User talk:StarryGrandma/Archive 6

Proposed deletion of Swiss UMEF University

The article Swiss UMEF University has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources can be found describing this organization, which therefore fails to meet WP:GNG. Passing references to UMEF do not bolster its case. The UN Global Compact refers to UMEF as "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darouet (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what should I do?

19:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe. You are keeping long lists of articles at User:Deisenbe. What do you want that page to look like? Do you want the lists to be in columns and or smaller font? Do you read the list mostly on the desktop or a mobile device? It might be time to make subpages of your user page and move sections into those pages to keep things easier to read. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reason the numbers appear different sizes. If there is any text after the numbered item, the number is larger. If there's none it's smaller. User:Deisenbe#Major contributions deisenbe (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A seafood snap

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this. Had you checked his talk page, you would have seen that it was an accident. Please read this, and please, please, be gentle with our dear fellow Wikipedians. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Anna Frodesiak and Mr. Guye. I'm half Cornish and assume everyone knows about Cornwall and pasties and didn't think about the possibility of an accident. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, StarryGrandma. And I'm sorry about the trout. I've given out only a few in my time, and I feel rather guilty. Let's all call it water under the bridge. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03:12:42, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Zhuojun

Zhuojun (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Norman K. Denzin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Starry Grandma: Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We will revise it and resubmit.Zhuojun (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:30, 2 May 2017 review of submission by JudiPCook

JudiPCook (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John C. Pollock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the biography I wrote for my colleague, John C. Pollock. I added two things that may help clear up the concerns you had with the previous version:

1) I added many of Dr. Pollock's publications 2) I included a reference to his Google Scholar page, which estimates that his work has been cited over 600 times.

Can you please advise me of any other modifications I might make to help get this approved? This is only my second Wikipedia entry, so I appreciate your patience.

Best,

Judi

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Dear StarryGrandma,

I received your email regarding my attempt to add the new entry titled "Dan H. Yaalon". I have the whole text and illustrations in order to insert this entry to Wikipedia, however, I find it too difficult to do, as I'm not that good with computers. I kindly ask your help with adding this entry to Wikipedia. I have no idea how can contact you, hoping that you see this message and agree to contact me again (via my email, as you just did) and leave any email address or phone by which I can contact you. Best wishes, Danny Danitkin (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danitkin and thank you. I will answer this at your talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cassantec AG

It appears that you declined this just s I was posting an AFC comment, which got overwritten. I have now restored it. I ask that you take a look back at this, and at my review of the sources on Draft talk:Cassantec AG. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, you were great to look through all of those references. I had looked at the just the last references added. The award article looked fine, but as you say depends on the reputation of the award. The December 9, 2015 article at MachinenMarkt was based on the December 7, 2015 press release on the company website. The dates are confusing since the 9/12/2105 (European style date) got translated to 12 August 2015. At that point I decided to ask the editor to pick out two references since Google translate mixed with my limited German is a slow process. As I look further, the three part article by a free-lance writer in MachinenMarkt could well be independent. The two-part Electrotechnik article by Sariana Kunze on Decemer 12, 2015 shows what a press release is supposed to do, trigger a look at the company. She interviewed a professor and provided some context as well as interviewing the company spokesman. I was hoping to have the article author pick out which was independent and which wasn't. It is a very interesting company, though young. The article should say more about what it does, since there are references for that. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it did say more before the copied material was removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StarryGrandma, I listed two independent and notable sources where you specified, and I added more sources. The sources in which you point out that the writer is associated with the company are written by the founder of the company, so I thought it was more directly informational than advertisement. Would you mind having another look? Thanks so much, Daninguyen0 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StarryGrandma, Checking in again to check if you could rereview the CassantecAG site? Thanks so much, Daninguyen0 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Daninguyen0. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your research and coordination

Thank you! I've used that example in my further comments over at Wikidata. Actually showing that people at individual wikis are trying to remedy gaps in the process hopefully will add a bit of urgency at Wikidata to finishing the implementation, which is incomplete unless plain editors can contribute corrections.

Also the 'uses' vs. 'tracks' question may be resolved simply by again referring to that same template. Looks like 'uses' is correct until you know for sure that 'tracks' is also needed. Thank you again. Shenme (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For a second there I thought your username was ScaryGrandma.

Whispe ring 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my change erroneously. Please let us do not start a Revert War!

I just noted that you deleted my informative change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copernican_principle&oldid=prev&diff=764123375

Yes, I didn't provide a cite. Your appropriate response would be, in decreasing order of preference: (1) To help Wikipedia by locating an appropriate citation and adding it. (2) To add a "citation needed" note. (3) To send a message to me, asking me to provide a cite. Not on the list is to delete my informative change without even notifying me, and thereby to degrade the quality of information at Wikipedia.

Just because I did not include a citation does not make my change incorrect!

To the contrary, I would be more inclined to take the time to hunt for a citation if I needn't worry about counterproductive edits such as yours.

Thanks in advance :-) Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This happened back in February. If you had just put the material in I might have done so. But you removed part of a sentence and the two references supporting it, and replaced it with an unsupported statement. Your edit summary was Correct error. Remove dead and pay-per-view links. However the links were not dead and it does not matter if sources are behind a paywall. Most academic journals are behind a paywall. There was no need to remove what you did to add a sentence about Bruno. As to response, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When reverted go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because you disapproved of part of my edit, you also removed the factual correction I made to restore the old erroneous version. Got it.Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this discussion to the talk page of the article, Talk:Copernican principle, where it should take place after a revert. Please continue there. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent work on Adrian Bejan page. It definitely needed an expert work. Mre env (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mre env. It was very interesting work. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]