User talk:Puffin/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list
Hello Puffin! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
- This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
HI Puffin, Suck my vagina With regards to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Super-resolution_optical_fluctuation_imaging
Iam not pretty sure if the way you are citing: " textextext:[1] " is correct. I have never seen this type of citation style before. With the brackets the citations can be placed directly where they belong..as far as i Know?
Best regards, Tseine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tseine (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Puffin:
WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation
Subculture (band) new page
Hi Puffin,
I note the Subculture page was rejected by you for "unreliable sources" re references/ citations.
I am the author of the said page and also the founding member of the band. I listed only one reference in the original draft (a link to the subculture web page) as all the information written in my article can be verified at the Subculture webpage because I also wrote that too. I can verify it is all true, as being a band founding member, I was there to witness all of it!!
Should this not be sufficient I have also today added more references to other webpages that tell the same story via band interview ect. I hope this is ok!
Regards, and any advice on listing is welcomed!
Dean Tyrrell / DGT65
HappyBird
Hi Puffin – sorry I must have made a mistake and submitted a blank page for this, which you rejected on 13 March. I have now resubmitted. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
NASR 9000 bomb
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never made any changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.156.11.56 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
Hello Puffin:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Review request
Hi there! On a suggestion from User:Ocaasi I asked for help for my Draft:Dedlen at the Teahouse. User:Missionedit gave me some suggestions and upon my submission helped get it reviewed by User:AmaryllisGardener who gave me more suggestions. I've modified the draft, clearing up phrasing and adding more citations and have submitted it again. Would it be possible for you to give it a review? I hope you'll let me know. Thank you! Dedlen (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Aakri listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aakri. Since you had some involvement with the Aakri redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 06:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello Puffin. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Betfair Profile
I seem to be involved in a put up/take down war on this article. I think the 'Tennis Courtsiding' article in there is opinionated and not properly sourced as well as being inaccurate and the content appears to have been written by someone looking to discredit Betfair and those mentioned in the section. It is opinionated.
eg
- "in which he publicly admitted that he was effectively employing Dobson to steal sports data for his syndicate" - he made no such admission. The reference to stealing sports data is entirely made up and is not supported by any source. - "There was much disquiet when..." is also just the opinion of the author with no source to support it. It is unsourced as mentioned in the previous quote, as well as being inaccurate in several different ways.
eg
Andrew Black's blog gives High credit on one specific project and not as stated here that "Black said that High was the man who implemented his ideas and made them functional on the website"
It is also irrelevant as the relaying of information back from sporting events is not necessarily specific to Betfair and is covered in another article on Wikipedia. There is no obvious reason why it should appear here and not in the write ups of other bookmakers and exchanges.
For openness, I should just state that I am connected with Sporting Data, the firm mentioned in the article. Could you let me know the best way to resolve this?
Eachway
Eachway looks like he is Steve High, and is talking about himself in the third person. The sources are clearly given, including a radio interview with Steve High where he stated he neither had any legal right to "steal" data, and that he was in breach of ticket conditions at every event his staff 'attend'. A quick listen to the linked radio interview shows Eachway has clearly not been honest when he states "The reference to stealing sports data is entirely made up and is not supported by any source.", five minutes listening to his radio interview shows that he is misleading people with that statement on here.
Here is the link to the radio interview
https://soundcloud.com/774-abc-melbourne/sporting-data-ltd-ceo-steven
It is one thing for steve High to be regretful of what he let slip, it is quite another to pretend other people are being dishonest, when the evidence is clear as crystal, in his very own words.
=
As I said on the Betfair talk page, I don't have time for this edit war, so I will just make this comment and leave it for now. The radio interview makes no admission of 'stealing' which is a term introduced by the poster. The phrasing is clearly biased and the poster has made no attempt to improve it. It appears, that the poster (who also appears to be posting under the names JackHudspith, ChristopherPenk, Betfairmole and, in all probability, ChuterI) has little interest in creating a well balanced article on Betfair and more interest in waging a personal vendetta against certain individuals and Betfair as a company. The research involved also appears to be wilfully incompetent with the poster not even able to spell my name correctly.
Eachway (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
i am sorry
please forgive
but never forget — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitshrek (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:SLB.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:SLB.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you telling me as if I uploaded the image... Puffin Let's talk! 18:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You created the local file information page (a redirect preventing access to the file on Commons). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Origin of the domestic dog
Hello Puffin, regarding the reversal of my recent edits: The pictures add nothing to the topic of the origin of the domestic dog, and were already available under other pages that relate to each breed. So they were removed. The section on breed types was removed because its verbiage was uncited, and there is a genetic classification already available under the Dog Breed page - genetic section - based on scientific research, which I had included a link to. Please reverse if you concur, else I will be happy to hear your reasoning. Regards, William Harris (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I've undone the reversion. Puffin Let's talk! 20:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am always happy to have "guardians" watching over this page and keeping things in order; keep up the good work.William Harris (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
New message.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Erica Blatt Harkins
I left you a message on my talk page. Thanks (Erica Blatt Harkins (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC))
My Mistake
Hello, Puffin thank you for notifying me on my mistake. I joined four minutes ago, so as you can expect, I'll make a few errors. I apologize for any inconvenience. If you have the time, maybe you could help me our or redirect me to another helpful source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTriviaCrackGenius (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at the message that I left on your talk page. Puffin Let's talk! 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Puffin--
I'm new here,and I don't know the procedures. I didn't know about the format you referred to, for explaining edits.
I'm not sure which edits of mine you're referring to. Tell me via my e-mail address:
Email9648742@gmail.com
If you're referring to my edit at the article's first paragraph, where I modified the statement that all sundials must have their style parallel to the Earth's axis--I amended that statement, because it's too general. In the general form, it isn't correct.
The only sundials that have that need are the ones that directly measure the sun's hour-angle by the shadow of an edge (or wire or string). Those dials are the ones that need to have a style that's parallel to the Earth's axis.
Someone else commented, at the talk page, about that passage needing modification.
Anyway, let me know what edit you were referring to. My apologies for my novice procedural inexperience.
65.8.169.50 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff
23:46:07, 8 February 2015 review of submission by Versailles63
- Versailles63 (talk · contribs)
Hi - I'm not requesting a re-review, simply some assistance in getting the information across in a more acceptable way. I've no real idea how to write in an encyclopedic fashion, so I'm pretty stumped as to what to do with it. I don't just want to throw the research away, and I think it deserves to be in Wiki, so maybe someone could help me re-write it in a more appropriate way? Is that allowed?Versailles63 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Versailles63 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to take a look at a guide regarding writing your first article, to get things started.
- Looking at your draft, your referencing seems fine, but you have not formatted the citations correctly. If you are unsure on how to do this, please see WP:REFB. Secondly, I would recommend that you take a look at the manual of style, particularly WP:MOSTEXT. The article isn't broken into sections, which makes it quite difficult to navigate. Also, you may want to look at WP:NPOV, regarding some of your statements in the article that are not cited, such as "Even a brief history of the family would not be complete without mention of the famed playwright, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, also known as 'Molière'. A renowned satirist and comedian..." Those are a few key points in order to get started and if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask me.
Thank you --Puffin Let's talk! 17:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Why I suggested changes in your section on Polyhedral dials (Multiface dials)
Puffin--
I checked that link to the edit you were referring to. It was about the polyhedral (multi-face) dials.
At the talk-page, near the bottom of the page, I explain the changes that I made (attempted to make) and why I attempted to make those changes.
You asked why I deleted your words about the polyhedral not being self-aligning like the portable analemmatic/horizontal combination. I deleted it because it's a general topic that doesn't belong in a section about a specific type of dial, such as the polyhedral. ...and it's also quite long, for something that doesn't belong there.
Self-aligning dials should be noted as such, but there's no reason to state the non-self-aligning-ness of every non-self-aligning dial. In general, the kinds of dial that are used as stationary installations aren't self-aligning. There's no need for them to be so. Self-aligning-ness is valuable for portable dials, the kind people would carry in their pocket. Of course any stationary dial can, and probably was sometimes, made in a table model, intended to be set up anywhere, and adjustable for latitude. Sometimes those would have an alignment compass, sometimes not. There were table polyhedrals like that..
Of course portable dials needn't be self-aligning--For example, plain horizontal sundials were used as portable tablet-sundials, incorporating a compass for alignment.
But you didn't just delete that part of my new text:
You also deleted my modifications regarding the advantage of polyhedrals. You incorrectly said that they have the distinguishing advantage of all-day usability. But, as I point out at the talk-page, most sundials have that property.
The familiar garden sundial, the armillary, the equatorial, the band or cylinder with its axis and gnomon parallel to the Earth's axis.
Only a few familiar sundials don't have that property: Vertical flat sundials, nodus sundials, and polar sundials, when they only have one flat dial-face.
Polyhedrals do have a distinguishing advantage. Because they can be viewed horizontally, or even by someone below them--as opposed to the Horizontal dial, which must be viewed from above, the Polyhedrals have the advantage of being visible to all, even people below the dial and not close to it looking down at it.
I have no interest in an "edit-war". I have no wish to pursue a case with administration, by calling for an official judgment regarding the edits.
Anyway, that's ok. As I said at the talk-page:
I've edited to correct errors, here and there. I've trie to help, and made the effort. I've done my part. If anyone wants to keep their errors, that's their business, and is no concern of mine.
Michael Ossipoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.169.50 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain your changes. Please feel free to be bold and restore the edits yourself, but next time please ensure that you use an appropriate edit summary in the future, as it is this that appears in the page history. Puffin Let's talk! 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Puffin--
I was going to leave out everything about alignment, but I ended up copying your words back in, about the use of time found from two differently-aligned gnomons, for orienting the dial. But I filled it in more, with something about the other self-alignment method: declination-measurement.
But now it's surer than ever that that dial-orientation section should be in a more general part of the article, instead of in a section about one dial, the Polyhedral.
I'm certain that it's necessary to find the place in the article where that dscussion fits, and move it there.
By the way, a reason why I was particularly interested in the advantages and disadvantges of the Polyhedral and Horizontal dials, is because a Polyhedral (a reclining cube-dial) is the kind of dial that I've chosen for our front yard. I want it to be near the street, conveniently visible and readable to neighbors and passers-by. To avoid some shading, it would have to be a little high-up, which places the top of the dial where it wouldn't be very visible.. That's why I chose a Polyhedral. I'd have preferred the all-directions all-day readabiity of a Horizontal, if it were feasible for that location.
In sundial dicussions, I capitalize names of sundial-types, for clarity, though I realize that it isn't considered correct.
I don't know who added the comment below. I don't take it personally, because it sounds like he isn't talking about anyone or anything in partiular.
Michael Ossipoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.169.50 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
but it is for idiots , as well as made by an idiot along with more idiots, i mean, use your brain and analyze it. do you really need jorge smellington of the huffington post to write it first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35A4:1E80:4CE9:8F03:DF4F:C219 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Changement article Orli Shoshan
Hi Puffin,
I'm actually in relation with Orli Shoshan herself. I said to her that I will help her to edit her Wikipedia article. That's why I edited her Wiki page. That's why these modifications were not mistakes. You can verify informations on her official website here : http://www.orli-shoshan.com/about-me.html
I'm just starting on Wikipedia and I'm lost. Moreover I have questions to you :
1 - Are you the creator of this page ? If not, who is it ? 2 - How to let my modifications brought on this article ? 3 - How to prove that I'm really in relation with Orli herself ?
Thank you so much for your help !
Obiwann90 ( Pierre ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwann90 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hello!
- 1 - No, the creator was User:Ilovekatecapshaw with this edit
- 2 - You need to write in the formal tone expected for an encyclopedia, see WP:NPOV for more details.
- 3 - It appears that you have a conflict of interest, see WP:EXTERNALREL for more details., specifically the section titled "Escape, disclosure or management."
- Puffin Let's talk! 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Puffin, I left you another message on my talkpage about Orli Shoshan article. Thanks ! ;) Obiwann90 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I modified again " Occupation " with external links this time. That's correct like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orli_Shoshan ? Obiwann90 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Dearest Puffin
I was just wondering what your name was. --DorkGirl1521 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Puffin, I just popped by to ask if you could have another look at this article - I intended to review it myself today but ended up researching it and then writing the article! I think it is notable and there is enough information and good sources - though the name should probably be changed to 'The Doric'? Thanks ツStacey (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry
On the Giovanni Palatucci page, I was trying to undo vandalism, as the vandals were/are actively messing that page up as I undid the vandalism. I am not opinionated about what sort of man he was. Thank you. これでも、執事DEATH! (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
05:15:57, 27 February 2015 review of submission by 101.60.211.162
101.60.211.162 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Thanx for reviewing my article on Nilickr ..my friend will you please make edits yourself or tell me what are lackings in that article so that i can fix those lackings and can resubmit it.
- Hello, the article that you submitted is unreferenced. You must cite reliable sources, as stated in the decline reason. If you need help with this, you should see a guide on citing sources and a guide on referencing for beginners. At the moment, the only source appears to be [1], which is not a reliable source and there are no inline citations. Puffin Let's talk! 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Kurtosys_Systems_logo_250_%C3%97_69.gif
Thanks for your note here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurtosys_Systems_logo_250_%C3%97_69.gif Can you please review and let me know if I've corrected the Non-free rationale for this logo image? Much appreciated, Ystonem (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- You still need to provide the Author or copyright owner and a source. I've fixed the template for you, now you should fill in these key pieces of missing information. Puffin Let's talk! 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I donpt understand why you have removed my edit, as I added information to my own wikipedia page, from my oficial website www.aleksandrakovac.com Please let me know what I need to do in order for you to leave my edits in? Thank you, Aleksandra Kovac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Kova%C4%8D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkivojekovac1972 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the file source and copyright for William Edgar Arthur page
I have edited the photo to adhere to copyright laws- will the new description suffice?
Groslovic (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)grace 13/4/15
- No, you must provide a source and a file copyright tag. Puffin Let's talk! 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Little Dunmow Priory
Hi. the addition I made to this article I wanted to make. I would like to list there some of the people buried there. Is this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.24.177 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but make sure you cite reliable sources and use the preview button to avoid mistakes. Puffin Let's talk! 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. User:75.179.24.177 — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |