User talk:Sintaku/Archives/2014/February

Referencing issues
Hi,

You left a decline notice stating submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. I have included 3rd party/independent sources (for example inc.com, eKomi) which show the company's profile and the content it is referring to. What else can I add or do to make the content notable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wrist-Band.com

Thanks

Maximaracer 95 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They are not independent or reliable, anyone could have written those review. Something independent and reliable would be for example The Times newspaper, avoid using tabloid newspapers if possible. Look at WP:V and WP:Reliability for more information on sources. Also company profiles don't count. By independent it means the company should have nothing to do with it.
 * The sources and why they are not independent or reliable:
 * Inc profile, is made by the company, or with information about it. Nothing notable in there.
 * The company is paying eKomi and Shopper Approved to get in touch with customers for reviews.
 * Custom Lanyards is a link to where you can buy the product.
 * Wikilink to Livestrong Wristbands, wikilinks cannot be used as sources.
 *    Sintaku  Talk 12:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Entando entry
Hello,

can you kindly explain why you consider the entry to be promotional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Entando#Added_reference_links_for_notability

No changes were made after EagerToddler39's review (if not add more sources for third party validation as required) who did not mark the entry as promotional.

Thanks

93.45.80.51 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Gwen93.45.80.51 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No inline citations to backup your claims, and it doesn't show any notability on the software. Regarding advertising, phrases like "special attention", "in a single solution", "has been upgraded to the latest version", etc...
 * You require independent reliable sources, look at WP:V and use inline citation, look at WP:CS.
 * Also keep the tone of the article neutral, look at WP:NPOV.
 *    Sintaku  Talk 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

On article "ODEON Room Acoustics Software"
Dear Sintaku,

Thanks for the review and comment! Could you please help me understand what makes the difference between a neutral article and an advert? Should I just add more third-party sources? I'm really confused because I can see numerous pages like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoCAD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word

that could be easily seen as advertisements... There are plenty of links to the creator in all of them. I admit they have more third-party sources, so is this the only problem I should fix in mine? In any case, even if these pages have third-party sources don't they work as adverts in people's mind? Someone can read all the features about their new releases and get links to their official pages... So the companies get a direct benefit from the article. Is this wrong? I have been a student working with ODEON in the past and now I felt I could write something, not from an advertising point of view, but because the software is judged as one of the unique products that contributed significantly in the science of acoustics and its applications to buildings.

So if other parts in the article need to be fixed - except from the sources - could you please specify? I feel that the comment "Reads like an advert for the company" sounds very general.

Thanks and I really appreciate your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeAcoust (talk • contribs) 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a second read it seems to be fine on the advertising side, however it still needs reliable independent sources. Not ones from the company/organisation/project or its affiliates. And most of your sources are from the company itself. Also a lot of the content in there is unsourced, where do you get that information from? Look at WP:OWN    Sintaku  Talk 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the fast response! I'll try to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeAcoust (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AJ Frost page by GlennPA
Sintaku -- As an interested observer, I am not quite sure why Frost is not notable. Elliott Wave Theory is a major part of technical analysis. Virtually every trader in the financial markets uses technical analysis, and a large portion of them use Elliott. Frost was one of the first people to properly explain Elliott and, along with Robert Prechter, made it accessible to the masses. If there are other issues with the article, that is different, but Frost is probably more notable than a large percentage of the bios on Wiki. If you are rejecting due to some sort of outmoded and biased view against technical analysis or Elliott Wave in general, then you have nothing to stand on. I am not a fan of the stuff that user has been trying to put up, but it is a miscarriage of justice that there is no article on Frost. I just don't have the time or know enough about him to do it myself.Sposer (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for reference I'm putting a link to the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A.J._Frost_(Alfred_John_Frost).
 * If you read WP:BIO everything is there. The article was declined by me because it did not have substantial independent reliable sources. The majority of the sources were things writting by A.J. Frost, therefore not independent.    Sintaku  Talk 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I guess I misread. Apologies. I guess Glennpa is trying to show notability by the fact that he wrote a lot. I think Frost belongs, but I will leave it up to somebody that knows much more about the man than me to improve the article. Thanks.Sposer (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Bayes
Hi, could you please explain why you put a "third-party" tag on the Walter Bayes article ? Many thanks14GTR (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are by pages showing his work (mainly the Imperial War Museum links). The smartest thing would be to look at all the sources used for this article by the Tate which provides many reliable third-party sources.     Sintaku  Talk 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference checked
Hi, I have referenced the article as best as I can. I have added some picture to make my work little bit interesting and authentic. I will add more information if available in near future. Thank you for yr advice.

Sincerely, Areshhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areshhhh (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume it is for the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gopal_Das_Shrestha, I noticed you'd removed the declined submissions and the comments. It is practise not to remove them. As it helps identify if the article has fixed those issues or not.    Sintaku  Talk 11:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

my article in creation re: Diana W. Bianchi (medical geneticist)
Thank you for your comments, Sintaku. I am working on it. Also, I would like at the end to submit a sidebar of "vital statistics" & a photo.

Roanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyraymond (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article in question is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Diana_W._Bianchi_(medical_geneticist). I've linked it so it is easier to find. It is badly formatted, do you know how to use the wiki formatting? I've added the code to display references. You need to put the references you've listed at the bottom within the actual text like you have done for 4 of the references. First sort out the wiki style then find some third party references (I think you might have enough, but without inline citations I won't know).    Sintaku  Talk 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Still working on the page. Thank you for your help so far! Concerned I may be using reference #1 too many times. Shall I get more references for those statements. Sydneyraymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyraymond (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The more the better.    Sintaku  Talk 02:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Making considerable progress. Two questions: 1) On a reference that is a merely a hyperlink, what is the coding to hide the URL so that only the text I type shows instead? I read the instructions but I'm still not getting what I want.

2) I should have everything uploaded tomorrow. Is there any danger that anyone else is creating a page on this person?  I have done searches, beforehand of course, and as I've been working, and I see no one has. I want to be sure.  Will my article be considered the definitive one, given that I address all your concerns?

Thank you for your kind help thus far. Sydneyraymond Sydneyraymond (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sinaku. I fixed the coding. Just curious, does the article go back in the queue, or do you review it again? 67.208.181.82 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Sydneyraymond
 * You need to submit it again.    Sintaku  Talk 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowen1966
You are a very busy individual mr sinteku. One who seems to be throwing your weight about a bit eh? Hmmmm!What happened to wikipedia's policy on good faith and being kind and gentle to new comers?Cowhen1966 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as to what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate?    Sintaku  Talk 01:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me remind you or shall I say, let me refresh you're memory. We first met on the live chat at which time you, Howicus and Huon were extremely brash and rude. It is therefore no surprise that you have decided to wade in on a war that involves your partner Howicus. I have not been on Wikipedia for more than 3 weeks but since being autoconfirmed, I have done nothing else but answer accusations and derrogatory atatements from you on the live chat. The aim of Wikipedia is to get competent editors like me who write for a hobby to contribute to this very special and rich resource. Unfortunately, people like yourselves drive so many promising and quality editors away and that goes against Wikipedia's code of good practice. I believe it is people like you who allow shoddy work in terms of grammar, cohesion and encyclopaedic style etc. to slip through the net while you pick on things that are neither libelous or harmful to Wikipedia. I suggest you re-look at the word libelous and contentious. Try the Oxford dictionary. I will also look carefully at your work that is if you are actually working that is? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have only been trying to help you edit your article, and have given you a lot of advice in how to do so. I did not say anything wrong or accuse or be rude to you on live chat. I am not driving you away. I always welcome new editors. I don't allow or disallow anything regarding grammar, wikipedia is editable by everyone, I am merely contributing to it. I wish you all the best with your edits.    Sintaku  Talk 02:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not helped. Infact, you have been very unprofessional. Wgolf has helped, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowhen1966 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)  This is unsigned because I had not finished! So, as I was saying, you have not helped at all. Slapping boxes on people's articles is not help! What I lack in terms of grammar, cohesion, etc. somebody compensates with referencing. Which is easier to do? help edit when you can, which is what you should be doing, or slap a box on a page? You have only adopted this tone because everything is out in the open but prior to this it was pure sarcasm and a whole lot of nastiness. There is a difference between contributing within the boundaries and guidelines that Wikipedia has and simply harrassing and vandalising somebody's article. It is not for you to decide what constitutes a reliable source. A source is independent when it is quoted as a secondary or tertiary source other than the primary source. I suggest you leave this to the administrators because you and i clearly have a different interpretation of what is reliable, independent, libelous and contentious. From here on, let's all do the job the way we deem it fit as budding editors who may one day aspire to do great work for Wikipedia. I hope you do not take it personal and remove boxes that I place on your work because you just want to be juvenile. I hope we can be big boys about this and take as much as we give!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't own any of the work on Wikipedia, it becomes public once I click the save button. I am not going against you, and have no interest in Cecil_Jay_Roberts. The biggest issue with the article is WP:RS, please read that. The sources need to be reliable and independent. Also please read WP:BLP.    Sintaku  Talk 02:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidelines: I suggest yo go and read that too!Cowhen1966 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Use Cowhen1966 (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking them for me. Now I have easier access to them.    Sintaku  Talk 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomersCowhen1966 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have to notify you that I have put your name forward for dispute resolutionCowhen1966 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More specifically at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, but personally I don't think there's any need for you to defend yourself there. NE Ent 17:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sinteku, I think I owe you a formal apology. I agree I need some help with the article. I appreciate what you have done so far! Please get in touch ad to the way forward! ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I feel looking at the AfD that it will be moved back toAfCwhere it can be worked on until the issues are ironed out.    Sintaku  Talk 14:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong person got warned for the attack on Zaplotnik Evgeny Rostislavovich
If you looked at the history the original author blanked it in good faith, another one put an attack, I warned the guy who vandalized it big time, but you should do something about the warning you gave to the original author, thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It still has no sources on the internet. I've removed the attack page warning on the original creators talk page.    Sintaku  Talk 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know-but I was just saying the wrong guy got warned for the attack-the original got warned earlier I think. (Only reason why I noticed was I put the good faith earlier) Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me though, don't want to mistakenly warn someone. Guess I need to be more careful with TWINKLE    Sintaku  Talk 00:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I once warned the wrong person for removing a speedy deletion when in fact it was someone else, thanks to the fact there were about 3 edits between. 00:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Wgolf (talk)

Talkback
You're going to want to see this. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership
Hello Sintaku,

I have re-edited the page, removed any words that sound biased and added more independent citations to back up the copy. I am hoping I am on the right track now! I have based it on a similar page that has already been published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Birmingham_%26_Solihull_Local_Enterprise_Partnership, and I think they are quite similar. But please advise if you think I need to make further changes, which I am of course happy to make.

Many thanks (SemlepPR (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

re: Articles for creation:Diana W. Bianchi (medical geneticist)
Hi, Sintaku, I just re-submitted the page with the formatting. Can you please let me know if it came through okay? I thought it was re-submitted correctly last week, and I have been waiting for feedback, so I don't know if I am doing anything wrong. Sydneyraymond (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Sydneyraymond

Article for Kobre & Kim LLP
Hello, I'd like to follow up on my previous question. Thank you!

Thank you for reviewing my article on Kobre & Kim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kobre_%26_Kim_LLP). After the initial article was rejected, I went back and resubmitted after adding several additional third party sources. I would very much like to make sure to follow your advice and resubmit so I wanted to get some clarification on how to proceed.

Your comment requested "reliable independent sources for all the claims in the articles". I have reviewed several other articles written on law firms and found that many of them use the same sources as this article does. Would you be able to point toward which sources that I have used that are not reliable/independent? Or if there are any claims in particular which you found were not properly cited?

Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! 38.100.162.10 (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.Bernardis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Wimmer
Dear Sintaku, i am new to the wikipedia setting. I am not sure about the comments you made since the references are in line with the wikipedia guidelines and are quoted accordingly. Hope to receive your positive feedback to improve the entry. thank you. AndreasMetternich2014 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this article? Andreas_Wimmer. Also is the article about you?
 * Well, you need to have in-line citations to independent and reliable sources. See WP:FOOTNOTES
 * Once you have one independent and reliable in-line citation you can just remove the PROD at the top, or ask me and I will do it for you.
 *    Sintaku  Talk 03:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are some of my publications. And the material is for our researchers since Wiki is a digital library. The publications are reference materials to be made known to other researchers on the subject. The citations include the Strait Times and other publications.

I would appreciate if you fix it.

The Militancy of the Peoples Democratic Party in Riau, Indonesia; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2125755 All players have role in preventing haze, http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/all-players-have-role-preventing-haze-20130720 Piracy Iure Gentium: Greenpeace’s Trouble With The Law of The Sea; http://dafz.org/piracy-iure-gentium-greenpeaces-trouble-with-the-law-of-the-sea/ Poking the Russian Bear; http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/3116/poking-the-russian-bear.html Age Old Communism: Making A Return To The Political Scene? The Threat Of An Increase In Militancy While Denying The Political Space; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355361

Metternich2014 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)A. thank youMetternich2014 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some issues to address, please bare WP:COI in mind. Also we need reliable sources, please see WP:RS. The sources need to be reliable and independent of the article.    Sintaku  Talk 12:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

please note the NTU depository.Metternich2014 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the note. I am not sure i understand conflict of interest comment, since i compared the wiki page with other academics and in fact took the lead on lay out. On the reliable source, i am also not sure i understand since the Social Science Research Network or the research center is an independent academic center. Other publications of at least one credible source, such as the Singapore Straits Times or even the Turkish times are independent publications. So I am not sure i understand your references. But again, I would appreciate your help to improve it, as you see fit. Metternich2014 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not independent because all the sources are written by you. By independent they need to be sources written by other people about you. And the Conflict of Interest is because you are writing an article about yourself.    Sintaku  Talk 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:AUTO for more information regarding that. I would advise you to get the article moved WP:AFC and there you can work on it, and submit it and it won't be deleted. If all is fine, it will then be included by the editor who reviews your article back into the main part of Wikipedia. I can probably move it there if you want, because as it stands it doesn't meet WP:V due to lack on independent reliable sources.    Sintaku  Talk 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you for the note. however the Strait Times and other publications are independent publications hence I am not sure your comments that needs independently written by me. I refer to Prof. Rohan Gunaratna profile for example or others who published their work on their profiles. 218.186.15.10 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being written by Andreas is enough to not make it independent or reliable.    Sintaku  Talk 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * }