User talk:ProgrammingGeek/Archive 7

Adoption
Hello,

I am a new user with very little experience (although I have some experience with Wikiquote on another account). I am interested in being adopted by you.

Alternate Side Parking (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , absolutely. What aspects of Wikipedia are you interested in?  Programming Geek talk to me 00:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a little bit of programming experience and I would like to see articles relating to computer science, expanded and improved. However, my primary interest is in history, particularly American, and Jewish history. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Rejection Template at AfC
You did not just decline but rejected Point_of_Graves_Cemetery. I fail to see any reason for that call. This is a valid topic and should have been approved Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do apologise. The article was resubmitted after I (perhaps incorrectly) declined it the first time, and I lost my cool. I'll try to make sure I'm more levelheaded in the future. Thank you for intervening. Regards,  Programming Geek talk to me 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries we all make mistakes. Keep plugging away at those AfC submissions! Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:LimeRoad
I am concerned by your comment that you will accept this draft when LimeRoad is deleted to make way for the move. LimeRoad is pending deletion as G6 because it is the redirect from draftifying LimeRoad, which was done because another reviewer thinks that it is not ready for article space, and it has not been updated. I can shuffle the redirect into hyperspace to allow acceptance of the draft, but the draft is a draft because it has been draftified to decline it. Please explain. Maybe you didn't notice the history. If so, maybe that is a lesson to learn about what to check on checking histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Mt Washington Fire Protection District
I Am Writing Concerning THe Mt Washington Fire District Page.

I Am Wondering Why It Was Declined, As You Never Left A Reason Why. If It Is A 'Citation' Issue, I Ask You Visit The Zoneton Page And Look At The Accepted Amount Of Citations. There Is No More Information I Can Find Anywhere Without Taking The 1/2 Hour Drive To The Main Station Itself, As The Department Doesen't Exist Anywhere On The Internet, Reliable Sources Or Not.

Edit: -- 'Not Suficciently Notable For Inclusion' What Is That Even Supposed To Mean? About Half Of The Stuff Here Fits That Description.

FlyingPanzer (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,.
 * Zoneton is acceptable for inclusion because it satisfies the notability guideline for places. However, Mt Washington Fire Protection District does not meet the guideline for organisations. Best regards,  Programming Geek talk to me 13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Zoneton is acceptable for inclusion because it satisfies the notability guideline for places. However, Mt Washington Fire Protection District does not meet the guideline for organisations. Best regards,  Programming Geek talk to me 13:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Mt Washington Fire Protection District Does Not Fall Under The 'Organizations And Companies' List Because It Is A City-Funded Public Service, Not An Organization Or A For-Profit-Business. And After Reviewing The notability guideline for places, Zoneton Doesent Qualify, But Back To The Topic: Mt Washington Does Satisfy The guideline for organisations Even Through It Is Not A Business Nor Organisation.

FlyingPanzer (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , to pass it requires reliable, secondary sources. The vast majority of the sources on your article are from the fire department's own website. I suggest you get another reviewer's input here. Thanks.  Programming Geek talk to me 15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Programming Geek , I Ask You To Get Into My Shoes And Try To Find Other Sources Besides What I Have. Because I Am 100% Positive There Is No Other Information About The Department. FlyingPanzer (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think that's more an indication that the article isn't notable and unfit for a page on Wikipedia. Again, you are more than welcome to get another reviewer's input. I appreciate your interest in creating articles. Thanks.  Programming Geek talk to me 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm requesting input by another reviewer. Whoever decides to respond should do here. Thanks  Programming Geek talk to me 15:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have rejected the article. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have accepted the article. It is a "district" with taxing authority so it is an inhabited place and autonotable just the same way we handle school districts. Nicely set up article don't see that much detail and history on fire departments very often. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Just want to add if we were dealing with a small Fire Department operated by City of X, that is like the planning department or taxation department at the City and we could merge the page into the City of X page if the department is not independantly notable. The City not the Department would be the inhabited place. Hope that helps and does not confuse more. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Worsley_(forester)
Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my submission, however i after a bit of assistance as i am struggling to see how i have fallen foul of submission on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Worsley_(forester).

William Worsleys fathers page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Worsley has fewer references, as does his grandfathers page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Worsley.

As the person in question is now in fully control of the Estate it is important that his page becomes live so he can stop being mixed up with his grandfather of the same name. For consistancy the page was written in the style of the other family pages.

Your additional help or any pointers would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidallitt (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nathan Testa
Thanks for reviewing the submission, however need help with improving the article having a " formal tone for an encyclopedia article".

Could you please identify some areas and lend some feedback on ways to improve them. Udaysm (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI
You notified the wrong person of the AfC submission on the Pal Joey article. I'm not the author. I only did a copy edit and resubmitted on their behalf. Striker force Talk 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

00:29:35, 13 June 2017 review of submission by Autoupdate64
I am writing concerning an entry that I wrote for Albert Fornace reviewed by Programming Geek. I corrected the use of references as you suggested several weeks ago. I see that they are now correct in the draft version. Is the entry waiting to be reviewed once more?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ProgrammingGeek&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Albert_J._Fornace_Jr.#

~ ~ ~ ~ Autoupdate64

13:22:09, 24 June 2017 review of submission by Mevduran
I have generated the changes for this page.

Chris Van Pelt page
Hi! I submitted Chris Van Pelt as a new page on wikipedia. You said that you felt it needed more references so I added some. I hope this is sufficient? I have never submitted a new wikipedia page so please let me know what else I can do, and I'm sorry if I'm not following the proper process. Thanks!

WikiProject Report UK
Hi, Following your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom I can do this if you tell me what is required.&mdash; Rod talk 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks! If you wouldn't mind taking a second and filling out the questions here, I'd appreciate it! Thanks,  Programming Geek talk to me 03:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Closing RFC
Hi, you misunderstood Roberts intention,

he argued to close the discussion in the NPOV notice board (80 km long discussion) with no consensus, not that RFC with two maps, where we voted the map to be included to the article and everybody accepted it finally (anyway the majority voted yes for inclusion, without any doubt, only two were no, (7-2) but they have to accept the community decision, so it cannot be no consensus). Recently, discussions were only made about what we should write in text under it (the illegitimate trials of the disruptive editor by WP:AN3 was discussed and finally we did not had to took the case into the ANI). Check please also recent edits and the discussions, only the text under was modifided recently, but it has no connection to the inclusion of the map. Please correct your mistake ASAP. This you should have been closed:. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
 * "The discussion at NPOVN appears to be just going on and on, and I would suggest that it be closed as No Consensus."
 * "Please have the discussion at NPOVN closed as No Consensus"

-> This were what Robert referred, not the RFC Two maps, where the inlcusion was accepted!!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Thank you for closing the RfC. I would also like to understand why you concluded that there was no consensus, taking into account that seven editors supported the proposal and only two editors opposed it. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * closure reverted. Apologies.  Programming Geek talk to me 04:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your action. I wonder why did not you choose to close it properly? I mean in accordance with the opinion of the vast majority of the editors. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ProgrammingGeek, thank you, of course! As per Borsoka's next question, I would ask the same...


 * I'd say a proper closure would be like "The result was for the map inclusion, regarding the text written under it mostly people agreed on the version "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary (between 1200 and 1400)" which may be expanded by another consensus" or similar.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

Talk:Mike Onoja
Hi, please this is my first time on talk page. Pardon me if i make any mistake concerning the rules.

I've been trying to publish the above article for sometime now but unfortunately, it has been rejected twice. The later rejection been that the source of the information(reference) on some activities and information of the subject wasn't provided, and where there is no available reference, such information should be removed from the article.

My reason for not referencing the information you highlighted was that majority of the details I used was from the subject's autobiography of which i thought the continuous use of the same source would not look good. I however discovered that I can insert page numbers in the reference if I'am using a particular source frequently. I'am hoping this should solve the problem and enable my article to be published. I have however referenced the various parts you requested for the source of information, but i am yet to resubmit it. Kindly advice on the best way to go about the article if there is any other correction i should make before resubmitting.

Thank you

( Joeywaje (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) )

The Signpost: 1 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Up for Signpost-Article Questions
Hi there,

Big Signpost fan and more than happy to answer questions (if you're happy to have someone who only started AfC reviewing in the latter days of ACTRIAL), so felt I should reply.

Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , brilliant. Answer the questions here at your leisure -- I might add more questions later, I'll ping you if I do. Thanks a lot! programming Geek (talk, contribs) 20:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - cheers, I've answered most of the questions, I'll do the rest in the next day or two. By "new contributor" do you mean someone new to Wikipedia or new to AfC? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , New to AfC -- I'll clarify that in the question. Also, I'm asking people to have their responses in by December 20, but you wouldn't have seen that as you're the first respondant. Thanks again programming Geek (talk, contribs) 22:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , on second thought I'm removing the question, it's not really pertinent to AfC. programming Geek (talk, contribs) 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Signpost article
Hi, I'm not  intending  to  steel  your thnder, but as I  had prepared a similar article a few weeks ago which  I  never got  round to  publishing, I've added some background  to  the intro. I hope you  don't  mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Not at all, I really appreciate it! programming Geek (talk, contribs) 14:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that  there are now only  7  days left  for  submitting  your  completed article to  The Signpost. If it's not  ready  it  can be postponed to  the January  issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dr. Marcel Saucet for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr. Marcel Saucet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dr. Marcel Saucet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. mrwoogi010 Talk 15:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi ProgrammingGeek. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Swarm {talk}  00:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance. so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Happy Holidays

 * , thanks so much! The same to you. programming Geek (talk, contribs) 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardano pre review
Hello, Although my sandbox was not yet intended to be moved live, thanks anyway for moving it. It gave me another chance of getting it right. Out of Cardano (platform) and Ada (cryptocurrency I liked your suggestion Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) the most :-) Any further feedback on the article is greatly appreciated. Please do so at this Cardano talk page so everybody can see. Regards, --FlippyFlink (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy of Russia
Hi. I've reversed your edit. Reson is -No source of information. The edit was made without any evidence. Have a nice day. --109.252.44.236 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)