User talk:CaptainEek/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Cactus wren

The article Cactus wren you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cactus wren for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

AfC draft

Hi CaptainEek,

I see that the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) has been declined for lack or references. Actually I also checked out two Philippine newspapers that covered the event before I created the page, I just did not put them in the reference section as they can't be accessed online. I cross-referenced the information I got from the two newspapers (Times Journal and Expressweek) to that of the New Straits Times archives (available online). That's how I came up with the medal winners and medal table for the boxing competition of the 1977 SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur. Anyway, I have updated the reference section and added the two Philippine newspapers that I used as reference materials for this entry. I also added another online source that has a list of Singaporean medalists in the SEA Games.

Thank you very much,

PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy (talk • contribs) 02:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I need an explanation

Hi again CaptainEek,

I really can’t understand why you again declined the page I created (Boxing at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games) despite the fact that I added more references. Can you explain to me why my page can’t be accepted while the following related pages were approved?

Archery at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games

Athletics at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games

Basketball at the 1977 Southeast Asian Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_1977_Southeast_Asian_Games

All three pages only have one reference, mine has five. And I researched them myself in the library using contemporary reports. And also, the athletics and basketball sections were filled with errors before I fixed them myself over the past week. Now tell me, why do those error-plagued pages exist while you continue to decline mine? No problem with being strict and setting guidelines but please also be fair.

PH Sports Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PH Sports Guy (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@PH Sports Guy: Howdy hello! Thanks for pointing this out to me. I didn't realize that this was in essence a subpage of the Southeast Asian games, so I am actually going to approve it now. Please note, that just because an article exists does not necessarily mean it passes our guidelines. Most of those articles do in fact need more sources, and could benefit from some prose. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thank you for approving this sub-page and for recognizing my efforts regarding this matter. Rest assured, I will continue improving the related articles about this topic in terms of accuracy, content and references.

Brain Injury Medicine article

Contested deletion

@CaptainEek: Thank you for reviewing my article. Let me know if you have any additional feedback after reviewing the information below.

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... this article is specifically about the subspeciality of Brain Injury Medicine. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) only refers to traumatic causes of brain injury. Brain Injury Medicine is specialty that treats more than TBI. It treats Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), which also included non-traumatic etiology such as anoxia, encephelopathy, brain cancer, hematoma, CVA, edema, etc.

Refer to ' A specialist in BIM should also have special expertise in the treatment and management of other central nervous system insults (eg, encephalopathies, anoxia) with similar neurocognitive presentations.' from .

Refer to other forms of brain injury that are not classified as Traumatic Brain Injury: https://www.healthline.com/health/head-injury#types

If necessary I can provide peer-reviewed medical articles showing there are non-traumatic causes of brain injury.

 --Sadhia430 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadhia430 (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you CaptainEek!

Thank you so much for approving the article for APM Monaco! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ada Wan (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sally Helgesen

Hi,

Thanks for the review and the message. I am not sure what you mean by better sources. Sally Helgesen is clearly an important figure and renowned author in women's leadership field.

1. This Forbes article calls her "gold standard among women’s leadership experts." [1]

2. This Forbes article calls her "the world's premier expert on women's leadership" [2]

3. This Times Union article describes her as "a leading expert in the women's leadership arena for three decades" [3]

4. Global Gurus has named her among the world's 30 best leadership speakers (male and female). [4]

5. Her book How Women Rise became the top-selling title in its field within a week of publication. [5]

6. Wall Street Journal has called her book The Web of Inclusion as one of the best books on leadership. [6]

I think she fully deserves an article as she is a notable enough author, speaker and leadership coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Palace queries

Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

5G

Thanks for writing a detailed closing statement for 5G RfC. However, how did you find out that there was a CONSENSUS for including the paragraph in question when the majority of editors who commented there were against it? Have you checked the definition of WP:CONSENSUS? By my reading, there was anything but consensus there. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the second half of the paragraph has been long removed from the article; as nobody objected, it should be assumed that the removal met with consensus. Why proposing to restore it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Thanks for asking, and glad to explain. Consensus is not based off of numerical votes. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. Consensus is instead based off the strength of the arguments (see WP:NHC). Now I'll agree, if a discussion is 10 to 1, or even 3 to 1, for a particular issue, the majority is probably going to win. But for issues like 5G, where the votes were essentially even, the strength of the arguments has to be considered, and is often the deciding factor. Using straight numbers is also vulnerable to sock/meat puppetry, and canvassing. If you believe my close went against procedure, you can always raise a request for review at the admin's noticeboard, or get support to open a new RfC, but I hope you'll stand behind the consensus as I've read it.

In terms of the second part of the paragraph: my understanding was that no-one had objected to it because it was being discussed on the talk page, and the outcome would bring consensus for the paragraph. I didn't see strong opposition to the second half of the paragraph, and the RfC seemed to be about the paragraph essentially as written. However, if folks feel the second half is unwarranted, they can discuss and remove it. Pending further discussion, I believe it should enter the article. Once its in the article, someone can be bold and remove it, and if no one objects this time around, then consensus could be assumed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that the close was against the procedure. My worry is, in your close you argued that there was a consensus, whereas it is clear that all the sides in the dispute presented strong arguments and the editors ultimately failed to reach a consensus. In my view the RfC should be either let run or, if a close is needed, closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Ah, I see your concern. However, no consensus often is the result of lack of discussion, or lack of discussion of policy. In this case however, the issue had been discussed to death. The discussion was almost 3 months old, and hadn't been edited in weeks. And my close took the position that all sides had not had strong arguments. In fact, I specifically said that the "no" votes had a weak argument that wasn't based in policy. However, even if I concluded there was no consensus, that would just mean the article reverts to either the original version before discussion, which has...exactly this paragraph, or to the current version, which also has the paragraph. But I do believe there was policy based consensus that had formed after a reasonable and thorough discussion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Question from Grandsedona

Hello Captain Eek,I want help while editing a random article, I came across an article where internal linking is given to another language Wikipedia article, can you please guide me as to how to get the other language Wikipedia article to English.Grandsedona (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@GrandSedona: Howdy hello! Could you link me the article and say where in the article the specific problem is? Thanks! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions and collaboration regarding the close of the Australia RfC about including religion in the infobox. It was a pleasure to work with you. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC) DannyS712

barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For excellent work on the committee close of RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox? in Australia Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pristimantis repens

Hello, I have trouble understanding why did you introduce so many duplicate references with this edit to Pristimantis repens? Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Micromesistius: Hmmm, that was certainly not intentional. I think it was a consequence of me using visual editor to make the edit? I made the edit in VE, but then got a 404 error, which wouldn't let me save the edit. Thus I copied the edit from VE, reloaded the page, and pasted the edit back in VE and then saved it. I guess VE is not as smart as I had hoped, and thus duplicated the refs instead of handling them nicely. I will attempt to try to clean that up, thanks for letting me know! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In consideration of your well-reasoned and detailed analysis of the RfC regarding inclusion of text about Donald Trump's mental health. — JFG talk 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 - I just read your close, Captain. Excellent work. You deserve more accolades considering the level of difficulty for that RfC. Thank you for your very precise, well thought out response. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ Thanks ~ I do respect EEng as one (LOL) ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your third opinion

		The Third Opinion Award
		Your opinion at Talk:Lawrence Summers helped clarify the situation greatly! — WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Directions, please

Hi, I see you have not too long ago edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box. The page seems very outdated, without suggestions being discussed or going anywhere. Is this still the place to go to make a suggestion about changing something on Wikipedia (specifically I have a suggestion regarding creating a new template or something similar)? Any directions about where to post this would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Helper201: Alas, the suggestion box and the entire WikiProject Policy and Guidelines is defunct. May I inquire what your proposal is, so that I can direct you to the right venue? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks. I'll copy over what I put on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles here -

'There appear to be articles that were recorded as spoken articles many years ago where the pages have likely changed significantly since and need re-recording. Is there any way to highlight this? If not I think it would be handy if we could implement a way to highlight outdated spoken articles (perhaps a new template?). For example the spoken article for the Avril Lavigne page has not been updated in over 9 years.'

So far the only editor to reply was not sure how to do this. Helper201 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Helper201: Howdy hello! Can't say I know the best way to do this either. I imagine creating a new template would probably be ideal, as getting a script or a GUI implementation to tag outdated recordings would be pretty difficult. You could probably ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE for further advice on the matter. I know Wikiproject spoken Wikipedia is pretty outdated in general, not sure if that warrants a larger conversation about the future of spoken Wikipedia. Sorry I can't be of more assistance, I'm not super familiar with the back-backend of Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for letting me know. Helper201 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:45:19, 7 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Texner43

• Texner43 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Texner43/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Texner43 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Dear Captain, Thanks very much for responding and your suggestion.I will proceed accordingly. Thanks from Texner43 Texner43 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-evaluating Kevarrius Hayes

I'm pretty sure I've built it out to be a start-class, but I usually like a second opinion before changing a class rating. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Pizzagate Edit Warning

I understand the concerns regarding the comments on this article, but I made a constructive post, it was deleted and I made another comment asking why I couldn't voice my own questions. I don't think it's an overly controversial position to say I should be able to politely make a point and defend it - and that's exactly what I did. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine, but they shouldn't be deleting my comments unless it's a clear instance of trolling, hostile, or irrelevant, etc. conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saetia95: Firstly, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes "~". Mainly, what is the change you want made in the article, and why? Tell me in 4 sentences or less please. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want a change to the article. I just wanted my comments to be visible on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saetia95 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saetia95:Wikipedia talk pages are only for discussing changes to the articles. They are not forums for general discussion. If you want that, go to Twitter. And please sign your posts using four tildes at the end so that SineBot doesn't have to. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I never said anything to suggest I was engaging in general discussion, or attempting to. I do indeed have a disagreement with how a particular point was articulated in the article, and I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation. The intended upshot of my above post is that it's fine if nobody wants to take my suggestions into consideration, but to the extent that my comments are relevant and don't violate Wikipedia rules, I should at least be able to keep them up. Saetia95 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saetia95: Then if you have a problem with a how a point is articulated in the article, you do want to change an aspect of the article. What aspect do you take issue with, and how would you like it changed? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Konstantin Bushuyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stalin Prize (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NFL player stubs

Hi, I've noticed you've declined several NFL player stubs created by an IP who has created dozens of similar pages. Almost all of these players pass WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in an NFL game, which is shown in the references. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Ah thank you for letting me know! I'd been somewhat confused and admittedly just thought the IP was trying to spam their fav players, thank you for clearing that up. I will look much more closely at the refs for that in the future :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Enguage rejection ...help

Many thanks for your comment, but most of my references are not self-published, in that they are peer reviewed and published in Journals or proceedings of conferences (typically Springer or Elsevier). I admit, I *have* recently fallen foul of a "predatory publishing" 'scam' whereby my work (probably my 'best' paper?) is behind a paywall, but it has not had a sufficiently rigorous review process - but I haven't used that as a reference for that reason. The "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" page does say that reliability of sources falls on a spectrum, which I would wholeheartedly agree.

So, possibly my only independent reference is the first one - that Enguage won the 2016 BCS SGAI Machine Intelligence Competition! One down, 99 to go! ;-) Further, my work is open source so anyone is able to reproduce my experiments independently.

Again, thanks for your comment! And, I'm not down hearted -- I've spent a lifetime of people saying "no, you can do that!" Occasionally, they'll say, "no, try it this way instead." Along that vein, can I *request* that a page is created, would that be a better way forward?

(P.S> I'm also wondering what would happen if someone did write something on Enguage, but got it "all wrong"? Presumably, I couldn't reply to put the record straight?) MartinWheatman (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Martinwheatman, Independent is not the same as self published. While self published work is generally not independent, such sources must also not be closely related to the subject. I invite you to find more sources if possible, although there is no magic number. To meet the WP:GNG, the standard is usually at leasttwo sources that are reliable, independent, and secondary. That usually means an article in a reputable paper such as the NYTimes, or a section in a book. But there are specific notability guidelines that bend the rules slightly and have different standards. Furthermore, the article still reads overly promotional, i.e. the language is such that it is trying to be like "Look what it can do!" instead of a more encyclopedic "It can do these things".

To your last point, if someone did write something "wrong", luckily Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so yes you could set the record straight. But you'd have to do it using reliable sources, as should any editor. Thats part of our core principles. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Shabana (Hejazi Tradition)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Shabana (Hejazi Tradition). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Shabana (Hejazi tradition). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Shabana (Hejazi tradition). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Liz, Howdy hello! Perhaps you could help me figure out how I created that page in the first place. I was reviewing the article for WP:NPP, and saw that it was improperly capitalized. Thus I moved it to "Hejazi tradition" instead of "Hejazi Tradition". What I'm not sure of is how a duplicate article was created. Did the move process get screwed up? Was it the fact I used reFill? Not sure what went on here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion please

Hi CaptainEek, I am very grateful for the fact that you approve my creation of article APM Monaco. Though a template message has been placed in the article saying that it have multiple issue. I already added more sources and references to support the article, can you kindly review it and remove the notice on the top? Many thanks!

Deletion of Emblem of Maharashtra

Hello, if the reason that you mentioned is the reason as to why you reviewed the page Emblem of Maharashtra, then this page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh should also be reviewed because I had created the page Emblem of Maharashtra considering how the page Emblem of Andhra Pradesh had managed to stay on Wikipedia despite it having the same amount of information that I had used for the page Emblem of Maharashtra. Prat1212 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Prat1212, Thank you for pointing that out. But the emblem of Andhra Pradesh may be notable. Note that I did not delete the Emblem of Maharashtra, merely redirected it. If you can find enough sources to prove its notability, you could possibly recreate it. The old version still exists in the page history and could be recovered. I know it doesn't feel good to have your work deleted, but the page was not yet suitable for inclusion in the mainspace. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 12:48:09, 18 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by PK2112

• PK2112 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brushless 24VDC Motorized Drive Roller for Conveyor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks CaptainEek! I really appreciate you taking the time to review my article. I have thought all along that maybe there was too much technical detail as I am an engineer - so I will work on that. I am having a hard time distinguishing between primary and secondary sources. I thought that showing that this technology is offered in the marketplace by different sellers and that there are articles from trade publications indicating that this technology is widely used in many types of places that would be familiar to a lot of people would be sufficient. I am not sure where to turn next. For example I have first hand knowledge (because I work in an industry the utilizes this technology) that huge organizations like Wal-Mart and Amazon are adopting this technology for their conveyor systems in lieu of "traditional" conveyor technologies. I do not know how to translate first hand knowledge into something that is "verifiable".

Any advice on sources and references would be greatly appreciated! PK2112 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

PK2112 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

PK2112, secondary sources include books, news articles, and many, but not all, types of scientific peer reviewed works. Trade publications are a bit of a gray zone, I've not used one in an article myself and I couldn't really find a ruling on them. I'd say something like an article in a regularly published industry magazine might work. The reason we require secondary sources is because primary sources usually require original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Regrettably, you can't use your own knowledge in an article, because then nothing on Wikipedia would be verifiable. You can certainly use your knowledge to help you, such as reading a claim in an article thats clearly wrong and going out and finding a source that says the right thing and fixing it, but you still need to have a reliable source for every claim. Leverage your experience to find good sources that say the right thing, then use your skills to translate the sources into easy to understand common parlance. Having experts edit Wikipedia is critical for that very reason: they can pick out whats important in these types of articles.

As an additional suggestion, you might want to expand the scope of your article slightly. I note that there is not currently an article for Roller conveyor, this draft might be better suited if it were to become that article. It would allow you to broaden the scope and find more usable information. You would need to provide a more general overview than you do currently however, but I believe in your abilities. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Somos Group

Hey, CaptainEek.

Thanks for taking the time to review my article. The issues you cite are the need for more independent news coverage and the article needs to be written in a neutral voice. The news coverage I can understand. A lot of the articles that I cited can seem self-generated and can be interpreted as press releases. I will find better references from more independent sources. On the neural-voice issue, can you tell me where the voice of the article becomes advertorial. I did my best to remove any positive spin in the verbiage, preferring to make objective statements. After a reread, the links to ROKU, the App Store, and Google Play don't really need to be there. I may be too close to the subject matter after writing the article to notice subtleties that are more obvious to you. Please let me know.

Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ubiquitouslarry, You've analyzed it pretty well. My main problem was the lack of good sources; press release-y things are not good. Go through each source carefully to see if they are independent, reliable, and secondary. Also, not clear how the "Featured productions" were chosen. On a side note, please read MOS:AVOIDBOLD on the bolding policy, the article is definitely overbolded. Really, almost nothing should be bold in an article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

I'm going to take your advice and add it as a paragraph to the Bookbinding article. That will need also need citation, and I'll link to a site that lists it in their glossary of printing terms. While a reference to Flexibound may be found on most book printer and bookseller websites, I can find no reference to it other than those in the business. For the term to be so widely used, it may be a shorthand or technical slang. Often such words eventually find their way into newly published dictionaries. P.S. Read your userpage. You pocess a well cultivated mind. I'm honored by your response CaptainEek - Agricultural Scientist. 83Gulf (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Forum for Democracy Members of the European Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

images

Hi CaptainEek, thank you for your help with my last set of questions. Very much appreciated. One more question, I have permission in an email from a government agency in Canada to use images they released to the media. They are aware it is for Wikipedia. If that suffice or do I need to seek permission another way? Any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. RettK (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@RettK: You need to follow the procedures at WP:COPYREQ. In essence, the copyright holder must email Wikipedia agreeing to release the photo under the relevant license. Hope that helps! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Mole Day!

Happy Mole Day

6.022x10²³

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

What is this?

Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×10²³, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro.

What you can do!

• Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects
• Expand articles listed here
• Improve science articles
• Sign the guestbook or place {{User WikiProject Science}} on your user page.
• Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here

Amedeo Avogadro

Similar events

• Pi day
• DNA day
• Evolution Day
• Yuri's Night
• Square Root Day

See also

• Observances about science
• Observances in October

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe/Unsubscribe

---

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects.

• Wikiproject Science
• Wikiproject Chemistry
• Wikiproject Physics
• WikiProject History of Science

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Dear CaptainEek, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users that just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

• Helpful scripts you can install to make Teahouse responding easier,
• templates to use and, of course:
• the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you revisit Private Credit?

I added additional materials and research. Does it work now? What additional changes would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhickey94 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Jhickey94, Thanks for putting in additional research. I have re-reviewed and approved this new version. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft/Fabrizio La Torre

Dear sir, thank you for your support and advices for my first submission on wikipedia in english The same pages in French were published two months ago I just finished to change all characters and corrected the general presentation using paragraph I'll continue shortly to add more references many thanks again for your help best regards, Jean Pierre De Neef — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPDeNeef (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bueller 007

If you could, please look at the latest revision on J. Long page. This Bueller 007 guy seems to have some sort of bias here. If you look at one of the revisions on the J. Long page, he replaced terminology for the wife’s conviction with “executing” instead of shooting.

I am new to Wikipedia. When the media flurry started about two months ago and I couldn’t find anything on who J. Long was on Wikipedia, I decided to make one. I’ve never done anything like this before, so Cerebellum had to help me make sure it was acceptable. I don’t know either J. Long or his wife and I’m not a paid editor—I work admissions at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. So I’m not sure where all this is coming from.

I don’t know why this guy is trying to tear the page up but I provided sources for everything I put on there and this guy seems like he has an agenda. Can you help me at all? Candi Jones (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Candi Jones, I agree that the "executing" was a pretty harsh term, and have fixed it. However, Bueller was trying to keep the page neutral. I think the COI tag may have been a bit extreme, but I do support their other edits. I'll try to smooth this out and I'll open up a new section on the WP:COIN noticeboard, that should hopefully clear things up. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Candi Jones, As a note, once I open the COI section, things may get heated. Please remember to stay cool and calm, and work cordially with admins and other editors. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I’m not too proud to acknowledge that I really don’t know anything about Wikipedia. I’m not a computer genius either. So I really appreciate you and Cerebellum for helping me the way you guys do. Candi Jones (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Candi Jones, Glad to be of assistance! I know Wikipedia can be pretty confusing at times. If you ever want a place to ask some questions and get some friendly help, try the Teahouse. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AfC Declined for Debbie Brooks

Hi CaptainEek,

I would kindly ask for some clarification about why you do not believe the subject of the article Draft:Debbie Brooks meets the notability threshold for a musician according to WP:MUSICBIO.

I believe the subject specifically meets Criteria #6 and #11 for musicians and ensembles. I explain my reasoning in-depth on the talk page of the article: Draft talk:Debbie Brooks.

Essentially, the subject is a member of two or more different notable ensembles: Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra, Casa Mañana, and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra and/or played in an ensemble with two or more independently notable musicians: Miguel Harth-Bedoya and John Giordano (conductor), either of which would confer notability under Criterion #6.

I also think the subject should be considered notable under Criterion #11. This is because the subject's work has been featured in "notable media" such as for the national tours of notable artists which are listed and cited on the draft page. Brooks hired the orchestras to play on stage with the notable artists for the national tours, therefore her work has been featured in "notable media."

I believe meeting either criteria should be enough to confer notability as a musician.

Thank you for your time Ars Combinatoria (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ars Combinatoria, Howdy hello! Thanks for raising this to my attention. I have re-examined the article, read your reasoning, and reread the music notability criteria. However, I still do not believe she meets those criteria. For #6, it requires her to be a a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. I do not believe she has been a reasonably prominent member, having been only an assistant principal cello. Per #10, she does not appear to have performed a notable work of media. If for instance she had recorded the original theme for a TV show, #10 would apply. But I don't see what she performed. And her hiring orchestras doesn't count. Also, her business should not at all be advertised in the page. Wikipedia is not a ad platform. If you disagree, you may seek a second opinion at the AfC Helpdesk or the friendly WP:Teahouse. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Thank you for your examination of what I wrote and for the advice. I will remove the link to the subject's business. I see how that can be construed as advertising. Thank you additionally for clarifying that the hiring of orchestras does not apply to one being a musician. I do see your point about "reasonably prominent." I will however seek a second opinion about that interpretation for the following reason, which you may or may not be aware of, and which may change your mind about your interpretation of the subject as "reasonably notable".

Within the symphony orchestra, there are generally what are considered "section" players and "principal players". There are also "full-time" players and "substitute players." Thus, within the Symphony Orchestra, there is a hierarchy of players, and attaining the next level in the hierarchy requires an audition in front of an audition committee within the orchestra which consists of "reasonably prominent" people within the orchestra. For example, the audition committee will consist of principal players and conductors or otherwise long-tenured members of the orchestra.

The hierarchy (which is reflected by full-time status and pay grade) is as follows, from lowest to highest:

(1) "Substitute" or "Sub" player

This is a player who probably auditioned for a full-time position but did not win the position. However, they did impress the audition committee enough to be put on a substitute list. When a full-time player is not available for some reason (illness, time off), they will be called as a substitute to perform with the orchestra as needed.

(2) Section Player

This is a player who won an audition for a full-time position with the orchestra. Full time orchestral positions are for life - therefore, another audition will not be held for their spot until they retire or die. Obviously, you must be an incredibly proficient player to win such a spot because they are so rare. One may audition against 800 other people around the world for that section spot.

(3) Assistant/Associate Principal Player

This player distinguished themselves by auditioning for an assistant principal position. They serve as the substitute for the highest-ranked player, the principal player. They also sit on the front stand next to the principal player. Section players will often take these audition to upgrade their rank in the orchestra. Serving in the principal's place is reserved for the assistant principal and not a section player and commands a higher pay grade. Therefore, an assistant principal player is the clear #2 player in the section whereas the principal is a clear #1. Section players are not ranked in this manner and considered more or less equal.

(4) Principal Player

The principal player is the highest ranked player in a section. They won an audition for a principal audition, which are the most competitive auditions for a Symphony Orchestra. Often times, players are not even invited to audition for a principal position unless they have prior principal or assistant principal experience.

Due to this hierarchy within the ensemble of the Symphony Orchestra, I believe the position of "Assistant Principal" does confer notability to the subject because rank as the #2 (and sometimes #1) player in a section is "reasonably prominent". It certainly confers real notability in the classical music world, as that rank in the orchestra is well-earned and distinguished even among full-time section players (not to mention the tens of thousands of players who wish to even win a full-time section position).

In addition to being in a leadership role in the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra as Assistant Principal, the subject was also the solo cellist of Casa Manana Musicals, which I believe clearly makes her a reasonably prominent member of the Casa Manana Orchestra. Thus, she should be considered a notable musician for being reasonably prominent in two or more notable ensembles.

At the end of the day, I think it is a rather interesting question on this site - at what point, if any, does a player's position in a notable symphony orchestra confer "notability" as a musician under the current Wikipedia criteria? Should the line be drawn at Principal? Assistant Principal? Do these players, who represent the top 1% of classical music talent, even deserve to be considered notable? Ars Combinatoria (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ali_Mansour

6 sources in Draft? and many actor in wikipedia are add with imdb or elcinema! , And others without any sources !!! here is 6 sources ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.48.36.126 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Many pages on Wikipedia use IMDb or ElCinema. They shouldn't, and editors are actively going through and pruning those links. They just aren't reliable. You may have 6 sources, but they aren't the high quality we need to prove notability. Please also see the comments left by Strauss in the Haus on your page, as they may enlighten you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding decline of Lotus Eye Hospital & Institute page

Hi CaptainEek,

This message is regarding the decline of the page we have created for Lotus Eye Hospital & Institute. I see a status mentioned as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." We have added sufficient third party links & we are a public limited company (service oriented hospital) for 30+ years. All the references are from third party sites including some Government sites. I don't understand why it is repeatedly getting declined. Please suggest us if we want to add or remove more links or any content update needs to be done.

Thanks, Subash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discovergeeks (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discovergeeks, Howdy hello! When you say "we", whom do you refer to? And in terms of the sources, here are the problems I see: Youtube is not usually a reliable source. Any of the stock price listings are also not appropriate. The government document is also not good for establishing notability. If you think its notable, then add the 3 best links below and I'll give them a second look. They must be reliable, independent, and have significant coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding draft declined for article with title 'Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swami Ji'

Hi, I see that you have declined the article submitted by me. I would request you to please help in improving it by at least pointing out a few specific portions of the text which seem unacceptable to you. Almost all the references that are given by me are from reliable newspaper sources. I didn't use any peacock term which can't be verified. All those words such as 'renowned', 'greatest' etc which I have used were actually written about him in those references. I will try to improve the formal structure of the article, but other than that, I fail yo understand why the article was declined. I have not added a single line of appreciation of my own. All have been taken from reliable and independent sources. So why do you think this is not written from a neutral point of view ? Kindly help in the best way by providing specific guidelines referring to specific portions of the article which needs to be improved. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, The article still has a lot of peacocking terms. If a source describes him as such, we might say "sources regard him as the greatest guru". But we need to present him neutrally. Some of the problems I saw:

• "An interesting forte of Swami Ji is his reported ability to diagnose diseases" -- thats way too much. Just say "Swami Ji has been reported to diagnose diseases". That also brings up a good point: the article does not approach his claims of being a healer with enough skepticism. Many of the claims of his healing need a WP:MEDRS, and should be treated with appropriate questioning.
• "He is reported as the first Saint and physician to have developed a permanent cure for dandruff" -- nonsense, the man hasn't cured dandruff.
• "According to his family, his awareness and experience of spirituality was far beyond an ordinary child". Why not just say, "He was spiritual as a child".
• "and is regarded as one of the best healers of the world" needs better sourcing to make that claim.
• "presented with the highly acclaimed" just say presented.
• "Over the course of his spiritual career, he congregated deep knowledge of all major religious scriptures." Unsourced, and feels...like its trying to unduly prop up the subject

The moral here is there is a lot of room for cleanup. The article does not exist to flatter the subject, or make them seem larger than life, it exists to present a factual and neutral accounting of their life. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will make all the necessary changes as mentioned by you. Please do keep up with me in making this article perfect from all Wikipedia standards. I really appreciate you pointing out the peculiar details. Just one more thing: The subject in question has actually found out a cure for dandruff as per Ayurvedic principles. This is a fact and not a lie. Here in India we know about this, but may be outside of India it might not be known to everyone. In that case, how do I present this fact ? Because dandruff cure has actually been found by him. It was reported in various newspapers of our country. Many doctors also confess to it publicly that the medicine works. Please guide me regarding this. I will fine tune the article and then request you to again have a look at it before resubmitting for review. Hope you will help me in this. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would say that the article could mention he claimed to have cured it, but unless there is a WP:MEDRS that supports his claim, we can't claim he actually did. Perhaps he has developed a new treatment, but cured it? I doubt it. Regardless, Wikipedia generally abstains from making bold claims in the realm of alternative medicine. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay so that means that if the result is published in, say may be a recognized medical journal, then we can write it as a cure. Right ? Princehr999 (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, Generally, yes, although there are some additional specifics. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have made the requisite changes as mentioned by you and I hope that you find it befitting. I request you to please go through the draft article again and if you find more possible corrections, kindly pinpoint those specific areas so that I can change them accordingly before submitting the artice again for review. Thanks for your help ! Princehr999 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have improved the overall structure of the article, removed all the pea cocking terms and also presented the subject in a neutral way. Kindly share your view. Thanks ! Princehr999 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, Thanks for improving! A few other places to clean things up:

• Early life section needs more citations. Also, it doesn't need as much info about what he thought, more about what he did.
• Philosophy first paragraph needs a source.
• Check for grammar errors. Also, please note that references always go after punctuation, such as ",[1]" instead of "[1]," Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Yes I have to improve the citation and grammar work. I was more focussed on improving the overall structure and establishing neutrality. I guess that now both the structure and neutrality issues are sorted as per your review. Right ? I hope I can submit the article for review after improving on the remaining small errors in grammar, and hope that it Will be accepted this time ! Princehr999 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, That should probably clean it all up, yes, although we'll see once it goes back for review. Thanks for working to clean it up, that shows a level of collaboration rarely found by folks submitting articles. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will take one more day to fine tune the article as per your recommendations before submitting for final review. I really hope to get your full support in getting this first article of mine published without any further objections raised. And thank you so so much for your kind support and fairly quick response time as well. Your clean and organized way of explaining things is spectacular and something I really appreciate. Thanks once again !!! Princehr999 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Captain, I have submitted the draft article again for review after carefully looking for all the possible grammatical errors and citation formats. Also I have uploaded few more citations in the places requested by you. Kindly go through it once again and let me know if something else needs to be done in this regard. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have made some edits in the article draft. Are you done with the editing ? You have made certain changes which I need to discuss with you. ThanksPrincehr999 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, Howdy hello! I still have some more edits to make. What are your concerns? You can see I added citation needed templates for things that didn't have a source. I also cut down some of the sections as they didn't seem to have enough sourcing, or were overly promotional/didn't have a reliable medical source. I also changed the naming convention, I could have been wrong, but Swami Ji is a title, not generally a name. For instance, Mother Teresa is referred to as simply "Teresa" in the body of the article, not by her honorific. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah hi ! Yes you have changed the naming convention, but Kumar seems awkward and he is never known by this name. He is mostly called as 'Gurudev' which is a nicer way of referring to a saint. If you don't find it objectionable, I would rather like to substitute the word Kumar with 'Gurudev', or atleast with complete word 'Kumar Swami', or rather not use it at all and simply use 'he' wherever possible. Please suggest any one of these three options.

Secondly, you have inserted a 'failed verification' tag with reference number 17. May I know why you couldn't verify ? The newspaper cutting clearly talks about Swami Ji's claims of curing dandruff through this medicine. This is also in the newspaper headline in reference number 19. So I don't find any justified reason to insert a failed verification tag. On your recommendations only, I used the word, 'he claims', with the dandruff cure.

Also, I noticed that you deleted the section of the BBC Asian Network Interview in 'Diagnosis by voice' section. Please go the reference link and listen to the interview on youtube. It's clearly there. So please explain why can't this fact be presented in this section ? I didn't use any peacocking terms for this rather I presented it in a fairly straightforward tone.

Thanks !Princehr999 (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, I think Kumar Swami would work. Source 17 mentioned it only at the end, and very briefly. While it was a rough translation, the source seemed quite stylized and unreliable. A new source is needed, ideally one that discusses what exactly his method is. Source 19 only mentions the world record using the treatment, and does not discuss the treatment. The BBC interview was a problem because it was an interview: we had only Kumar Swami's word, making it a primary and non-independent source. If you could find a BBC article created based off of the interview, that might work. But as is, I felt that using the article to claim he diagnosed by voice was a bit over the top. Voice diagnosis isn't even considered possible yet in the West, and I find it highly dubious that he can actually diagnose illness accurately by voice. He may claim to be able to, but that doesn't mean he can. I would want a source that discussed it, instead of just using his word. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. But the references 17 and 19 do provide you with at least a hint that the subject claims to cure dandruff. So if you find the current references (17 and 19) as inappropriate, it would be better to just remove those references and rather add a 'citation needed' tag instead of 'failed verification'. Meanwhile when I come across a source which discusses the treatment methodology in detail as well, I would add it then.

Regarding the BBC interview, I don't think it appropriate to just remove that complete line. The interview is at least there for everyone to see. So there has to be a line which talks about this interview. I am not saying that we should be writing that 'he diagnosed people's diseases by listening to their voice on BBC radio'. But there needs to be a mention of this thing in some way. Otherwise the whole section 'Diagnosis by voice' becomes awkward. The only point of creating this section was to highlight this interview.

One more thing, I do appreciate your help and I understand that the subject in question is not known to you AT ALL. This is sort of creating an 'unintended bias' on your part by cutting out all his major achievements. I see that your edits have essentially cut down the 'Contributions in field of Ayurveda' and deprived it of its main content. If this subject was from your country, you would have certainly known him and these lines wouldn't have seemed inappropriate to you. But I would again like to inform you that He is really a huge figure in India and thousands of people have been cured through his treatments, including dandruff. This is a fact and not an exaggeration. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to sing praises for a person, but presenting facts in a neutral way is definitely allowed. I don't want to be harsh but please don't create an unintended bias by cutting off things which 'you' don't agree to. At least allow the facts to be presented as is. Thanks and regards ! Princehr999 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Princehr999: You're right, perhaps I should have just tagged with Citation needed. I'm using machine translation of the sources so it wasn't readily apparent. In terms of the voice diagnosis, I guess you could try to add it back in, and see if you can make it neutral, and I can give it another look. To be honest, perhaps its good I don't know the subject. That makes me unbiased, and I have no prior conceptions of the dude. To me, the awards section seems much more important. I find the claim that he cured dandruff unlikely, if he had really cured it, you bet that every dandruff shampoo company in the world would be paying through the nose to use his method, and it would have been written about in scientific journals. Unless the Ayurveda section has better sources, it will remain shorter. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed ! You're point of view is absolutely right, such a big achievement would have certainly attracted huge investors. But the thing is, He is a saint and not a businessman, that's why (in my opinion) he would never sell this formula for monetary benefits. Okay so I will add the interview portion again, and I also intend to add a line regarding Charak Samhita, because it is the main text of Ayurvedic treatment, so it certainly needs a mention because of all Kumar Swami Ji's cures are based on this Ayurvedic textbook. So I would like to add this information in a way which seems okay to you as well. Other than that, is everything else fine ?Princehr999 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, We can't just cite straight from the Charak Samhita. Its a primary source, and very old at that. Better would be using a source that talks about the Charak, such as a book about it. Better yet would be a source that talks about the Charak and Kumar Swami. Otherwise, I still need to examine the article further.

Hi, I have made the changes. Please have a look at the article. I guess all the issues raised by you are resolved now. Thanks and regards !Princehr999 (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Captain, Have you gone through the draft article ? I made all the final changes. Princehr999 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, I've just started editing for the night and will look at it soon. I suspect I will do some more cleanup, and may have more feedback, but will likely turn it into a full article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! Regarding the interview section, I have tried my best to incorporate it in a perfectly neutral way. I hope it is acceptable to you now. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that the article has been created but it has been marked as a C-class category article. Can you please shift the status to at least a B ? Because all the references I have used are from newspapers or reliable journals. What shortcomings did you see that you put it under a C-class category ? Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, Article class is a complicated affair. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Content assessment. The article is certainly no longer a stub or a start, but too much of it is unsourced to be B class. It also needs grammar fixing, and a critical review of the Ayurveda section by someone else before it could reach B class. Regardless, having your first article be C class off the bat is an achievement not many editors have. Keep working on improving the article and it could even reach featured article status someday! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Your guidance was an important factor in achieving this feat. However, I am not satisfied. At least tell me what can be done to shift it up one ladder to a B-class ? Also, I see that you have added a line in dandruff section that "The nature of his treatment is unknown, and does not align with any existing medical practices regarding dandruff". I mean this line kind of degrades the quality. The treatment method is simple, he has developed a medicine based on Ayurvedic formulations and we simply have to wash our heads with it. Even in the Guinness World record reference numbered 20, it is mentioned that a hair wash was conducted. So it basically sums it up: The treatment involves washing your head with an ayurvedic medicine. Please remove that line. Because it is making the quality go down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The line can be modified to: "The treatment involves washing head with a medicine developed on Ayurvedic guidelines. However the exact formulation has not yet been revealed." I request you to substitute this line for the one you have written. Because it is completely false that the treatment does not align with current medical practices. What do all current medical treatments for dandruff look like ? All of them are simple hair wash formulations, right ? So this is also a hair wash formulation, the reference of which is clear in number 20. So please make that change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Captain, someone has raised error on the page created by me. A user with the name Harshil169 is interfering with the article content in a negative way. He has changed the title of the page, and requested to delete it. As I already told you, the subject in question is a world famous spiritual leader, and people who are followers of other spiritual gurus will try to degrade this page. This user is trying to purposely degrade the quality of the page. Please tell me how to protect this page from hateful users such as these who will constantly try to delete it.

You yourself have gone through the article and removed all the promotional/biased content and terms used. How to add security to this page so that other users don't try to edit it with false intentions ?

Please help me in this regard. Thanks !

What do you mean by followers of other Guru? You’re follower of this so called Guru? Clarify your position first. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not a follower of any Guru. This is my first article which has been written with much much research. I do know the subject and I have read much about him in newspapers. This is what prompted me to do research on him and create an article. You're clearly showing that you are trying to edit this page with a personal agenda. Please don't spoil this page for no reason. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Princehr999, You know the subject? You've met them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

By 'knowing' the person, I mean that I know about the subject through newspapers and online media. I haven't met him in person. Is it wrong to know a person through media ? I am not associated with him but I did a whole lot of research on this subject to gather information about him. Is there anything that can be done to improve the article so that it is neutral in everyone's view ? Please point towards the issues in the article. I am willing to learn and improve. Thanks Princehr999 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I see that much of the content has been edited by you. Can the POV tag be removed now ? What needs to be done in this regard ? ThanksPrincehr999 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please show some responsibility while accpeting articles of Godman of India

Hi, I saw that you accepted the article named Kumar Swami in article for creation which was named as Bhagwan Shri Kumar Swami Ji which is violation of basic policy like NPOV. Did you check WP:NCIN before accepting it? Bhagwan means God, Shri means honorable, Ji means honorable. How could you accept that article? Most of the claims in this article are bogus and verifications have been failed. Did you check who had uploaded the photograph of person? The one who made it, isn't it obvious violation of COI policy? Please be responsible while accepting new articles and that too when they saw too much respect extraordinary claims. I am contesting it for speedy deletion for promotion, if rejected then I will nominate for deletion. Regards,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169, Howdy hello! That's definitely my bad there. I didn't see the forest through the trees. I'd been working with the editor to fix so many issues, I ignored the obvious. I was unaware of the indic naming conventions before. I am unfamiliar with Indian areas of editing; this was perhaps out of my depth. I will be far more careful in the future. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Mistakes can be happen by robot too, we are human. Just take care in future when you accept articles of Godmen/Godwomen of India because we have their unapologetic followers, even on the Wikipedia. One red flag is their recognition in foreign countries because most of the Indians consider someone as reliable when they find it in western media. Another red flag is Pseudoscience and too much honor. If you are unsure about something then you can ask it to me on talk page, I did many changes right now. But tell the person that he doesn't WP:OWN the Wikipedia article. If he'll resist then I will open thread on COIN. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, what I found? [7] His claims like New York senate declaring day for his honor was removed by me yesterday and it was actually false. There are multiple FIRs on this person for his bogus claims. This article was POVfork by his disciples. - Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perspective Geological Correlation improving

Hi CaptainEek,
Thank you for the review. I accepted your remarks. I changed completely the presentation of the basic ideas, and add a number of intra and extra links. I would like to explain the importance of B. Haites' theory of Geological Perspective Correlation. It claims that in sedimentary basins, which cover the big part of Earth's surface, the geometry of the layers follows the strong geometrical law. It allows reconstructing the underground geometry more precisely and with less expenses.It is worth to mention that expenses in oil, gas, and ore exploration are gigantic. But more important is that the Perspective Correlation represents the first mathematical law in geology. After its publishing in 1963 it was described in many reviews and PhD theses, there were published a dozens of proof, and not a single disprove, but the geological society didn't accept this theory - the geologists are sure that nothing on the Earth can be described in mathematical terms. That is why it is important that the theory of Perspective Geological Correlation appear on so respected publisher as Wikipedia. Regards

Nabatoff (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nabatoff, Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that Haites Theory is not accepted? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for so long not responding: it is my first attempt to write for Wiki, and all week I can't find your message.
What I want to say is: the geological community nor accepted Haites' Theory, neither rejected it, it neglected it. Once in decade one review briefly describes the Theory, and from time to time the Theory appears in PhD theses (because it looks very scientific), but not a single publication demonstrates a negative example of correlation based on this Theory. I  have to ad that in biostratigraphy is very popular the correlation based on the same ideas but in different graphical presentation. I suppose to describe this method in a new paragraph of the article (the title is already included in my text)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabatoff (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC) 

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kumar Swami, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

∯WBG^converse 04:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You might wish to take a look at User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media. The pieces over Amar Ujala are typical PR spam under the garb of independent journalism. BusinessWireIndia declares the covg. to be a PR. Diasporic news outlets are genrally not considered as RS. Quite many refs don't mention the subject. ∯WBG^converse 04:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Thank you very much for that! I have just skimmed it, and will read the whole thing later. This whole debacle has really shown me I have a lot to learn about Indian editing. I'll definitely be a lot more careful in the future with Indian articles. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello CaptainEek,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:29:20, 6 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jamesor2

• Jamesor2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Galway Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Forgive me if I'm not following the correct protocols (brand new user, but I've added a few more sources now).

Jamesor2 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jamesor2, Howdy hello! I suggest you leave a note on the WP:AFCHELP page if you have not already, another editor may be able to provide you guidance on the sourcing issue, or serve as a second opinion.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lyght page

Hello CaptainEek. Thank you for reviewing my draft page. I'm working on beefing up the bio of this artist, with your suggestions in mind. Will resubmit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonwoods13 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

reviewing the draft of the Maximum Genetic Diversity page

El Capt. Eek,

  As per your suggestions I've removed all subjective language and made the article less adversarial. Creating a full "summary style" article before this parent article is approved seems a little confusing to me. Once this article is up to snuff, I'd certainly begin that process but then once it's live I'd hope the community could work on that as well. 

Please advise.

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Capt. Eek,

   At your convenience I'm hoping you could check the MGD page to see if anything else is needed for approval. Thanks!!

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

rescreening Maximum Genetic Diversity page

It's found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)

If by "sounding like an essay" you mean the article is clear and well-written, that doesn't seem like it should be a problem. If you think it's a persuasive essay with subjective language, please identify where that language is and I'll be happy to fix it.

And spinning this off into summary-style articles is something that I imagine the community would be able to help with, is that a universal requirement for articles? That has to happen before their initial approval?

Thanks again for all your help!

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvard2TheBigHouse, Sub articles are not necessary. The issue is with the overly casual tone in places. Wikipedia is usually written...almost stuffily. Prose should be engaging, and well written. But it should be formal and written from a neutral point of view . Wikipedia is not written like most school papers or scientific papers. Some issues, I have not found them all:

• "So according to MGD" casual/essaylike transition
• "whereas your average human is at risk of debilitating injury and even death if they merely trip and hit their head" using second person
• "One must first determine" second person
• "And so due to the fact" - indicative of the issue I see here: each section is structuring towards developing an idea. But Wikipedia articles are more like news articles: the most important facts are stated first, and then they are explained in greater depth as the section goes on.
• "Nearly from its inception" - part of a problem regarding wordiness. Much of the article is way too wordy. Articles ought be concise.

I do want to see this article become full-fledged, I think its an important and notable topic. But it does need to meet policy first. Writing doesn't have to be perfect, but the structure needs to be better. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with the template!

Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

working on the Maximum Genetic Diversity page

Capt. Eek,

Thank you so much for the clear and thorough response! Sorry about the continued back-and-forth, but after first making all your specific fixes and then finding as many similar ones on my own as I could, I then took your advice and swapped two of the lower sections with each other since I think that makes it flow more from narrow to broad, with important facts upfront and broader implications later.

Along those same lines, I made sure to add all the main implications and points right at the top of the article, and additionally added a secondary source that's linked in a few places. That secondary source also had a somewhat speculative criticism which I also included at the end.

Thanks again and let me know what else you need from me! -Lt. Dan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maximum_Genetic_Diversity_(MGD)

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Palace queries

Hello CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments on the draft Palace Cinema Broadstairs page! We're sorry it didn't make the cut but have given it some more work and would be glad of your comments if you have time. We have added a 1965 ad from a local paper and will seek permission to use unless page is overall still not strong enough to be published? If not appropriate for us to contact you with these questions please let us know. Thank you. LittelLondon (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

LittelLondon, Howdy hello! Its definitely appropriate to reach out to me ask questions. In fact, its encouraged! I will take a second look at the article. That is kinda how the process is built: articles are declined, and then creators work with reviewers to get things up to snuff. With that in mind, I have a few questions/points for you:

1. When you say we, whom exactly do you refer to perchance?
2. The history section is way undersourced. Please find some more inline sources for the section.
3. Can you perhaps find some news coverage of the cinema? That would greatly speed things along. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Commission of 1882

Just a message about the Hunter Commission disambiguation page. I think there actually were two commissions called the "Hunter Commission." E.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=IDNeW78fedkC&pg=PA69 or this page (though it's some random exam prep site). I actually knew nothing about this stuff except what I just Googled, but it looks legit to my eye.

2601:647:5600:748:3061:F8E5:29DB:1CF4 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for those links. Most appreciated! I have fixed the page, and added the references you've linked, as they greatly help the situation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the delicious medicinal MGD brownie!!

El. Capt.

   Thank you so much for your incredibly prompt help and editing, after I submitted the article I hitched up my britches and got ready to wait until after X-mas due to the really long queueueueueue, but luckily enough you sailed along and got this all done wwaaaaaayyy faster that I expected. Kind regards and we'll certainly be in touch!!  -Lt. Dan

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

checking in on the MGD page

Sorry to bug you if you've already been pinged by the Talk page, but I just wanted to check in for any further guidance about how to make further improvements to the page. Thank you again!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

JPDeNeef draft

Dear CaptainEek, thanks again for your support I did many changes 2 weeks ago following your last advices, would it possible to know if I'm on the right track please? best regards Jean PierreJPDeNeef (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from McGrizzly re: Draft:Anatoly Skalny

Hello! I've read your note on the above-mentioned article, studied Wikipedia:Inline_citation policy and still feel myself unsure of what I did wrong. Will you please be so kind as to point me to the exact place that you don't like?

Best regards McGrizzly (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

McGrizzly, Of the 8 paragraphs in the life section, literally only 1 has any references. Direct quotes must have references. As this is a biography of a living person, essentially all claims should have a citation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, that section deals mostly woth bio of Dr. Skalny and most of the facts are already referenced in other sections. Should I repeat those references? For example facts about birthdate, etc. referenced at the beginning of the first section, participation in TEU - at the end of it. McGrizzly (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

McGrizzly, As a matter of practice, it is better for a fact to be cited in the body, rather in the lead. Leads usually should present no unique information, and merely summarize the article. I disagree with your referenced in other sections claim, you have few sections and few citations. Please find more citations and include them inline. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, thanks for an advice! Will do my best to implement it :) McGrizzly (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wowletmebe

Sorry this message was posted before you changed the link FROM Daniel Egbunike to Draft:DK that was the correct link. Sorry for the confusion and thank you submitting the page for review. Do you have any feedback on the article? Wowletmebe (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wowletmebe, I saw the only contributions you have made were Draft:DK. I have renamed that draft anyway. What is the right title? You should Wikilink it or add a url style link so I can go to it. Please note, the AfC help page is only for asking questions. Reviews do not happen there, they happen on the page in question. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wowletmebe, For starters, do not delete or change your comments. Add all new comments at the bottom of talk pages please. In terms of feedback, I would say: needs more sources. And all claims inline should have a source too. Otherwise, I am unfamiliar with boxing and thus don't have much more input. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Captain. I will attempt to add more sources, although in boxing its different as the titles and fights taken can also act as a source (i.e fighter mentioned set a record in boxing). For example, Sam Maxwell who's only 7 places ahead of the fighter I've just written about yet his article only has one source which confuses me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wowletmebe, Howdy hello! Just because an article exists doesn't always mean it meets policy. Many articles were created before the AfC process became standard, or have slipped through the cracks. We are also trying to ensure that new articles meet all of our standards, and aren't problematic. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I really appreciate your help and advice - thank you.

Carlduff (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Help With Page Rejection / Advertisement Speak

Hello, thanks for reviewing my article on Choo Yilin a few weeks ago (okay a month and a half ago). I know that you rejected it because it sounded like an advertisement, although I did not mean for it to be. I've since edited it (but not submitted for review again yet), but was wondering if you could give more feedback on why you thought it sounded like an ad. Draft here for reference. Thanks! One Red Line (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

One Red Line, Howdy hello! You have certainly cleaned up some of it, but I suspect issues remain. I don't have time to look through the article in depth right now, so I suggest you add a comment at the AfC Helpdesk, where someone should be able to take a second look at your article and give some feedback. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Got it CaptainEek, thanks! :) One Red Line (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

GrayRobinson Article

Hello CaptainEek,

This is a puzzling deletion and I hope you will share more on your reasoning in taking this action. Six of my eight sources meet the standards of reliable, secondary and independent. (The other two are the GrayRobinson and Capitol Insight websites, which should be acceptable as a small part of the mix.) Three of the sources meet the substantial coverage criteria since they are exclusively focused on GrayRobinson. Please tell me what this entry needs to satisfy your standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I reviewed the Wikipedia pages of six other law firms in Florida that have about the same number of lawyers in the state. None of them had as many independent references as the entry I submitted. None had as many references that could be regarded as satisfying the criteria for substantial coverage. All followed the same approximate format with some variation: a brief overview of the firm that includes history, number of lawyers and offices, followed by sections on services offered, prominent alumni or current attorneys, awards and other recognition. A few firms had sections explaining past or current client matters that are significant. My entry was, if anything, more conservative than these other firms, and avoided all promotional language.

Lawyers, especially those at larger firms that take on complex matters, are front and center in every social, political and economic issue. They turn the wheels of public policy, for better or worse. If I read a news story about a class-action lawsuit against a big company or a criminal defendant going to trial, I want to know something about the law firm behind it. Where is it located? How big is it? What is its history? Who are its influencers? People turn to Wikipedia for these answers. Law firms that represent clients in significant matters should be in Wikipedia and we hope you would agree that the readers of Wikipedia should be provided with basic information about these firms.

If you are against all law firms being in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia needs to treat all firms equally. It is not fair for many law firms to be in Wikipedia and to reject others that have substantially the same profile. I hope you will regard this as an opportunity to have a constructive conversation about the GrayRobinson deletion. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

WikiEditorJena — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorJena (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiEditorJena, Howdy hello! Thanks for reaching out to me for clarification. Luckily, this isn't a "deletion" but simply a decline. I could've in fact had your draft deleted, or rejected, but I only declined it because I believed it could be improved to meet our standards.

A note before we continue: if you have ever worked for, been paid by, or otherwise been associated with the lawfirm, even in a non-monetary way, you do need to disclose that as a conflict of interest. If you have received any sort of compensation by the lawfirm, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. I'm not saying you have a COI, but simply letting you know the policy. If you have a conflict and disclose, all is good. If you have one and don't disclose, the article may be deleted and you will likely be blocked. If you don't have one, ignore all of that.

To the article in question. I felt like the sources did show enough significant coverage of the firm in particular. However, I could have been wrong. I will add the draft back to the review queue, so a different reviewer can see it. However, I do suggest you try to find some more news coverage of the firm. More sources can only help your case. Using the firm's own website is not allowable, as that is a not an indepedent source.

As a final note, be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

All in all, this article will probably get approved in time. Thanks for being patient, and smooth sailing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Fellow Sailor

I sent you a message about autohotkey but I'm not sure if it was delivered? If not send me a message from my page then I'll reply to that email, cheers carlin 🕺 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlinmack (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlinmack, Howdy hello! I sure did get it, thats super duper useful! That will hopefully speed my workflow along greatly :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you revisit Joseph Church: Music Director?

Hey! I was wondering if you could take a look at Joseph Church: Musical Director again. I added more sources and wanted to know if it addressed your concerns about the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPiano (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahPiano, Some issues remain. Many of the sources are blogs, which, being self published, are not reliable. Please replace those sources. Using the Author's own book is not independent. The issue I still have is with notability, i.e. significant coverage. Many of the sources merely mention his name, nothing more. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI report

G'day CaptainEek - Sir, why did you close my ANI report here? What made you conclude that it was a "content dispute" - although one responding editor gave everything to derail discussion into direction of "content" dispute, I was prevented from attempting to get it back on track as "conduct"issue because you were faster? Is it really "content dispute", a situation in which one editor for months completely preventing another from making any constructive, and souurced in valid mainstream scholarship, edits - again, completely suppressing any constructive and referenced edits on my part - all the while abusing "edit-summary", and not just ignoring "TP" initiated "point-by-point" discussion, but instead responds with ad hominem attacks? Thanks, all the best.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, Howdy hello! Two experienced editors called it a content dispute, and I agree. This has not yet risen to the level where admin intervention is needed. You discussed it very briefly, and months ago. What happened was: you made a WP:BOLD edit. It was reverted. Per Bold, Revert, Discuss it was then time for you to open a talk section discuss. So do that, go back and talk with this other editor. If talking doesn't work, get a third opinion or formal dispute resolution at WP:DRN. Hopefully, SportingFlyer would be willing to chime in on a new talk page discussion as well. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not all but enough of these options were already explored and rehearsed, from page protection to warning, and even admins expressed quite strong opinion on editor being unapproachable and on the verge of being in trouble - I created at least 20 discussions over the last 7-8 months on three forked articles, where admin again expressed his opinion like this, with response spanning from short ad hominem to canvasing for support at Croatian language wikipedia. I can't do anything since March on three forked articles, where sources in references used range from pinterest to misleadingly translated statements from scholarship. So, it's not some problem from days ago.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, If you have opened 20 discussions, then perhaps you should have linked them in the ANI report, or kept the report more brief. But I should note that the discussion where an admin suggested Ceha be blocked, they also suggested that you be blocked too. Careful, a sword has two edges. But my suggestion stands: talk it out on the talk page. If you and Ceha really, really can't figure it out, we can go back to ANI. But it doesn't seem like this issue is truly intractable yet. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saw your "round 2" and is there any chance that you get involved as mediator ? I am reluctant to see SportingFlyer mediating this alone, and for very good reason. He approached this problem in really inappropriate way. I understand it is infinitely huge request, but if you are willing your participation would be most welcomed. Another thing, I added this report nearly 20 hours ago, while being around for the majority of that time (as time stamps can testify) - I am exhausted at this point, and I am going to take a break for a while, but I am going to be back as soon as I take a breath, in just a few hours, I don't intend to leave this now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, I will put the page on my watchlist, and mediate as best I can. I am not familiar with the subject area, but should still be able to be of assistance. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I intentionally avoided a version where admin stroked his initial suggestion and changed his perspective - and there should be a difference between few extra reverts on my part and multiple transgresions in sense of both content and conduct on the other party involved. I was and still am terrible in compiling these AN's, with too much of info, or too complicated, mixing too much stuff in there, so in this one I tried to focus on very specific thing, and as we could see that too was lacking in some regard.

here's my policy - i am using only valid, legitimate contemporary mainstream scholarship in article on topic of Balkan history, rarely primary and tertiary sources, unless they are covered with good secondary in scholarship, and I believe that's the only proper policy in editing history which is contested by POV's - this means that you would need to check validity of statements in sources and sources themselves (in terms of their legitimacy). In that case wouldn't need extended knowledge of history of the region--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, AN can be difficult, and conciseness is always an issue. If Ceha's issues continue, this could again be raised, but I will assume good faith for now. With regards to your sourcing policy, perfect, as thats WP's policy. It should make fixing this fairly easy. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Eh, my dear good Sir - from your mouth to fellow editor ears :-) --౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Guidance for the MGD page

El. Capt. My Capt.

If you have a moment I'd profoundly appreciate any advice you might have on the MGD page, I think I have the whole "primary" source thing down as discussed at the bottom of the Talk page, but wanted to loop you in since you've been my sensei this whole time.

And just in general I've put a bunch more work on it, but would like to keep improving where need-be. Thanks again!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_genetic_diversity Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Indentation size effect (November 20)

In regards to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indentation_size_effect

Hi CaptainEEk. Thanks for you time. In response to your question, the image is entirely my own. I added a caption to clarify its meaning. Also, I understand that the page may be challenging for those without any background in mechanics, but I am unsure how the language could be further simplified while still being factually correct. Could you recommend any specific words you think I could substitute without losing meaning? I have added crosslinks so many words are easily defined to the reader.

Regards Bob Clemintime (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bob Clemintime, Technical language should be kept so it is accurate, but simplified descriptions are often appreciated side by side. I think I will approve the article, but tag it for being overly technical, I invite you to keep adding sources and information as well as making the article technical yet also have understandable content. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bob Clemintime, A description of nano indentation might also help Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bob Clemintime, I guess what I'm really getting at is: clearly you understand this fairly well yourself. So how would you explain it to the average person? Just a few sentences in the right place can make the article much more readable and understandable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I will continue working on the page. I am making other supporting pages as I can't explain too much more about the effect without context. This area of materials science is not well represented on Wikipedia even though the effect was first reported almost 40 years ago. I made a figure which helps explain geometrically necessary dislocations, but I don't think I can post that figure as it is too derivative of another person's diagram. I am still thinking of another way to clearly draw the effect. Bob Clemintime (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Least dangerous assumption page

THanks for your help in the process of putting this (my first) wikipedia page together: Least dangerous assumption. The gate-keeping process on wikipedia is strong and I appreciate that. I'm looking forward now that it has been created to both developing it and seeing it being developed/improved. I am, however, struggling to figure out the ins and outs of chat and revisions and so on and so forth.... but, hey ho. Many thanks. Iorek 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn - Murder Charge and Defense Sections

I have noticed that you have multiple times removed the content that was contributed regarding two important aspects of why Maj. Mathew Golsteyn probably even has an article on Wikipedia to begin with (with the exception of possibly his valor commendations) - the issues surrounding the charges for murder (beyond its basic description), and the issues surrounding his defense (of which there is none presented in the article at all, even though this is part-and-parcel, and definitely precedes the foundation of why a pardon was even considered). According to the history of the article, these issues are what created the controversy that brought about Maj. Golsteyn Wikipedia page. There were summaries within the article before I edited, that gave summarized statements, that were sourced, and outlined a few of the issues surrounding the charges for murder. In an article, it is not POV to include controversial topics as long as they are cited, and summarized in a straight forward way, and their presence contributes to the overall article for the reader. What can be POV is to remove information so that only one point of view is present - even if that point of view is subtly stated between the lines. I included some points that were missing in regard to the defense part of the killing. Although the summary I provided could stand alone with its citations, I believe that summary was what you were feeling was POV and not neutral, although it was heavily cited, and even when summarized it only restated what was already present in the sources themselves. The Quotations presented mainly Golsteyn himself, his lawyer, or the actual rules of engagement, all of which are central aspects to the defense, give broader context to the defense side of the issue, and all of which are part of the controversial characteristic of why Maj. Golsteyn has an article, and what lead to his consideration for pardon.

It seems that you are advocating that to be neutral is to not address the very centrality of the controversy itself. I reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and found nothing that I had written would have violated these terms as they are defined. What I contributed described, with citation, one of two central aspects of the controversy through cited sources. By having two sections, it allowed contributors to provide appropriate sourced material in both areas - the murder charge itself and to describe what prompted it or what may be relevant regarding it, and the defense (that is the salient issues regarding the case). While you have generally pointed to terms such as neuturality, POV, over uses quotes, or undue weight, I would be nice if you would actually outline exactly cases within the contribution. In other words, not broad statements about neutrality, but actual specifics (or how would you suggest, by way of an example, the core of the information be able to be presented without having to be fully removed from the article). The full removal of the contributed content's context, that the sources and summary give, can contribute to a type of point of view itself - by restricting information that is central to the killing of Rasoul, so that it gave the impression of murder. I will admit that your latest edit totally removed any area of either murder charge issues (other than Golsteyn was charged) or the defense issues. This made it more sanitary, but the article is missing key elements. It also allows certain statements that meet the type of "when did you stop beating your wife?" inferences to stand without providing a broader context - such as:

• "According to an interview with the CIA in 2011, Golsteyn claimed that another soldier had later taken the alleged bomb-maker off base, and then shot and killed him. Golsteyn said that he later helped burn the body. After this revelation, the Army investigated the case, but closed it with no charges in 2013"
• Golsteyn acknowledged he knew his suspect was unarmed. (although this was removed in your last edit in the current version of the article as it stands right now)

but removed a counter-balancing statement from Golsteyn himself, in the same CIA interview, which gives broader context, that the situation met the rules of engagement regarding terrorists, such as:

• "So I’ve got a guy in the battlefield that I know is already responsible for the deaths of two, the making of countless IEDs, and whatever he’s committed before, he’s an open threat to the tribal leader in a very fragile process for us of getting some kind of popular support that allows us to get done what we want to get done. And he is a demonstrated threat to my guys. He’s is a combatant, was a combatant when we picked him up and was going to continue to be a combatant. We were fighting. We were under attack at that point in time for six to eight hours a day."

The point is to describe both aspects (murder charge and description of defense issues), while also providing balance using context. For instance, the inference of the first two bullet points above is that Golsteyn "shot and killed him", and when combined with he "acknowledged he knew his suspect was unarmed" leaves the impression that what he did was murder (as it would be seen in peacetime), and outside any situation that the rules of engagement would allow for. Yet, once the broader context is considered, it balances these statements with other sourced material that show the facet that allowed for Rasoul to be treated as a legitimate threat under the rules of engagement. While each of the bullet points above are sourced, the lack of context definitely gives an impression in the first two bullet points that is counter balanced with other sources pointing out the fuller context (and even using specific interview material from the same CIA interview as the first bullet point quote). Each of the bullet point quotes above provide information that is helpful to the reader in understanding a major aspect of the life events that brought about the public awareness of Maj. Golsteyn (again, besides his valor commendations). My main point in my contribution was to provide a further area of description for the two central aspects of the killing - the murder charge, which had already been somewhat stated (but in the current version is removed); and the defense, which brought about consideration for pardon as well as is part-and-parcel complementary to a sub-section on the murder charge, within the larger section of "Killing of Alleged Afghan bomb-maker".

Within my contribution, even if I had removed the quotes themselves, and went only with the highly cited summary which itself almost is verbatim from the sources, I believe you were still thinking it was not neutral (even though it does meet every point in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as it defines neutrality for the purpose of editing). Yet, the absence of allowed sources or summary that give broader context, and the sanitation of the relevant issues surrounding the controversial aspect of the killing, actually in and of itself influences the article with a point of view, through surpression, by allow specific subtle inferences and prohibiting other material that may give broader context to the prior inferenced information. In this case, the inference, where the broader context is surpressed, is that Golsteyn murdered Rasoul and the President unjustly pardoned him. That in and of itself is a way of pushing a POV through inference and suppression of information. My main point was to provide broader sections to the murder charge, as well as to issues surrounding the the defense, that would allow both aspects to be represented and furthered described through other future edits of other editors. Thank you so much for reading and for your consideration

Howdy hello! I invite you to work with me at Talk:Mathew_L._Golsteyn to include some of that content. Sparknotes version: using direct quotes is not the preferred way to get information, especially in contentious matters. We really have no way of knowing whether Golsteyn's own quotes are accurate, which is why we instead are relying on sources that have analyzed Golsteyn and other's words, and then provided informed commentary. The overuse of direct sources was one of my main problems. The other was that the section was presented as his defense. Wikipedia neither attacks nor defends people. We aren't lawyers. However, some of the facts within could be incorporated into a narrative around the case. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - Changed references

Hi, with reference to my draft - Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - I searched around a bit today and found some references which appear to be relatively recent, and none of them are interviews. 4 of these came across as independent, while one, Glitz, am not so sure about. Can you please take some time out to check if they can be used? Thanks in advance, Vinvibes (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, also informing that my username is now Tycheana, derived from Tychea, the Greek Goddess of positivism. Still awaiting your feedback on the changed references of the draft, thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Tycheana, Ah, love the new username! Very fancy. I am a bit busy for the next week, as it is the holiday season where I am. However, I'll look at it as soon as I'm able. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, no problem - am doubtful about one source because it has the insta address of the person, so will remove it and re-submit. The problem am facing with many of these African names is that their coverage is extensive only in African mags etc, and beyond that there is hardly any mention. Will make the one edit and re-submit soon, thanks again, regards & best wishesm, enjoy your holidays, Tycheana (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Tycheana, If non-english sources exist, you can use them to help prove notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, in context of this particular person, so far I haven't come across anything in Nigerian. But now that you have pointed out, will look. Thanks & regards, happy holidays, Tycheana (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, sending an update that I could not find any Nigerian sources pertaining to this particular name. Also, I have once again edited the sources and now intend to re-submit while leaving a message on the talk page that I have overhauled the references totally from the first submission. Hoping that you would find time to take a look at the revamped version, thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Assistance with the MGD wiki page

El. Capt,

So as per MGD's talk page, it sounds like I'm being asked to change all the language you had me make definitive and clear into being fuzzy and waffling. I understand that MGD is a hypothesis, but changing all the language around it to be "well, maybe..." isn't how science writing is done. Explaining things simply means just making factual statements, without including every single possible caveat.

And it sounds like the mods are applying their own opinion of what Primary sources are, because based on the quotes I provided from Wikipedia's own definition the MGD page has loads of secondary sources and a tertiary one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maximum_genetic_diversity

Based on the what's being said in the talk page, it sounds like what needs to be created is a page dedicated to explaining the differing views of MGD versus the neutral theory's molecular clock. But I'd need some help or at least direction to start that kind of thing

Because I've spent some some on other genetic pages and if anything the MGD is clearer than average, and there are loads of other pages that contain really, really fundamental mistakes (the definition of an allele, which I fixed. If the mods attacking MGD know science so well, how had that gone unnoticed for so long?) that need additional work which apparently no one has noticed or cares about. Instead a novel article that presents a different paradigm is being nit-picked to pieces - when based on the overall state of the genetic pages I can't see how the mods are speaking like they know the hard science. Because if they did, why are so many of the genetic pages such a mess? If these mods want to further science, shouldn't they be working on that instead of trying to just condemn something they don't seem to understand?

I've done some work improving other pages, but I'm not gonna spending any more time running myself into a window built by people who are telling me water isn't wet. The science around the neutral theory's holes is very well established, and clearly cited in the MGD page. I'd be happy to work on a page contrasting the Neutral Theory and MGD, but since the last directions from a mod in the Talk page seem to contrast the ones you gave me as I was first writing the article I'm reaching out. Thanks again Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvard2TheBigHouse, The "mods" are just other editors, we don't have a big genetics cabal. There are certainly many genetics articles to improve, it just so happens that this one has entered the spotlight because its new. That's a good thing, having many editors almost always improves articles.

I think that the folks replying have some good points. MGD is not a theory yet, its just a hypothesis which has had some work done on it. I have to agree with ChiswickChap: the article is lacking in those secondary sources. Ideally, we would have one or more review papers on MGD. Its possible those don't exist yet, which could complicate matters. Until we have some concrete review or meta-analysis papers, the article's wording needs to be quite neutral. In essence, we, as Wikipedia, don't claim its true, we only present it. I recommend you take ChiswickChap's advice and work with him to improve the article. He's a bright and experienced fellow, and if you work with him you could learn a lot.

Lastly, you mention an article comparing MGD versus neutral. You could just do that in the MGD article, perhaps having a section, or just writing it into the text. Shouldn't be too awfully hard, but also not sure if that is necessary either. Making it neutral is much more critical. Also, not sure how the directions I gave disagree with Chiswick's, if there is any uncertainty let me know and I can clarify. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)