User talk:Chenzw/Archives/Nov 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chenzw/Archives/Nov_2013.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw.


Wikidata weekly summary #82[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Spider International[change source]

1) I have been asked by a representative of the company to write a stub/small article about it.

2) I'm in no way affiliated with them.

3) I have taken their introduction, and edited it in a way to comply with a neutral tone by removing all non-neutral words and added one source (just for initial placement). I would like to add more sources and expand the article that will correspond with additional sources. I don't understand why the article have been deleted without a notification first (as required by the rules.)

There is certainly no case of a copyright infringement. Tdfdc (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to your text in the page history. Please be advised that you may need to cite other reliable and third party sources to avoid a conflict of interest. Also, the article in its current state risks being quickly deleted as an advertisement. Chenzw  Talk  15:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you think I'm at COI with the article? I'm not working for the company, nor do I know them at all. I'm writing it because of my good will. I'm not even a native English speaker.
Anyway, I think IMHO this article should be un-QDed, and at most blanketed with copyvio template, and that is already in order to err on the side of caution. Tdfdc (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #83[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #84[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #85[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Too quick to criticise.[change source]

There were too many red links on that page anyway, and you can still create those pages if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:35, 14 November 2013 (talk) 182.250.152.161

(talk page stalker) I don't think there were too many red links at all. You do tend to remove a lot of legitimate links without much rationale. Osiris (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied on the anonymous editor's talk page. Chenzw  Talk  02:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political[change source]

Well it is funny Chen, that I've been doing the same thing for months now and nobody says much, but as soon as I touch a page about Chinese communists, I get attacked .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:55, 14 November 2013 (talk) 182.250.152.161

An extremely inappropriate insinuation. And actually, I've been reverting a lot of your edits for months; I warned you about it once, and Chenzw did also, but you change your IP every single time so I don't bother anymore because – as it has now just been confirmed – you don't get the messages. Osiris (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Nick On CBS: Blues Clues Intro (2002) RAW[change source]

Go To Youtube And type Nick On CBS: Blues Clues Intro(2002)RAW. And look down to the comments They Said it came out in 1999. — This unsigned comment was added by 50.175.92.79 (talk • changes).

Youtube may say so, but it's not a reliable source, and I have another more reliable source to prove that it did not come out in 1999. Chenzw  Talk  02:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cutemimi25 and SuperSpaceGirlHDTV said it came out in 1999. They said so. So I believe what they said is right.

Viacom (the company which owns the programming block together with CBS) itself said that it started in 2000, and I believe that what Viacom said is right too. Chenzw  Talk  02:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Request for Protection[change source]

I would like to create a request for protection for the article Violin as it currently is being vandalised like crazy by anon users, the anon are User:65.175.255.68, and User talk:165.139.160.4 the latter one already was blocked like two weeks ago for a week due to vandalism. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection should be considered only when there is extreme (or sustained) vandalism occurring. Only two anonymous users have vandalised the article recently. Blocks on those two IPs will be a better approach as compared to protecting the article (and preventing all anonymous users from editing the article). Chenzw  Talk  15:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note of thanks[change source]

A real thank you to you, Chenzw. How awesome you are! I am grateful to you for upholding the order here so well, sparing no expense whilst doing so. Long live the legacy of you and Lee! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you deserve a Admin's Barnstar. Will give you sometime soon. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Spider International RfD[change source]

After the initial consensus for deletion on the RfD, and during the discussion I have updated the article significantly. I have added reliable 3rd party references that establish notability of the company in the audiophile field. Furthermore, I have also implemented most of the suggestions as well, regarding advertising tone, as well as simplifying the language. Tdfdc (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the participants in the RfD have deemed that to still be an issue, as no one has withdrawn/modified their vote. Please continue working on it. To me, it still looks very much like advertising. The article needs to be describing the company in a neutral manner. Also, participation in trade shows is not definite proof of notability (although mention of them in the article is good). You may want to see en:WP:ORGDEPTH for guidelines on what sources are needed to show the notability of the company.
Something to think about, and which you may be able to expand on: the article mentioned that it aims to create products which are better yet cheaper than mass market brands. Has it succeeded? If yes, any news, reviews, awards, accolades (or similar) to back this up? Consumer surveys? If it hasn't succeeded (yet), how is the company's progress? What are its future plans?
Pinging Auntof6, FYI. Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editors who participated in the consensus didn't voice their opinions after a significant change has been adopted, and more importantly reliable sources were added. (Actually Auntof6 has tentatively suggested that it might comply now with notability requirements, however he suggested some changes in the tone of the article, most of which I have adopted.) The topic of the RfD was notability, and Osiris have mentioned that he couldn't find any reliable sources while goggling, and that prompted him to file RfD. I would assume I have addressed this concern, and also have also addressed issues of simple English and advertising tone. (If someone thinks that the tone is not neutral, but the notability has been established, it is possible to make another RfD on non-neutral grounds, yes?)
I think it would be prudent to ask Osiris to review the article as it is now, and I would hope he would agree that the issue of notability has been addressed.
Your suggestions are very good, but at this time it is beyond the scope of my intentions. I would like to have a small article established first. Let us consider exhibition references as supportive only, however PCmagazine and Stereophile are reliable sources. Tdfdc (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the notability issue is resolved. As I said on the rfd page, I am willing to do some simplifying and changes to tone that I think are needed. If you'd like me to do that, please say so -- I don't want to edit your user page without permission. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, please. Tdfdc (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Sure Auntof6, you have my permission. 10:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that when I'm back on my main computer. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Auntof6.
Chenzw: Can I post it now per the decision that an editor shall review the article before posting it again? Auntof6 has reviewed it and further improved. Tdfdc (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "reviewed" it. All I did was clean it up. The isdue of notability is still outstanding. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I assumed that in the process of cleaning up, you have reviewed it. Anyway, I made this assumption on AGF.
Osiris have actually reviewed it too, and found the wording to be okay. He is concerned regarding notability, and so I have suggested to have this article about a brand, so that general notability guidelines can be applied. Would it be possible? Tdfdc (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Why do you think making the article about a brand would make a difference? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the general notability guidelines and companies' guidelines are different. Normally, for an article of a small size to have 2 reliable references and 2 supportive references would be sufficient. I also have more reliable sources that I could add to the article's talk page, because I'm not sure how to implement them yet. Tdfdc (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERM.[change source]

Excuse me I would appreciate it if you did NOT delete pages that I make before I have actually had a chance to simplify them :/ tad ignorant to be fair.Simplegoose (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy an article from the English Wikipedia and create it as an article over here. It is likely to be deleted quickly. Please see the deletion policy. If you want, I can restore the contents of that article into one of your user pages. Chenzw  Talk  02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes do that please and I will simplify it. :)

I have restored it to User:Simplegoose/Louise Diane d'Orléans. Chenzw  Talk  10:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Aiello[change source]

The page you deleted, https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Aiello, was part of a class project through the APS Wikipedia initiative. I believe I had the appropriate badge on the page. Tomcuth (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is created as part of a class project does not mean that the article is immune from deletion when it does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Please indicate whether you actually intend to continue working on the article and resolve the issues that were brought up in the article's request for deletion. Chenzw  Talk  02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User page protection request[change source]

After seeing the recent revert that you made on my user page, I'd like to make a request for you to semi-protect it. Nobody other than me has made a constructive edit on it, and I'm sick of people vandalizing it. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Chenzw  Talk  01:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #86[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #88[change source]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Nick on CBS[change source]

First it was Nick Jr on CBS in 1999-2002, then they switched to Nick On CBS in 2002-2005, and switched back to Nick Jr on CBS in 2005-2006. that's what I heard. Okay. — This unsigned comment was added by 50.175.92.79 (talk • changes) on 00:06, 23 November 2013‎ (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chenzw/Archives/Nov_2013&oldid=8908195"