Jump to content

User talk:KJP1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yrarendar (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 18 February 2018 (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive box..... that way →

All done. When you want to archive in the future, go to the search bar and type in "User talk:KJP1/Archive 3". Open up another screen, this time of your talk page. You should now have two screens open: "User talk: KJP1/Archive 3" and your talk page. Go back to the "User talk:KJP1/Archive 3" screen and you'll see a red link for an article of that name. Click it open and go back to your talk page and copy and paste all threads you want to archive on your current talk page into "User talk: KJP1/Archive 3". Hit save and add the name - "User talk: KJP1/Archive 3" to the archive box in the edit screen of your talk page. Failing that, give me a shout and I'll happily do it for you. CassiantoTalk 15:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Walks on ordinals

I do not understand your draft submission refusal. The article is/was in its stub state. The first reference is the most reliable one for being cited 220 times The second reference is the most reliable one for being cited 99 times;

Since the article contains ONLY the method definition and the method definition belongs exclusively to its author, Stevo Todorcevic, there is no need to add anything. --BTZorbas (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas - You can't use the author's works as the only source. You need independent, third-party sourcing. KJP1 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The references are valid, the method definition does not need any third-party sourcing.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTZorbas - OK, good to talk. KJP1 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:11:40, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikieditorj

Thank you for your input. I fail to see how Time Out or Japan Times does not count as a reputable source that implies notoriety. Nor do I see explaining what made a subject famous in neutral language to be like an advertisement. Please reconsider or provide examples that will be helpful for improving the piece. Thanks again. Wikieditorj (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorj - Hi, I see you've asked the same question at the Helpdesk, and got the answer I would have given here. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have carried out suggested changes about the subject. The language is more neutral now and independent third party sources that demonstrate notoriety were added. Wikieditorj (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditorj Fine - but I think you mean Notability. Notoriety has a very different meaning. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for catching the typo. I did mean notability, which I hope is clear now from the added references. There are more references of notability available in Japanese, but since the subject is American I thought it would be helpful to prioritize English resourcesWikieditorj (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan

Hi KJP1, Could you please take a look at my entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Thomas_McGuigan? I hope I've fixed the problem you've helped with. Your time is very much appreciated! 1001Bookworm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1001Bookworm - Hi, just wanted to apologise for the delay in getting back to you. Shall certainly review the revised draft within the next 48 hours, hopefully sooner. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1001Bookworm - Now done, and Accepted. Congrat.s. KJP1 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Squeeze_Tarela

Hi KJP1,

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed and fixed the problems you highlighted and hope you ok with it? Please see the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Squeeze_Tarela Please reconsider and tell me if you need more changes to be done to be it approve. Your time and effort is much appreciated. Regards Manothot2017 (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manothot2017 - Hi, just to say sorry for the delayed response. Shall certainly review the revised draft within the next 48 hours, hopefully sooner. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:37, 11 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Trishla rane

HI. I would like to understand the mistakes of this article written about the subject. Trishla rane (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trishla rane - Hi Trisha, and thanks for getting in touch. There are quite a number of issues with the draft, which I've set out below. Please read the links, as well as my comments:
  • Wikipedia:Autobiography - It really isn't a good idea to try to write your autobiography on Wikipedia, and this essays sets out why;
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - You obviously have a conflict of interest if you are trying to write about yourself. This needs to be declared, and the guidance on conflict editing followed;
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia articles are written from a Neutral point of view. It's impossible to be Neutral if you're trying to write about yourself;
  • Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia articles cover subjects that have Notability. You really aren't the best person to assess this about yourself. The general criteria say that a subject is notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject;
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - You've got three sources, an online news service (1) which gives your name once, an e-newspaper link that doesn't seem to work (2) and a newspaper link (3) that doesn't work either. This doesn't represent significant coverage from reliable sources;
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style - the layout of the page doesn't conform to our style guide. Just have a look at this, Nadira Babbar, to see how your draft should be laid out;
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch - The tone of the draft is promotional, which isn't surprising as you've written it yourself. But it won't do for Wikipedia. "a well-known Defense family", "though she did not belong to a business background had the foresight to work and achieve on several ambitious projects, thus making her one of the youngest women entrepreneurs", "Not resting on her laurels, she had a vision to", "a passionate social activist", "became the inspiration for plus size women", "Trishla is now considered to be the role model". None of these statements are sourced and they are all what you are saying about yourself.
I hope that the above is helpful in showing you the problems with your draft. It's important to understand that Wikipedia's not Facebook, where you can write whatever you like about yourself. It is also a truly bad idea to try to write your autobiography on here. I'll copy this to the draft for ease of reference. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:54, 12 February 2018 review of submission by Zowiedied

Zowiedied (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Hi... this is zowiedied. mistakes were made in the upload (reference#1 the same as reference #5, etc.) and made an odd submission look odder than it already was. Please edit this article as if it were a genuine candidate for submission, and I will work to find better references for it. Thank you. I think this novel might be noteworthy because of its unique subject matter, and the author's extraordinary claims of 7000 rejections for it. To my knowledge, there's been nothing else like it ever written. Mike[reply]

Zowiedied - Hi Zowiedied, apologies for the slow reply. Shall certainly revisit the revised draft within the next 48 hours. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zowiedied - Hi, have now had another look but I think the issues remain. There are only four sources:
  • 1 - a link to the author's Amazon page;
  • 2 - a link to the book's Amazon page;
  • 3 - a link to a site for a magazine that appears not to mention the book;
  • 4 - as above.
This just doesn't constitute the significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources necessary to establish Notability. Even if one could prove the "most rejected book in history" claim, and the source doesn't, I'm not sure this would give it Notability.
I see another reviewer has also rejected it. I'm afraid I'm just not sure it's right for Wikipedia. Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:44, 12 February 2018 review of submission by Lyza6107

Hello KJP1, Thank you for your guidance in the matter of my first Wikipedia article submission. Article edits are fully complete per your specifications. I understand you are not able to go through each citation due to time constraints, so I've listed the NEW source citations for your re-review.

  1. The Harvard Gazette - newspaper - detailing article subject's partnership with HHI
  2. The Association of American Medical Colleges. Academic Medicine publication - detailing article subject's partnership with HHI and the University of Chicago Medical Center after 2010 earthquake in Haiti
  3. Addressed the valid, reliable NEWS sources with better detailed citations (inline citations throughout)
  4. Added The Haitian Times newspaper article
  5. Added article from WATT Poultry USA Magazine - believe it or not, poultry farmers do read about World Poultry Foundation news

Please let me know if you are able to re-review or how I should go about resubmitting in this case. Note that the other references cited are in line with Wikipedia standards. As an example, Wikipedia allows for listing websites to be noted in reference cases to show proof of the listing details mentioned (like the TV stations and radio station website references). Thanks!Lyza6107 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyza6107 - Hi Lyza, I see it's back in the pool and it's probably best to let another reviewer take a look. But if I come across it again in my scanning, I'll certainly revisit. All the best with it. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:22:41, 15 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zenminded


Hello, I really appreciate your comments regarding myPOS Store article submitted for approval, my intention was not to create an advertisement type about myPOS, but to use the recent organic publicity from opening the fist physical store in London. In fairness of myPOS, it exists since 2014 and is already present and popular in more that 20 European countries. I'd like to edit the page so that it complies to the wiki guidelines for neutrality. I will try to present the most relevant third party links on the matter. Would that be a good way to go?

Zenminded (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Zenminded (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

00:36:54, 16 February 2018 review of submission by Yrarendar

I am not certain if I have responded adequately to the reviewer's request for more documentation because I am new to Wikipedia. I would appreciate feedback with regard to whether the new citations are sufficient or whether more (or different) references are needed - and if there are any further changes required. The formatting is also not quite right in that the sections "references" and "external links" are repeated. Any assistance would be appreciated. Yrarendar (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yrarendar - Many thanks for the revisions and now Accepted. If I had one comment, we could do with fewer of his own works as Sources, and a couple more from sources independent of him. He doesn't have much of a web presence, but things can be found, e.g. [1]. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KJP1 for your helpful suggestions. I will look for more sources as I improve my skills. Yrarendar (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of submission Draft:Suzette Kent

Thanks for your feedback, I think I've addressed the issues you mentioned on Draft:Suzette Kent. Burt Harris (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Harris - Burt, thanks for revising. Now Accepted. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peter Thomas McGuigan

Hi KJP1, Thanks so much for your revewing my entry again. Have a great weekend! 1001Bookworm (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:31, 16 February 2018 review of submission by 82.69.33.162

I don't understand why this is regarded as an advertisement for a non-notable bakery. The writing style is objective and referenced with major UK media sources. Over 4 million UK citizens buy products from this bakery annually - which is notable. Many of the UK's major foodservice operators (Costa, Nero, Nando's, Wetherspoon's)sell products manufactured by this company. It is also a consumer brand found in every major UK supermarket. There are other UK bakeries detailed in Wikipedia, which are far less notable. 82.69.33.162 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

82.69.33.162 - Hi. First, can you clarify if you have a connection to the company? If you do, and I'm guessing you have, that needs to be declared as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and you need to follow the policy and guidance on editing with a conflict. Second, I'm afraid I just don't agree that the sources do demonstrate Notability. Going through them:
  • 1 - An online business-to-business media company and the article has all the hallmarks of a PR-release inspired piece, as is very common with such media;
  • 2 - Local newspaper, with only a link to the site, not to the article on the bakery. If I could read it, I will guess it is another PR-inspired piece;
  • 3 - Another local newspaper and another PR-driven piece with a long quote from the company's staff. This is the way much local media fills its pages these days;
  • 4 - Another local online business journal with the same issue as above;
  • 5 - BBC newsround coverage of an event which is ok;
  • 6 - Festival covering the same event, with a promotional piece of the company.
I'm afraid that, in my judgement, this just doesn't add up to the significant coverage from a range of reliable, independent sources that is necessary to demonstrate Notability. Third, the argument that there are weak articles on comparable subjects already on Wikipedia is not a strong argument for adding another. This essay explains why in more detail, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. And one last point. An article doesn’t have to be full of blatant promotion to be advertising. As many companies know very well, just having an article on the biggest online encyclopaedia and the fifth-most popular website in the world, can be very useful advertising. That’s why, unfortunately, there’s quite a market in paid-for editing on here.
You can, of course, resubmit, although I see another reviewer has taken the same view as I. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:09, 17 February 2018 review of submission by Robert Biate

The page which i want to publish is fresh n new. nothing has been published about it before, either in book or other resources. except of some photos which i have with me. so kindly help me what and how to do it. the puandam has a connection with the Biate people, and wiki has link page on Biate people and biate/biete language. please suggest how or what can i do to make it publish Robert Biate (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Biate - Robert, I'm afraid that this just can't work. To create an article based on your own researches is Original research and Wikipedia doesn't do that. What we do is give neutral overviews of subjects that have been covered by a range of reliable, secondary, independent sources. If such sources don't exist, and they don't for this, then you just can't write a suitable article. I see it has a mention in the Biate people article, although that isn't sourced either, and that's probably as much as you can do. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02:24:19, 18 February 2018 review of submission by CJ Machado


CJ Machado (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing the submission. I have an interest in helping to create a WIKI page for Taras Lyssenko. My interest comes from my veteran advocacy and photo journalism for Homeland Magazine. I am also a producer and writer with Speed and Angels Productions. My interest is simply that many find his work to be fascinating, including myself.

Taras along with his partner Al with A and T Recovery are both veterans. They have recovered OVER 40 once lost WWII US Naval aircraft from the bottom of Lake Michigan to then be restored and displayed in museums across America. There is a magazine editor from New Zealand's Classic Wings that I recently submitted photos to for their recovered aircraft article on Taras Lyssenko and A and T Recovery. I receive many inquiries about a WIKI page for Mr. Lyssenko and the answer is always there is one on A and T Recovery, but oddly not on Lyssenko. "Well, there should be one on Taras and all the work he has done for the preservation of the world's most historical artifacts" according to many supporters and aviation enthusiasts. It's not just our New Zealand compadres. The most recent inquiry was from Planes of Fame in Chino, CA, where they have quite the extensive collection of War Birds. They had recently found out about the discovery of the WWI U-Boat, the UC-97 and contacted me to try and connect their organization with Taras Lyssenko for a symposium for the upcoming 100th anniversary of the end of WWI.

I don't have the energy to check the page often, but I have to say I do think it's a damn shame there isn't just a mention on WIKI for Lyssenko's efforts. I have cut back the page extensively and I am open to any feedback, advise, etc. You noted I am the only editor. I am not tech savvy, but I know of others that wouldn't mind helping.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Many Thanks, CJ Machado

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you for all your assistance. Yrarendar (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KJP1&oldid=826289372"