Jump to content

User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Seraphim System

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 15 July 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Seraphim System) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

08:58:24, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Olgach11


Dear Seraphim System, Isaak Chertok was my great uncle who died in 1964. I have created this Wiki page in his memory. I did my best to collect all the possible information about him using his archive, memories about him, books he translated and buildings he built. I thought that a chief engineer of GosTorg building in Moscow, an architect of the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo and a translator of Chekhov stories has enough right to have a page in Wikipedia. I can not find any more references "to show the subject notability". Please reconsider your decision to decline my submission. Sincerely, Olga Chertok

Olgach11 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Olgach11: Unfortunately we don't allow memorial pages on Wikipedia. We need independent secondary sources to establish notability. Has his translation of Chekov been discussed in any scholarly or academic book reviews, or significant publications? Seraphim System (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

11:23:10, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Olgach11


Hi. I have added some information to Reference 3 about Chekhov translation. This is as much as I can add at the moment. Olgach11 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Olgach11: It would have to be from independent sources, not the introduction of the book - we need several independent secondary sources to establish notability. Book reviews from significant publications would be a good start. Seraphim System (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Conservatism in the United States does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Yes, I know what an edit summary is, it was obviously a mistake - was it really necessary to leave a template over this? Seraphim System (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My attempt was not as an offense, but a gentle reminder.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @RightCowLeftCoast: Seraphim system probably counts as a regular by now  :) so a truly 'gentle' reminder would have been written in your own fist, sans template. IMHO of course. Happy editing! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I sometimes forget to note the tags in an edit summary, will try to remember. Can you please add quotes for the sources you posted? Seraphim System (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No where in WP:VER does it say that quotes are required.
Also, another reminder. Please remember to add an edit summary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
They're not required, I'm asking for them. Please stop posting reminders on my page to add edit summaries. Seraphim System (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord North (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of million-plus urban agglomerations in India. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TigerSwan has been accepted

TigerSwan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Seraphim System (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

14:36:20, 31 May 2017 review of submission by Lauren at Chloe + Isabel


Hello! I requested a re-review for this because I believed I had re-wrote the article to be very neutral, and non-biased. I simply wrote a few sentences based on factual evidence that I backed up with sources that were not related or written by anyone who would have bias. I would love to know which words I can specifically change to make this article be approved, and which words made it sound like an advertisement. It would really help! Thank you very much!

Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Lauren

@Lauren at Chloe + Isabel: For example CEO and Founder Chantel Waterbury began her journey at the age of 13 - "began her journey" is not what we would consider encyclopedic, neutral language - it sounds promotional. But I also don't see enough sources to establish notability - I don't think this article can be approved without multiple sources that establish notability, but I will let another editor review the resubmission — maybe they will have different advice. Seraphim System (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winnipeg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winnipeg. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 05:04:08, 1 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Reginazhou2017


I have edited my draft and re-submitted. Wikipedia says I need reliable and independent references, I consider a newspaper cutting of the era as such. The purpose of an encyclopedia entry is also to provide accurate facts? And since I didn't collect the data myself, I consider this a secondary source. A primary source is when data is collected originally for instance data from an original survey.

Reviewer also mentioned sections needed to be provided. I have provided headings which I take to be sections.

This is not a complaint but I have been trying my best to work on the feedback provided by the wikipedia team but I have seen many pages that have been published with no issues or no ones bothers to review them. There are hardly any reliable references and the tone of the articles also read like essays. So I wonder why my draft gets so much flake. Reginazhou2017 (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Reginazhou2017: This article was declined for being essay-like. It seems from your comment that you are confused about why it was declined (twice). The article has a clear and identifiable POV - it has a pro-left slant. It is structured (a) (b) (c), one of the sections is titled "Clampdown on trade union leaders" - it is not written in the style that Wikipedia articles are written, which is different from essays or term papers. Wikipedia articles are written from WP:NPOV. We would generally say that editors should summarize what the sources say. When writing an essay, you would look for sources that support your argument, but that is not how Wikipedia articles should be written. For Wikipedia, it is better to start with the sources. The last paragraph, for example, highlights quotes that support the thesis of the left as an anti-colonial movement, which runs through the entire article. Without significant revision, I think it will be turned down again. Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:22, 1 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lauren at Chloe + Isabel


Thank you very much for your response on the Chloe + Isabel review! I will adjust it based on your advice.

Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Lauren


Lauren at Chloe + Isabel (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Catlow page

hi, on 23 may you declined the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruth_Catlow for notability and references. during the last week there has been quite a bit of work done on the page, & the author has resubmitted it for review. it now has 32 references, including Wired Magazine, Tate Museum, & The Guardian as well as many other reputable conferences, websites & so on. i believe that this is sufficient documented evidence of the subject's notability & respectfully ask that you accept this page. thanks. Frock (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hopefully some fresh eyes will help clear things up. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Opps

Sorry about this revert I was trying to see who was online after commenting at the noticeboard discussion and accidentally reverted, Have since self-reverted but wanted to make it clear it was an accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

RFAR withdrawn

The request for arbitration in which you were involved has been withdrawn by the filing party. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

3RR block

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@El C: How am I supposed to "try to reach consensus" with someone who says he doesn't need sources. Show me what policy obligates me to "reach consensus" with someone about unsourced assertions? Since when is adding unsourced material not vandalism? I don't see how this is going to be preventative. Let's say I waited, and then reverted again tomorrow. And then it just went back and forth for months, and he still refused to post sources. What difference would that make? Unless you are willing to call it what it is, vandalism, this block won't prevent anything—it will just drag it out in the name of the precious 3RR rule. Even if I revert once a day, what's does it help, if he just continues to revert back to an unsourced version? Obviously we can't have a consensus discussion—there are no sources. Maybe we should have an RfC, to see if we can agree as a community that 50 really means 50, or that "Not in Exodus" really means "Not in Exodus" — it really isn't a content dispute. The only thing that would be "preventive" would be admins addressing the behavioral issues that cause these problems. No sources, no discussion. It was true the first time I said it, and it is still going to be true tomorrow. Seraphim System (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not vandalism (please stop calling it that), it's a content dispute; the other version does have sources attached. You gain consensus by bringing more editors into the dispute: you launch an RFC or get a 3rd opinion or any other Dispute resolution option—but just edit warring by yourself is unproductive. El_C 02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know we can't expect admins to actually read things, but do you see how the source is a deliberate miscite? Because I do. Either it's deliberate, or it's such gross incompetence that the editor needs intensive mentoring from someone who knows how to read. So what should I call it—fradulent referencing? Fine, if you think we should have an RfC about whether or not a source that doesn't say "Easter inclusive" says "Easter inclusive" then I will do that next time. I think it's stupid, but sure, if that's how you all want to run Wikipedia, who am I to argue. Maybe it will be effective, though I'm concerned we might be able to reach consensus that a giraffe is a zebra. Seraphim System (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're going to be passive-aggressive, I'm just going to leave you to your own devices. El_C 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

13:42:08, 8 June 2017 review of submission by LucyClapham


Please may you tell me what I need to do to get this article accepted? Thank you

@LucyClapham: We need independent secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH — please review the requirements of the specific notability guideline. Under WP:NSCHOOL, it must pass either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Basically, we need sufficient sources from independent mainstream publications such as books or press reports and these should not be routine or passing mentions, but should discuss the subject in some depth. One of the things I am supposed to consider is what the likely outcome will be if the article is nominated for deletion after being created. This is discussed more in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. I see you have a section called headlines with links outside Wikipedia. This is basically not allowed. Please read WP:REFHELP for help on how to reference articles, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. WP:TEAHOUSE is also a good place to ask questions. Seraphim System (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
70 Quality: High, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: FA Herem (war or property) (talk) Add sources
2,261 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Episcopal Church (United States) (talk) Add sources
165 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Christian views on the Old Covenant (talk) Add sources
51 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Thanksgiving after Communion (talk) Add sources
280 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA University of Reading (talk) Add sources
167 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Church tabernacle (talk) Add sources
69 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Judaism and Mormonism (talk) Cleanup
42 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Academic boycott of Israel (talk) Cleanup
557 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Iris (mythology) (talk) Cleanup
87 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Dersim rebellion (talk) Expand
52 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Israeli checkpoint (talk) Expand
49 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Price tag policy (talk) Expand
68 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Passover (Christian holiday) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
90 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Racism in Malaysia (talk) Unencyclopaedic
216 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Racism in Israel (talk) Unencyclopaedic
89 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Dispensationalist theology (talk) Merge
86 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Water security (talk) Merge
44 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict (talk) Merge
49 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Antisemitism and the New Testament (talk) Wikify
102 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Protestantism and Islam (talk) Wikify
85 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Human rights in Israel (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Anigouran (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Akio Hong (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Aditnalta (talk) Orphan
36 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Impanation (talk) Stub
45 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sandwiches That You Will Like (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Michael Ben-Yair (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (talk) Stub
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Progressive revelation (Christianity) (talk) Stub
16 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Constitution Day (Ukraine) (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-Hinduism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

21:03:42, 11 June 2017 review of submission by PTSaputo


I have tried to address your comments. Could you help me to understand the issues you have raised? PTSaputo (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@PTSaputo: One issue I noticed right away is NPOV—I think our editors will object to this kind of language God's sovereignty has natural limitations and self-imposed limitations so that God may have the power, but choose not to act.[4]. "Ultimately God is in complete control of all things, though He may choose to let certain events happen according to natural laws which He has ordained. this is more something you would read in a religious tract then an encyclopedia. Another example is God is sovereign Lord of all by an incontestable right; God is the creator, owner and possessor of heaven and earth —I have scholarly theological encyclopedias that I use like International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and their tone is considerably more muted then this. This sounds more like a sermon then a Wikipedia article, and this is one of the major things to avoid when writing articles about religion for Wikipedia. This type of language is always promptly revised by our editors. There are also still a lot of primary sources inline without secondary source commentary. You would need a commentary or scholarly source that says "Well verse so and so discusses the doctrine known as the sovreignty of god, its significance is such and such." Seraphim System (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation is helpful. The purpose of the article is to discuss the doctrine of God's sovereignty; the basic premise of the article is that there is a sovereign God. The article then discusses the issues presented by the doctrine. So the article is written from the view that there is a creator who is sovereign. Yet, I do understand what you are writing - the existence of a sovereign god is not a fact and it was not my intent to present any argument for or against the existence of god. Would it help to state: "The premise of the doctrine is the claim that God is "sovereign Lord of all by an incontestable right [as the] creator . . . owner and possessor of heaven and earth."? I did make this change in the overview paragraph. Any thoughts would be appreciated. PTSaputo (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Defeating ISIS

Can you put it on hold and let me address your helpful suggestions? Sagecandor (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Sure. Seraphim System (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your very good recommendations! I agree with all of them and tried my best so far to make changes, and I feel that, thanks to you, the article looks much better now. Perhaps you can have another look at Talk:Defeating ISIS/GA1 ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you please change your review box thingy at the top of the review to note that you believe all criteria save one are resolved please? Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please close the review as failed. I'd rather not have more of this interaction. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please close the review now. And please don't review any other nominations of mine. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop future interactions about GA Reviews. Especially when you make up non-existent criteria about your requirement that articles-must-be-X-number-of-time-old. Especially mine. Please don't review my nominations again. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Listed at GA

FYI I went ahead and listed this at Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion since you passed it. Thanks for working with me on the review. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Did I forget to do that? I thought Legobot listed automatically when I added the topic to the GA template? Seraphim System (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Its one of the manual steps of the process. Legobot removes the discussion from the nomination page and adds the top icon, but the reviewer has to manually add it to the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Seraphim System (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making false baseless claims

Please stop making false baseless claims about me. I have no COI. I wrote an article about a book. That book was nominated for deletion. I decided to research more about the author. I discovered the author's other books were notable. I wrote articles about them. That is all. Sagecandor (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You've posted on my talk page like, 6 times today. Please stop posting on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of baseless claims, and I will. Agreed? Sagecandor (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: I am honestly glad we talked about this—I have articles that I haven't nominated because I thought they had to be stable for a reasonable time before being eligible for GA. But I would not fail an article for a criteria I was uncertain about, or during a dispute. This is why I suggested a second opinion. I also would not pass an article where I was uncertain if the criteria had been met. But I was not going to fail the article for stability. The sections I worked on with you are much improved, but there are still issues in the article.
  • The book describes ISIS attempts to remake the world through jihad. Shouldn't it be ISIS' attempts?
  • grounds the reader within the context of Islamic history - since Wikipedia is written in encyclopedic style, we generally write our article in terms of verifiable facts. I don't see how "grounding the reader" is a verifiable fact. Even something like "Defeating ISIS grounds its narrative within the context of Islamic history." sounds a little too opinionated to be stated as a verifiable fact. Plus, there is no source given for this view.
  • Nance writes these strategies lead to gross violations of human right => Nance writes that these strategies
  • He provides an in-depth overview sounds promotional

In the first paragraph of Research and Release, you write four sentences in a row beginning with Nance. I checked other GA articles to compare, and linked you to Cyber Rights which I thought was a good example of the kind of prose we look for during GA reviews. I was never going to fail the article for any non-existent criteria. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I didn't think it was ready to pass GA. GA review is not a process where the reviewer substantially rewrites the article. My opinion is that the article needs work beyond what I could address during the Review process to bring the prose to where it needs to be to pass GA. Seraphim System (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these additional specific recommendations:
  1. Changed the wording here.
  2. Removed this wording.
  3. Added word, "that".
  4. Removed "in-depth" wording here.
  5. Copyedited to fix the word repetition in that paragraph.

If you have any more specific suggestions, I will address them, point-by-point, in good faith. Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For example "grounds the reader" — I checked the sources for that paragraph, and I ran a quick search through the articles—I don't see the book described this way. I also checked the sources and they don't mention the Battle of Nahrawan - if you look at Cyber Rights similar language is used "The book's early chapters ground the reader..." but this is sourced to a secondary source. Every statement in that article seems to be sourced to a secondary source. The book itself is only sourced for its basic publication information. We can only describe something the way it is described by WP:RS, not based on our own review of the book. Seraphim System (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed all instances of this in that article. Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain decline of Draft:Car2X-Communication


Hello, the sources for this article are all either scientific publications (Thesis, government documents e.g. published by the European Commission) or published newspaper articles (e.g. from golem.de). There is no sentence or paragraph without a reference. Why is it that the article is declined due to its references or significant coverage? I can fix the article if I know what to do. Thanks

@Isschchat: Looking through Google Books, I would suggest adding more secondary sources. The AfC was declined because "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." but the subject may be inherently notable. Seraphim System (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness

It's only been a day and a half since you conducted your review. I wasn't given any time to work on the issues you pointed out. Failing it immediately was a bit unfair. Rusted AutoParts 12:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I should have put it on hold, I'm sorry. I should have waited a few more days, is there some way I can reverse it or has Legobot done its thing already? Seraphim System (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's done its thing. But it's fine. I'll work in the issues pointed out and then re-nominate. Rusted AutoParts 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheatsheet...

I set that up almost 8 or 9 years ago, and its not something that supercedes the actual GA criteria. I also use it for FA reviewing, so it does cover some things that are beyond the GA criteria. There isnt a requirement to have consistent citations in a GA, but you can always ask for them as something additional. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I was actually going to ask you about that. Seraphim System (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and peace dove

Peace dove

Thanks for your helpful suggestions about the other article I wrote, even after the review was completed.

You didn't have to take your time and effort to do that and I recognize that and thank you.

I truly feel the article is better for the specific suggestions you gave me. And I did try to implement all of them to the best of my ability.

Thank you for saying you'd recuse at the other page [1]. I really appreciate that gesture of good faith on your part to me. I'll try my best to take that to heart.

Thank you for saying you're still learning yourself and trying to go slow [2].

I get that. I really do, and I can feel your position about that also.

Maybe we've both learned a little bit of something from each other. Sagecandor (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim, thank you very much for your kind comment [3], I really appreciate it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle for Caen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle for Caen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphim_System/Archive_2&oldid=790660204"