User talk:HMSSolent/Archive 8

Heading text
i am the general assistant to brighton & hove albion women fc and was updating the squad list who gave you the right to change it back ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjoe19649 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While I admit that it was an error in my part (I thought it was the men's Brighton F.C. squad), you do not "own" the article (see WP:OWN). Anyone can edit pages within Wikipedia; you're not the only contributor to the aforementioned article. If someone sees an edit that does not appear to be constructive, they can revert it. Your edits, while constructive, do not appear to be supported by reliable sources. Please provide a reliable, independent source (primary sources are allowed as long as they are supported by these sources) to back your additions to the page. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 14:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

CEX
You recently changed my edit for CEX's entry into wikipedia. CEX are a second hand electronic company, but they have a niche in the market. They purposefully made themselves uncontactable by phone and their email system is unmanned. There is actually 'no way' to get a refund back from these people if you buy from them over the internet. I understand Wikipedia's stance on 'free information', but surely, in certain cases, criticism is warranted. Everything I changed was 'fact'. you only have to visit any online forum or even their facebook page or any other of their own media outlets to know how this company behaves. Their own media outlets are full of people 'just' complaining. This information is true; and I'm sure wikipedia should be interested in this. The people who use this store, are obviously those who have less means and less information about their rights, and this company exploits that to the fullest.

i understand that you feel that wikipedia might not be the place for this 'constructive criticism', but it is all true, and you cannot deny that. Personally, I feel that wikipedia should be used for more. Not in terms of proactive protests or anything like that, but in terms of displaying 'true' general perceptions of a certain company, as this is information that would also be useful to anyone browsing your pages. And, furthermore, most importantly, it is all true. The founder of the company is nowehere to be seen and the email service is non existent and plus there is no way to phone head office. This is actually quite smart as the firm is a type of franchise and even the franchise shops cannot communicate effectively with their own parent company... again, this is all true. So why not include it?91.239.145.254 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The personal opinion of one or more individuals, such as this one: "However, customers are advised not to use this service. There have been many instances of customers not receieving the products advertised and/or receiving their products in an unacceptable condition. This company is notorious for not handing back refunds to customers who are well within their rights to claim them. They have been taken to small claims court on a number of occasions and still find ways to withold their customer's refunds." do not adehere to WP:NPOV. Please note that this is an encyclopedia - if you want to remind customers not to use their services, do it somewhere else; such content do not belong here. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia Eagles edit
You recently changed my edit about the Philadelphia Eagles which was completely accurate. It clearly is not vandalism if it is true.69.121.152.52 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even so, phrases such as "shitty" are nonconstructive and they constitute vandalism. If you would like to post your personal opinions about the team, do it somewhere else, not here. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 02:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Carychium
Hello, I have worked with the Carychiidae in my doctoral studies and there are only two genera to be included: Carychium and Zospeum. Moreover, several taxonomic names were wrongly spelled or the date/author wrongly given. Please keep the changes provided. Best wishes, AMW. add: If you like to add a third one, keep Carychiopsis Sandberger, 1872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.44.126 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your advert tagging on Offshore Medical School in the Caribbean
I understand World Bank may not a neutral source but what is the problem of quoting factual statements from its publication? Does anything in the article qualify as undue weight? What other POV is there to necessitate a neutral tone? Please explain the tagging so the article can be improved.--Skyfiler (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actuallly concerned about these, as they initially appear to be advertising:

The last one sounded like an advertisement; but I'll remove the tag if it becomes an issue for you. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 01:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The lack of a summer break offers student a faster route to a degree with a compressed curriculum."
 * "Establishing a medical school in Caribbean is significantly easier than in the states. Schools are not required to do research and perform clinical training as LCME accreditation demands. Typically it only requires a business license to open a medical school in the Caribbean and get listed in the International Medical Education Directory (IMED), which qualifies their students to undergo the ECFMG certification process[1]. This has both positive and negative effects. On one hand, low initial cost in establishment increased competition, that in turn increases the quality of service. On the other hand, this created a big demand in clinical rotations that even the large states have problem accommodating[3], let alone their home country."
 * Offshore Medical Schools in the Caribbean are unique among the world of education, as their operation are geared toward educating students to practice medicine in the US and Canada, compare to local public schools that focus on their home nation[1].
 * Those are direct quotes from the world bank publication. The first one is fact - faster degree as the result of more school days. The second one is a POV, which I would say is as authoritative as what it gets on the business side, and I did not find support materials that say otherwise. The effects could get more negative content there, that's why I quoted NYT, but the NYT artcile's due weight is not yet justified, let alone adding more negative content. We need to quote more sources that covers at least the whole subject to judge what is the the due weight to negative contents. The NYT article is focusing on a connected topic that is localized in scope thus cannot be used to weight content on a much larger scale. The last one is also world bank's POV, but I cannot think of another region that has comparative North American influence in their medical education. --Skyfiler (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Explaining the removal
Sorry I forgot to explain why I removed the Species list in Hogna. I found that the list is totally redundant to List of Lycosidae species and I decided to remove it to avoid redundancy. I had replaced it with "See List of Lycosidae species" so that no information would be lost. Would you please restore the removal?Professorjohnas (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Essay-like
Just a note to say that essay-like doesn't actually apply to articles like Jumping library. That confusingly named tag (as the documentation says) is for pages that offer personal comments or opinions, not for something that looks like it might have been written originally for a university class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more - it looks more like a script for a biology course. Would be appropriate then?  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 14:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd bother tagging it myself (there are so many articles in much worse shape, etc.), but if I were going to tag it, then the general tone template would be the obvious one to try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you for reviewing and moving the article Almon A. Covey House which I recently created within the AFC system. I have a lot of Wikipedia experience already but would like to use the AFC system for a while at least, and I may possibly create a bunch more articles (and I did just start Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl M. Neuhausen House, too). After I learn my way in the AFC system, I hope to be able to contribute by reviewing others' submissions, if that is possible, or helping in some other way. Thanks and cheers, -- do ncr  am  23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm sorry your RFC case had to end this way, but I'm glad I could help you out. You know, if you haven't noticed, there's a new AFC Helper tool on your Preferences menu; I'd really suggest that you have it turned on already if you haven't done so - especially if you're interested in reviewing AfC nominations. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 01:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks. I am now using the AFC helper tool, and am partway through reviewing an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modernistic qualitative research.  I'll try to do what I can in AFC, though i may need assistance in moving articles ready to be accepted to mainspace, due to limitation imposed upon my editing.  Seems there's plenty of commenting and declining and other work to do though. -- do  ncr  am  03:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Plcoopr
Thank YouPlcoopr (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anna Pascoe
Hi,

Think there was an error in my original submission of this article - I inadvertently spliced my own (2-line) article with a much longer CV-like article that someone else had previously tried to upload. On that basis I can see why the article was declined as reading like an advertisement.

That said, since then I've made what I think are appropriate changes (deleted the other person's CV submission from the draft article - these were uploaded in error) so we're now left with a simple 2-line article saying who the person is and what they've done in the public eye (sources cited from the BBC and the Guardian websites).

Do you think this is now suitable as an article? It's my first one so happy to take comments, but I don't feel it reads like an advert now that the other person's submission has been removed.

Thanks,

DaveLondon333 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not prepared to accept it just yet, but neither am I inclined to decline it for a second time. Though it would qualify as a stub, it is missing a lead section, and it wouldn't hurt to add a bit more about her personal life and her political activities. I'm also concerned that there may not be enough context for those unfamiliar with her. I'd really hate to see all that work go to waste, but I'm just not ready to accept it at the moment, although it certainly won't be declined. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've made all the changes suggested although the only info I can find on this person's personal life is in party political literature, which I'm concerned might be inappropriate as a Wikipedia source so I haven't put anything under the "personal life" section. Thoughts on the revised article? DaveLondon333 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It now looks far more satisfactory; I've now accepted your submission, but there appears to be a cite error - I'll try and fix this. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing MfDs
Hi. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gyrind/sandbox, but there are special templates to use: {{subst:mfd top}} and {{subst:mfd bottom}}. I have fixed that one. The instructions for closing MfDs are at Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep this in mind if I ever find myself in such similar circumstances at MfD. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits
Look, I understand that as a redneck you're probably retarded so you can't understand what I'm saying, but please don't revert my edits just because they say the truth about the part of the US you are living in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.199.105 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me get things straight - I am not a redneck. I reverted your edit for three reasons:

While it may be true, if you wish to give your personal view on this, do it somewhere else. See WP:SOAPBOX. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not done in good faith.
 * It did not adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
 * It appears to be a conflict of interest.

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Smtchahal. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Chihiro Sasakawa, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. —             09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The appropriateness (or not) of computer vendor advertising (recognition) in a scientific article that is not about the capabilities or merits of any particular computer vendor
In an article on environmental change and global warming, many distinguished authors are mentioned and scientific papers cited. It seems inappropriate, in what is essentially an encyclopedia article about one subject, to state the scientific method of "computer modeling" as a model run on one specific computer system from one specific computer vendor. Much of the science described in the article will have included a considerable amount of computer modeling on computer systems of all kinds from multiple vendors. To single out one particular result as being performed on a specific computer system seems to be giving undue weight to that particular modeling platform. The important scientific fact is that a computer model was run and results obtained.

If the article in question were intended to be an authoritative article about computer modeling, and intentionally to recognize specific vendors, then it would be reasonable to expect a variety of computer vendors and platforms to be mentioned. In an article of this significance and scale it seems odd that only one system would be mentioned in the whole article.

The article in question being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

98.240.210.59 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Further clarification of my point. I made an edit to replace the one and only reference in this article to a specific computer and computer vendor used for scientific modeling and I substituted a more vendor neutral comment that a computer model was run. The calling out of just one particular computer vendor in this article (whether or not true) seems to give undue weight to one vendor, in an otherwise neutral article in this regard (no other computer types, nor computer manufacturers are mentioned). The challenge was whether the edit I made "was constructive". I have just read the principle of neutrality within WP, A reading of the Ozone depletion article as it stands reasonably leaves a impression that the only significant scientific computer modeling done, that contributed to the science of the subject,.was the one referenced: the one I edited. That only one computer vendor is significant is reasonably not the case, and therefore the article is unbalanced, or potentially biased in this regard. Therefore, yes, the edit was constructive, because it focused on the scientifically interesting point that a computer model was run, rather than on the naming of the particular computer model, which is not of direct interest to the subject discussed.

98.240.210.59 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed these changes on the article's talk page? hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 03:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, that's an error on my part. I was going to click "Pass" on STiki, but I accidentally clicked on "Vandalism" instead. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Query
I want to know why did you tag this page for speeding deletion under criteria G11. I did not know what the content was but whatever it was existed in user namespace, which is never encyclopaedic. -- SMS Let's talk    09:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:USERPAGE - user pages should not be used as a means of promotion. It also violates WP:NOTADVERTISING; Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a medium of advertising, regardless of where it is; either in one's userspace or the article namespace, either way, they are unacceptable. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 12:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- SMS Let's talk    12:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Elliott Trudeau Elementary School (Hull, Quebec) escaped from AFC
Hello HMSSolent. I noticed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Pierre_Elliott_Trudeau_Elementary_School&diff=prev&oldid=545605819 your edit here]. This submission showed up in a request at WP:RM/TR which I closed, but I suspect that the protocol of WP:AFC was not properly followed. It seems that the creator moved it to mainspace without waiting for a review. The article has wound up at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Elementary School (Hull, Quebec) Since I don't regularly participate at AFC I leave it to others to figure out what to do. You were the only regular editor whose name I could find as connected somehow to this article so I posted here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC