User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2013/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Miniapolis. 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.

Please could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keith Moon/archive1. I am concerned your copyedit appears to have come in for strong criticism and the FA review is now at risk of closing as not listed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently "my" copyedit is not the issue; I began with Keith Moon#The Who (which was where Brambleberry left off). Do you want me to go over the lead and the first three sections again? Miniapolis 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be worth doing, but I suspect we are dealing with a moving target, the article in its current state has been substantially tweaked by numerous editors when compared to the first version I put up for FAC about six weeks ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I can do that as soon as I'm done with Paul Williams (character)#Storylines, to give it my best shot. That's a shame, since an FAC requirement is that the article be stable. You should be proud, though; it's a damn good article, no matter what happens. I'll update the GOCE tag on the talk page when I'm done (probably today). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I think I'm a bit burned out by this article, having been steadily working on it on and off for the past year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, copyeditors have the luxury of moving on. As I said, though, whatever happens you should be proud. Despite his demons, Moon was a helluva drummer; to me, he seemed to be channeling Gene Krupa :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Chandralekha (1948 film) has a good chance of becoming a FA. I am not forcing u to edit it (the plot needs more rewriting though), but pls review it and tell me any suggestions to make it FA. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I have time. All the best, Miniapolis 14:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck (film)

Notifying you because you were the copy-editor from The Guild of Copy Editors.

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! I'll keep an eye on the discussion. All the best, Miniapolis 18:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I just came here to thank you for your copy edit of Paul Williams (character), I appreciate it so much! — Arre 04:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm not a soap fan, but it's a very enjoyable article! Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Beck v. Eiland-Hall

I've placed the article up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Notified you as you were the WP:GOCE copy editor. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, in relation to your comments here I have made similar name changes in the lead and the first few sections, will do more at some point, might be worth keeping an eye on it. Also, you may, or may not, have an opinion on this. Best Semitransgenic _talk. 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Miniapolis! You're receiving the Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 91 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

‎

I am interested in Mentorship. I am a current Editor (in the sense that I check people's work for errors such as spelling, punctuation, sentence alignment, sentence agreement, and verb agreement. There are others, but those are the main ones.) for the New York Times website. I was only hired a month and two weeks ago, making me still pretty new at the website editing. I used to edit for small newspapers. I thought that joining wikipedia would help me waste some time away from work. -THANKS! To reply, please go to my talk page, by pressing three. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 17:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Miniapolis, can you please copyedit the Bodh Gaya bombings article? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since it's already on the requests page, I'll start it today. Miniapolis 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Miniapolis, Thank you so much for your careful analysis. And many thanks for your copyedit.Bhooshan NPY (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 15:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

You had rejected an article I put up for submission back in Oct. for DragonWave, Inc. I have gone back in and added 3rd party citations for almost all references. I truly am just trying to get an accurate summary of my client's business published for reference purposes. I have attempted to model the content on what I've seen for many other companies, but if you think the article is too promotional could I please have some guidance on how best I can resolve any concerns? Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brian (Bdwalker62) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdwalker62 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Brian. I trust that you've read WP:CORP (including WP:CORPDEPTH), WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTADVERTISING and, especially, WP:VRS. The press releases—and there are many—are not the reliable sources required by an encyclopedia. Neither are the self-published sources, and there are quite a few of those also. Many of the other references are directory-type listings. Existence does not equal notability; to verify a subject's notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a website or other self-promotional platform), an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For companies this translates into mainstream media coverage, not business-journal stock-pick-of-the-week-type articles. Hope this helps. All the best, Miniapolis 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for reviewing the article I submitted re: Theranos. If it's not too much trouble, could you please answer a couple of questions to help me better understand Wikipedia's policies? I believe I have read all of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on notability, independent sources, conflict of interest, and so forth. You indicated that the subject does not meet the notability requirements because the sources are either not directly about the subject or not independent of it. Technically, the article in the Wall Street Journal is about Theranos's founder, but the discussion about the company (which is mentioned 21 times in the article) seems to meet Wikipedia's depth-of-coverage requirements. I would also like to know which sources are not considered independent. Thanks so much, Claudeb (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your addition of the phrase "conflict of interest" reflects one of my concerns (as does the COI section on your talk page). The "technical" fact that the WSJ article is about Elizabeth Holmes and not Theranos (also the case in the Inc. reference) makes all the difference; to establish notability, sources must be about the article's subject. As for the other sources, Manta.com and the SEC are directory listings only; the others do not meet WP:SOURCES since their primary function is investment advice. Existence does not equal notability, and the bottom line is that WP:NOTADVERTISING. Hope this helps. All the best, Miniapolis 18:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't help. I have no personal connection with Theranos. An editor in the Wikipedia chat room suggested I use Manta.com for basic info such as location and year founded. I used an updated version of an SEC reference I found in the Wikipedia article about Walgreens for the same information. I don't know for sure whether Theranos merits an encyclopedia entry--that's one of the things I'm trying to learn--but telling me that "existence does not equal notability" seems flippant. I honestly don't understand your point about the WSJ article. I'm not merely inferring that an article about Theranos's founder is about Theranos. Much of the article's content speaks directly about Theranos. If Inc. magazine is not considered a reliable source, then I can accept that. However, Theranos is privately held so I don't see where investment advice comes into play. I am not going to pursue this article further, but I felt I had to respond. Best of luck. Claudeb (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No flippancy intended; WP:Existence ≠ Notability is an oft-quoted essay. There's a difference between verifiability and notability. Directory listings can be used to verify information in an article about a notable subject, but no amount of references can make a non-notable subject notable. In my opinion (as an AfC reviewer) Theranos is currently a non-notable company, an inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. All the best, Miniapolis 23:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the help with Kudumbi. I found it a difficult article to copy edit for a variety of reasons. I had done some more work on it and then realised I would cause edit conflict if I saved. Are you happy for me to continue edits or would you prefer free reign on it? I'm happy either way. Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Myrtle. Sorry for the conflict; I didn't realize you were already copyediting it. The article was in the {{copy edit}} backlog, and I picked it as part of the bimonthly GOCE backlog-reduction drive. FWIW, when I copyedit an article I remove the tag before I start to avoid situations like this. If you don't mind, I'd like to finish the article; I don't have much further to go, and since it's a fairly-long article I'd like to get credit for the drive (love those barnstars! :-)). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Go for the gold!! I had picked it at random from the oldest articles needing ce list which today has disappeared! I have a semi-finished version of Kudumbi if you would like me to put it anywhere for your assistance. :-) Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Myrtle; this sounds silly, but I try to average 2,000 words a day for the copyedit drives and am way behind this time due to RL. You might enjoy the GOCE copyedit drives (we have a backlog of requested articles too, mostly GANs and FACs), and we need all the help we can get :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Folk arts of Karnataka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in other places. Performed by Kodava men, deer horns represent the horns of the ''krishnamruga'' (a spotted deer in Kodava legend}. The dance is performed to rhythmic tunes played on wind instruments and percussion, and includes

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shilluk Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• after a conflict with Dimo Nyikang migrated north (crossing the Bahr el Ghazal) to Acietagwok (a Shilluk village about {{convert|30|km}} west of the village of Tonga. Nyikang then traveled to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kudumbi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Holi'' (the festival of colours) is celebrated in many Devi temples. During this festival Kamadeva (the symbolic ''[[kama]]'' is burnt, purifying all participants. There is a street procession, with

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phantom Entertainment may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to complete the Phantom and announced it would downsize and focus on the Phantom Lapboard, a [[wireless keyboard for home use. On May 16, 2006, the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] accused

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Miniapolis,

I'm just writing as you recently declined my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_DO_School#The_Program) for the DO School, an educational organisation that I am trying to post an entry about.

You commented that the post contains too many references to the DO School's company website, however the problem that I'm having whilst writing the article is that there is little in the way of external sources (however I have found some good ones - e.g. The Financial Times article, German press coverage and official press releases concerning the DO School's partnership with H&M, American Friends of Bucerius etc.).

You seem to be very experienced as a wikipedia editor, and therefore from your perspective what do you think the best next step would be to improve the article? - Do you think I should scale down the article, or would removing the majority of official website links and keeping the article the same be a good thing to do.

I would really appreciate any help or input.

Thank you! :)

Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraJ7 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Alex. Did you read the two links in my notice? You alluded to the difficulty of the school's meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines when you said "there is little in the way of external sources". That's the crux of the matter; Wikipedia does not exist to provide search engine optimization for businesses or individuals and, judging by your editing history, you seem to have a conflict of interest concerning the article's subject. Existence does not indicate notability; a subject appropriate for an encyclopedia must be notable, demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The Financial Times article in the external-links section is an acceptable source; however, one reliable source is not enough (press releases are not considered reliable sources). I don't know how long the school has been in existence, and it's possible that in time it will meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The length of an article has nothing to do with its subject's notability, and self-published sources—links to the school's website—belong (sparingly) in the external-links section and not as inline citations. Hope this helps. All the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)