However, I am not sure they would change their mind? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that and just saw your draftifying log as a decent "need". They've been pinged, so let's see what they have to say. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks for your interest. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in reply, I put this is somewhere on my mental todo list and forgot about it..., at the time Britishfinance requested the right, they weren't draftifying things. Draftifying definitely is a need for the right, however I do have to note that I think Britishfinance may be slightly overusing draftication - draftification is somewhat controversial due to bypassing deletion processes and should be done carefully; unreferenced pages that are not BLPs can just be tagged with unreferenced, and for those that are BLPs Prod blp may be more appropiate, and PROD or AfD should be used on articles that have no chance of ever becoming an article. At the same time, I think the draftifications are generally not unreasonable, and I have no objection to granting the right if he thinks the draftifications are fine; I'd advise that Britisfinance keeps the points I noted in mind though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Galobtter, and your points are noted and fair. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (pinged here) I don't have specific objections beyond what I expressed last time. I share Galobtter's view that draftify should be used with caution. Best, Dekimasu よ! 21:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding . Based on the responses, I concur with Galobtter's advice and urge you to keep it in mind as well. I do, however, perceive there enough of a need to warrant the granting of this flag. Please use the ability to suppress redirects carefully, as I am sure that you will. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Granted, see below. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and , and comments noted. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi. I see you keep on adding the redlink dot to the articles I created whenever I you review or check them. What can I do address such issues in my next creations. I like to create a enough content but I must admit, it's rather disappointing and bad when someone adds a tag to them which says I should improve. I want to know so that such does not happen in future Loved150 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Any time a new article is created on WP, it goes into a queue for checking (called "partol"). I am not sure which articles you are referring to - if you give me an example, I can address that specifically. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Diannaa. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Laurie Berman, 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.

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The source webpage is marked as Copyright © 2018 State of California, so I don't think we can copy it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . I also marked for CSD under copyright yesterday after running a copyvio, but then saw that the source of the material seemed to be public (the author  had put in the ); so I left it unreviewed for others to decide. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's a mystery because the page was marked as reviewed when I got there, and the software automatically sent you a notice when I unreviewed the page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sorry, just checking this and forgot that when marking the file for CSD it is automatically marked as reviewed - my mistake, I must remember to unreview pages tagged as a CSD? kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking them as reviewed removes them from the queue, but I thought it meant the page would then be indexed, ie, it would be available via a Google search, which I don't think is appropriate for a copyvio. But hunting around, I see that Controlling search engine indexing says that pages with a speedy deletion tag on them don't get indexed, so it was not necessary for me to un-review the page. So you did it correctly, and I did it wrong and learned something new. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

G1
You tagged two articles that were written in a foreign language as WP:CSD, despite the fact that the criterion specifically excludes such articles. You should know better.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Sorry about that, my mistake. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Creation of article Russ Swan
I just created the article Russ Swan (cornerback), but the name is wrong, it should be Russ Swan (American football). Is there a way that somebody can help me change it ?. RegardsTecmo (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Tecmo: Somebody just did. :) —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you C.Fred for the help with the change.Tecmo (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you too C.Fred. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello the description "Russ Swan (cornerback)" still is active, is there a way to remove it an just leave active the description "Russ Swan (American football)", can we delete the article an create it again ? C.Fred. kind regards. Tecmo (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Tecmo: Russ Swan (cornerback) is a redirect to Russ Swan (American football). There's no harm in having the redirect; if anything, it helps with finding the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Korea TESOL page
Korea TESOL

I'm not sure this is the proper way to respond to your tags on my (our) Wikipage.

I've seen your note for inline references, made some additions. It's hard to add more, since the organization is well-known in certain circles, but outside these, hardly known. See the JALT page, we are partners.

Thanks Robertjdickey (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Rob Dickey
 * Hi . Best way is on the Talk Page of the article in question - I will paste this to it now.Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dylan Collins
You keep stripping out the parts that demonstrate the notability of the person then claiming not notable. Why are you defacing the noteworthy portions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterpottery (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A claim that a company is worth $100m (when the claim is ultimately a primary source), does not help notability (e.g WP:GNG) - in fact, the claim will attract concern around WP:PROM. The best way to substantiate the notability for the subject is to insert references to major newspapers/sources talking about Dylan (not his company, or industry).  E.g. "On the (date), the (major paper) described (BLP subject) as (something noteworthy)."  That is the best route.  This article was blanked and redirected previously under a concern, so it is important to improve referencing to what high-quality secondary sources say about the subject himself (not his company, and definitely not when the source of their information is the company itself).  When I saw the article first in the page curation system my instincts were to reach for the WP:AfD process, but there is something here there are major news sources used as references.  The key making sure you are stating what the source is saying about Dylan, and not about the company or industry. hope this helps and best of luck. Note, I am going to paste this into the Talk Page of this article which is the best place to discuss further. Britishfinance (talk)

Stig Ingar Evje
Danish, I believe. Not nonsense. Cheers-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake, although I think it might have been meant for the Norweigan WP. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise Maxamed Jibriil Muuse, wasn't nonsense but Somali (but which has now been translated). Largoplazo (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Chinese lists of cults
Please take a look at this page Chinese lists of cults. Everything looks weird in it: title, no lede, 90% wikilinks are in fact to Chinese wikipedia, chaotic content, etc.

I would suggest to unpatrol it and move into draft space.

By the way, is there a centralized WP:AN/I-kind of place to deal with such pages? Obviously, its state is beyond any cleanup; it is not even clear its purpose. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The page you mentioned was patrolled by a few weeks ago so I suspect that the subject is considered fine.  On the other hand, the content in this article seems to have evolved in a direction since it was patrolled and there seems to be some off-topic material here (and unusual references).  These can be delt with by just tagging the article (and/or deleting the inappropriate material yourself). The best process to resolve an article long-term is the WP:AFD process.  hope that helps.  Britishfinance (talk)
 * Thanks for the hint to look into article history. Now something starts making sense to me. At least I know what and how to cleanup, the first step being to rename into List of cults in the People's Republic of China. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SInce I looked at it before, I looked at it again. I do not see the point of the recent deletion, and I reverted it.There is no reason why Chinese references shouldn;t be used, but I think there are also English language sources for almost all of this  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no deletion; there were additions only all the way. Also I was talking about cross-language wikilinks (CWL), not references. CWL create confusing appearance that there ale lots and lots of articles, in facl there are 2-3 of them. I will reformat it using ill Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)