User talk:Ruud Buitelaar

Hello, Ruud Buitelaar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like it here! Here are a few important links for newcomers:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:CITE, WP:V and WP:NPOV
How to edit a page; How to develop articles; Editing tutorial
Manual of Style; Writing better articles
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Editing by consensus – working well with other Wikipedians

If you'd like some help with editing or otherwise, you can sign up at the new users log, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me on my talk page.

Please sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is a good idea to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the Talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it, to see if your proposed change has been discussed before. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the Talk page to see if anyone minds.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ssilvers! Very useful. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruud Buitelaar! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Was Lina Coen the first woman to conduct an opera in the United States?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruud Buitelaar! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I finish a translation using the translation tool?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruud. A couple of - I hope - helpful pointers. First, any addition to a Wikipedia article must have a citation to a reliable source. Secondly, we have what are called "Featured Articles" (FA), of which Carmen is one: these articles have been through at least one, and usually two, thorough reviews by a number of Wikipedia editors and an agreed text has been arrived at. The articles can still be improved, but it is wise to be cautious before making major alterations to an FA. You can spot the FAs by the little bronze star in the top right of the page. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim, thanks for the pointers! I was unaware of the little bronze star. I thought the links to the other Wikipedia articles, with appropriate references, would suffice. So, I would like to propose this small addition to the Carmen page, with appropriate reference (The New York Times). How do I go about it? thanks in advanceRuud Buitelaar (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Others may disagree, and you can invite views at the article talk page, but I think the information you want to add is of such tangential relevance to Carmen that it does not belong in that article. It may well be of relevance to articles on American women conductors etc, but not, I think, to Carmen. But by all means raise the point in the Carmen talk page and see if other editors have a different view from mine. Meanwhile, I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, despite my wet blanket response on this point. Best, Tim riley talk 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruud. Let me add my welcome. I've left you some links near the top of this page. If you browse through them, they will help you understand more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As Tim notes, whenever you add a new fact to Wikipedia, or change a fact, you need to cite your source (giving the name of the author, title, name of publisher, date, and either page number or url). As for the Carmen factoid, at a minimum, one would need to cite a rock-solid reference to verify who was the first woman conductor of an opera in America. That seems like a dubious assertion to make on the basis of one contemporaneous newspaper article – I'd want to cite a famous opera historian's book on the matter. Also, we do not need to (and shouldn't) add quotes around a single-word ref name. All the best, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers, thanks again for the useful links. Your point on the assertion about the first woman conductor of an opera in America is well taken. I guess one could phrase it in a different way (NYT suggested that this was the first occasion...etc) but then again, Tim´s point about its tangential relevance to the opera as such would become even stronger. The anecdote would maybe fit a Trivia section. I´ll leave it for know and if I come across the rock-solid reference, I´ll bring it up again. Thanks for your help!Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Re: trivia sections, see WP:TRIVIA. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to find relevant categories is to look for an article about a similar person or thing and copy the relevant categories. For Lina Coen, for example, you could compare the categories from Nadia Boulanger and Sarah Caldwell. By the way, you might want to start an article about Antonia Louisa Brico (1902–1989), a Dutch conductor who moved to NY. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Very useful the article on trivia. By the way, the article on Antonia Brico exists in English. I´ll have to see the movie!Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! So it does. It also has some categories that you could steal for Dutch emigree musicians. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking of Dutch conductors, there is no greater admirer on Earth than I of Bernard Haitink, whose concert and opera performances I have been privileged to attend countless times over the last fifty years. (Whatever Ssilvers may say I am not old enough to remember Mengelberg.) Tim riley talk 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Tim was old, only that he had delightful anecdotes of his time with Octavia Hill. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never too old to have some fun!Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, I realise that I put a note on your Dutch Wiki talk page about Jacques van Lier, not realising that you were on UK one as well. Also that the van Lier article was on both sites. I have put a reference on the UK article for his place of burial which is in our village in West Sussex. I mentioned that Jacques brother, Simon, became a director for Keith Prowse Music Publishing and came into contact with Alma Rattenbury and one reference is in a book ^[1]. Also see Francis Rattenbury. I did research the van Lier family in UK whilst helping with a survey of the cemetery where he in buried. There is a copy of Simon's alien record of several pages in the public domain. I got hold of it from National Archive where some digitally copied documents can be down loaded for a small fee (£3.50).^[2] The reason for the alien record is that he did not naturalise until 1947. There is a photo of him in the document. However, as you know primary research is not acceptable on Wikipedia but it is of interest to editors as a background story. All the best. Sidpickle (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Ted[reply]

Hi Ted, thanks for all the pointers! Very interesting. It seems to me that an article on Simon van Lier is possible. His name is mentioned Steve Turner´s book The Band that Played on. I´ll work on it. Warm regards, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Interesting project. The van Lier brothers also had a surgical instrument business, but searching Google ends up with cross referencing other van Lier brothers, so can be frustrating.^[3] Simon remarried in 1947 to Charlotte Loewenstein 1912–1978, birth 18 AUG 1912 Germany, death 17 NOV 1978 Bournemouth. Simon also died in Bournemouth. There was a van Lier studio somewhere I believe run by Simon. Good luck with the project. Sidpickle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Ted[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Netherlands Barnstar of National Merit
		For extensive and much appreciated contributions to Dutch subject matter, for example at Lina Coen and the Chapel of Our Lady, Echt. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gidonb! Greatly appreciated. It has been a lot of fun. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arnold Hendrik Koning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barneveld. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Ruud Buitelaar for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Fabric sound evaluation system, which you proposed for deletion. This doesn't seem to be WP:OR to me. It cites a variety of published papers that seem to support it. Unless there's a WP:SYNTH element I'm missing, for which I apologize. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Once again, apologies if I missed the WP:SYNTH part if that's there. TartarTorte 02:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Problem is, the article reads like a research paper. The citations are the same as the ones in this original research paper. These citations do not refer to independent, significant coverage of the topic. The article seems to be simply a summary of the published scientific paper. The present form is not encyclopedic. But maybe deletion is not the right proposal. It needs to be completely reworked. I´ll try to establish some links in order to get experts have a look at it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Indian Christians, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the content and provided a reliable source. Thank you. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Middlesex Hospital. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This group is not notable and has not generated substantial RS secondary coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ABT021 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Joseph Akongo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:GiantSnowman. The information I added or changed was based on existing spanish-language references already present in the article and on an additional one I had added. The thrust of my edits followed the solid german-language Wikipedia article. I just added an additional reference. I think the article is now well-referenced. Still, the topic is of little importance; a mere anecdote in Uruguayan football history. What mattered to me was to remove the orphan tag. I reviewed all the references and I used the opportunity to improve the article a bit, triggered by the interesting German version. I will leave the english text now as is, I don´t want to spend more time at it, but I insist on removing the orphan tag because the article now has one valid incoming link.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of death metal bands, !–K, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I think Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruud Buitelaar,

If you want a redirect deleted to move a draft to main space, please use Twinkle and select CSD>G6 Move and, in the field, put the name of the page you want moved. This will leave a link to the article. So an admin patrolling CSD categories can quickly review the draft and in one edit, delete the page and move the article. I think you'll get a speedier response to your deletion request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've dealt with the copyvio at Draft:Woestduin but just for future use, the {{copyvio-revdel}} template goes on the article page, not the talk page. Nthep (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. I´ll use a script next time, hopefully that will avoid this type of errors. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud Buitelaar @Ruud Buitelaar,

Thank you for your detailed review and feedback on the Portal Fernández Concha article submission. Your expertise in maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia is invaluable, and I appreciate the time you have invested in evaluating my work. However, I would like to discuss some concerns and request further guidance to enhance the article effectively.

1. Balance Between Promotional and Crime Content: I understand your concerns about certain sections appearing promotional and others overly focused on crime. This might seem contradictory, as promotional content typically emphasizes positive aspects, while a detailed crime section may present a less favorable view. My intention was to provide a comprehensive portrayal of Portal Fernández Concha, covering its historical and contemporary significance. I seek your advice on achieving the right balance between showcasing its cultural and architectural importance and reporting on relevant social issues.
2. Collaboration and Assistance: The threat of deletion, rather than guidance on improvement, is somewhat discouraging, especially for contributors who are eager to add valuable content to Wikipedia. Could you, or other experienced editors, provide more direct assistance or mentorship? This collaborative approach would be more constructive and beneficial for new contributors like myself.
3. Completeness of the Spanish Article: While the suggestion to refer to the Spanish Wikipedia article is helpful, it appears to be incomplete and lacking in certain areas. This gap presents a challenge in using it as a comprehensive model for the English version. Could we collaborate to enhance both the English and Spanish articles, ensuring they comprehensively cover the subject?
4. Seeking Constructive Feedback: I would greatly appreciate more specific guidance on how to improve the article. Could you provide examples of sections that you found particularly problematic or suggest alternative ways to present the information? This constructive approach would be incredibly helpful.
5. Reliability of Sources and Encyclopedic Format: I acknowledge the need for a more rigorous selection of sources and will work to strengthen the article's credibility. Additionally, I will review the language to ensure it aligns more closely with Wikipedia's expected encyclopedic format, addressing your concerns about the formal tone.
6. Crime Section and Sensationalism: The detailed section on recent crimes is intended to provide a factual account of the Portal's current social context. However, I will revisit this section to ensure it balances well with the rest of the article and does not sensationalize the content.
7. Inaccessible Source and Copy-Paste Concern: Regarding the inaccessibility of the source at Patrimonio Urbano, I assure you the content is original. I will cross-reference with other available sources to validate this. https://www.patrimoniourbano.cl/inmuebles-y-zonas-patrimoniales/region-metropolitana/
8. Contemporary Use and Promotional Content: I aimed to illustrate the Portal's role in the community with practical examples. However, I will review these references to avoid any promotional connotations.

I am committed to revising the article to meet Wikipedia's standards and would greatly value a collaborative and supportive approach. I aim to contribute a well-balanced, informative, and neutral article on Portal Fernández Concha and look forward to your continued guidance.

Best regards,

TraceySear840 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @TraceySear840, thank you for reaching out. I appreciate your commitment to contribute to Wikipedia and I am willing to provide some guidance. From what I see in your message, you write well, understand the issues and should be able to make significant contributions. I look forward to that.

1. The issue is not so much the balance between promotion and crime reporting. Wikipedia wants neither. I already mentioned Wikipedia:PROMO. Please also look at Wikipedia:NOTNEWS.
2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions are very straightforward and for good reasons. There are between 6 and 10 questions a reviewer has to answer. Are all the answers Yes, then the article should be published. If one of the answer is No, then the draft should be declined. In this case, there are some issues with the reliability of sources and the neutral point of view. The draft has to be declined. Don´t take it personal; fix the issues and resubmit.
3. The eswiki article on Portal Fernandez Concha can be improved, for sure. It is not a model. Please look at the edit history. The article was written in 2013 and still looks relatively good. There have been a lot of attempts to add crime-related content. All these attempts were promptly reverted and rightly so. If you want a model, please look at Wikipedia:Good articles. There are one or two Good Articles on buildings in Chile, for example Agustín Ross Cultural Centre.
4. Start with improving the structure of the article. For example, why would you start with Architectural style and design and much later have a section on Historical and Architectural significance? That doesn´t make sense to me. Take a look at the structure of Wikipedia:Featured articles about buildings. Start with a section on History.
5. Good.
6. I am not sure why you want to do that. If you do, be very succinct and neutral in tone. Use only very trustworthy sources.
7. I still can´t download the pdf about Portal Fernandez Concha on the Patrimonio Urbano website. I get a message that it is not there. I don´t know what is the problem. You say the text is yours. One example: "Is a testament to this architectural style". Is that really your language? I can´t believe it. It looks like a computer translation from a spanish-language original.
8. OK

Success! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ruud Buitelaar

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I see your point about striking a balance and avoiding promotional or excessively crime-focused content. However, I'd like to bring to your attention an aspect of the Portal Fernández Concha that could significantly enhance its noteworthiness.

Recently, there was a motion in Congress, and remarkably, a resolution was sent to the president, specifically concerning this building. This level of attention from such high governmental bodies is uncommon and underscores the unique significance of Portal Fernández Concha. It goes beyond the usual incidents of anti-social behavior or local interest stories.This is the subject of TV documentaries and is specific to the building in many cases.

I created a section on the congressional votes and I added a section on the paranormal activity.

I feel that incorporating this detail provides a more comprehensive understanding of the building's importance and relevance, contributing to a well-rounded and informative article. Your feedback on how to best include this information while maintaining Wikipedia's standards would be greatly appreciated.

Looking forward to your guidance.

Best regards,

TraceySear840 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decree is certainly noteworthy and deserves to be mentioned in the article. For the paranormal activity, you have two sources. One is a blog, which is not an acceptable source, as I pointed out earlier. The other is La Cuarta. That is not a reliable source either. Without better sources, the section should be removed. The section on the art gallery makes the article more problematic, not less. It has peacock words, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. If I were you, I would start by trimming and shaping the article to something that can be published, not expanding it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ruud Buitelaar,

Thank you for your continued guidance and for highlighting the importance of reliable sourcing, especially in relation to the paranormal activity section. Your expertise is invaluable in navigating these complexities.

I understand the need for high-quality sources to uphold Wikipedia's standards. However, I find myself in a bit of a conundrum regarding La Cuarta. Recognized as a widely-read daily in Chile, its coverage of local events and cultural phenomena often captures the public's attention. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Cuarta While I appreciate the stringent criteria Wikipedia applies to sources, I'm curious about the specific reasons La Cuarta might not be considered reliable in this context. Given the inherently speculative nature of paranormal phenomena, where even the most skeptical scrutiny often leads to inconclusive results, sourcing becomes particularly challenging.

In light of this, could we explore a nuanced approach? Perhaps we could frame the information in a way that reflects the reported experiences without asserting their veracity, thus maintaining a neutral stance. This could provide readers with a cultural perspective on how the Portal Fernández Concha is perceived and discussed among the public, without compromising the article's objectivity.

Other potential sources

https://www.mega.cl/programas/de-paseo/mejores-momentos/157357-salfate-equipo-molestados-energias-paranormales-portal-fernandez-concha.html

This article covers an episode from a television program where the host, Salfate, and his team visit Portal Fernández Concha. During their visit, they reportedly experience disturbances attributed to paranormal energies. The segment highlights personal accounts and experiences of the crew while exploring the site, contributing to the narrative of paranormal activity associated with the building.

https://www.latercera.com/noticia/ruta-turistica-devela-los-secretos-paranormales-del-centro-de-la-ciudad/

This article from La Tercera discusses a tourist route that reveals paranormal secrets in the city center, including the Portal Fernández Concha. It provides an overview of various locations known for their mysterious and unexplained stories, offering insights into local folklore and urban legends. The inclusion of Portal Fernández Concha in this route underscores its significance in the cultural and paranormal lore of the area.

https://www.13.cl/programas/triangulo/momentos/conoce-las-casas-casonas-y-edificios-embrujados-en-chile

In this segment from Canal 13, viewers are introduced to various haunted houses, mansions, and buildings in Chile, with Portal Fernández Concha being featured among them. The program delves into stories and testimonies about supernatural occurrences and hauntings in these locations, adding to the mystique and intrigue surrounding them. The inclusion of Portal Fernández Concha in this list highlights its reputation as a site of paranormal interest.

https://www.lared.cl/2018/programas/hola-chile/inexplicable-el-misterioso-golpe-que-asusto-en-el-estudio-de-matinal-hola-chile

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this matter and how we might navigate the fine line between providing comprehensive coverage and adhering to Wikipedia's rigorous standards.

Warm regards, TraceySear840 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar sorry mystped the @ TraceySear840 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @TraceySear840 Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal for guidance on how to write about paranormal phenomena. I can´t help you with that. As for citing La Cuarta as source, it is a tabloid and as such should be used with care. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Tabloids. As for the draft on Portal Fernández Concha, it is getting worse. The building deserves a decent article. Please show us that you can write one. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go it thanks - Does t13 classify as a tabloid? its a TV, channel, radio and website. TraceySear840 (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No, Canal 13 (Chilean TV channel) is not a tabloid. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruud- I really appreciate your feedback and help.

-

Is it inappropriate to cite then? They have 3 peices on the building like the below

https://www.t13.cl/videos/reportajes-t13/nacional/video-reportajest13-portal-fernandez-concha-vivir-entre-delincuencia-p-8-3-2023

The video is 9 minutes long

Video Title : Features T13: Portal Fernández Concha, living between delinquency and prostitution - March 8, 2023 - 22:22 hrs.

video description: In February, a new shooting outside the Fernández Concha Portal once again put this heritage building in the eyes of the authorities. The old building has been experiencing crime for years without a solution, despite the fact that it has been intervened and several apartments are constantly being broken into. Its neighbors told us what it is like to live in the midst of shootings, drugs and prostitution. TraceySear840 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also dont mind just collating sources if someoneelseknows better how towritethe article. TraceySear840 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TraceySear840 There is nothing in the video that is worth mentioning in the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar: You may want to see WP:AN/I#Chris Toutman - Portal Fernandez Concha^[sic]. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Jéské Couriano for pointing this out Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put quite a bit of text into CHATGPTZero which said 98% probability it was AI generated, as is I think a lot of the above. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar Thanks for the feedback TraceySear840 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Ruud Buitelaar! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

		The Citation Barnstar
		For good work during WP: FEB24 drive! Davidindia (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Ruud Buitelaar for collecting more than 100 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]