User talk:Primefac: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi Primefac, thank you so much for the superfast intervention and notification about my draft on Rusty Anderson Afternoon. I really appreciate the constructive advice. I deleted the Facebook reference already and gonna do some more research to revise these problems according to your advice :)Jena fuller (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I am trying to revise this but I'm unclear about what you mean about referencing URLs. Do you mean addition of exact title, publishers and publication dates of the website? also, I found some radio and youtube video interviews that have some of the same content I discuss in the article(#1 song, custom guitar release), so you think those would be more neutral references? I see the article got tagged for dubious neutrality so I appreciate any advice you have ☺ Jena fuller (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jena fuller. First off, you are correct about the URLs - they should have the title, publisher, and other relevant information. If you use the "Cite" tool in the edit bar, it offers a dropdown "Template" menu where you can cite websites (without having to type all of the code manually). See WP:REFB for more information on citing URLs, or stop by the IRC help channel and someone will help you in person. Second, radio and youtube sources are discouraged, so try and find other sources to verify your information. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi there

Charlotte Devaney is a hollywood credited actress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lose_Friends_%26_Alienate_People_(film) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455538/fullcredits

she has had a page for 6 years, why has it suddenly been deleted?

as well as international dj and producer, she has recently released singles with snoop dogg and fatman scoop . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 November 2014

Cilla1987, first off the Deletion discussion looked at those issues, and came to the decision that she was still not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article was only recently deleted because it was only recently found to be an invalid article. It was created before there was a Draft process, meaning that anyone could write an article of any quality. The fact that she released singles with famous artists does not mean that she is automatically famous as well - notability is determined by how much third-party coverage a person receives (such as newspapers, magazines, legitimate websites, etc). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Devaney was A CREDITED actress in a huge hollywood film, she is now the only actress in the cast and crew list who dosnt have a wiki page and im not saying just because she has done tracks with "famous" artists as you say its makes her massivly famous, she is a well know DJ worldwide, who is verified on social media https://www.facebook.com/OfficialCharlotteDevaney?ref=hl

and also founded the well know and ledgendary narni shakers http://www.narnishakers.com/ Primefac

i am a massive fan and think its disgusting you have deleted her page !

as well as many other things

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549518/Actress-lapdancers-cleared-kidnapping-nightclub-boss-42-000-Cheltenham-Festival-debt.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1204329/lapdancers-cleared-of-cheltenham-boss-kidnap Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 November 2014

also her new single has been played loads on radio 1, kiss fm , capital xtra and more you guys should seriously re-consider Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 November 2014

please also see these articles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/fd1bc90e-69c6-47dc-a266-35a768c2a426

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/charlotte-devaney/id302297134

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3014849/

http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/watch-charlotte-devaney-flip-it-ft-snoop-dogg-charlottedevaney/

http://sbtv.co.uk/2014/08/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk-music-video/

http://www.anotherworldfestival.co.uk/acts/charlotte-devaney/

http://newleasemusic.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/song-of-the-day-bass-dunk-charlotte-devaney-ft-fatman-scoop-lady-leshurr/

http://sbtv.co.uk/2014/08/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk-music-video/

http://www.muzu.tv/charlotte-devaney/bass-dunk-behind-the-scenes-ft-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-music-video/2301103/

http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/charlotte-devaney-bass-dunk/

http://www.whatsgoodonline.co.uk/music/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk/

http://www.bitchyonline.com/charlotte-devaney-featuring-fatman-scoop-and-lady-leshurr-bass-dunk/

http://www.officiallyurban.com/charlotte-devaney-taps-lady-leshurr-fatman-scoop-bass-dunk-video/

Primefac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla1987 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 November 2014

Cella1987, first off you do not have to ping me EVERY time you leave me a comment (especially when it's on my own talk page). Second, as Huon stated on your own talk page, please use the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments so that it will let us know who made them. Since Huon has added much more information regarding Devaney's article deletion on your own talk page, please continue the conversation there instead of on this page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primefac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Real Madrid C.F. 2014–15 season Statistics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackmcbarn, I would argue that a page about Madrid's season stats (which are already contained on the main 2014-15 season page) would fall under CSD A10, however it wasn't being offered as an option when I put in the CSD (hence why I put a custom rationale). Primefac (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A10 only applies to articles in mainspace, not to drafts. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primefac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Robert Hallpike, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R2 only applies when the source page is in the main namespace. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac,

Thank for your review and clean-up for [[1]]. I agree with all your editions made to the article. The article is neat then before. Kindly move it to the mainspace. I value Wikipedia as a resource. Thanks again.

Thanks for reviewing my article but sorry you had to reject it. I have started adding a few citations and an external link. Can you let me know if I am getting any closer to acceptance by adding these things? If so, I will proceed in this vein. Otherwise, I am seeking further guidance. PhilPsych (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primefac. You have new messages at Almithra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dude,

dont be so proud to remove the article, i dont have other soft copies, I've deleted all of them. Pls copy paste the same and share me again. It was quite a laborious task to draft that much.

Unbelievable !! Removed in 2 minutes !

Who gives the authority for that without reading ?

Almithra (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almithra, the text is still there for the moment, go to the History and copy the old draft. However, if all you do is re-paste it into a new Draft it'll simply be deleted again. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not new here, pls. Will rephrase and publish again. Pls share me the tool. I need to validate the tool myself and suggest improvements on the tool.

Almithra (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prime Fac,

Now its gone, just curious. I have to start from scratch again, correct ?

Good.

Almithra (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I refer to your kind review of my draft "Articles for creation: Chronology of fiction set in Vatican City". I replied in my Talk page. For your convenience, my reply is reproduced herewith: You must be kidding me, Primefac ! The article ITSELF is a LIST of SOURCES, for crying out loud ! Joe Gatt (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow Wikipedian! I do not know if you are automatically alerted when I reply to you on my Talk page, so here is another manual alert just in case. :-)

Joe Gatt (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primefac. 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).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pradeep Kanthan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Professor Minoti Vivek Apte, OAM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pkan 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Will work on foot note references. Any suggestions?

Pradeep Kanthan, in general facts need to be referenced. For example, "Professor Apte is a founding member and Past President of the Australasian Pancreatic Club" needs to be referenced. It is especially important for Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) that ALL facts are referenced to avoid potential issues. If you need any help, feel free to stop by the IRC channel again. Primefac (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not agree with your tone or your arbitrary decision. Such unprofessional editorial feedback discourages me from contributing further to a site like Wikipedia.Torquatus (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torquatus, you are more than welcome to disagree with my tone and my decision, but both have been made and I make no apologies. In my mind (and the minds of a few colleagues with whom I discussed this draft), a Wikipedia article should be as clear as possible. For example - "Varro mentions the scalae deum Penatium" - what is it? It will not be hard for someone such as yourself (who I assume are well acquainted with such phrases) to add ", meaning X" or a similar one-sentence add-on to make the paragraph more clear. The excess amounts of Latin do nothing more than confuse a reader.

Unfortunately, there is a limited amount of time and space with which to leave feedback, and thus sometimes I come across as brusque or uncaring. I honestly wish I could accept every draft I come across, but the vast majority need improvement in one way or another and I can't write an essay for every single one.

As a final note, I'm guessing that you're going to keep editing Wikipedia, given that you've been here making contributions since 2012, and I hope you keep at it! A little bit of cheek from me shouldn't ruffle your feathers too much ;-)

If you would like to discuss the article further I am happy to offer my thoughts, or you can stop by IRC and have a chat with a helper. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnsmith0033 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Johnsmith0033 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have just rejected my piece why? It was originally rejected as I did not put all my references on I am new to this system.. I placed all the references on and you reject why? I placed all my references on! There were no changes needed to the main part just my references which were all placed on.. Please help and guide

Johnsmith0033 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsmith0033, Wikipedia references need to be in-line with the text, much like an academic journal, so that facts can be easily verified from the listed references. I would highly suggest checking out the references for beginners page for more info on inline citations and referencing. Second (and possibly because of the first point), you have not demonstrated notability as requested by MatthewVanitas in their comment on the draft. I will not re-write their comment because it is summed up quite well. Should you need any further assistance, please stop by the IRC channel and an experienced editor will help you with your draft. Good luck in getting your article approved! Primefac (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]