Jump to content

User talk:Yamfri/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orphaned non-free image File:Hillel Day School Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hillel Day School Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The logo is now used in Hillel Day School article. Yymmff (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of school heads

Hi Yymmff. I think that discussion is mostly in this history of Oswestry School. I gave up editing there, as no one was interested in the vandalism of Chahiel Riens, who was also into deleting references, but given your helpful link to that guidance I have added the list of heads again, with a link in my summary. It will be interesting to see what happens. Moonraker (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Moonraker, glad to be of help. Let's just be civil. I've proposed a clarification of the school article guidance w.r.t. NN headmasters here; hope it will get some traction. Best regards - Yymmff (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yymmff, but what a world we live in, there seems to be a new idea in the air that we can't use words that are needed. See Vandalism on Wikipedia, perhaps it should be renamed to something more civil. I thought it was civil of me not to issue a formal warning, the deliberate removal of the references in other parts of the article was even more blatant vandalism than the removal of a list of heads, including citations. I am not pinging the user because I should rather deal with you. Moonraker (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fielding Nair International moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Fielding Nair International, does not have enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources as written to remain published.(?) It needs to cite sources that cover the company in greater detail. I've moved your article to draft space (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and is ready to be published, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Newslinger talk 07:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I'll try. Any time limit for article staying in draft space? I think I could find more articles like ref. 9 in the article -- i.e. articles in local newspapers about schools that went through major construction or renovation and mention this company as a (co)designer. Would that address your concern? Thanks - Yamfri (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yamfri, thanks for responding. There's no time limit for how long an article can stay in draft space, but drafts are deleted if six months go by without any edits. As long as you work on the draft once in a while, it will continue to be available to you. (You can also request undeletion if the draft gets deleted for inactivity.) The Kompas source is not quite there – we're looking for sources that meet the criteria outlined in WP:ORGCRIT (Wikipedia's notability guideline for corporations). Specifically, the sources need to have at least a couple of paragraphs that focus on Fielding Nair International count toward the company's notability. WP:ORGCRIT goes through the requirements in greater detail. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger. I believe FNI's notability is best established by its award-winning projects listed in Draft:Fielding Nair International#Awards. For example, for the highest of those awards -- MacConnell Award (2015) for the Dr. Phinnize J. Fisher Middle School in Greenville, South Carolina -- I gave as the source the link to the school architects society that gave this award. I hope you agree that this specific link is independent and reliable source? I do admit however that this source is not a significant coverage of the FNI because it talks about project i.e. about the award-winning school design, not so much about the company (FNI) that designed this award-winning project. I could have added three more sources about the same award-winning project: spaces4learning, greenvilleonline, and schoolconstructionnews but (check yourself) they all talk in great details about the project (about the Dr. Phinnize J. Fisher Middle School in Greenville), and just mention the designer (FNI).
I found some newspaper articles about other FNI projects ( bluffcountrynews, towntopics, cranstononline 1, cranstononline 2, cvilletomorrow 1, cvilletomorrow 2, scmp, relocatemagazine, warwickonline, patch, larepublica; they all have a common trait: talk in great details about FNA's school design projects but most of times just mention the author of those designs.
Is there is a better way to establish FNI's notability than showing its projects? Isn't the company that designed several notable (e.g. award-winning) projects also notable? Looking forward to your advise. Yamfri (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
​Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability guideline for corporations doesn't give special consideration to awards. This is because Wikipedia already has a very large number of articles on corporations, and the community has decided to tighten the eligibility requirements. The significant coverage requirement is not waivable for FNI. But, if FNI ever receives more detailed media coverage in the future, it could be eligible for an article with the new sources. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Prakash Nair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prakash Nair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Nair until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fielding Nair International

Hello, Yamfri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fielding Nair International".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hillel Day School

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hillel Day School you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hillel Day School

The article Hillel Day School you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hillel Day School for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for your time and valuable comments! I will try to address your concerns 2d and 3b soon. As to your concern 2b: first, thank you for recognizing "the Wiki article is relatively neutral". Second, I agree with your assessment that the source Detroit Jewish News is not neutral (highly supportive of) the school. I just don't see this "a major problem for the article" because WP:BIASEDSOURCES says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral." Best regards -- Yamfri (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Definitely fix the copyright issues asap - it won't get anywhere in any GA review with those. Regarding the source; you're right that the key thing is that the Wiki article is neutral, and reliable sources are not required to be neutral sources. However, in my view, non-neutral sources are best used sparingly to supplement more unbiased sources.. This article almost exclusively relies on a non-neutral source. This is problematic because a promotional source may emphasize or de-emphasize certain things in what they choose to cover and how they cover issues, leading to a Wiki article that is overdetailed when it comes to good news and incomplete when it comes to controversies/problems. In any case, do ping me if/when you re-nominate this article for GA; if I have time, I'll be happy to review it again. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've submitted Draft:Geoffrey_Holt_(philanthropist) for review, please check it out when have time. Yamfri (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist) (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is an interesting article but to start with it's written a bit like a short story or obituary. It needs to be rewritten to be more like an encyclopedia entry.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Yamfri! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I've fixed the article the best I could and resubmitted for a review. Thanks! Yamfri (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist) (November 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Cabrils were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. You may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere!
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Cabrils (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist) (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Subject not notable per WP:BIO1E. This is a single story from Brattleboro Reformer which was grabbed up by AP, and then outlets like USA Today and cable news rebroadcast it. This subject will likely be re-forgotten in less than twenty years as the town blows through the money it was given. Notability on Wikipedia has to be permanent, not transient.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Chris,
  • First: WP:BIO1E is about "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both", not about notability per se.
  • Anyway, Wikipedia:What is one event? Holt's act of giving his fortune was not an "event" per se, it was 22 years of his life from 2001 when he established the trust and all formalities till his will was executed upon his death in 2023. It was an "event" only from the news media POV.
  • I disagree with the assertion that "outlets like USA Today and cable news rebroadcast" a single story from Brattleboro Reformer. Please, read the sources in the article: they are independent in-depth reportings, not simple copy-pasting by syndicated outlets.
  • I've added two new in-depth sources, The Washington Post and The New York Times.
  • I do believe the subject satisfies WP:BIO basic notability criteria. In addition, the subject "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" (WP:ANYBIO). The money may be gone in a year or 20 years, by the record of his donation will stay permanently in the history.
Respectfully, Yamfri (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamfri/Archive_1&oldid=1258540121"