| Revision as of 03:15, 25 June 2015 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →We do not peddle in allegations that have been proven to be false.: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:19, 25 June 2015 edit undoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →We do not peddle in allegations that have been proven to be false.: gamergate sanctions noticeTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| I have removed your content at Gamergate Controversy that merely regurgitates allegations against a living person have been shown to be false by every reliable source that has covered the issue . ] .-- ] 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | I have removed your content at Gamergate Controversy that merely regurgitates allegations against a living person have been shown to be false by every reliable source that has covered the issue . ] .-- ] 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| -- ] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:19, 25 June 2015
| This is Anarchyte's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
Your GA nomination of Taman Shud Case
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taman Shud Case 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 Kaciemonster -- Kaciemonster (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
regarding the decline of Spark (XMPP client) article
My submission has been declined again (https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Spark_%28XMPP_client%29). I've added a few external links, but probably it is not enough. As i said to the previous reviewer, this is a software and newspapers are not usually posting articles about this. The most you can cite is various guides and reviews maybe. So this means that this article probably will never get approved. That's ok, though what nags me, is that there are a large number of articles with no cites or with limited information or notability and they still can live here. Another thing is that this software already has 6 articles in other languages (https://de.wikipedia.org/Spark_%28Instant_Messenger%29). Some of them are half-baked, some outdated. But a visitor can find them and see that they provide outdated information, or maybe not in a language he/she can read. Most probably a visitor will seek for EN version of this and won't find it. I think this is hurting the face of Misplaced Pages. Wroot (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Wroot: Hello, thank you for contacting me about the issue. I asked for the removal of the "Releases" section per WP:LISTCRUFT but by all means use the references in different parts of the article. Yes, there are articles with no references (and rightfully tagged with {{noref}}) but please don't use that in favour of your AfC. I would've probably accepted it if you had removed that section and beefed up the lead a little more. Once done, resubmit it for review if you want another person or myself to look over it again. --Anarchyte 09:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte:Thanks for the clarification. I haven't noticed your comment on the first glance. I will remove the Releases section. Added it based on the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/Openfire As i also watch and update that page (i'm not the original author), maybe i should remove Releases section there also? Should i remove your comment myself or leave it for you or other reviewer? Will add more information to the lead section and resubmit later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroot (talk • contribs)
- @Wroot: I'm currently watching the Draft page, so I'll get a notification when it goes back up. Although... a) I cannot guarantee that it gets accepted by me or anyone else after the resubmission. b) I cannot guarantee I review it. --Anarchyte 10:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte:Thanks for the clarification. I haven't noticed your comment on the first glance. I will remove the Releases section. Added it based on the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/Openfire As i also watch and update that page (i'm not the original author), maybe i should remove Releases section there also? Should i remove your comment myself or leave it for you or other reviewer? Will add more information to the lead section and resubmit later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wroot (talk • contribs)
11:52:51, 23 June 2015 review of submission by 2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0
Hi, just want to ask for some advice, since our article has been rejected multiple times. Are the third parties that we are citing not independent enough? I know that not all these sites are very publicly know, but they are experts in our industry (e.g. Customer Experience Matrix for instance is industry analyst David Raab, a trusted source in our field). What should I seek to improve, is it the number of citations, the quality of citations, or are there also concerns with the text?
Thanks for your help, Best, Ruud BlueConic
2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @2601:182:C701:48F1:C991:DC7B:3AA8:FBF0: Hello. I'm really not the best person to talk to about issues like this since this is my first day doing these reviews. I declined the AfC because of the amount of useless references cluttering the page and the fact that a few of them don't really explain that much about BlueConic. is just a press release and wouldn't help the article in any way except to prove the value of the company in question. shows nothing, just a VERY basic run down of the value of the company (again, pretty much useless). The other references are alright, although if possible they should be expanded upon. There is no lead summarising the entire article which makes it even harder to distinguish notability. --Anarchyte 12:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Rejection of article on Mikrotron Gmbh
Hello, Any suggestions to improve the article on Mikrotron Gmbh would be appreciated. I now understand (from visiting the chat) that I must seek secondary sources and remove information that clutters and is not directly related to the company.
Thank you very much
Javage11 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
00:57:34, 24 June 2015 review of submission by KJacobi1121
- KJacobi1121 (talk · contribs)
KJacobi1121 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I did attempt to make it an informative, neutral piece on the book but will go back and rework it. I can also use more links from outside sources.
Once ready I will re-submit for review.
Talkback
Message added 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Calvin999 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Request on 21:09:32, 24 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mttocs
Hello,
I'm a little confused as to how to address the issue of insufficient context. Do I need to add more text to explain terms such as "console sever," "power-distribution-unit" and "automatic transfer switch," or do I merely need to link to existing Misplaced Pages articles that explain these terms ... or is there something else that I'm missing?
Thanks,
Mttocs Mttocs (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We do not peddle in allegations that have been proven to be false.
I have removed your content at Gamergate Controversy that merely regurgitates allegations against a living person have been shown to be false by every reliable source that has covered the issue . WP:BLP .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.