User talk:TheDragonFire/Archives/2017/04

좋은 날!

Please explain change to template @ 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade. It won't be there long. Did it offend you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please...before making any changes! Comment

There are reasons things are the way they are. I welcome all and any improvements, and I hope you will also. Sudden unexplained changes to an article can be jarring to a reader as well as editors. I don't know everything, but I do know its best to be courteous first than to be bold. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: I edited the {{under construction}} template, as you had incorrectly inserted your signature into the placedby parameter, rather than just your username, and this was detected by a WP:CHECKWIKI scan. I fixed this, and removed the image that was not displaying correctly within the box. You are very welcome to replace the image if you wish. I additionally ran WP:REFILL on the article and replaced one bare citation. I would encourage you to read WP:BOLD and WP:OWNERSHIP. Specifically, uncontroversial changes, such as fixing a template error and filling out a citation do not have to be discussed first. I welcome any and all feedback regarding the content of my (very minor) changes, but reverting them simply because I did not discuss them first is inappropriate. Looking at the article's talk page, this does not appear to be the first time this has happened. TheDragonFire (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least you looked at the talk page. I thank you for your much needed comments. I will try to accomodate your requests as best I can. You are welcome to contribute to the article if you can. I would like to point out that the article is currently under peer review, and as such needs my focus-- reckless as it seems. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Nonetheless, it would appear better on my part to step aside for awhile and simmer down. Thank you once again!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Lil Cory

Not sure if I am contacting you correctly, this is my first article on Wikipedia.

My article about "Lil Cory" has been tagged for deletion again even though I have added credible sources and cites my information.

This artist has performed in television. Someone posted on my talk page that they did a search on this artist and that all they saw was social media. The person who said this is not looking in the right places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveworld (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see evidence of notability and I've pointed the editor to the guideline. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I haven't made any comments regarding the article's notability. I simply removed my WP:A7 template after I felt that we'd met the credible claim of significance threshold and that WP:A7 was no longer appropriate (PROD and AfD are obviously still very possible), and asked Scottyoak2 for their reasoning when they retagged the page. This, I suppose, was my attempt at implementing WP:BITE for a new user who showed some level of good faith. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I realised that when I posted. Just wanted to let you know. It was prodded a few years ago and it looked better then. Still, I've advised the creator about notability so maybe they'll find something. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: All good. I'm working at getting my policy knowledge up to scratch, and hopefully applying for new page reviewer at some point, so all comments and criticisms are welcome. I didn't think to check the deletion log, which is an interesting point. Do what you will with the article. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

All I've done right now is tag it for notability. I might take it to AfD at some point, but I haven't decided. Biting is of course to be avoided. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Www.InfectionControl.tips

The journal InfectionControl.tips is real and they pioneered the pan access movement Which is an extension to the open acress platform. The Wikipedia page wasn't an advertisement but a fact. InfectionControl.tips is the worlds first pan access platform. It was launched in 2015. 36 countries. Not for profit SirWixit (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SirWixit (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@SirWixit: I'm not suggesting that the subject of the article is fake. Instead I'm suggesting that it is not notable. Please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and possibly Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. SirWixit (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (physicist)

User:Amuk moved User:Amuk/Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (physicist) (a userspace draft) to Wikipedia:Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (physicist) (a projectspace page), and then moved User:Amuk/Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (physicist) (the redirect from the previous move) to Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (physicist) (article space). I'm unable to revert the move. This particular issue may have been fixed by the time an admin gets to this, but is there a way I can cleanup after this sort of thing, i.e. where it's more messy that a simple "move B back to A"? TheDragonFire (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I spotted the mistake as soon as I had made it, but don't have the powers to undo the move or merge the pages. Meanwhile I also asked an admin for help. Sorry for the mess. Amuk (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Titodutta has moved the files. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

To complete the record, I've discussed this in IRC, and there doesn't seem anything I can do to fix this sort of issue other than get admin assistance. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

WPMobilePack

Hi there!

I might have made a mistake since this is the first time I'm adding a page on Wikipedia.org. If the issue is the "1 million downloads", then the precise number is actually there: 988,397. I could write "over 900,000 downloads" if that's better? Please advise. Cborodescu (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cborodescu: Hey! I was a little hasty in tagging that article. I've fixed a few issues, and done some cleanup. There's a notability tag at the top of the article that should explain what you can do to improve the article further. Have a great day! TheDragonFire (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: Thank you! Yes, I've already started adding some more references. Appreciate the help!Cborodescu (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The Stanley Dynamic

Hey there. I was going to tag that article for CSD, but some part of my deletionist heart thawed and figured a move to drafts would be better. Do you think that would be better than CSD, or should I stick to my guns (for future situations like this)? ɯɐɔ 💬 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcam: Hey! Moving to draftspace is a perfectly reasonable alternative, and there's no hard and fast policy. There's an art to knowing which to use in any given circumstance — an art that I certainly haven't mastered. As you may have noticed, Tompop888 has gone and added a {{hasty}} tag to the page, so they are clearly on the draft-ification side of things. I suspect my CSD rate goes up the more hours I've been watching the new page feed for... It might be time to take a break. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

#relatable, amirite? But genuinely, I can relate. Sometimes my finger slips and I get a little too Machiavellian. Yikes. ɯɐɔ 💬 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcam: Indeed, the one article I choose to whack harder than the rest turns out to be created by the one user who might actually write something decent. TheDragonFire (talk)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Third Opinion

Hi, I noticed that when you removed a dispute from the list at WP:3O that you didn't state in your edit summary what the dispute was that you removed and how many remained on the list. Quoted from WP:3O: "When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain."

Thanks for contributing to Third Opinion though, not many people seem to be active on Third Opinion for the last few weeks and it's much appreciated! Just thought I'd let you know. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Trooper1005: Hey! Yep, sorry, I only noticed that after I had made the mistake, but I will keep it in mind for next time. That was my first WP:3O response, so any and all feedback is very much appreciated. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Deleting metadata of a Wikimedia image

Hello,

You made an edit on the Malvika Iyer page. I just noticed that the image on the bio (which you helped move, btw- thank you so much for that!) has some meta-data, that raises some privacy concerns. I do not know how to remove the meta-data for that image. Can you please help with this? I have another version of the same image without the meta-data, if that helps.

Thank you!

With best regards, Inclusionforall (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inclusionforall: Hey! You'll need to upload a new copy of the image without metadata (you can do so here), and then ask an admin to delete the old copy (or ping me and I can ask them for you). TheDragonFire (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thank you for the prompt response. I have uploaded the new version of the image and replaced it on Malvika Iyer infobox. Could you help me with deleting the old copy? Here is the link to it: [1]

I may have used Wiki upload wizard instead of overwriting files as I wanted to include the caption as part of the image. Would that be a problem? I understand that I need to add the tag "Duplicate" on the old image. Kindly help.

With best regards,

Inclusionforall (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Inclusionforall: The old image has been deleted. I've re-edited the infobox though, as that's not the correct way to add a image caption in that case. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you very much. I appreciate your support.

With best regards,

Inclusionforall (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Speedy deletion declined: Frederick Douglass High School Baltimore

Hello TheDragonFire. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Frederick Douglass High School Baltimore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this was tagged in discussion with the user, who had created around 5 very similar redirects. Several other CSD tags were accepted, but it's fair that this one wasn't. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Request on 16:42:18, 19 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MSullivan

• MSullivan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Collaborator (code review software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bardi! I am curious as to why the Collaborator (code review software) was rejected. I work at SmartBear. I would like to understand why this article is seen as an advertisement. If you can help me understand, I'd like to submit a new article for submission if possible. Thank you! MSullivan (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@MSullivan: Hello! Can you confirm that you have read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, and the paid-contribution disclosure policy in full? I recognise this is a significant amount of words to throw at you, but those documents exist for a reason.

You are asking Wikipedia – an organisation that's public trust is built on a reputation for a neutral point of view – to publish an article written by the very company who product the article is about. Would you accept a newspaper where all the articles were written by the subjects of the article? Would you trust reporting on your competitors if they were allowed to write it themselves? Hence, your article is on an uneasy footing to start with, and would usually need to be held to an even higher standard than usual to compensate for your conflict of interest. In this case, your article does not even slightly comply with our neutral point of view guideline, and in fact reads like ad copy. I can provide many examples of this, but perhaps the simplest is your use of the term "purpose built". Please consider why you used this term, and why it reads sounds like advertising. If you are unable to understand this, then I apologize, but maybe you are not ready to edit Wikipedia.

Your comment "I'd like to submit a new article for submission if possible" is a little unclear, and I'd just like to remind you that it's preferable to edit your existing submission and hit the resubmit button, rather than making a duplicate submission. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the draft

I have made changes in the draft as you sai before. can you check it?

Gosval (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pablo Piatti

Hello there, from Portugal,

please explain how did I introduce factual errors in the infobox of this football player when I updated his statistics as of his last match. Also, in my first edit I reverted sock User:FonsiFAJ, so I actually improved and not the opposite; I have already reinstated the good version.

Sorry for any inconvenience, happy editing --193.137.135.2 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@193.137.135.2: Hey! Your edit here used the edit summary: Update much, multi-account nuisance?, which I misinterpreted, as the vandal/sock mocking the people reverting them, rather than an innocent user commenting. If you are able to provide a source for your edit, that would be great, but it's not the end of the world. I've reported the abusive user to WP:AIV, but their last edit was a few days ago, and the report may be rejected as stale. If they aren't blocked now, please re-report them if they continue. Sorry for the mix-up. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and polite reply! Yes, my summary was quite misleading so your eyebrow had all the reasons to be raised :) Speaking of the sock, another one that I can remember right now (there are more, just can't remember names on the spot) is User:JAF1. Cheers! --193.137.135.2 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}