User talk:ColinFine/Archive 14

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2021
Delivered November 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

21:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sanskar Desai draft Final Publish
Thank you for your reply. So you mean I need to add ? on top. Since this is my first full page draft. Others I had added only some information.Hence wanted to know how to go about it.

I have recently started editing .I am not a paid editor. writing and researching is my passion Sir.


 * If you add that to the top,, it will give you a button allowing you to submit the draft for review. But I repeat, if you submit it without addressing the issues, you are wasting everybody's time. As to the paid editing: it was not I that added that tag (which may refer to another editor who worked on that draft before you). It might be worth asking  why they thought that tag might be appropriate. ( --ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Can you make an article for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alianderis (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alianderis, I helped you a bit. Please donate E20 to Doctors Without Borders as payment. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Grub Hill Church, Virginia
Thanks for taking care of this. The "Draft" designator has disappeared from that item in my contribution history, and the frog has become a prince. ;-) --2603:6081:8004:DD5:6451:2AC4:EB73:1BE (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Crisis at the esperanto wikidiktionary
I remember you know esperanto. The wikidictionary seems to be in crisis with sysops banning each others. Know anything about it? Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know a little bit of Esperanto,, but I have never been on eo-wikt, and I have no interest in getting embroiled in an administrative brawl there or anywhere. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Help_desk
Thanks for the recommendations. I obviously don't know what I'm doing when it comes to adding pictures to articles...so I'll probably first try sending my suggestion about image files up the chain of command, so to speak, rather than trying to edit a Help page myself. -- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:6451:2AC4:EB73:1BE (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think that when a new person says "that help page didn't tell me what I needed to know", we should listen. Suggest it on one of those places, and see what people think. By the way, there isn't a "chain of command"! --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2021
Delivered December 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sanskar Desai Final Publish
thank you for your guidance. Will try to send for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnalphanso (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have sent the draft Sanskar Desai for review as per your guidance. Is it ok ? Or do I need to add something. Thank you.Johnalphanso (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I fear I gave you the template wrongly: I have now corrected it on Draft:Sanskar Desai, so there is a button which you can pick to submit it. I suggest you format all the references properly (see WP:REFB), as a list of URLs tends to be uninviting for a reviewer. You also need to remove evaluative words such as "creative", "well-known", "path-breaking", "leading", "noted" - see WP:Peacock words. "Since [time period]" is not idiomatic in my English: is it in Indian English? --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again for exlplaining so well. I have removed all the evaluative words. But I am still unclear with the formating the references. Could you please show an example with one reference. I understood that I am supposed to add "Cite" whether it is from web/news/book...etc...but unable to use it.But when I clicked on cite web a chart popped up which is confusing. Yes, we use the word "since" to show time .Johnalphanso (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have converted the first reference to use cite news, . Now you can see the important bibliographical information such as the title, the publisher, and the date (if there were an author credited, you would see their name as well). However, looking at the reference, I see it is almost useless for your draft, because the only thing it says about Desai is that he holds some position in an association. Thousands and thousands of people round the world hold positions in associations, and only a few of them meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. What it does not say, in any way at all, is that he has been actively involved in the documentary movement of India since more than three decades. If you wish to include that piece of information in the draft you need a reliable source, unconnected with Desai, which says so.
 * As for "since": in British English (and I believe American too) we can say "since [a point in time]" (eg "since last week", "since 2005", "since I graduated from University", "since three years ago"). But we don't use it with a period (eg "since three weeks", "since two years"). Since Wikipedia is an international product, it is acceptable to use Indian English as well as any other variety, particularly in an article about an Indian director (see WP:ENGVAR); but I was checking that this really was Indian English and not a mistake. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have partly understood that the 1st citation reference needs to be more apt. I will search an appropriate one or modify the sentence. But I am still finding formatting part difficult. I will work on it and get back.Johnalphanso (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have finally managed to format 2nd reference. I think I have now got it correctly. Please could you let me know if I am on right track ? Thank you.Johnalphanso (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . That's better, but I've tweaked it further - have a look at my edit. The title is now formatted as readable text rather than as part of a URL; and I've added the author's name. Again, the source fails to verify the claim that it is attached to in your draft: it doesn't mention his family. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, yes I am getting more clarity now. But still tricky to get it right. I guess practice is needed. Regarding the source I added, the reference is for his father who is wellknown.His other family members already have wikipedia pages which mentions his fatherJohnalphanso (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right,, I misread the article. Unfortunately that means that that article is totally useless as a source for an article about Sanskar, since it doesn't even mention him. Unless you can find a reliable source that says that Sudhir was Sanskar's father, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I'm afraid that several of your references look to me rather like a case of "I can't find enough sources with serious information about Sanskar, so I'll fill it full of sources that are vaguely related, to make it look as if it's well referenced". My advice is to throw away all the sources that are not both independent and containing significant coverage of Sanskar Desai. Then see if the remaining sources contain enough information for an article: if they don't, you need to go looking for more sources. If you have the sources, then you probably need to throw away all the text you have written, and start again, putting in only information that comes from one of the sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, sure. I understand I rather find references only of Sanskar Desai rather than related ones.Thanks.Johnalphanso (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I had sent the article for review after all the corrections and your guidance. I even found new good & apt references. But I was disappointed to get a response that its not approved. The reason given is that they don't find him notable.Its sad when a prominent senior documentary filmmaker in India working selflessly for the documentary filmmakers work and their rights is not considered for an article. There are many articles floating on wikipedia about people that have no standing and seem to be written by themselves or by paid editors or PR persons but still find place.There are hardly any references or citations but wikipedia has allowed these articles. Dont understand the logic. Examples Akashaditya Lama, Utpal Datta. A film that is not even completed forget the release also has a page....Refer to Tauba Tera Jalwa...Check it please. In India, documentary scene is difficult and yet these are very good citations I have cited. Please guide me further....I worked so much on it. Its my first article, after all.Since you have been my mentor...I need further help on this article.Johnalphanso (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Your assumption that "Wikipedia has allowed these articles" is wrong. More accurately, nobody has disallowed them: nobody has looked at these articles and decided they are appropriate for deletion. Wikipedia is not an organisation with roles, tasks, and duties: it is a collection of volunteers who choose to work on what they choose. We have over time developed a set of policies and standards, some of which were not enforced earlier in the history of Wikipedia. If you find articles that you think should not be in Wikipedia, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion - see deletion policy - but make sure you look at BEFORE first. Also see Other stuff exists.
 * The second wrong assumption you are making is that anybody can "deserve" or "merit" a Wikipedia article. This assumption rests on the utterly false idea that a Wikipedia article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course the subjects of many articles do get some benefit from there being an article about them, but that is absolutely not part of Wikipedia's purpose (and some subjects very much wish we did not have an article about them, or that the article did not say what it does say). Desai may be a wonderful film-maker and humanitarian, but if there is not sufficient independently published material on him to be able to write a neutral article, then Wikipedia will not have an article on him. This is not a slight or an insult, as being the subject of a Wikipedia article does not confer any kind of honour or recognition, except the recognition that other people have found the subject sufficiently interesting or important to write about.
 * I understand your frustration; but in my view everybody who comes to Wikipedia with the intention of adding an article about a particular subject, rather than with the intention of helping to create Wikipedia, has not understood what Wikipedia is, and is setting themselves up for frustration and disappointment.
 * Personally, I am not interested in spending any more time thinking about Desai, so if you reply further, I might not respond. --ColinFine (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You have guided me all along so please don't get agitated about my frustration. I was just wondering how some articles went up and got published when they didn't have any significance and nobody rejected it !! I would rather spend time in constructive work of helping wikipedia with authentic information than send nomination for deleting someone's pages. Its ok if those insignificant pages are around, let some more experienced editor decide if it falls in wikipedia's notable pages or not. Thanks again Guru..( Indian word for Teacher ) don't get angry please. Johnalphanso (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Carpenter?
Hey! So I just noticed that you used yet another house analogy for something on Wikipedia. Are you a carpenter or something or do you just really like houses or what? I just find it kind of interesting that you mainly use houses for analogies. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No,, I'm not a builder or a carpenter: it just struck me as a useful metaphor, because of the way that the most important, fundamental, parts of a house are generally invisible and many people may not even be aware of them. I've been meaning to write an essay about this, but I haven't got round to it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. That makes a lot of sense. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)
ColinFine, I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2022
Delivered January 2022 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Le Musee Francais
Thank you for your comments on my submission about Le Musee francais. I will try and contact the other reviewers as you suggest. Was it your question about the nature of the publication, whether or not a periodical? My hope has been that this would be evident from the cataloging which I cited. Letme put a link on this. The subject is a publication of engravings requiring over 20 years to complete, not a periodical. George-Amherst (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . First, when you post on any talk page, unless you are replying to an existing section on the page, please add a new section at the bottom. I have moved your comment to one.
 * The question about the nature of the publication wasn't mine, but Maproom's: they are an experienced editor, but evidently forgot to sign their comment on this occasion. I think their questions are to the point. The lead of an article should say what the thing is that the article is about: it's not enough for the references to make that clear: the article must do so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, here's a kitten for you!
Hi there, Thank you for your answers and comments on Teahouse. They were clear and insightful! I have updated the draft [Eternal Fire(EsportsOrganization)] as you suggested. And I will pay attention to the points you mentioned when writing new articles.

Have a nice day :)

TheWirelessMonkey (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC) 

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2022
Delivered February 2022 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

17:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

About the convoluted thing...
Hey. I took this here since I believe it will unnecessarily clutter the TH.

I do actually agree with you (though I initially got a little bit personal at first, apologies) that my style is... maybe not beyond perfect, but like imperfect, if you know what I mean. I have to be reminded time and time and time again about edits and I thought I noticed everything and made everything at least good. But ever since my first edit I've gotten better in terms of writing style, and I'm constantly learning new ways to write. After all, writing has always been my passion, and editors' direct criticism have been rewarding.

Definitely no pressure, but can you explain to me how my writing is convoluted? I know I can be extraneous and vague at times (maybe I am with this text here), but I want to know exactly how my writing is convoluted, and how I can avoid that. Sorry if this sounds silly, but I guess all I want is to be better, and throughout my editing time, I've always gotten the best advice out of asking editors more experienced than me.  Gerald WL  15:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a general point, {U|Gerald Waldo Luis}}, and now I look at it again, I take back "convoluted" - I was reacting to the inappropriate phrase magnum opus. But I'm not sure there's a word you could put in in place of magnum opus which would leave it meaning the same as the original. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, sorry about that. Well I was kinda in a rush at the time and was just looking for "brainchild synonym" and just say whatever I saw. I know, I didn't need to write it, but my autism insisted that I write it to "help" the editor. Self-trout.  Gerald WL  17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But you see that magnum opus is sort of the converse of brainchild, yes? --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first thing I saw is a Thesaurus.com tab stating that one of the synonyms of brainchild is magnum opus. Perhaps it's a different context, I don't know. I definitely didn't know what I wrote, so apologies. It won't happen again :)  Gerald WL  17:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I got confused too., and some of what I said above is wrong. Magnum opus is roughly synonymous to brainchild; but your wording turned it round and said that Treatt was the M.O. of the expedition, whereas what you meant to say was that the expedition was Treatt's M.O. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)