User talk:Kuyabribri: Difference between revisions

Additionally, please keep in mind:

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• Do not delete or modify anyone else's comments. Unless you are reverting vandalism, personal attacks, or legal threats on this talk page, modifying other users' comments is a violation of the talk page guidelines and may result in a warning. The talk page guidelines allow me to delete comments on this talk page, but as a matter of courtesy I will generally only delete content to archive it or as outlined above. I also reserve the right to move your comment and/or make formatting changes for consistency. If you need to modify your own comment, please use strikethrough (<s> and </s>).
• Requests for me to stop editing or otherwise taking action on "your" page will generally be ignored. For more information on this, see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If you believe I am engaging in misconduct that constitutes a violation of a Wikipedia policy or guideline, please let me know, and if you are not satisfied with my response, see WP:ANI.

Archives

Archive 1 (August 2006–March 2009) Archive 2 (April–July 2009) Archive 3 (September 2009–July 2010) Archive 4 (August–December 2010) Archive 6 (January 2011–)

Thank you for the advice, I will read the help me sections before re-submitting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley286 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kuyabribri, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I had a quick question for you... at this diff you left a template admonishing someone for refactoring on ANI. I think the sentiment is right. However, I wonder if you've read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? I only ask because I know there are some people who get really offended by templates, and when an editor has many months in and more than 500 edits, I'd hate to lose them over something silly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have never read that specific essay, I am aware of the sentiment it expresses and I do try not to leave template warnings for experienced/established editors. I admit that I don't usually check the contribution history of an editor I have never come across to determine whether he/she is an established editor before making the decision to leave a template warning, but I do factor in the circumstances. When I left that warning, there was a rapid succession of posts at ANI and the manner in which Golden Sugarplum removed another user's text, specifically, the removal of the last portion of one user's comment but leaving that same user's signature ([1]) led me to believe this was a bad-faith removal. Additionally, I noticed a large number of template warnings on the talk page already (though they related mostly to notifications for deletion and orphaned images). Though I did not say it on the ANI thread, I did accept his explanation that the removal was accidental. I will try to be more careful about this in the future. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article, as it contains an assertion of notability (i.e. the starring role in the TV show) and therefore is not eligible for speedy. Please be more careful next time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the article looked like when I tagged it. Hardly a claim to notability there. The claim to notability was added after I tagged it ([2]) and the speedy tag was re-added twice by SDPatrolBot. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged it four minutes after it was created. When you tag something that early, you have a responsibility to take a moment to check and make sure that it isn't a stub on a genuinely notable subject that's being created by an inexperienced editor. As per WP:CSD, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." The edit you tagged for deletion was the first-ever edit by the page's creator, User:Wondot9, and taking ten seconds to check Google News for "Francis Boulle" would have turned up this article on Boulle and his show from The Daily Mail, along with several others. Because you were lazy and slipshod, you inadvertently bit a new editor making a constructive addition to the encyclopedia. As such, please try to be more careful in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say if we changed the way we display airport names on all of the TAR pages? That is, instead of using the full name, we can just use the IATA codes, so instead of having [[Los Angeles International Airport]] we'd use [[Los Angeles International Airport|LAX]] and the like. I also don't know where I should propose this change to a larger audience.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too fond of this idea. From a purely stylistic standpoint, I don't like the idea of placing abbreviations (or IATA codes) on an article without placing their expansion first. I might see this making sense if we needed to say "Los Angeles International Airport" multiple times in the same paragraph or section, but we typically don't do that in TAR articles.

As to your second question regarding getting a larger audience, I don't see a WikiProject that is applicable here, so I would say that since the season 18 page is the one most likely to be on people's watchlists, post your proposal there, and then on other seasons' talk pages post a message pointing to the discussion on the season 18 talk page. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing to you regarding your removal of the speedy deletion template by stating that notability was asserted due to being the descendent of someone notable here: [[3]] Just wanted to draw your attention to the policy about notability not being inherited: WP:NOTINHERITED. I see no other notability claims in that article at this time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed the tag again. CV that is an essay, and as it stands there is enough in the article to make it pass csd#a7, if you believe the article should be deleted, you should take it to afd. Also when a user who is not the creator removes a csd tag you should not restore it--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of typing up a response but Jac said pretty much what I wanted to say. Claiming inherited notability is enough to get past A7. CV, I was actually in the process of doing my WP:BEFORE due diligence to open an AfD when you replaced the CSD tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. The AfD is open. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copy+paste. I somehow ran across it and decided it was better than what was already there. I didn't spend a great deal of time investigating, so maybe it wasn't! Fleetham (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kuyabribri,

I suppose because I'm quite new here and every person here has his own talk page I'm a little bit lost. Since I have no idea how to contact the administrator NawlinWiki who actually deleted my article about InVision Software I'm writing to you to ask for some advice. I changed the text of the article and started it anew at Special:Mypage/InVision Software. Could you possibly help me by reviewing the text or recommend someone who could do this instead? I read all the necessary guidelines, but I can see that I'm just far away from contributing a good article. The only references I can provide are the company's website and some online published articles of the same... Please answer if possible! Thanks a lot! 4ernoMore (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over your userspace draft as well as my reasons for nominating the last iteration of InVision Software for speedy deletion, and have come to the conclusion that if I were to see this article in the article space, I would nominate it for deletion under the same criteria of no indication of importance and blatant advertising or promotion. Following are my concerns with the article:

• Most of the article reads as a press release and it is littered with flowery filler terms. For example, the first three sentences of the article are basically just a fancy way of saying "InVision Software is a workforce management company based in Germany." Additionally, this article uses the words "portfolio" and "solution(s)", which are two major pet peeves of mine, in places where a word like "product" or no word at all would suffice.
• It is important to note that "advertising" and "promotion" do not necessarily mean an attempt to sell something, but they also include statements that only serve to publicize someone or something. One way to look at this is how might a person like me, who is neither an affiliate of the company nor a client/customer, describe what this company does? Judging from a quick overview of the company website, I would say it provides software to employers to assist with workforce management.
• Even if this article were completely rewritten from an encyclopedic, neutral point of view, it must meet notability criteria in order to be included on Wikipedia. These guidelines, while by no means perfect, have been developed and refined by the community, in part because Wikipedia is not about everything. In a nutshell, the company must be the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Company press releases, websites, Facebook/LinkedIn profiles, etc., are not sufficient to qualify under this criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the guidelines that apply to this specific article.

From the looks of things right now, it looks like this article is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to prove me wrong by rewriting the article from a neutral point of view and providing evidence of coverage in reliable sources as I explained above. You are also welcome to see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of sites using wiki technology that might be willing to host your content as is. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time and helping me understand how the article can be improved. Now I get your point! I will look through the files you recommended. Once again your feedback is much appreciated. 4ernoMore (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Who's Who unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is about Who's Who (UK) being reliable/unreliable, I think you are better suited asking your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If this is about a paid Who's Who, those are vanity publications that, from what I understand, have little to no fact checking, and persons with entries can have whatever they want put in there, regardless of whether or not it is true, as long as they pay a fee. I suspect your question is about the former, so please ask your question there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the fact that deletion of Florence Peake has turned out to be more controversial than I expected, (as shown at User talk:JamesBWatson#Florence Peake and A7) I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I will respond on your talk page momentarily, to keep the full discussion in one place. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping clean up my mess. [4] Is it in order now? Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your attention to our request regarding the eFax disambiguation page. I have offered a response to your comments on the talk page and would appreciate your review, and reply. Thanks for your attention to this. j2globalwiki ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2globalwiki ed (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KuyaBriBri, thank you for the comment under the article I edited. I wanted to improve it and did the research to provide the references from more reliable sources. I encountered some articles and included several of them (i.e. from PC Magazine and InternetRetailer.com) in another edit. Should I also remove the links to pages where this software can be downloaded? Klim3k 18:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]