User talk:Vincent60030/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford Circus tube station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brixton station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference error July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=671128805 your edit] to Oxford Circus tube station may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 10 July 2015 |deadurl=no}} Major escalator refurbishment took place in 2010–11. cite news| url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2010/april/exit-and-interchange-

Today's AfC/R decisions
Hi Vincent60030, you declined two requests of mine, asking for refs. Please note that both are the "birth" names of the main protagonists, and both are stated in the respective plot summaries. These do not require inline citations per MOS:PLOT: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary.". Regards, 85.178.203.135 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, alright. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wasn't trying to WP:BITE you. Just a friendly hint. ;) 85.178.203.135 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm ok. It's just that I'm in a hurry. Vincent60030 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, that will get better when you get older. 85.178.203.135 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

aaaarghhh
We can combine these listings if you want, but I don't want to do it without your permission. (I am not an admin, but don't mind doing the paperwork.) Si Trew (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's ok. Go ahead. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, old bean, and I added a couple more. You could have a once-over to make sure I didn't totally cock it up. RfD is usually quite quiet on weekends, but if I have said anything you disagree with, please feel free to revert it or whatever. We make it better together. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks btw. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Holy Redeemer Catholic parish, Belize City
Please be more explicit on why you believe this article unworthy. I'm not sure what all you find wrong with my draft: I've done over 800 edits and had over a dozen articles accepted, besides enlarging a dozen stubs. In response to your suggestion I've added more references through in-line footnotes from the "Source" at the bottom, but I would like to know why you think this article on the primary Catholic parish in Belize unworthy of an encyclopedia. It is meant to preserve for posterity all the ways the parish impacted Belize in the past 150 years.jzsj (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For convenience, here's a link: Draft:Holy Redeemer Catholic parish, Belize City. It looks more than acceptable to me, offhand. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not mentioning the reason in detail. Just to let you know, I'm a new reviewer so pls bear with me. :) Regarding the issue, I forgot to mention that it is not because it is unworthy, I meant it just needs some remaining in my opinion since I see that the article has a lot of historical content so I suggest a rename for the article. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

16:58:45, 20 July 2015 review of submission by Nealmcb
Can you say some more about your assessment, i.e. that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."? It had what I thought were three good third-party sources, by independent publications and authors, all online for all to see, all specifically about the matrix protocol, over a period of 9 months. I've just added two more good independent sources, and all the author names. As an independent internet protocol guy, I'm impressed with matrix myself, and with the coverage it has gotten. I think featured coverage in LWN.net is pretty impressive for this sort of article. And whether or not this matrix effort is successful, the general topic of interoperable real-time communication is of huge general technical interest, in a similar way to how email technology is of interest for less-real-time communication. Are there specific sources you think are unworthy? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry to not state in detail and pls bear with me since I'm a new reviewer. :) It's because I see there is one section unreferenced. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Domain name redirects
Hi there! I noticed today that you declined a number of redirect requests at Articles for creation/Redirects on the basis that readers won't search for domain names (e.g. "wikipedia.org"). On the contrary, there is actually a precedent that redirects from domain names can be helpful on occasion, depending on the subject matter—see Category:Redirects from domain names. It would be especially useful if the target subject matter is a website itself. With that being said, some of the requests, such as the Naver.jp one, do appear unlikely, but I think a further investigation would have been warranted before outright declining them. For example, I can see 9gag.com being a useful redirect to 9GAG, since the subject is a website. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the advice. However, I don't have the time to revert it right now but could you do it for me pls? Thanks. Regards, Vincent60030 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Highgate tube station
Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

21:25:00, 23 November 2015 review of submission by Nerminsaleemi
The company is notable in that they are the first company to automate this process. All sources cited are independent third party sources and there are many of them. Please advise on what i can do further. Thanks! Nerminsaleemi (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

About my draft article
I meant to submit what I wrote as a requested article. How do I do that? And how many more refs does it need?

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out this website.

Linguist111 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's ok. Everyone is still learning like I do on this website too! You can contact a friendly admin or an experienced AFC member to submit a requested an AFC article as I am not sure about this issue. One of the admins I recommend is . About references, it could be unlimited as long as at least one reliable reference supports each sentence. The FB page is not that reliable as a reference. I recommend third-party references. Please see WP:REFERENCES for further info. Happy editing! ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know :) Linguist111 (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)