User talk:ColinFine/Archive 5

Confirmation about the correct userpage information?
I have done a few edits to my user page do you think its relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrison-Montsho (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, : that's fine. I was just concerned (as were others) that you were revealing too much for your own safety. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Harrison-Montsho (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Help editing article? (Ravi Ramnarain)
Dear ColinFine,

I am writing/editing an article on my employer and fiancee, Ravi Ramnarain. He has been quoted on Fox, Time Money, NASDAQ, Huffington Post, and other sources of media. He is a CPA and a CFO of a South-Floridian company. I submitted the article once before and it got rejected for "unambiguous advertising". I edited it since, have the article as finished as I can think to make it, and haven't resubmitted it yet. Would you mind looking over it and telling me what I might need to change? I greatly appreciate your consideration. Thank you!

D ferrell (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)D_Ferrell


 * I'm sorry, < I'm not prepared to wade through a huge wall of text to check its quality. Please format it in paragraphs with headings, and present the references properly in line - see your first article, and Referencing for beginners. What I can see is that the first few lines give no indication of why he might be notable and merit a Wikipedia article. There are thousands of finance professionals, most of whom are not notable. Note that being quoted, anywhere at all, contributes nothing towards establishing notability: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that he has said or written about himself, or that you have said or written about him: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have published about him in reliable places. So articles about him in those sources, but not based on an interview or a press release, might contribute.
 * Please note also that you are strongly advised to declare your Conflict of interest on your user page or the article's talk page; and if you are in any way paid to write this (as seems likely if he is your employer, even if he is also your fiance), the you must declare this fact, according to PAID.
 * I'm sorry I can't be more encouraging, but the fact is that writing acceptable articles is hard, and I always advise new editors to spend weeks or months improving existing articles before embarking on this task. Writing acceptable articles with a COI is even harder. --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice
ColinFine: Thank you for your advice regarding archived pages. Further, I hope I used the right channel for thanking you by starting a 'new section' on your talk page. If that was not the right way, then I am sorry but I am still learning. Mat phys (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you - this is a good way to do it. Another way is to look at the history of the Teahouse, find the edit where I answered you, and pick "Thank" next to it.


 * Another point is that if you thank somebody on a different page (as you have here) it is kind to link to the section you are referring to: it might be that I didn't happen to see this for a week, and would have forgotten what it was about. You can link to a section by Teahouse/Questions, which displays as Teahouse/Questions. (If it had happened to be archived between you creating that link and me looking at it, the link would not find the section; but it has the name of the section in it, so I could search the archive to find it). --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine: Thanks again for your advice. I have tried to incorporate your suggestions and those of David Biddulph  into my article. I think it is now ready to be submitted. It is in my sandbox. May I please request you to have a look at it and advice me regarding its suitability? Since your subject is Maths, your comments will be very valuable and helpful to me. I will also request David Biddulph for his comments. Wishing you a Merry X'mas. Thank you. Mat phys (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I'm sorry, but in my view it won't do. I haven't read much beyond the introduction, but everything about it screams "This is not an encyclopaedia article: this is a textbook article". Wikipedia articles summarise what their sources say. They don't interpret, argue, synthesise, or teach. They don't use the first person ("we will review") or address the reader directly ("See"; "Imagine"; "think of"). They don't use evaluative words ("powerful method"; "excellent book"; "successful"; "major"; "important") unless directly quoting a source (it is possible that these do so, but you have not presented them as quotations). They don't editorialise ("indeed"; "in fact"). Please have a look at WP:WORDS.


 * It may be that the later sections are more neutral summaries of the sources, but the introduction reads to me like original research. In fact Wikipedia articles don't have a section titled "Introduction": what they have is a lead: a few paragraphs before the first heading that summarise the rest of the article, but are not normally referenced because they should not say anything at all that is not in the body of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine: Thank you again. That is precisely the kind of incisive comments that I needed. What I wrote is nothing like original research. However, I realize now that what I wrote was in a pedagogical style - probably as a force of habit. It is interesting that you precisely identified the 'wrong' phrases. Your comments have been, therefore, very helpful. I will modify the draft to make it encyclopedic. Incidentally, for some reason, your correspondence with me got mixed up with your correspondence entitled "Confirmation about the correct userpage information with another user". I thought I should continue the same thread so that the links and the context are retained. If you prefer it in a different thread, it is fine for me. Thank you. Mat phys (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, : I accidentally put a space at the start of the header line, which made it not a header. I've restored it, and moved your latest comment down here to the bottom. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine: I have now significantly modified the draft of my article in the light of your comments and suggestions. The revised draft is in my sandbox. When you find time, I will once again be grateful if you could please have a look at it and let me have your reaction. I will, of course, be happy to incorporate your suggestions and comments. Whether my article is accepted or not, it has been a very educative experience for me. As a habit, I always write in a pedagogical style and keep an imaginary student in front of me as my reader. You made me realize that writing for an encyclopedia is totally different. To be able to write in a totally detached attitude is not easy but important. Thank you. Best wishes for a very Happy New Year. Mat phys (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine: I was hoping to hear from you but I appreciate that it must be a busy time for you and you may not have time to look at my draft (in my sandbox). I thought therefore I should submit it for review and see what they say. From what I gathered from the help columns, I need to put the put the line {subst:submit}} at the top of my article. What is not clear if I can do it in my Sandbox itself or do I have to mode the draft to a separate page.

Another question/worry that I have is that after I submit, and if the reviewers do not like the draft, will they return the draft to my Sandbox or will they simply delete it? I hope they return it to my Sandbox so that I have an oopportunity to modify the draft and make it acceptable.

Thank you. Mat phys (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Happy new year, . Sorry, I had a quick look when you sent the previous message and the introduction seems much imnproved, but I haven't looked closely. Of course the level 1 heading at the top looks very odd, but that needs to be removed when the draft is accepted and moved into mainspace.
 * You can submit from your sandbox just as well as from Draft space. If the reviewer doesn't accept it, they'll leave at least one message saying why not at the top, but they won't move or delete the draft. If that happens, don't delete the decline template: future reviewers will want to see it, to know what should have changed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine, Thank you. Mat phys (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

hasn't answered your specific question
Yep, it's true. I took the Indiana Jones approach: eschewing the fancy blade work of a nice longer essay like yours in favor of a revolver that succinctly blasted into the heart of the target: Don't do it and read why.

But thanks for telling the world I didn't answer the question. DonFB (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cypress Grove (musician)
Hello Colin, I am Athena07 and I appreciate your intervention on my article about Cypress Grove. How did you come across the information? Maybe I could find some references to back your statements so we can add them on again. Always appreciate help and fresh ideas. Thanks again Athenaathena07 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Athenaathena07
 * Hello, [You made the heading level 3, which puts it inside the previous section, so I have removed a pair of = signs to move it to level 2, introducing a new section].


 * You seem to have got slightly the wrong end of the stick. I haven't done anything to the article Cypress Grove. The IP user apparently saw your message on their talk page, and thought that they needed to remove the change: I was telling them here that you had already removed it, so they did not need to do anything else.


 * Incidentally, please don't refer to it, or even think of it, as "my article": it isn't yours. You created it, and have done most of the edits on it, and that is visible in the history; but it doesn't belong to you or to anyone. It is Wikipedia's article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see that I absolutely did. Thanks for that. Who did do the changes then? Is there any way I can contact him/her? I'd like to know more so that I can look for the necessary references. By "my article" I absolutely didn't intend it as mine. I' sorry if it came out that way. Thank you Athenaathena07 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Look in the history (pick the History tab on the article) and you can see all the edits, and who made them. It shows you the edit summary, if they left one; and you can pick the 'talk' link to leave a message on their user talk pages. (Note that some of the edits are made by bots; and a message on the talk page of an IP user may or may not get to them, depending on whether they still happen to have the same IP address next time they edit. Sometimes it will get to somebody else who happens to be using that IP address). --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Meygal and Mézenc
Thank you for your answer and sorry for my late reply. I didn't know this difference between "deleted" and "declined" (it doesn't exists on the French Wikipédia). Thank you for this information. I didn't know either that the French and the English Wikipedia have different standards. Thank you too for this information. The problem is solved concerning Meygal, as I see. I'm pleased to note it. I added sources for Mont Mézenc. Is it good now? Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT : ✅ The problem is now solved. Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Vonlandsberg/Alex Stenzel
Colin, I have written an article about the artist Alex Stenzel can you look at it and give me some feed back. Thanks!Vonlandsberg (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your Teahouse response
WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 568

I wanted to let you know, since you were confused, I correctly figured out what the IP was asking. On their user talk page they were asked what pages they edited, so they asked at The Teahouse how to do that. When I checked the talk page I realized I was right.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Jack Merridew
Just wanted to let you know I do agree with many aspects on WP:DENY, just not all of them. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate ColinFine as a nominee for Editor of the Week. Editor Fine has made it his mission to assist fellow editors with constructive and incisive comments, answers, advice and direction. He has been a mainstay at the ref desk, the Help desk and the Teahouse. His encouragement and intervention with new editors is always instructive and thorough with an eye toward a personal touch. His manner balances out some of the difficulties that new editors can experience.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Thanks, but IheartDG is a website that also says the results of any show it's like kinda a database for every Dragon Gate show since Toryumun to our days, but I will try to find more refrences about it and when I find I'll submit it again, but can you help me on finding those refrences?

Thanks for your time

Wrestlingloveditor (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , If the site is run by Dragon Gate, so it's an official website of theirs, then you can treat it as reliable but not independent, so you can use it to support results; but it won't contribute to the notability of the subject. If it's a fansite, then it's unlikely to be reliable.You need articles written about him by independent people, not just listings and results. I wouldn't know where to look other than Google. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One more thing
Also one more thing can I upload images from Tumblr or any other social media?

Because I like the photos from tumblr and so I wanted to upload but I don't know what kind of license I should put, so I what is like images from public domain?, and if I wanted to upload an image of tumblr what kind of license I should put?

Also what you try to mean like the notability of the article?

Wrestlingloveditor (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can almost never use social media in a Wikipedia article, . The only exception is if it is the verified account of the subject of the article, in which case you can use it as a reliable non-independent source. Otherwise, social media is intrinsically unreliable, because you have no way of telling who has posted it, or where the information comes from. As for pictures: with some exceptions which don't apply to articles about living people, you cannot use any picture in Wikipedia unless it is in the public domain (eg pre-1923) or the copyright holder has explicitly released it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. Images you find on the internet, whether in Tumblr or anywhere else, are assumed to be copyright unless they have been explicitly licensed, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Please see WP:Uploading images.


 * As for notability: please see the article that the word was linked to in my answer above. If you try to write an article in Wikipedia without understanding the concept of notability (as used in Wikipedia) you are very likely wasting your time. Have you read my first article?--ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I promise to follow all the bases and guidelines because I want to contribute on everything about professional wrestling and complete all about professional wrestling and make wikipedia great on the professional wrestling.

Thanks for your time and your help

Wrestlingloveditor (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Subject's name as account name
It is remarkable how many users think, in good faith, that in order to create one article about one person, they need to create an account with the same name as the person. If Wikipedia takes great lengths to make sure that a particular good-faith mistake is not made, it will be made anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting for assistance
Good Afternoon ColinFine

I was aasking if you know how to add a locaions map to an article.

Thank

Harrison-Montsho (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . It's not something I've ever done. Does WP:Maps help? --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much I managed to insert the map.

Harrison-Montsho (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yesod article changes
Hi Colin, I saw your name in the history of the article "Yesod" & wanted to let you know that I have edited & (I hope) improved the article by adding citations & removing some heavy Christian-centric passages. I'm notifying you because most of the other user edits are either anonymous, or don't seem to have user pages. I'm not an expert in Kabbala or Wikipedia by any means but trying to learn by doing. Thanks! Nadnie (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, but I also know next to nothing about Kabbala. If you look at my contribution, it was only to add the hatnote crossreferencing to the programming system of the same name (in response to a request at the help desk, IIRC). The only reason I had three edits was that somebody else did this at the same time, and I sorted the duplication out. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Colin, thanks for your response to to my 4th July question [ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)] about uploading videos to wiki individual pages.

I understand this policy, and I think the videos are very relevant. They contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the individual as the videos are the individual talking about their own lives. Web of Stories hold the copyright in the videos so we are the only people who could add them to the wiki page. What should we do next to enable us to upload these videos? Thanks for your help. Anne


 * In case any of you are interested, I started a discussion on a specific case here: . I think WoS could perhaps be used as EL:s on a case by case basis, like videos of CGPGrey. They´re to some extent used as sources (not a lot). It´s not unthinkable that they should have something like "imdb-status" (no insult intended), so to speak, but that would require (I think) a broad consensus in a centralized discussion somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for answering my question at the Teahouse. Too bad there was no chitchat place (I was meaning to social interaction). By the way, I did sign my post with 4 "~" However, Stupid Wikipedia didn't recognize it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There are many places for chitchat on the internet,, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site. If you did insert four tildes, then you must have your signature set up wrong: it is required to have a link in it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=2oczE7SODTUnF5j_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_5teFc918vYTbyzX&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, {U|Porteclefs}}. I think your algorithm is at fault. I would certainly not describe myself as "a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest": on the contrary, I avoid editing pages that are likely to be at all contentious. I'm sure I have fixed some glaring problems on articles about politicians (often because somebody has brought them to the Help Desk or Teahouse) but that is the limit of my political involvement in WP. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding tips on my talkpage SincerlyNoice Gary (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I need ur help
Hello... Dear ColinFine ,

Pls, i currently don't understand ur replied to the Okoriko 's page- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apostle_John_Okoriko Becus, i was thinking that those links on the page are the required references. I need ur directs, thanks! Visionjohnny (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As I explained before,, those references are not independent of Okoriko: they are simply quoting what he says. They may be useful references, but only alongside several independent references. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. It follows that, unless you have such independent sources, there is literally nothing which can go in an article. Please read about notability.
 * As an aside, please use Wikilinks to link to articles: Draft:Apostle John Okoriko rather than URLS: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apostle_John_Okoriko . One reason is that because you are editing on a mobile, your URL is to the mobile version, which looks dreadful on my computer screen. If you use Wikilinks, it will pick the right version for how you're looking at it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Brian Edwards
Hello Colin,

Thank you for your message. I had to change my username from PG Productions Inc because Wiki blocked it and requested the name change. But in any event, back to my client Brian Edwards. I'm at a dead end. I don't understand how any of this Wikipedia stuff works. All I know is that the page about him (not owned by him or me as you pointed out) which was not what I meant in my initial message i.e. I was referring to the page about my client - I was not claiming ownership.

Brian became my client in December 2016. And to my understanding the article about him had been active for about two years. Yesterday, a producer who visited Brian's website - clicked on the Wiki link and found the page had been deleted and sent me a message. At that point, I created a Wiki account so I could seek assistance with this matter. I'm sure you have more important articles that you edit, but I would really appreciate any guidance you could provide me in taking the necessary steps to get the article back up. If there were corrections necessary, could you send me a copy of the article so that I'm aware of what the problems are? I'm not a writer or an editor and I'm not part of any Wikipedia team. I'm just trying to find the proper procedure to get the article reinstated.

Again, thanks for your message and I really appreciate your time!

Pamela Davis


 * Hello, . I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. You are at a dead end because you are trying to use it for what it is not. It may not be used for promotion of any kind. The previous article, whoever was responsible for it, was deleted for (among other reasons) being Unambiguous advertising or promotion. If we have an article about him, he and his associates will have no control over the content, and ideally should have no part in creating it. It should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with him have published about him in reliable sources, and should contain no evaluative language unless directly quoted from an acknowledged independent source. What he has said or done should not figure except as reported by those independent sources.
 * Having given you the harsh background, I will say that you are not forbidden from creating the article, just strongly discouraged. If you choose to do so, you need to be aware of everything in my first article and biographies of living persons, as well as all the strictures on editors with a conflict of interest, including the mandatory disclosures in paid editing. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks in Wikipedia - I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months editing elsewhere and learning how Wikipedia works first. Creating a new article with a COI is that much harder.
 * Please ask again at the Help Desk if you have any further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Colin. But just so you know, I didn't create the page. It was written about a public figure - a multi-award winning writer and publicist. There wasn't any promotion, selling or advertising in the article.If you reviewed the article, then let me know where you found this information to be accurate because I have no idea. It was based on numerous articles and interviews that he has done. That was how the article was created to begin with. He is even noted on a few other Wikipedia pages as well. The only connection we had to the page was linking it to his website - that's it just as his verified Twitter, Instagram, Facebook pages were linked. I don't know how to write or edit on the page - not my area. And Brian doesn't deal with any of this stuff. I wouldn't even know where to begin to write an article on him or anyone else for that matter. I'm a manager not a writer. I appreciate you taking the time to respond but you were a bit harsh as if you were pointing the finger at me for something I had no control over. I'm not the one to blame here - I was simply reaching out to see how his page could be reinstated. Period. But again, thanks for your time.


 * Hello, . Thanks for replying. Yes, I understand that you didn't create the page: I didn't know how much input you had into it. I never saw the article, and not being an administrator, I can't look at the deleted page. I'm just going on the deletion comment "2017-09-02T13:50:36 deleted page Brian Edwards (publicist) (G5,11,TOU)" - G11 and TOU are administrative issues, but G5 is the criterion that I pointed you to: "unambiguous advertising or promotion". (I have linked Doc James, the administrator who deleted it, so they might come here to give you further information, or you could ask them on their talk page).
 * Part of the reason why COI editing is discouraged is precisely that it is often hard for a person close to a subject to tell how neutral or otherwise the text is. An article "based on numerous articles and interviews that he has done" is almost inevitably going to be promotional in Wikipedia's eyes, because it is based on what he says, and Wikipedia is essentially uninterested in what he says.
 * Linking to his official website would be entirely valid (and strongly preferred to linking to any social media sites) but only if the article were in itself acceptable - neutrally written and based on reliable independent sources.
 * I didn't mean to be pointing the finger at you, so much as trying to deter you from something that I, like many other Wikipedia editors, would prefer you don't try. But I tried to be fair and point out how you could go ahead if you were determined.
 * A couple of points about the discussion - if you reply further here, please don't start a new section: just append to this one (I have taken the liberty of removing the new header above your latest reply). You can indent your reply (as I have done) by starting with a colon - or two colons to get a deeper indent. Secondly, on talk and discussion pages like this, please sign you post. If you end with four tildes ( ~ ) it will add your user name and the time and date automatically. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup we do not accept advertising and we have rules against the use of sockpuppets plus rules about disclosure. The person your group hired broke all those rules. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

reply
Dear Colinfine, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionjohnny (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse Response
Thanks for the clarification on the references, but for some reason when I use the and put in the info, it doesn't make it for both... Also, I don't usualy use the source editor, I use visual. DrChicken24 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)DrChicken24

Law firm
This is IP user you responded. Many thanks for your message. The kind of article i was mentioning is this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Rose_Fulbright all large law firms have something like this. I am happy to disclose any conflict or do anything, we just want similar treatment by wikipedia.


 * Hello, : I have moved your message to a new section at the bottom of my talk page. As I said to you at WP:HD, "Wikipedia has ... absolutely no interest in how they wish to be presented". Given that what you want is evidently to promote your firm, Wikikpedia is completely uninterested in what you want. Unfortunately many people besides yourselves confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, and we have many substandard articles which should be improved or deleted: I suspect that Norton Rose Fulbright is in that category, as few of the references cited are substantial independent sources. It was already marked as requiring more citations, and I have now tagged it as possibly failing the notability criteria; but I am not interested in putting in the time to determine if it should be deleted. Sorry. ---ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cliff Padgett reply re sources
Thank you for your suggestion re my efforts to provide sources for the Cliff Padgett page. I'm very confused about how Wiki works and posted the following info in a 'talk page' on the Padgett page. This article was flagged for deletion because there were not enough sources. I have multiple newspaper clippings from the Quincy Herald-Whig, starting in the 1920s ranging well into the 1970s tracking and documenting Mr. Padgett's contributions from founding the Quincy (IL) Boat Club to designing and building hydroplanes, many of which were race winners throughout the Eastern U.S. In addition, one section in the People's History of Quincy and Adams County; a Sesquicentennial History summarizes his biography in a passage of approx. 1000 words on pp. 651-652. I also have multiple photos of him and his boats. His trophies reside in the Quincy Boat Club, along with other memorabilia. In addition, the Historical Society of Quincy and Adams County has mounted several exhibitions of his work over the years. Unfortunately, I am not tech savvy and cannot figure out how to edit the Cliff Padgett Wiki page and would appreciate any help possible in preserving the page and making it acceptable to the Wiki editors. Several editors have tried to kindly help me, but I can't figure out how to correspond with them. Thank you. https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Quincy-Illinois-Sesquicentennial/dp/B0189WG6GW http://www.whig.com/ QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . From your description of the sources, it sounds as if they may be adequate, as long as at least some of them are in depth, and not mere mentions. (Some of the contributurs to the deletion discussion say that what they have seen is mere mentions, but it may be that some of your sources are better. I see you have posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cliff Padgett, but that is not the right place to join the discussion. I suggest you do the following:
 * Identify two or three of your best sources (that is, places where there is significant text about Padgett personally, where people unconnected with him have chosen to write about him (and not anything based on an interview with him or his associates)
 * post directly on Articles for deletion/Cliff Padgett, arguing why he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Edit the page, and at the bottom, begin with " * Keep: " (the * will create the bullet, and the triple quote marks will embolden the word) and follow it with your argument. Since they are not online, it might be worth quoting the relevant portions there - as long as you attribute them properly that will not be a copyright infringement. Make your relationship to Padgett clear: as long as you are transparent about it, nobody will hold that against you.
 * If it's more than a line or two, I suggest you divide it into separate paragraphs. I found your posting above, and on the Talk Page, and at Talk:Cliff Padgett rather offputting, as a wall of text.
 * The deletion discussion isn't a vote, with the number of "keep" and "delete" entries tallied: the admin who closes it will be looking at the arguments, so you need to establish that the sources you have will establish Padgett's notability. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Colin. This is very helpful. I hope that this is the right forum to say 'thanks'. Maybe I should change my moniker to SlowLearner. QuincyBoatManQuincyBoatMan (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Challenging the Critical Response Section Format on Film Pages
Hi Colin, I want to start a discussion on the Critical Response section format in films. It was suggested that I take it to you first.

Can you direct me where to post it?

TIA Joeav (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I haven't a clue who suggested you take it to me, or why: I have no interest in films. Are you perhaps misreading my reply at WP:HD, where I suggested you take it to WT:WikiProject Film? --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
You always give good advice. thx! MauraWen (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Roza Salih TH thread
I guess that's what I get for putting too much faith in popups to estimate the experience of users at the Teahouse. I kindof figured someone with a year on the job an 6k edits would understand the technical meaning of deletion. So much for that. G M G talk   01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A typo in Help desk
Hi, in Special:Diff/825435996, shouldn't 'article should not the fact' read 'article should note the fact'...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Corrected. Thank you . --ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Colin
Hi Colin, I am excited to be working on Wiki and helping it improve in an unbiased way. I have recently contributed to an article which is in "Draft" mode, a Biography of a popular personality in South India: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:T.K.V._Desikachar. Please can you check this article and let me know who can offer me feedback? Or point me to a guide that helps me take this article live or submit to the other moderators?

Regards Vnarsimhan (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I've added a couple of templates to your draft, to format the references better, and to give you a link that you can pick to submit it for review when you think it's ready. Your draft is well structured, but there are some major problems, so I don't think you should submit it yet.
 * The first is the lack of independent sources. Please understand that in an article about Desikachar, Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything said or written by Desikachar himself, or by his family, friends, teachers, pupils, associates, or his institute. That makes most of the references useless: the Feuerstein is probably OK, but it says very little about him; and the obituary is probably independent enough (though if the article quotes anything from it that it ascribes to him, the article must make that clear). What you need to do is to find several places where people who have no connection with Desikachar or his foundation have chosen to write in depth about him, and been published in reliable sources. If you cannot find enough of these to write an article from, then that will mean that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up writing an article about him. Note that the sources do not have to be online, or in English; but they must be published by a reputable publisher.
 * The second problem is that that language is not neutral. Words like "legendary", "inimitable", and even "pioneering" are evaluative terms that do not belong in any Wikipedia article, except in a direct quotation from an independent source. Furthermore, "considered to be" and "is known for" invite the questions "by whom?" and "to whom?" You may say that such and such a source describes him in this way, but you should not use these weasel words. Please see NPOV and editorializing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

American Capital

 * Hello, I wanted to respond back to your comments on the American Capital page. I am not being compensated by and have no financial interest in American Capital Strategies.  The company no longer exists; it was purchased by Ares Corporation in January 2017.  I was one of many employees who worked at American Capital and since there are no active websites or information available, I wanted to document the history of this company.  I looked at many other pages on Wikipedia (General Motors, Kraft Foods, Target Corporation) and their pages are written very similar from a historical perspective covering the company's growth and successes over the years.  Currently the only difference is that I have not yet listed citations to the facts provided in the pages and am working on this.  I am very new to the Wikipedia process and am learning the policies and criteria for posting pages.  I now understand and will not be attaching actual documents but am able to cite the appropriate sources for information provided on the pages.  I am hoping that my innocence and lack of experience will be taken into consideration and ask that the posting to delete the pages be removed so that I can properly finish the pages according to the Wikipedia policies.  Thank you. 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psenda2018 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, . When starting a new topic on a talk page, please start a new section ("New Section") - you had appended your comment to a quite different discussion.
 * It was not me that asked if you were connected with the subject, it was.
 * It's not the structure of the article is which is at issue; the problem is with references. It sounds like you have made the classic mistake that most new contributors make: write the article, and then try and add the references. It needs to work the other way round: if you haven't got a published reference for a fact, it doesn't belong in the article, period. So you might just as well cite it when you write it.
 * Wikipedia editors make a lot of allowance for your innocence and lack of experience, but they will not usually allow articles to survive when they shouldn't: that is not a punishment for the editor, it is simply Wikipedia enforcing its standards. What can be done is to move it to draft space: then you would be able to work on it at your leisure. As long as it doesn't contain copyright infringements or personal attacks, nobody will interfere with it there.
 * However, looking at the comments at Articles for deletion/American Capital, it sounds as if the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - that is, there are not sufficient independent published sources about it to ground an article. If that is indeed the case, then any time you spend on the draft will be wasted, because the article will never be accepted.
 * So what you need to do is to find sources where people who had no connection whatever with the company chose to write in depth about it, and were published in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). Documents originating from the company will not help in that, even if they have been published; and nor will anything based on an interview or press release. If you can find some, then it might be worth your time, and you should ask for the article to be moved to a draft. But if ian is right that there are none, then I advise you to give up. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Colin, Many thanks for helping with my query (my draft would've zombified in non-review limbo, otherwise). All the best, Mark Markmiseldine (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks ColinFine for your guidance on launching a page re "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien." I'm confident the topic will be the Wikipedia bar for this category and I look forward to the process. TomTcampo123 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking my less-than-encouraging advice in good part, . I have no idea what "will be the Wikipedia bar for this category" means. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Hello, . There's no need for you to remove anything. As far as I can see, the material you mistakenly added to WT:WikiProject assessment was rapidly removed. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your help with my question about the Ford Fund on the Teahouse. I found it very informative and useful as a new user of Wikipedia.

Sdunham6 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Sdunham6

Reversion
Alright, got your point abt reversion but what if their reason for reversion isn't fine? The guy after reversion to my change mentioning that change was unnecessary but it was necessary as I gave reason for the change as well. (UsamaAhmadKhan 07:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saamikhan01 (talk • contribs)


 * Did you read the link WP:BOLD that I directed you to, ? It is up to you to discuss the question with the other editor and try to reach consensus. Starting from "I am right and they are wrong" is not conducive to that. (I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are right. In fact, I haven't event looked at your changes. I'm explaining how the process works). If you can't reach agreement, then Dispute resolution tells you what you can do next. --ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you dear for letting me know all this. These things are new to me so that's why I feel a bit offended over it but now gradually I'm getting all this. Thanks for ur time, God bless u! :) (UsamaAhmadKhan 07:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

Thanks
thanks for the feedback on the David Patrikarakos draft entry. i understand the concerns and will modify it myself. Ps. theres no conflict of interest on my part. Cheers. Le Bijoux (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
Hi Colin and thanks a lot for commenting something positive about my article.I have submitted it.Md.Ali25 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello ColinFine, I'm Rebestalic.

Concerning your reply to me in the Teahouse--I think "Rebelastic" actually sounds better than "Rebestalic"! No matter.

I had a quick glance at your userpage. It said you were born in Middlesex and it was later stolen by London. Here in New Zealand, we used to have a similar problem. Auckland wasn't the Auckland that everyone knows today; Auckland was once situated in the middle of four other cities and regions. It was imminent that Auckland would merge with them.

Anyway, thank you for replying to me in the Teahouse Rebestalic (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent Post
Dear ColinFine, many thanks for responding in a clear and understandable way - the WIKI process seems scary and I am not even sure this is the right way to respond. I shall attempt to use the talk page with the relevant information you gave. much appreciated. Colin Larkin (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . This is a good way to respond. You could have done so on the Teahouse, continuing the section you started; but you would have needed to ping me to be sure I saw your reply. If you had been continuing the discussion, that would have been a better place to do it. But since you were rather acknowledging me, this is a fine place to do it, and I get notified automatically if some body posts on my User Talk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Derp
I guess it would help if I'd noticed that the username is the same as the name of the book. G M G talk  15:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, . --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
 * rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | Original Barnstar Hires.png
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | The Original Barnstar
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks Colin Alexandra Duval 01:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks Colin Alexandra Duval 01:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes Corner
Thank you so much for your advice as to how to create a sandbox page. Didn't realize that it was so easy. I very much appreciate the advice. 18:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * }

One more query
If he has an article in a magazine then is it fine? I just don't know how to publish it on wikipedia. Because it is an offline published article and I don't know how to convert it in a digital format.

Thankyou! Lakshita Pugalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshitapugalia (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, sources do not have to be online. As long as it is reliably published (not just a fanzine or something), indepedent of him (so not just an interview, or based on a press release) and more than just a passing mention of him, you can cite it. The important bit of the citation is the bibliographic information to enable a reader to identify the source - it's not a problem if they have to order it through a library, as long as the information is there: magazine name, issue, date, page, author's name if available, title of article etc. Do not attempt to upload the source anywhere: that will probably be a copyright infringement anyway. A hyperlink is a helpful convenience, not an essential part of a citation. See WP:REFB for more. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, figured it out
I appreciate you outreach on my citation question. I have deduced that Wikipedia balks at citations including https://. Easy to fix, but also an easy mistake to make when one's source is curated via google amp. Thanks! Phbm9684 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I don't think it's that: if you look at the source of P.J.Fleck, you'll find several instances of https: in a citation. Glad you found a solution, anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

my edit on Rajneesh
Hi ColinFine, I have realised that now, the page of the interview is indeed copyrighted, so I will ask for permission. There is no reason why some of the content should not be used, as it is directly related to the topic in question. And other qoutes have been used on the page, that are also taken from people directly related to the question. Eternity5090 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * you can quote a short excerpt from the interview without worrying about copyright, if you think it appropriate (see WP:QUOTE). But I can't imagine a case where it would be appropriate to reproduce more of an interview than that. Again, a Wikipedia article is not about what the those involved in the subject say, it is about what independent commentators have said about the subject, including what the commentators have said about what the participants say. The only kind of claim that an interview is capable of supporting is the "so and so said X in an interview": it cannot be used to support X (apart from uncontroversial factual data), and neither may the Wikipedia article contain any argument or conclusion from what was said in the interview, unless it is summarising the argument or conclusion presented in a single independent commentary (see original research). --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Rajneesh
Ok, thanks for the info, Colinfine.

So it should be stated as "so and so said in an interview with..."

And then one or two qoutes from the person concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternity5090 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That's right, . But really, such a quote should be there to amplify or exemplify something that an independent commentator has said. If no independent source has covered the material in the interview, it shouldn't be referred to in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)