Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JulieMSG (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 7 February 2017 (→Marsy's Law: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Onel5969's Talk
Phoenix ... It's a dry heat ...
Born
New York city
NationalityAmerican

Edit count

Hi! You might find these handy:

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're leaving a question regarding an article you're attempting to get onto Wikipedia, here are some links you might find helpful:

Your RfA

Hi Onel. I'm sorry that your RfA didn't succeed. I just wanted to say that I stand by what I said in my nomination; you're an incredibly valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, and I hope this experience doesn't put you off. I consider it a shame that you were required to withdraw. Best, Sam Walton (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for your support. Sorry to have caused you and Melanie so much trouble. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no trouble whatsoever :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say I'm sorry about the way it went. I still think you would make a fine administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And thanks for your support. But the consensus did not agree, and I think I made it abundantly clear how I feel about consensus. Onel5969 TT me 15:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. That was total bull[****]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say IJBall... sometimes **** happens. Regardless, thanks. 18:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had hoped the opposers were a spent force and that more supporters with a proper perspective and view of your overall contributions would appear. Perhaps they would have, but RfA can become a crapshoot at the percentage of support you had at the time. So I understand why you might not want to see any more pile-ons and would give it a rest. Please keep you chin up and keep up the good work. I've seen a few good contributors driven off by the experience and would not like to see another. Perhaps if the atmosphere is a little different down the road, another candidacy may succeed if you wish to give it a try. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donner60 - Going through something like that, with that level of vitriol, does make one consider why they might bother with contributing to such a project. But another run? Not gonna happen. Not a scintilla of interest. Anyway, thanks again. Happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I just add: I admire the way you have handled this. I always did think you were a class act and you have confirmed it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second, third and fourth MelanieN's sentiments. Your value to WikiP cannot be easily measured O and I thank you for all that you have done in the past and will do in the future. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MarnetteD - It's always been a pleasure working with you. And to you MelanieN, again my thanks. Onel5969 TT me 20:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see the RfA didn't work out, but I'd like to echo the voices above—I think you've done lots of great things at AfC and on Wikipedia in general, and that's something you can definitely be proud of. I hope you keep it up! /wiae 🎄 23:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, Wiae. While I'm still evaluating, it's looking like I'll be winding down my activity in the project. All the best. Onel5969 TT me 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the users who considered you experienced and sensible enough to wield some of the most powerful tools on the project outweighed those disagreeing with a few edits you made in the past 3 to 1. If you're still feeling disheartened as a result, then take a short wikibreak. Just go and do something else for a while, and come back in a week or a month with a fresh outlook. There are more important things in life, but you're a valuable contributor to the project, and it would be worse off without you. Sam Walton (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you removed the page on billy ruane..

Why? there were 9 citations.. do you know him or anything about him, or do you just appoint yourself anyonomous god on the internet? why not provide helpful information and help improve the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on notability and reliable sourcing. You can find them at: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. He simply doesn't pass the criteria for notability, and the sources provided did pass the criteria for reliable sourcing. If you want to work on the article, might I suggest you ask an admin to draftify it for you, and then you can perhaps take it through the AfC (articles for creation) process and get help from more experienced editors. Might I also suggest you not take a confrontational tone. Onel5969 TT me 19:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Travelling Church

Hello. I just resubmitted Draft:The Travelling Church for WP:AfC review. I think that the WP:NPOV issue that you were concerned about has been adequately addressed. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof - I agree that the NPOV issue is gone, although there is still an informal tone to the article (but I wouldn't decline it for that). I'm not going to offer an official review at the moment, because there are still some significant issues with it. First, there are a couple of issues with your reference style. Please take a look at WP:CIT to see how to properly format citations/footnotes. You'll need to convert any raw links (hyperlinks inserted as simple web addresses) into the body of the article, into proper footnotes. Get rid of stuff like "see Marker 25 in situ at", simply create a footnote. Second, any fact which is not sourced should be removed. I didn't check the sources, but at a glance it looks like you included information but didn't source it. Anytime you include a quote, like from Dames of Kentucky, that must be footnoted. A road marker is not really a reliable source. It's sort of like using Find a Grave, also not a reliable source. Third, take a look at MOS:LAYOUT to see how to properly format your article, you need a lead, and then to break it into sections.
I think this is a great start, and you definitely have an article that will be moved to the mainspace, it just needs some work. Onel5969 TT me 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your service to the community by reviewing this draft article (both times) – probably only one of countless many times you have provided such help. I'm not actually the primary author of the article – I was just trying to help clean it up, since I think it is a notable topic and not a bad start on describing it. I don't think I really added anything to the article – just moved things around a bit – except perhaps bringing in a couple of details from other related articles. I agree that the article would still benefit from improvement, and your comments are good, although I think the article is good enough to move it to mainspace and let the improvement take place afterwards. I hope you will not mind if I copy your above comments to the Talk page of the article, so they will be seen by others who may help to improve the article. The primary author seems to have strong opinions about stylistic issues, and especially about citation style, and has already reverted a couple of my attempted improvements in that area. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no worries about you putting this on the talk page of the article, and you can add this: reference style is not an issue of opinion. While there are a few different citation styles which are acceptable, the references must conform to one of those styles - this article sorely likes that conformity. You also might point the article creator to WP:OWN - once it gets moved to the mainspace, the community will decide by consensus style issues. Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. (When copying your remarks to the article's Talk page, I took the liberty of correcting "likes" to "lacks" above, as it appeared to be a mere typo.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, good catch. Happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the RfA - as you know, I understand how you must have felt. You made the right decision and if you go for it, you'll surely pass in the second round. I wanted to leave a message earlier but exams have severely limited my time on Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope that you aren't discouraged. Happy New Year and enjoy the cookie :)  — Yash talk stalk 18:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yash! - Thanks for the words of encouragement. But there will be no second shot. Wasn't really looking to be an admin, but thought I could help out on some of the backlogs. But the treatment I received, especially the mis-categorizations and lack of AGF have really left a sour taste in my mouth for the whole project. But as I said, I'm in the process of evaluating what, if any, participation I'll have in the future. Regardless, have a great year. Onel5969 TT me 19:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of users have parted ways with the project because of harsh treatment at their respective RfAs. What I believe is that an RfA isn't really a true evaluation of how good of an editor you are and how valuable your contributions have been for the site. In no way does a failed RfA undermine your contributions to Wikipedia, which are undoubtedly pretty noteworthy. There can be no doubt over how important your edits have been to the project and a failed RfA cannot change that. It would be another bad loss to the project if you were to leave. Then again it's your choice but I hope that you stay. Regards,  — Yash talk stalk 05:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating requested biographies

Hi there. You flagged my short biography of the Chinese astronomer Luoxia Hong for speedy deletion because--at the moment of creation--it consisted only of the subst:bio template. I was actively editing the template, and had a reasonable stub up in its within the hour. Previously, I had started such stubs in my sandbox, and when they were finished I "submit"ted them to an editor. The editors on two of these articles wrote back to say that if the biography had been requested on the community portal, I could just create the article and didn't need to bother getting approval. So that's what i was trying to do here.

In the future, should I create the article in my sandbox, then copy-and-paste the source code into a second tab where I just create the page?

Just trying to add some content without making extra work for you guys. Oceanchaos (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oceanchaos - Yup. That's exactly what you should do. Your original post looked like a test, which is why I tagged it. You've done a nice job on the article since. But create it in your sandbox, then create the page with the proper title, and cut and paste. Or you can create a stub, as long as there is some content and valid references. Either way works. Onel5969 TT me 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedPhilippines

What are your criterias for an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedPhilippines (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to help you:

Request on 12:29:11, 9 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Quokka123


Hi Onel5969, thanks for reviewing my article on the software Silverstack. Can you give me any assistance on how to enhance it? Regarding the sales brochure, is it referring to my tone of writing or rather the content? Thanks in advance!

Quokka123 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quokka123 - First, you've done a lot of nice work there. The draft is nicely structured, and the technical stuff (formatting, references, etc) are done well. Now, on to the bad news, virtually everything after History needs to go. The features section is simply a sales brochure, and the versions are just about the same thing. Then in the history section you need to cite any assertions you made. Be careful of the long quote as well. Depending on the length of the article, it can't dwarf the rest of what's there. Especially since the quote isn't about the software itself. The issue with articles like this, outside of promotional material, there's very little to write about them. Take a look at Final Draft (software), one of the premier screenwriting software programs. See how short that article is? You can also use the Final Cut article you wikilink to in your article, although I wouldn't use sections which have tags on them, like the interface section. But see how short the features section is? Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now is NOT a Disney Channel Netherlands article anymore.

Every is about Disney Channel Flanders in Disney Channel (Flanders) article. I think time to bring Disney Channel (Netherlands) article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.231.234 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined draft

@Onel5969:

Hello Onel5969, thank you for taking the time to review my article Draft:Rebecca_Ma, could you please provide more detail on the issues of the article or areas where it may not conform with NPOV or tone. Thank you! BarretKPCN (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarretKPCN - a couple of comments above this I posted a bunch of links, you can read those to help you. In a nutshell, you've written a promo bio of someone. Some fixes are easy, after the initial mention of the name, always use the surname after that. Then get rid of subjective stuff like "received the initial inspiration ...", as well as promo stuff like "which was featured on a TV interview ...". You also need better references. Facebook is not a valid reference, and the MIT reference is okay to support underlying facts, although the current fact it is supporting is promotional in nature. Of the two Asian links, the first one does not appear to be from a reliable source, I can't evaluate the second one. You should also avoid self-serving quotes by the article's subject about one of their projects. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I sent you a Signpost-related email. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Go Phightins! - I'm backing away from the project, so won't be participating. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 15:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you then, now and for the future

Hello O. I wanted to let you know that your post here has added something to the way I watch films, TV shows and plays. Last Friday is the most recent time I applied it. John Huston's last film The Dead (1987 film) is a Twelfth Night viewing tradition for me. This year I focused on watching the actors who weren't speaking - much easier to do with our day and ages wide screen TVs. There is an interesting mix of those fully engaged and others who are less so. Words can't really express how much I appreciate what I have learned from you but I will close by saying that I have always wanted to have a business card that reads "Professional Member of the Audience" - you have increased my enjoyment of that ability. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MarnetteD - I had forgotten about that post. But it is so true. It's funny, I was watching a film last night with an actor who I think is very talented, but very hit or miss in his performances, Al Pacino. But last night's film was, imho, his finest performance, and a clinic on the concept of listening on film/stage: Donnie Brasco. And then I started thinking about the finest performances of different actors, and it reminded me of something. Many years ago (in the early 80s) I had the privilege to have dinner with Laurence Olivier. It wasn't just him and I, but he had come to see a play I was in, and took about 10 of the cast out to dinner afterwards. I could relate at least 5 stories from that single dinner, but the one that really stood out was him relating a time from the late 50s or early 60s when he, Gielgud and Guinness were in repertory at the Old Vic. They were taking turns, alternating performing the lead in Hamlet. One night, Gielgud gives the performance of a lifetime. By the end of the second act, every actor who wasn't on stage was watching from the wings, by the end of act 3, all the understudies had come back to watch, and by the end of act 4 even the stage hands were having difficulty remembering to do what they had to do. When the curtain came down there were thunderous applause and several curtain calls, after which Gielgud makes it to the wings and collapses onto several sandbags and starts crying. Guinness and Olivier rush to his side and Alec says, "Johnny, Johnny, what's the matter?" Gielgud just looks up and shakes his head. The two friends looked at one another, and then Olivier said, "John, that was the most amazing performance we've ever seen". Gielgud looks up and says, "I know". To which Olivier responded, "Then whatever are you crying for?" Gielgud looked up one more time and said simply, "Because I don't know what I did."
There are so many talented actors out there, sadly, very few young ones who understand this concept of listening (and the vast majority of them are English). And there is a difference between simply listening for your cue, and listening and reacting to what your fellow performers are saying, as if its the first time you've ever heard it. Thanks for the kind words. Onel5969 TT me 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is just marvelous O. I get to imagine two different wonderful evenings! Well three if I include your watching DB. Have you ever seen Isabel Leonard? Now there are lots of wonderful opera singers out there but only a few of them are good actors. IMO IL's acting is every bit as glorious as her singing. The fact that she is stunningly gorgeous makes my crush on her that much more intense :-) I am tempted to pay the extra to get the Met's streaming service just to see her performances again and again. Thanks so very much for sharing these memories. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never had the pleasure. I'm a Neanderthal when it comes to opera and ballet. Although I did go to high school with two kids who both made it to the Met (though neither one is now pursuing an operatic career). My interests rest solely in theater and film these days, although there is a dearth of theater here in the desert. Anyway, good luck on WP in the future. All the best. Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page visitor, invited by MarnetteD). That is the greatest story, O! (About Gielgud and Olivier.) Thanks very much for posting it, and thanks to M for notifying me. Not at all on the same level, but it reminded me of a much later production in their careers: Brideshead Revisited (1981). Olivier seethed the entire time that Gielgud was given the better and much more interesting part of the protagonist Charles's father, while Oliver was cast, against his express request, as Sebastian's father. While I think everyone can agree the correct casting decision was made, Olivier never got over that LOL. I also recall from somewhere (the DVD commentary?), that Olivier was drinking on a rather too regular basis by that time in his life. Between set-ups he would take to his bottle, which he referred to as "Daddy's nom-noms". :) OK, not quite as good a story, but it's always great to hear about the intersection of these two actors. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Softlavender... thanks for your contributions above and on WP in general. Having worked in the industry for years, I have quite a few of those stories. Regarding O's drinking, during our dinner, which lasted well over 3 hours, I think he was the only one at the table who didn't over-imbibe. And one other quick story about that night... I wasn't the quiet one at the other end of the table, just listening to all these actor types trying to impress Olivier. After about 45 minutes or so, he looks down the table and says, "Young man, you are awfully quiet. Isn't there a question you would like to ask me? Anything? Anything at all?". I had been waiting for just such an opportunity, and shot back in my best New York accent, "Well, I've heard that you can ad-lib (I might have said improvise, honestly I can't remember anymore) in iambic pentameter, is that true?" He smiled, looked at the other guys around the table, and said, "Mind if I order for everyone?" Who was going to say no? Then he called the waiter over and ordered dinner for all of us... in iambic pentameter. Simply amazing. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Hypnosis Help

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you very much for letting me know in advance that you are thinking of deleting the Viva Hypnosis page due to 'advertising'. It mentions on your comments to delete the text that says 'proposed deletion' but I can't seem to find any within the edits.

I really need to know what can be done to edit the page to remove 'advertising'. As there are tons and tons of references and citations for 'Viva Hypnosis' and facts of notability, which will still be remaining should this 'advertising' be removed. But I don't know which are the bits that are deemed 'advertising', so don't know which bits to remove in order to keep the article. Please can you help?

Biggest thanks and kindest regards,

(Seachelleangel15 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Redirection of Edelweiss Broking Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelweiss_Broking_Limited

Hi Onel,

Thanks for informing that page doesn't have notability on Edelweiss Group Page. Kindly have a look at Edelweiss Group Page under Subsidiaries section. It is very well mentioned that Edelweiss Broking Limited is a subsidiary and it was launched in 2008. Also, you can view https://www.edelweiss.in/aboutus for reference which I got from google. If you require more citation, kindly let me know.

Thanking you in anticipation. Piyushpanc (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piyushpanc - No one is saying the subsidiary doesn't exist, just that it is not notable enough on its own for its own article, and should simply be included on the parent company's page. In addition, as it exists, the article is simply an ad for the subsidiary. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel, Thanks for the information. Can you please help me with the information which makes it an ad for subsidiary, such tahat I can make it more neutral? Edelweiss Broking Limited is an independent entity. Someone should update Edelweiss Group page to make it more prominent. Meanwhile, kindly have a look at any Indian Financial services company page e.g. Zerodha, Motilal Oswal Group, Angel Broking . Compared to them, this article is not even 5%. This article just gives the company information. Please help me. Piyushpanc (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piyushpanc - As I said earlier, there are two issues with your article: notability and promotion. First, regarding notability, you need to come up with about 3 in-depth sources from independent reliable sources (usually major magazines, newspapers or books), which talk about the subsidiary. Passing mentions, listings, press releases, interviews don't apply, which is currently all your article has in it. I did a news search and didn't find anything which actually meets the criteria. Most are simply interviews with folks who work their, or are about the company's "picks" (which is usually derived from press releases), etc. If you can find the type of in-depth coverage, please add to the article. Take a look at WP:GNG for general notability guidelines, and WP:CORP for notability about corporations, specifically take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH, which is an extra parameter corps must pass. Your argument regarding other articles is understandable, however it isn't a valid argument. Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Onel5969 , greetings. As mentioned by you that notability is missing. Here I am presenting few URLs which you can review for notability. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=128483696 https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/0285631D:IN-edelweiss-broking-ltd , http://www.vccircle.com/bizcircle/company/company_details/Edelweiss_Broking_Ltd.--81462 , http://forbesindia.com/article/boardroom/how-edelweiss-built-a-business-for-the-long-run/39907/1 , http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/pmd_mb.jsp?PmdIndxName=Edelweiss&listCode=C ,

Bloomberg is the top website in finance sector. VCC Circle is independent news website. SEBI is the Indian Government Exchange Regulatory Body. Kindly suggest if it is still not sufficient. Thanks for your time and patience. Piyushpanc (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Eternal, regarding deletion

Thanks Onel5969 for clueing me in to the expectations of a Wikipedia article. I am new to the contributing sphere and am open to assistance in navigating this world.

I reviewed the Article inclusion page at your recommendation so as to understand what I am in violation of. Seemingly the demand is for additional sources and notability, and I recognize that and will work to better source the content. At the same time, I do think that the page will require room to grow.

I think understanding why I added the page might position you better to understand the situation and maybe provide further guidance on what action I should take. I am one of the developers of the title in question, and we are preparing to bring it to launch in the next month. The conditions for gaining exposure in this industry and thereby notability has shifted from traditional press to new media (content creators on Twitch, YouTube, etc.). While attempting to better position ourselves with the YouTube content creators, I came across this article: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6150676?hl=en-GB, which states that, alongside internal website data, YouTube references Wikipedia articles for managing their internal database. Naturally, this looks to be creating a chicken-or-the-egg situation, where to gain notability we need to work within the system and its expectations, but to do so we need to already be notable. This probably suggests a required greater effort to expand the base article itself, and if you agree then I can put in more time there. Yesterday, I just wanted to get a basic handle on contributing and get the page added. I can certainly add additional content and reference some external sources where we have had coverage.

If you advise anything else I'd love to hear it. I hope I've adequately explained the situation, please let me know if you have any questions that could provide further clarity. Scottgoodrow (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottgoodrow - Just a heads up, on Wikipedia whenever you leave a message, either on an article's talk page or a user's talk page, always "sign" it by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Now on to your question. First, please read WP:COI. Since you are involved with the subject of the article, you really shouldn't write about it. While not prohibited, it is strongly discouraged. If you do write about it, please follow the instructions on how to declare your COI. Second, Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your product. WP requires that a subject have a degree of notability. Some things have inherent notability, like politicians of a certain level (WP:NPOL), but for the most part, every article's subject should pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, which means that they should have at least several references which are in-depth about the subject, and come from independent, reliable sources. Most unreleased things (be it software, some foreign films, books) don't meet the criteria. If you look several comments above this one, I printed a list of links to different Wikipedia pages which might help you. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the patience, apologize for continuing to not know the correct protocol. I understand precisely where you're coming from regarding conflict of interest. I'll read the information you've provided. Thanks again. Scottgoodrow (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:18:30, 12 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by JMonisolaO


HI there,

I wanted to speak about the Hannah Bayer page. Hannah was a part of TEDMED will that article highlighting her and her company be sufficient enough along with the other sources that we submitted? Or do we still need more sources? If so, do you have any recommendations?

Best, Moni

JMonisolaO (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMonisolaO - In a word, no. Notability is not inherited. But not to worry, I'm pretty sure she passes the notability criteria. Right now the entire article is unsourced, except for her publications. BLP (bios of living persons) need to have footnotes to cover every fact you assert. Those types of footnotes can be either primary or secondary (in other words, regarding her Ph.D., you could cite her bio at NYU (if there is one) - that's a primary source, but valid for proving the validity of a certain fact, or you could cite a newspaper article about her which states where she got her Ph.D. - that's a secondary source). However, try to find 2-3 solid in-depth articles about her from independent, reliable sources, which will help establish her notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:10:40, 13 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ajurisic


Thank you for reviewing my submittion.
Main argument for declination of my Wikipedia article on Jovan Golić: “The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.”

Questions: Does this mean that the quoted sources are not reliable or that the given reliable sources are not adequately cited? Which given sources are not reliable and why? What is wrong with the rationale given below? What should be improved?

Rationale: In essence, Jovan Golić is being proposed for inclusion in Wikipedia:
(1) for his world-recognized contributions to cryptography, most notably in the area of widely used stream ciphers, which are covered by several articles in Wikipedia and where he is known as a world leading expert, and
(2) for his prominent role as the Action Line Leader for Privacy, Security & Trust in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), where EIT is already covered by an article in Wikipedia. Item (1) is formulated by three statements:
“He introduced many cryptanalytic methods for stream ciphers…”,
“He pioneered cryptanalytic attacks on many widely-used stream ciphers…”, and
“He is known for his work on…”.
The statements are supported by:
(i) wikilinks where his work has been referred to (A5/1, RC4, Bluetooth, MUGI, time-memory tradeoff),
(ii) selected publications of Jovan Golić in reputable international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings,
(iii) two independent peer-reviewed publications referring to his work on RC4,
(iv) citation reports by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar, and
(v) DBLP publications list.
All these sources appear to be independent, objective, verifiable, and hence reliable. More precisely, the used formulations “many cryptanalytic methods” and “pioneering cryptanalytic attacks” are undoubtedly supported by selected peer-reviewed publications in premium-class journals and conference proceedings and citations of these publications. In particular, please note that his prominent publications on stream ciphers A5/1 and RC4 presented at EUROCRYPT 1997 contain first published cryptanalysis of these widely used stream ciphers.

Item (2) is supported by an announcement on the EIT Digital weblink and one external weblink, which are certainly verifiable and thus reliable.

Please help!

Ajurisic (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajurisic - as I said when I declined the article, "None of the sources are independent of the subject. To show notability, you need several (about 3) references which go in-depth about the subject, which are from reliable independent sources. Also, please see WP:CIT on how to properly format citations." Almost every single source is either by the article's subject, or from an organization he's associated with. The other two are articles about the cypher, not about Golic. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momina Duraid deletion

I am confused why you have added deletion tag to this article. Previously it was deleted because the contents were poorly sourced and were not updated. Now I have added credited references and all are from newspapers such as The Express Tribune, The Pakistan Daily, BBC, Gulf News, The News On Sunday and BizAsia etc. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 21:29, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

re: Miguel Krassnoff

Hi there. Very consciencious of you. I meant to bring over a translation of the text from the Spanish version, which, as you can see, is fully referenced. I haven't used this site for about ten years, and am not familiar with the ref system, so gave up. Dave (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave - On English Wiki, blp's (bios of living persons) have some pretty strict standards regarding referencing, particularly when an article which is pretty negative is posted (such as this one). I'll be more than happy to help you with formatting the citations if you need it, but it really needs citations. And in the future, don't hesitate to ask if you need help translating articles to English wiki. Onel5969 TT me 03:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIDC Revision history ?

Hello, I am note a native English speaker. Could you explain what you meant ? > per WP:DAB, only a single target

Yours sincerely,--Pascal Boulerie (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pascal Boulerie, and thanks for contributing on English Wiki. Whenever you see WP:, that means it refers to a policy or a guideline or an essay. It's a way of pointing someone to the appropriate place on Wiki to find out why a change was made. So in this instance, you could type in WP:DAB in the search field, and it would take you Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This is a guideline page, on what is or is not normally considered acceptable. In this instance, dab pages (disambiguation pages) are used when there is more than one already existing wiki pages with similar titles. You created a page with only a single target, so no dab is necessary, a simple redirect will suffice. If an article is at some point created about the other entity, that is the point where a dab will be needed. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draw SVG draft page

Thanks for attempting to review this draft page. Your reason is unclear, and I am after a succinct explanation of how to proceed. Your rejection reason give is WP:NOTGUIDE. You want me to redraft, but without clear guidance from an experienced reviewer such as yourself, I am having difficulty proceeding. I'm looking for explanations, not just another "grab a Wikipedia reason from a pick-list to reject" which would be equally unclear. I need to know your reasoning and thought processes into why you are grabbing certain rejection answers. Be specific - what wording in my article worries you? Copy and paste the specific wording into your next response please - it would show me that you are reading the article and not simply re-reading previous reviewers' comments. That is what a good reviewer does, and I know this as an experienced book editor (consider "double-blind peer review"). It is an INFORMATION article, not a business promotion. It is software, free to use, therefore not a business listing at all. Can't stress this enough. Please explain what an "in-depth reference" is - you say it is important, and I'd really like to redraft the article, but I have no idea. Point me to examples, otherwise I cannot proceed, and your suggestions as a "reviewer" (with constructive criticism) would have been not helpful. Here is my take on this comment - I hope you are able to comprehend. My page design is based on Inkscape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape. Please do look at that article and compare it with mine - it will take less than a minute and you are bound to learn something that will help with your further reviewing. Instruction manuals - There are no procedures anywhere in my article, and it doesn't state how to use the software, so it isn't an instruction manual. Travel guide - nothing in it about travel. Video game guide - it is not a guide of any sort. Internet guide - again, it is not a guide. Nothing in the article to suggest that at all. There are no FAQs in the article. It is also not structured as a textbook - the article does not teach people how to do anything. It is not a scientific journal or research paper - it quotes original reference material, but again I need to know what you consider to be in-depth. It is similarly not an academic paper and does not use academic language at all. It is written in plain English. Any technical jargon in the article is cross-referenced to other Wikipedia articles, such as "HTML". There are no case studies in the article either. Copeboox (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Copeboox - Very succinctly, please read notguide, like I referenced in my declining the draft, as well as WP:Advertisement. The article as it exists, without in-depth references, does not pass Wikipedia's general notability guide, and is simply an article extolling the virtues of a product, along with how to use the product. In-depth means precisely what it says, IN-DEPTH, not a passing mention, not a business listing, etc. And it has to be from an independent source, meaning it can't be affiliated with the subject of the article at all. Your reference to another article is an example of WP:OSE, and therefore irrelevant. And since you seem intent on being argumentative, simply don't bother leaving any further messages on my talk page, they will simply be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal

Hello,

I saw you removed some categories from articles I created, I was still planning on creating those. Could you tell me why you removed them? Can't an article be in a non-existing category or is there something else? TheWombatGuru (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheWombatGuru - the specific guideline can be found at WP:CATDEF (3rd bullet point). Hope this helps. btw - nice job on the road articles. Onel5969 TT me 14:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. If you mean the points about eponymous categories, I understand it for the provincial road, that was both in Category:Provincial roads in the Netherlands and in Category:Provincial roads in South Holland, a child of the first mentioned. But for the European route articles, Category:European route E31 for example is not a child of Category:European routes in the Netherlands, so why should they be removed? TheWombatGuru (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again... no not the eponymous points, but the fact that there should never be a redlink category. Make sense? Onel5969 TT me 18:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits at page: Swing state

Hello Onel5969, I noticed that you reverted my recent set of edits to the article at swing state. Could you please provide a reason why? I put it inside one paragraph, each sentence for which there were at least three or four citations, and the same for increased information that was added onto the old table, which was taken by an IP user from the actual article. Thank you for the help. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Why are you canceled this page?--Musicale 89 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not notable. It does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 12:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibly" non-notable?

Hi, I see that you removed a new stub I had created based on your assessment that it was "possibly non-notable" (per your comment). It is spread over 98 acres and is one among Bangalore's natural lakes. A Google search produces a variety of articles about the lake ranging from its conservation importance to birdlife in and around it. Could you please point me towards any guidance that makes this notable/non-notable? prashanthns (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanthns - if there are references which show it meets the notability criteria, then please add them. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Was planning to do so. Would have appreciated a note on my talk page or on the article talk page about this before blanket reversal within a day of the article coming up. But, noted. Will strengthen it with documentation on user-space and put it up. prashanthns (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straton of Alexandria

Sorry, but the note on your revert did nothing to answer my question. With your edit, people searching for the wrestler Straton are redirect to a list of runners which is a complete misguidance. They don't even get a chance to understand why this happens. Whatever the consensus was, this is certainly not ok.Borsanova (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsanova. Then you should read the history of the page. And you should learn that consensus is one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 02:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't addressed my question. Are you saying that it's ok to redirect a wrestler to a list of runners?Borsanova (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Onel5969 TT me 02:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Palace Restaurant and Saloon

On 1 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Palace Restaurant and Saloon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the oldest bar in Arizona, The Palace Restaurant and Saloon in Prescott, played host to Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday in the late 1870s before they moved on to Tombstone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Palace Restaurant and Saloon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Palace Restaurant and Saloon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:09:38, 7 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ajurisic


Hi Onel5969,

You say “Almost every single source is either by the article’s subject, or from an organization he is associated with.“ You also say “None of the sources are independent of the subject” and that I need “references … about the subject … from reliable independent sources.” I would really like to understand what is meant by these statements, but am having the following serious problems.

(1) You do not mention “wikilinks where his work has been referred to,” that is, the Wikipedia entries citing the subject and his work and “citation reports by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar” demonstrating the impact of his work and “DBLP publications list” providing a list of his publications, for which he is considered to be notable. They are clearly not by the article’s subject nor from an organization he is associated with as you claim. All of them are independent of the subject and reliable. Please explain.

(2) A reference about the subject is a reference about the PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT for which he is considered to be notable. In our case, the properties include (i) his world-recognized contributions to cryptography and (ii) his prominent role as the Action Line Leader for Privacy, Security & Trust in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) from 2013-2016. This is exactly what each given reference is about.

(3) It is perhaps arguable if a scientific publication by an article’s subject can be considered as an independent source. My argument is very simple: the source here is a reputable peer-reviewed journal or conference proceedings, not the technical content of the publication, which is a reference about the property of the subject for which he is considered notable.

(4) In the existing Wikipedia entries on similar subjects you can find the same type of references as what I used (e.g., please see Bart Preneel and Yehuda Lindell and Yvo Desmedt). Consequently, your requirements do not seem to be satisfied by similar Wikipedia articles. Please comment.

My impression is that what is really in question here is the subject’s notability, not references or sources which are just used as formalities.

I guess that the prominent role of EIT Digital Action Line Leader is not questionable (there is a Wikipedia entry on EIT). Of course, the most reliable source here is the EIT Digital itself. (Please see the Wikipedia entry on Bart Preneel, with a single source.) What other source would you like for this property? An objective way of verifying if the contributions of the article’s subject are notable is to look at the impact measured by citations of the publications of the subject. Of course, it is preferable to also understand the contributions (which is done by peer reviewing for the journals or conferences). Accordingly, with respect to the notability of his contributions and the importance of the field of cryptography, please consider the following facts.

Cryptography plays an indispensable role in the digital world for data protection and, without it, modern data communications and storage systems and online services would be unimaginable.

In particular, RC4 has been the most widely used cipher on the Internet and A5/1 has been the mostly used cipher in mobile communications. Jovan Golic was the first to cryptanalyze these two ciphers at Eurocrypt ’97.

He was also among the first to cryptanalyze Bluetooth cipher widely used for short-range communications, at Eurocrypt 2002. He found a weakness of the Japanese encryption standard MUGI, which together with a follow-up work caused it to be recently withdrawn. His results on nonlinear filter generators at FSE ‘96 had a deep impact on proprietary encryption systems. (And so on.) Existing Wikipedia entries and citations clearly support these facts and they come from independent and reliable sources.

In the nineties, he published in prestigious publications many influential papers significantly promoting the area of stream ciphers, which had been previously constrained mainly to proprietary and secret encryption used in the military and other similar systems.

Again, please help. I would really like to believe that your intentions are sincere. Please also check the following three independent and reliable references/sources to be added.

(i) https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologs/assets/files/cryptolog_126.pdf

This is an edition of a top secret NSA publication CRYPTOLOG from 1994 which was declassified in 2012. It includes an overview of the major annual crypto conference Eurocrypt 1992, addressing both the authors and their presentations, explicitly including reference to Jovan Golic who presented THREE research papers. (Very few editions of CRYPTOLOG have been declassified, so this one is a sort of exemplary for prominent researchers in cryptography according to NSA.)

(ii) http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/societies/jupim/jupim_b41.pdf

This is a weblink for the Bulletin No. 1 May 2001 of JUPIM (Yugoslav Society for Applied and Industrial Mathematics http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/societies/jupim.htm ) which asserts that the JUPIM Annual Award 2000 for the best scientific contribution in applied and industrial mathematics was given to Jovan Golic for his paper J. Dj. Golić, “Cryptanalysis of three mutually clock-controlled stop/go shift registers,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-46, pp. 1081-1090, May 2000. This is a journal version of his Eurocrypt 1997 seminal paper J. Dj. Golić, “Cryptanalysis of alleged A5 stream cipher,” Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT ’97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1233, pp. 239-255, 1997. Both references are already included in the article. Note that JUPIM is hosted by the Mathematical Institute of Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (which has a Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Academy_of_Sciences_and_Arts ).

(iii) http://patents.justia.com/inventor/jovan-golic

This is an independent weblink providing a list of patents by Jovan Golic.

Ajurisic (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marsy's Law

Hi Onel5969, I posted a simple edit request at Marsy's Law last month. The request asks editors to include recently enacted Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. Can you add these new details to the article if it all looks good? As you might remember from when you assisted with this article in 2015, I have a conflict of interest so I will not edit the page myself. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=764189629"