Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Keystone State Wrestling Alliance

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Gvstaylor1 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

  • Seems like a solid DYK but the "(or is a fan of)" could be removed based on the fact it suggests it is not sure about it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed that. Anything else? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Every paragraph needs at least one citation, yet there are whole sections with no citations at all. See "Birth of the KSWA 2000-2005," "Modern Era 2005-Current," "Fan Fest," and "Millvale Days." A cursory glance also shows that there are many quotations which are not cited. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I am still working on it, most of it is recorded by my father who is the "Ring Announcer/Writer" currently. So I am trying to write it in such a way that it is not seen as a advertisement but more of the encyclopedia history. He has been adding things as well. Citations will be added.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Citations added, article is now ready for a full review. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Substantial updates have been made, but there are still some sections that require sources. The "Roster" section is entirely unsourced. Each row within "Joe Abby Memorial Tournament" needs a source. Same goes for "Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament", "KSWA Hall of Fame", and "Championships" (current and former). I noticed that the paragraphs before the boxes have a source, but I clicked the source to see if the information below was cited and it wasn't. In addition, there is 85.8% copyright violation in this article. Please make sure to paraphrase sources/write stuff in your own words. Please fix this as soon as you can. Other things check out: new, long enough, no QPQ (editor's first DYK), neutral, and reliable sources used. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you copy-write violate something that the same person wrote it? You don't. And how is it violated? It's being entirely rewritten for the most part.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gvstaylor1: Hi, I don't think I understand what you are trying to tell me. Are you telling me you wrote the source? According to Eargwig, a tool we use to see if the article's text matches the sources cited, there seems to be a lot of similarity between the article's text and this source here. Please go here to see what I'm referring to. There are two paragraphs that seem problematic. In order for this to pass, you or someone else would have to paraphrase the source's text. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. I apologize in advance is there is any misunderstanding. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 02:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this MX and Gvstaylor1. Just changing the review tag. The orange x means the article is an almost certain no (and closes the nomination after a few days), while this one just indicates that there are some problems to be worked out before approval, which seems more appropriate here. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1 - Thank you for reaching out at my talkpage. I'm still getting an 84% plagiarism rate on our copyright detector. Are you able to view the page? The left side is the article's prose; the red marks are phrases that match the right part, the sources you used. It is OK when certain phrases match (i.e. names and dates), but we cannot have whole paragraphs match. You need to rewrite these entirely. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@MX: I cannot see the pageGvstaylor1 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gvstaylor1: Hmmm, try accessing here with another engine (Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.) and adding the title of the article in "Page title". Then click submit. Let me know. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Gvstaylor1, any progress in rewording the copied content? Sourcing looks pretty good: just missing sources for the winners of the Mario Ferraro Sr. Memorial Tournament. Also, you have two paragraphs (about the “Best Place To Stand Around With A PBR”) that say the same thing. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I'm currently away from home for a week or 2. Sorry, emergency personal issesGvstaylor1 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Because of the nominator's absence and the serious copyright violations (81.8%), I'm calling to close this nomination. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)+
  • There's still a 81% copyright violation, see here. MX (✉ • ✎) 01:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If you check the history, you'll see my edits were removed. I've since reverted the page. 72.74.195.143 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have checked the IP's removal and while aggressive most of the material they removed was intricate detail not of general interest and much of it was copyvio from here. The current version is okay from a copyright point of view and I have done revision deletion of the copied material. The image File:Formerkswa.png contains material that is over the threshold of originality in my opinion, so I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. For both the prose and the image I have provided the user with instructions as to how to get an OTRS ticket, as he implies that he may be the copyright holder of this content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely Love returning home to find my own work deleted. What the hell kind of Encylapedia is this where you delete the "Under Construction" Banner. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable that my work was deleted. Hours of work done, and ignoring the under construction banner and the talk page. But I guess reading the percentage rather than actually looking into the copyrighting is more important. If you actually read that copywrite page, it was Event Names, People names, Dates. that is 90% of the article, of fucking course it will be close. How do you paraphrase and already paraphrased history both written by the same person? Explain that to me. Do you go around Vandalizing all pages with Construction banners? Diannaa MX Tell me how to do the damn OTRS pending before deleting everything. Gvstaylor1 (talk)`
We're not allowed to host copyright material on this wiki, not even temporarily for editing, and the presence of a "under construction" banner does not make an article an exception to this policy. I have restored the material since you have now tagged the page as OTRS pending. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
This nomination must be held until the pending OTRS request has been processed and licensing of the source confirmed. Diannaa, is there any way such requests can be expedited? Also, it should be noted that an "Under construction" banner itself reads, If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. It is not a banner with any permanence on Wikipedia, and its removal was completely proper. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Expediting an OTRS ticket requires an OTRS agent, which I am not. You could try posting at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well seeing that this and the talk page both asked for time, i guess people editing these pages can't have lives outside editing Wikipedia pages. The under construction page does not give you the right to delete the entire page, after requesting multiple times instruction on how to release things to no reply. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gvstaylor1, I'm responding to the message in my talkpage. There is a 81% copyright violation, and there are entire paragraphs in the article that are exactly the same as the source. It is fine to have matches if they are names, but having entire paragraphs match when they can be rephrased is unacceptable. Are you able to access Earwig? Let me know how I can help and if you need additional time. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
MX funny how the new update is back to 81% copy write when i was down to 72%, but that got deleted. (Shows 85% for me on that stupid website) I will be waiting for the copywrite release to be finished. Before making any other changes. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything myself. Anyhow, 72% is still quite high... MX (✉ • ✎) 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it is, but it's kind of hard to rewrite it when someone deletes it. Now I'm just jumping through hoops because I'm tired of it being deleted every time i edited it. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been applied. We ok to proceed now? Gvstaylor1 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gvstaylor1, we are fine to proceed now that the licensing information has been added to the article and talk page. Thank you for your patience. Please let us know here when you've made the updates you want to the article, and be sure to take care of the bare URLs that have been used for some of the source citations. MX, please note that when you do continue the review, Earwig may still show a high number and copied paragraphs for the patch.com source even with the license, but it is no longer a problem for that one source. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gvstaylor1: I checked everything and was about to promote this, but noticed that some of the references at the bottom are incomplete (mainly those between 25 - 54). Some are bare URLs, while others lack accessdates, publishers, etc. Adding complete references is crucial to prevent WP:LINKROT, so I'm quite hesitant to approve the article until this is addressed. Other than that, everything else checks out. Look forward to having this on the Main Page! MX (✉ • ✎) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
MX, as I noted above, bare URLs must be filled in before a DYK nomination can be appropriate for the main page, see WP:DYKSG#D3 for details. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@MX: The bare urls are all filled in now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Article accepted. Issues have been addressed. Hooks are cited, interesting, new, no bare URLs, no QPQ needed, no copyright issues. Thank you to everyone who contributed! MX (✉ • ✎) 13:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Keystone_State_Wrestling_Alliance&oldid=1034774089"