User talk:Gronk Oz/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Avoiding edit war

Hello Gronk Oz. I have thought it useful for me to update Wikipedia articles on subjects that I am researching for other purposes. I use a small subset of information I gather for Wikipedia updates and, of course, only published material can be used for the Wikipedia articles. (One can usually tell where I have been - there is typically one or two citation reference numbers at the end of each sentence.) Where I have information from unpublished sources, I do not use or reference it in a Wikipedia article.

What should one do when articles are subsequently damaged by people who don't know a subject well, use one or two references out of context to justify a position, and then doggedly re-edit an article to suit their conclusion? I don't see value in citing 30-50 published articles - resulting in a string of 30-50 superscript citation numbers - after single a word to try to demonstrate that a term I have used really is the term that was used for the item concerned. I don't really have an interest in a combative "s/he who edits last wins and proves reality." If people were interested in working collegially to identify the best way to present material, that would be good. But where they have only their own preferences and insist on that being what goes into Wikipedia, point scoring rather than good articles seems to be the objective.

Can you advise? If there is no place in Wikipedia for well-crafted, robustly-based articles, I can desist from trying to improve articles covering subjects I happen to have researched for other purposes and spend my life on more productive enterprises. Vogel Era (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (John Dwyer (medicine)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating John Dwyer (medicine), Gronk Oz!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An excellent read!

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Winged Blades ^Godric 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	That's for writing such an excellent piece. Winged Blades Godric 16:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bronco busted

That was a mistake. Browser hanging a little, mouse pointer at the wrong place when I clicked it... I meant to only rv the last change, deleting the "Sources" section... I'll have a look at the history & fix the rest. Sorry 'bout that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Philippe K Ziade

Dear, Philippe Ziade is a living entrepreneur and there's another Philippe Ziade on wikipedia which creating many confusion. I am an aerospace engineer and not an expert editor like you on wikipedia. I created myself the article gathering online references after watching many TV interviews featuring this guy and wanted to be my first article and learn more wikipedia tweaks to participate in other scientific articles. The intention wasnt in any way promotional and I hope you can help me creating the article in the correct wikipedia guidelines. Could you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Rawad00: I replied on the page where the question was originally asked, so that other editors can follow the whole conversation if they want to. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Gronk Oz: Thank you for your help, I tried removing many external links and added some more references, will continue on searching for more. Your contribution is mostly welcomed. User:Rawad00 (talk)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

May 22, 2017 issue of Twice Magazine lists Micro Center 9th among Top 100 U.S. Consumer Electronics Retailers

Dear Gronk Oz, I have checked the reference pages for TWICE Magazine and they do work; would you consider this update worthy of inclusion on the Micro Center Wikipedia page? The May 22, 2017 issue of TWICE Magazine, a trade journal for the Consumer Electronics industry, lists Micro Center 9th among the top 100 U.S. consumer electronics retailers with sales of $2.493 billion - would it be possible to update the 2015 sales figure?66.194.187.100 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 4119Leap (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)4119Leap 4119Leap (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)4119Leap (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

South Geelong Page

Hi,

Could you help me fix the South Geelong wikipedia page? The bar on the right is all screwed up and I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kualityedits (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Y Hi, @Kualityedits: How is it now? In the Infobox (that's what "the bar on the right" is called) there is a parameter called "pop_footnotes" which points to the Census Quickstats where the population figure came from. The problem was that the URL should have been within <ref> ... </ref> tags, but it wasn't. So instead of just producing a nice neat footnote, it tried to type out the whole URL in the Infobox, making it way too wide. I did a little more tidying up too while I was there, but didn't change the contents. Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Please don't use the {{stub}} if you can find a more specific stub type. This script plus "control/command F" can help out. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I dream of horses, but I am a bit confused - I don't remember adding {{stub}} to any articles in living memory. Did you have a particular article in mind? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

At Bridgmanganj; since you're using the page curation bar, I assume probably others as well. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Ah, I see - I don't use the "page curation bar" (I'm not even sure what that is), but that tag was added by the AWB tool. If it's not appropriate, then the issue really should be raised at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I do not know how to run that script you refer to - I clicked on the link and it talks about Javascript, which I have zero knowledge of. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On a second look, you're right. I typically don't tell AWB users to stub sort, since they probably backlog Category:Stubs the least amount. You can proceed as normal. My apologies.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert on 'Amateur Astronomy' article

@Gronk Oz:@Hertz1888: I have immediately reverted your recent edit on Amateur Astronomy [3] as deliberate vandalism. Principally, you have openly avoided WP:GF, especially saying as the reasoning that: "Undo a change which destroyed the flow, used very poor English, and introduced a personal bias into what amateurs do or don't without support." Accusing me of 'personal bias' is particularly grievous here. This is also your own opinion, and if you disagree, it is better to trying and gain a consensus. Better still, you should be more polite, and contacted me with your grievances before making unfounded statements.

The edit that was posted by me was a inadvertent mistake, as it was my own draft and not the one I intended. It should not have been posted. In response, I have again edited this introductory information.

Finally, as volunteer editors here with many years experience, you should immediately consider changing your own approach here, and be less provocative or harsh. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest you look at the version prior to my last edit, which also has many prexisting flaws I.e. [4] I will attempt to fixes some of these problems now. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalism for other editors to revert the edit with the numerous grammatical flaws that you posted twice. Better proofreading might have avoided triggering such strong reactions. Now that you have made corrections the lead reads much better. Thanks for the fixes and explanation. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:@Hertz1888: I have made another further attempt to improve this introductory text. Mostly I attempted to remove the repetition. Could you please advise me of any significant issues or problems with these new changes via the Talkpage? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:@Hertz1888: I have just added eight suitable references into this article. Further ones are need in the main text of the document. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I am sorry if you found my reversion hurtful. As an experienced editor yourself, you might care to revise Wikipedia's normal practice of WP:BRD - it is expected that changes will be made, reverted if there is disagreement, then discussed on the article's Talk page if the original proponent still feels it is worthwhile. It is not a personal attack, just business as usual. So to pick one specific example, if you propose removing the reference to amateurs using observatories then it seems like something that should go to the Talk page and it probably should have a reference, since magazines are full of articles about amateurs who do have permanent observatories of their own and others who use shared observatory facilities through clubs. That is the sort of thing I was referring to as "personal bias into what amateurs do or don't without support" - if there was some other reason then you have my apologies. So you did the right thing by being bold and making that change, and I believe I also did the right thing by reverting it. Nevertheless, I did not mean to cause any ill feeling. The next step is to discuss the issues civilly on the Talk page. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Saying "...if you propose removing the reference to amateurs using observatories then it seems like something that should go to the Talk page and it probably should have a reference, since magazines are full of articles about amateurs who do have permanent observatories of their own and others who use shared observatory facilities through clubs" I never did this, said this, nor did I add "clubs". That was done by Hetrz1888, not me. Either state the actual 'personal bias' slight or withdraw the incorrect accusation. 'Ill feeling' and 'hurtful' are irrelevant. Stick to the actual facts, please. The only central issue for me here is avoiding WP:GF, and you saying "personal bias" did exactly that. [Worst, this entire article is a utter mess, with few cites at all and many odd contradictions. Much of the preexisting text is already hearsay.] Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: It's my turn to admit an error - looking at the Diff, I got the orange and blue highlighting mixed up. Indeed, you added the observatory mention, not removed it. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive that mistake of mine. To move forward, I can only repeat that the proper action if your edits are reverted is to discuss the relative merits of different options on the article's Talk page. Don't start an edit war by reverting other editors' reversions. I will not take part in such an edit war. What goes into the article is not up to you and me; Wikipedia operates on a general consensus among editors. Taking it to the Talk page allows more editors to contribute their views, which produces a better article in the end result - and that's why we are here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alan Duffy (astronomer)

On 26 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Duffy (astronomer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that astronomer Alan Duffy is constructing a dark matter detector 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) underground in a gold mine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Duffy (astronomer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Duffy (astronomer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Check Before Correcting

Make sure you check the official team name with spelling before correcting spelling. Acces Interdit is the correct spelling. Northern Championship Wrestling is a Quebec promotion. Therefor, some of the names are French based. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: Thanks for pointing that out. I have put the other corrections back on the article NCW Tag Team Championship. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

≠== Need help for the page Half Major ==

Dear Mr Gronk Oz,

As you see,this is my first wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Major .Since I am more of a novice,thank you for correcting and helping me with the references.I have deleted the lines where citations were needed and made the information minimum.I have also corrected the links in the References section and you may see that the links are not expired.I have also added a category section. The second link is that of a bengali newspaper.The performances of this band is reported in the 2nd page of that daily.Since I am fluent in both Bengali and English I have taken references from this daily.The information is 100% genuine,assured.I have also corrected a few more things.

I am grateful for your suggestions and have tried to make it authentic as much as possible.

Thanking you, Prithwi Raj India [GOD!You actually memorised the first 71 digits of pi!!!]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithwi Raj (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prithwi Raj: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope this is the start of a long association. I have improved those two references, although I do not speak Bengali at all so I was not able to determine the title for the article in dindarpan.com, nor the name of that newspaper itself - perhaps you could fill those in?

However, there is a more important issue - Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable, independent sources have to say about the subject in extensive, in-depth coverage. So the first step before writing the article is to collect all the best references. And the problem with the Half Major article is the lack of such references. One is a blog (not considered reliable, since anybody can write a blog) and the newspaper seems to be just a passing mention that they performed at a festival: not a detailed article about the band itself. Even the blog says that this band is still struggling to establish itself. Wikipedia is for subjects that have already established themselves as being "notable" (in Wikipedia's particular meaning of that word). Perhaps it is too soon for this band to have an article - it is likely that this article might be deleted unless more substantial references can be found to support it. If you want to improve the article, that should be your main focus.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

OPPO R11

In light of your recent advert tag to the article, I would like to know how I can improve the article and revert the promotional content. Forgive me as I am a newbie and I am not sure where I should start. --Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ernestchuajiasheng, and thanks for the question. I see that you have already improved the article, and you're on the right path. The major thing that will help is to base everything in the article on independent, in-depth coverage, and avoid material that originated from the company itself. This includes avoiding articles that are based on press releases. Then check for so-called "peacock words" and phrases, such as "Moreover, the phone will have..." which sounds more like advertising copy than an encyclopedia article. Finally, it would be best to stick to standard formatting for numbers, such as "20 MP" rather than "20-MP". Once you are confident that you have made the article impartial and balanced, you are welcome to remove the tag. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Ernestchuajiasheng: because I got it wrong last time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gronk Oz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we mention which Doctor it is?

Hi Gronk Oz.

I just wanted to ask a question about List of fictional crossovers regarding the Finishing story plot lines section:

In that section, it mentions that The Doctor encounters the character Death's Head in the Death's Head series. While I know this might not be a major thing, the only Doctor that crossed-over with Death's Head is the 7th Doctor. To go further, Death's Head originally met the 7th Doctor in issue #135 of Doctor Who Magazine, when the former collided with the Doctor's TARDIS.

Now normally, I wouldn't go and edit this page without sources, but if you could look into this & let me know whether or not you think I should make an edit to change "The Doctor" to "The 7th Doctor", I'd be much grateful.

Thanks again,

Cypher7850 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cypher7850. It warms my heart to see a relatively new editor taking sources seriously. List articles often don't contain references because they would become terribly cluttered; those references are in the linked articles instead. In this case, the article on Death's Head has much of the information you mention, along with references, so there is no need to duplicate those in the List. By all means clarify the list by saying which incarnation of The Doctor is involved. Then check that the Death's Head article contains all the rest of the information you want. Hope that helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk.

Thanks for your input. I've gone ahead & made the change, along with adding the Comic & issue number that the two first met in.

Could you check if it's good enough?

Thanks again,

Cypher7850 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Y @Cypher7850: Looks good to me. Keep up the good work. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

... for copy-editing Johannes Kalitzke. Why you have to tag a new article under development, I don't know. If you feel you have to (but for whom?) take the right tag, "inline", when plenty of sources are there under External links. Articles from the German Wikipedia are typically sourced only by literature, not inline. Give me seven days please, next time, to adjust to en standards and make it ready for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda Arendt. In English Wikipedia, works in progress should normally be developed in Draft or User space before being published in Article space: that allows you to take all the time you need to get the article into good shape. The Article space is for completed articles. Once articles are published there, it is appropriate to add tags that identify problems that should be addressed to improve the article, such as the lack of references. This article only had External links, but no references. External references should not be used for references: they are different things. So the tag is quite consistent with my reading of the criteria for {{unreferenced}}. You may remove that tag once you are satisfied that the problem has been resolved. I am puzzled why you mention how sources are done in German Wikipedia - this is English Wikipedia. Finally, if you are considering nominating this article for DYK then in addition to adding references, it will need to be expanded. Currently the "readable prose size" is 1095 characters, and the minimum for DYK is 1500 characters and "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers."(see WP:DYKRULES) --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation, exactly what I needed after having written more than 200 articles this year, of which 199 appeared on DYK. - I was on vacation, on an erratic line, and interrupted before completion, and have other more important things to do right now. - You didn't answer for whom these tags are good, at all. The usual reader will see without tag that a reference section is empty, and will also see that an article is there in three other languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: We all thank you for your extensive contributions. I am sorry if adding the tag somehow offended you, but it's not a big deal: just remove it once the references are added. To answer your question, tagging the article serves at least two purposes. Firstly, it alerts a reader that the statements made in the article are not supported and so they should take care to verify the information. (I think you overestimate the lay reader's familiarity with Wikipedia's standards to assume that they would notice that references were missing.) Secondly, it adds the article to Category:Articles lacking sources and the lists of Unreferenced articles which facilitates other editors' work on addressing such problems. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not offended, just wondering why time is spent on tagging. For some reason, it happened more this year than before (pictured 1, pictured 2). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I never edited either of those articles, so I am reluctant to speculate about other people's motivations. I can just read the comments they left at the time. The first one, Hochschule für Musik Mainz, seems to have been nominated for deletion in error: the nominator was not aware that it was a university, and did not appear to be aware of the guideline at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The reliance on self-published refs is a warning flag for most articles' notability, but in this case did not support deletion. The second article, Der Messias, has a general tag for copy editing and inline citation-needed tags. The wording was awkward in places (which is common in translated articles), but personally I would not have tagged it for that. The {{cn}} tags seem valid, but quite overdone in my opinion: in the Music section there was no need to tag every instrument individually, one for the paragraph would serve the purpose.

In my own case, I often check new articles, generally using the AWB tool. Mostly it picks up typos, etc. It also automatically adds some tags, e.g. for orphan articles. And sometimes I notice other problems in the process, such as an article without references. In that case sometimes I will start the project of investigating the subject to try to find references, if the topic is of particular interest to me - otherwise I tag it if the issue is significant and move on to check the next article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave it like that. "Orphan" is another tag I always shake my head when I see it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Kalitzke --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, @Gerda Arendt: unfortunately, I don't feel I am competent to review it because the major source is in German, and I do not speak German at all. However, I do have a couple of comments to offer:

1. I am concerned that it missed the 7-day window to nominate for DYK. The article was created at 12:44 on November 15, 2017 and nominated at 20:20 on November 22, 2017.
2. It meets the size criterion now: "readable prose size" is 2144 characters, well over the threshold of 1500.
3. There are more red-links than are normally preferred. Some of these (Jeanette Chéro, Wolfgang von der Nahmer, Carla Henius, and Deutscher Musikrat) are inter-language links using the {{ill}} template, which is only suitable if you consider that those subjects will have an English Wikipedia article in future - otherwise the format "[[:de:Jeanette Chéro]]" is preferred, per H:IW. Other red links (for Forum für Neue Musik. Johann-Wenzel-Stamitz-Preis, and Bernd-Alois-Zimmermann-Stipendium) should only be used for notable subjects that should exist in the English encyclopedia. I cannot comment about whether that is the case here or not, but be prepared for questions about that.
4. The second reference (moz.ac.at) looks self-published, so should only be used sparingly.
5. Earwig's Copyvio detector found 13% confidence of violation ("unlikely"), and the overlap was mostly on job titles, names of organisations, and similar appropriate uses.

Good luck with the DYK nomination! --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Should I have added FYI? I didn't expect a review ;) - If any guideline suggests to prefer a direct link to a foreign Wikipedia, it should be changed. Ask Graham87 who pointed out to me years ago how difficult that can be for a reader. Interlanguage links are great, even if no article is pending, because they show notability, and offer text in a different language clearly marked as such. I will reduce the red links by writing the articles, but don't do more than one article a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the pointer to Graham87 - what a fascinating story. And I did enjoy seeing the barnstar you left there. If you're satisfied that those topics will have their own articles in due course, then leave them as they are. There are different approaches for inter-language links, depending on how notable the topic is in English. If it will have an article eventually, then {{ill}} is the way to go. I look forward to following the progress of your DYK nomination. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz and Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the pings and the kind words. Yes, Gerda and I did indeed have a conversation about this nearly eight years ago. I'm not a fan of plain inline interwiki links in articles, but they're mentioned by the help page on this topic, so ... meh Graham87 14:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK that neither hours and minutes nor red links are part of DYK criteria? (The "newness" is a fine thing to reject an otherwise insufficient nom without much effort, but I'd grant several days of grace to a fine nom.) I think your talent and diligence could help GA and FAC reviewing! (Both have a backlog.) - Yesterday's red-link-filler developed nicely, and today's will grow. - Look at List of composers by name: a red link in another Wikipedia establishes notability enough to be included, without considering a future article in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you're right about the flexible time requirement. The first Eligibility criterion requires that "A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old", though an individual reviewer may decide to be lenient - I hope so. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

My native language is not English, but in this thread I feel it more than normally, sigh. - Did I say newness was not needed? No, I wanted to express that it isn't judged by hours and minutes. On the seventh day after "creation/expansion/move to main space" (whatever hour and minute) is enough. I have given others IAR exemption from the seven days even, but so far not needed it myself. Today, because of that limit, I will have to expand Wolfram Röhrig but that can be now or right before midnight. I'll begin now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, appeared today, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Congratulations! --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

SnatchBot

Hi Gronk Oz. There is a company called SnatchBot who have repeatedly tried to create a Wiki page. They've contacted me and I do believe they are noteworthy, although they might not have been at the time of their earlier attempts. If you have a moment, could you give your own opinion on this? I ask, because you were one of the people who rejected the earlier versions. These are the references they have given me:

• A mention in a book: https://www.amazon.com/Chatbots-Introduction-Easy-Guide-Making/dp/1999834801/,
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/mnewlands/2017/12/22/these-chatbot-usage-metrics-will-change-your-customer-service-strategy/,
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/business-reporter/snatchbot-future-business-communications/,
• http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=439853&ver=html5&p=12%20%E2%80%A6#{"page":12,"issue_id":439853},
• http://www.businesscomputingworld.co.uk/chatbot-trends-and-advances-for-2018/,
• https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-easiest-free-chatbot-creation-sites-594890/6/,
• https://chatbotsmagazine.com/the-future-of-chatbots-an-interview-with-avi-ben-ezra-of-snatchbot-me-aea0028a8319,
• https://chatbotsmagazine.com/five-situations-where-you-should-use-a-chatbot-5a3f97fd56da,
• https://www.facebook.com/chatbotsummit/photos/a.1871026133127309.1073741828.1836788306551092/1980067598889828/?type=3&theater

I've also posted these in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/M-S but as you are aware, such requests are not usually addressed.

For full disclosure, I acknowledge that if the SnatchBot page is created, they will pay me, so maybe I'm being biased in my examination of these sources. That's something you can take into account.

Cheers,

Jean JeanBennel (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@JeanBennel: Thanks for bringing this up so openly - it will make the process go more smoothly. You probably already know this, but you should be sure to follow the procedure at WP:PAID to be sure everything is above board.

I took a look through all the references you listed above, and the first four look pretty convincing to me. After that, the others carry less weight, being brief mentions or self-published. That doesn't mean they can't be used, but they don't count much for notability. However, it seems to meet the criteria at WP:COMPANY - if it came up for deletion with the references you list above, I think my vote would be to keep. Other people may feel differently.

Where you might struggle is that much of that coverage focuses on the PRODUCT, whereas this article is about the COMPANY of the same name. The company does not "inherit" notability from the product (see WP:INHERITORG). So in your researches, it would be good to keep in mind that you want sources that cover the company itself in depth. I also searched for any awards the company might have won, but I could not find any - if you can find independent industry awards or similar then they would also contribute to notability.

I hope this helps. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gronk Oz, I appreciate the time you spent looking into the references. For now, I'll leave it as a request for the company entry to be made and see if any kind editor will take it up. And I shall advise the company to win a few awards! Cheers JeanBennel (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kedungbanteng, Tegal

Thank you so much for improving my article. But, I have one question for you, why my article doesn't appear on search engine? Can you help to tell me how to? Thanks in advance. RezaSetiawan02 (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC) RezaSetiawan02 (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@RezaSetiawan02: I am not clear what search engine you are using, and I really don't understand much about the details of how they work. I do know that Google, for example, often takes over a week to be updated when sites change - but I can't comment on how that compares to other search engines. You might have to contact the administrators of the specific search engine and ask them how they build their indexes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sailortown (dockland): Changing title

Hi Gronk Oz, As you edited this new article, I'm seeking your help to change it to Sailortown. Because the article Sailortown (Belfast) already exists, I cannot make the move myself. Sailortown (dockland) is the main article. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day @Rwood128: that's a good question. There is currently a redirect at "Sailortown" to Sailortown (Belfast), so I can't do a normal move. I'm not sure how to do that, so I have asked at the Help Desk, with this question. We should get an answer soon, but it's nearly 3am here so I might be in bed before then... --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rwood128: My pleasure - and I learned something in the process, so it's all good! --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer review reply

@Gronk Oz: I replied to you on my David Meade peer review. I do have a few questions for you. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Planet X - The 2017 Arrival.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Planet X - The 2017 Arrival.jpg. 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) 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Help & voice for a solid article with references/notability proven, but still proposed deleted

Hi Gronk Oz. Thank you so much for assisting in improving my article. I've also added 2 additional references since you helped fill gaps and cleanup when this initial proposed deletion came up. I'm wanting to get on the right path to fully contending and keeping a proposed deleted article. The major thing that will help is to base the already 23 references provided that were validated and are not so much in question. I've familiarized myself with as many Wikipedia policies and guidelines as possible, but would like to please ask for your assistance and voice to also be present on the talk page and disputing the proposed deletion of Bryan_Earl_Kreutz. It's very refreshing to have someone like you meticulously review all references and help improve the page by taking sources seriously. There seems to be a point about notability in reference to the release date of 1 of 2 of Bryan's most notable roles. This has proven to be correct by me now and not the admin after the proposed deletion in two referenced instances... IMDb and on the films trailer at the end that shows 1-1-2018 as a release. The rest of the article also has 5 other Wikipedia pages of notability for the name Bryan Kreutz as notable TV/Film/radio producer/acting roles that link to it. Your help and voice are greatly appreciated.Techform (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Techform. In order to challenge the proposal to delete the article, you need to show that the subject has been discussed in depth by independent, reliable sources. Please read that again, focusing on the bold parts. Then read the article WP:42, it is a brief expansion on the three main elements there. I know it sounds like I am repeating myself there - I am, on purpose. Because that is what is required. If you can produce a list of (say) three reliable sources, which are independent of the subject and his shows, and which devote a significant amount of space to discussing him - that is what you need. That is what people are asking for, and not getting.

Things like IMDb are not considered independent, because they are generally written by people associated with the show. And not reliable, because anybody could change it. Several of the sources are restricted so I can't see them, to tell whether they are any good. The ones I looked at do not have any more than a passing mention of Mr Kreutz, so they don't really establish his notability. But if there are any good sources, please list the very best ones (meeting the three criteria above) at the AfD discussion. This is how you show notability. Alternatively, if he has won significant industry awards that will also help to demonstrate his notability.

I did not comment on the AfD because I cannot tell whether there are any references that have significant coverage of him.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. You :*Request for clarification you pose back to me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Earl Kreutz The To answer your question Is first posed with a question to you. I want to make sure I phrase it correctly and post it here first before on the AFD discussion talk page please. I have 4 additional articles that are dated, only a few years prior, but they are no longer on the official newspaper websites any longer, but all used to be. As of now they are located on intensefaceboss.webs.com which is an archive of 2010's newspaper articles. One is a .pdf screenshot of the newspaper which has 2 total pages to it mainly of Kreutz. Is there a way that can be used as a link to suffice for your top three sources you ask for? The .pdf and the other references all very significantly have significant coverage of Kreutz. There has to be some exceptions for Newspaper archived sites using the name "Kreutz in depth by independent, reliable sources" from the recent past who have verifiable editor/writers of the articles. these are the ones that were initially fixed and better referenced by you, but need inclusion for notability. Should I also reference that the admin NatGertler acknowledges another 1 at the top of her list she referenced already?, St.Louis Post dispatch, as being a significant source with Kreutz. Here's the links to my top 3

By Leah Williams - Centralia Morning Sentinel:

By By Teri Maddox - News-Democrat BND.com

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 1st of 2 pages

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 2nd of 2 pages

Techform (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Gronk Oz Also I want to mention I'm waiting until you advice on the next best course of action for the above references before stooping down to this other Admin's level who appears to be marginalizing to a minimal mention in the lowest degree every reference. Kreutz's has several mentions by his first name in these below referenced sources she states are only one mention. Lastly the Play Channel Magazine article was a anecdote joke and nod to the actor by the same name of the journalist Neil McDonald who wrote the article so it is independent. Not sure again if I should address that yet? Please let me know and thank you for your help

1. Play Channel Magazine - what appears to be a local interview magazine, article written by one of the actors on the show being covered. As such, not a third-party source.
2. Inside St.L - one-sentence mention of Kreutz.
3. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry - one-sentence mention

Techform (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi, Techform. I had some trouble understanding just what you were saying, but I took a good look at the refs you sent above. Firstly, it does not matter whether the sources are online or not. I am not sure why you split the references into two lists - here are my comments in the order they appear above:

Ref	Comments
1 Play Channel Magazine	This is an interview with him (among others) - it might be useful as a source for some information, but it does nothing to show notability.
2 Inside St.L	Mentions him only in passing, in one sentence.
3 Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry	Mentions him only in passing, in one sentence.
1 Williams, Leah.	Has a few references - better than anything above, but not really in depth.
2 "Living articles about food home & travel from in Belleville, IL - BND.com Belleville News-Democrat"	This is more like it: it's just a very short article, but it's actually about him.
3 Robertson, Kim.	Great - the more articles like this can be found, the better.
4 Robertson, Kim	(This does not seem to be a separate article; it looks like the second page of the one above.

So I suggest adding the one by Robertson, Kim (both parts) to the discussion, and probably the Belleville News one as well. Good luck.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Gronk Oz Thank you very much. I truely appreciate your walking me through the best and sound practices for this difficult process. I've taken your suggestions refined and posted on the talk page deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Earl Kreutz

Techform (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Louis Harrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Coulter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed I have removed that Wikilink.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Name correction with AWB.

I assume the name correction feature is automatic or according to the MOS but this edit is wrong. Icelandic people, people from Nordic countries in general, especially historically, were named according to the patronymic naming system, (see Icelandic names), so Helgi G. Thordersen is more or less Helgi son of Thor, Thordersen is not a surname and he would always be referred to by first name, even formally. A child of his would be Name + Helgi - ending. I think this naming system is a common enough occurrence but obscure enough that I should point it out to you. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I apologize for that mistake Prince of Thieves. I see that you have already fixed the problem. I was aware of this convention for many Asian names, but not for Nordic countries - I will keep that in mind in future. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, if it helps, names of this style normally end with -son ( -søn -sen) or -dóttir (-dotter -datter) and are more common historically. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

@Gronk Oz: I’m just curious but do you review GA article nominees? If so, would you like to review the Jim Bakker article I’ve been working on. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Sorry, I have never written or reviewed a GA. I tried following the discussion of one GA nomination a while ago, but it gave me a headache.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: That sucks. I’m ready for both Jim Bakker and David Meade (author) to be reviewed. Hopefully someone does it. —LovelyGirl7 talk 17:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Help with deletion tag

Hi! I created a new article and it's reported for deteltion. can you tell me what i should do to prevent it? This is my first article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisaram (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Krisaram: it's a pity that you are going through this with your first article. I assume this question relates to Balaji Murugadoss. Reading the deletion proposal (here), the issue is whether this person meets Wikipedia's standards for being "notable" (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term). Basically, Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that are "notable", which mostly means that it needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (There is a good, short description at WP:42.) So in order to support the article, you need to provide details of the sources that have covered him in detail: list the books that have been written about him, articles that have been written about him in major newspapers, television documentaries about him, etc. Note that they need to talk about him specifically, not just a brief mention while talking about the contest he won. For example, I just added a reference to an article in The Navhind Times, but it does not help show he is notable because it only mentions him in one sentence. Once you have your list of good references, put them in a response to the deletion proposal (here). At the top of that page are some news links that might help in finding related news coverage. I hope this helps. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your valued suggestions. I've added a detailed article from a newspaper dtnext.in. If there is anything else i can add please suggest me.Krisaram (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good start, Krisaram, even though it is only two paragraphs. Keep adding articles like that, and make sure you say how you you have improved the sources at the deletion discussion (here). Don't assume that everybody will keep checking the article to see what improvements you have made; tell them about it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk reply

Here you thought you were on The Teahouse.

I got mixed up myself the other day and almost left a notification for someone that they had a response on The Teahouse, but then realized it was supposed be the Help Desk. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

OOPS! Thanks for alerting me, Vchimpanzee. I will try to be more careful, to avoid confusing newcomers.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Response To Editing Tupac Shakur Wiki Page

Appreciate response. Am at a total loss as to how to add something to Tupac Shakur Wiki Page. Have tried repeatedly but am getting nowhere. I just want to add to his Personal Life section about Kidada Jones, Quincy Jones daughter. Her being his last girlfriend, some say fiancé including her at the time of his death. Also how they met due to an article he wrote in 1993 about her father which was pretty rude. They met a couple years later & in time mended the rift about the article & that's when they started dating. Am getting nowhere in adding this. I really am extremely unfamiliar with this whole process. Is there people to call about editing? 2PacKidada (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

2PacKidada, I was here reading a response to my message and I saw yours. You can be bold and do the edit if you have independent reliable sources that state everything you are trying to add. Sometimes you may have to discuss on the talk page. Click on the links provided to learn more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fielding that question, Vchimpanzee. For this specific article, the situation is a little more complex - but still manageable. Unfortunately, the article Tupac Shakur has been vandalized a lot in the past, so the administrators have made it "semi-protected". This restricts who can edit it directly, and at the moment your permissions won't let you. So rather than trying to edit the article directly, I recommend using the article's Talk page (Talk:Tupac Shakur) to explain what you think should be added or changed and give the references to support it. Editors who are involved with that page can discuss the proposal, and once there is a general agreement the article is updated to reflect what was agreed. I understand if this seems overly bureaucratic, but it is intended to keep the standard of the article high by stopping the vandalism. I encourage you to engage with that process: go ahead and repeat what you said above in a new section on that Talk page, together with good sources to support it - I expect you will find the other editors there will be quite happy to have a discussion about it. By all means mention that you are new and not sure how the process works; they should help to guide you through it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

K2-155d

Whats Up Gronk Oz . I created the article K2-155d and I’m just curious, since your part of the astronomy WikiProject, what do you think so far about the article, especially with how I’ve been doing on it? LovelyGirl7 talk 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I love exoplanets ... we truly live in amazing times to see all these discoveries happening while we watch! But that wasn't what you asked, was it. That article is coming along nicely, and it is probably about the right length for the subject (considering how many exoplanets there are, even ones that might be in the Goldilocks Zone). Importantly, you collected a good range of reliable sources that are independent of the organizations involved in the research.

If you're looking for suggestions, there are a couple of minor clarifications that might help:

1. At the end of "Observations" it says "The W. M. Keck Observatory, another observatory located near the summit of Mauna Kea, also emerges as a place that could provide future data for K2-155d and measure its mass." This doesn't really say anything about the subject, just that Keck could be used. And even that is a bit of a stretch from the source, which says "an 8 to 10-meter telescope like the 10-meter Keck Telescope" could be used - but no such observatoins are planned. I suspect that sentence could be removed, or at least toned down.
2. Most of the article says the planet can probably support liquid water, but at the end of "Orbit" it contradicts this, saying "its orbit is closer to the star than the internal limit of the habitable zone." If there is disagreement, that should be covered explicitly in the section on "Habitability potential".
3. Finally, in "Habitability potential" I would remove the reference to "impressive results" - unless some independent source said how impressive they were.

I hope this helps - keep up the good work! --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Gronk Oz: regarding your statements, I removed “impressive results” from “Habitility potential”. I also added Keck to the article regarding the observatory, however I’m not 100% sure if the sentence seems accurate. If not accurate, feel free to let me know below a revised sentence version of the sentence mentioned Keck Observatory. I did removed the last sentence from Orbit. Do you believe the article should have a picture of the planet? If so, I do would like a link to which picture seems accurate and fits the license Wikipedia accepts. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: looking good. I made a few copy-edits, mostly just putting related material together. I still can't see the point of the Keck sentence, especially expounding on where that scope is, since it does not relate to the planet which is supposed to be the subject. I would omit it. Similarly, the final sentence in "Habitability potential" could go: it does not have a reliable source, and it does not accurately reflect what that source says anyway. As for pictures, I don't know what picture you could use. A picture is always great where you can find a relevant one, but what would be relevant here? There are no pictures of the planet. The diagrams from Exoplorer.org are all copyright, so can't be used. Did you have something particular in mind?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly @Gronk Oz: for pictures, it can be any of these in K2-155d Google Images. As for the last sentence in the section “Habitability potential”, it came from Geek.com saying it can host alien life as well. I’m not sure if it’s unreliable. I do want to keep the sentence regarding Keck, but make changes to it rather than omit it. If I make changes to the sentence, could you please let me know what the revised sentence would be like so I can add/change it. Thanks ! —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an interesting picture in the Infobox of Gliese 1214 b which could form a good basis for this one - it just needs a suitable size disc for this planet. Perhaps its author would help to create the new one? Similarly, it would be nice it there were an updated version of something like the pictures at List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets#Gallery, but obviously they don't get updated every time a new planet is found. Once more K-2 data is analyzed they will probably issue an update, but I can't find any at the moment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That sucks @Gronk Oz:. I’m the person who created K2-155d. I do hope someone uploads a image of K2-155d. I by the way just added planetary radius info boxes to compare it to Jupiter and Earth. Thoughts? —LovelyGirl7 talk 12:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: brilliant! I never knew there was an automated tool that would produce such a comparison diagram; I think it is about perfect.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: thank you. Do you believe I should nominate it for GA? Or do you think I should do it if I feel its ready? --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I have never been involved with a GA nomination, so I really can't comment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits on K2-155d

Thank you for your edits on K2-155d. I really appreciate it and I’m glad your my friend here. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: - my pleasure. I hope this is the start of a long and happy Wikipedia career for you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is, and you and @Katolophyromai: are one of the reasons I love this place. You both are my heroes and my favorite editors I’ve ever seen on this project. I will always talk to both of you guys if I want/need anything . —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also @Gronk Oz: I created a new article, this time about Ed Krassenstein, a journalist who stalks Donald Trump on Twitter each day and was accused of running a Ponzi scheme along with his brother Brian. If you would love to help out, feel free to do so. I believe in you! —LovelyGirl7 talk 05:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, @LovelyGirl7: - I'll take a look at that and send you any suggestions. Meanwhile, if you're interested to see what I'm working on at the moment, it is some of the people who started the Australian organization Friends of Science in Medicine, namely:

• User:Gronk Oz/Alastair MacLennan (medicine)
• User:Gronk Oz/Marcello Costa
• User:Gronk Oz/Rob Morrison (scientist) --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

They look interesting @Gronk Oz:. However though, I’m still working on some articles I have on my user page. I’m ready for your statements and suggestions regarding Ed Krassenstein when you have the chance to make changes to it. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I just found out Ed Krassenstein is a proposed deletion article. Hopefully when you have time to help keep it from being deleted. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I will move this discussion over to your Talk page to avoid confusion, because it is a separate topic.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz!

Hows your holidays going? Which country are you at? You stated it's a remote country, but I wonder where (North Korea, etc). --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) LovelyGirl7, I advice you to refrain from asking such personal questions in an editor's talk page. Please remember that the talk page is not a forum and should only be used to discuss how to improve articles. Patience, Slightlymad 02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I'm really sorry for asking these questions. However, I'd still wonder the remoted country Gronk is at. --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: That's good advice, thanks for pitching in. @LovelyGirl7: no harm done, but Wikipedia editors often prefer to stay anonymous. Exchanges are generally friendly and supportive, but mostly try to stay more or less on task. I may not have been very clear: I didn't go to a remote country, but to a remote area of my own country (Australia) - sorry if it was confusing. We were supposed to be having a stargazing weekend, but instead we saw lots of rain, lightning, and hail. Such is the way of life!--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Glad you did not go to North Korea (sorry if I mentioned it). I’m glad you corrected me when I mentioned remoted country/area. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melanie Johnson-Debaufre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

yes

Yes I will add summaries i tried that earlier today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, Bubblesorg.

From Firebird75

Hi Thanks for replying to my thread. I'm very new to wiki back end and it's really confusing. I'm working with Steve Hughes. He is a really good radio presenter with loads of experience and has been in a lot of movies and commercials so is a worth while actor. Sure, he isn't Brad Pitt, but I do believe he deserves his own page for the good he does in the community and his years of diverse interesting living. You mention the Articles for Consideration and Autobiography pages which I've read. Do you know of someone that could write the article on Steve to varify the facts? His IMDB page has his acting filmography, the OneFM page shows his current radio credentials (http://onefm.co.za/members/steve-hughes/). Thanks for your input and help. This stuff is hectic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebird75 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Firebird75: thanks for getting back to me. I remember how confusing it all is, in particular, writing a new article from scratch is a very challenging task, especially tough for a new editor. But there is plenty of help available for the asking, and I recommend the Teahouse highly. As for the Steve Hughes article, the key (as for any article) is to collect your sources first. Those sources should be independent, not things he has written himself, so IMDb and his OneFM pages are not very good sources; better to find what has been written about him in reliable sources such as major newspapers, books written about him, television shows about him... Extensive coverage is best: find the articles which talk about him in some detail, not just a passing mention. In Wikipedia, the question of which subjects will have articles of their own is not determined by the good they do or their diverse interesting living - instead, it depends on the sources. To save repeating it all here, you can read about gathering references at Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Gathering_references.

Then, once you have the sources, you can judge whether there is enough to support the article. If so, write the article as a summary of what the sources say about him, and proceed from there following the steps in Wikipedia:Your_first_article. And if you have questions, as you probably will, feel free to ask me or the TeaHouse.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

59 Club

Thanks mate, yes, a member just trying to make sure the 59 Club page is correct. It is the oldest motorcycle club of its type in the UK and quiet famous, but the leaders are older & spend a lot of time making sure it doesn't morph into something it isn't or get used by others to promote their own tribute groups or trade on it's glory. the wiki page is something where that has happened & we want the page just to tell the story of the club for future motorcyclists without any fake news within it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverendtonup (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reverendtonup: an admirable project. If I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion, the best way to achieve that within Wikipedia is to base the article on what is published in reliable, independent sources. Even if that means that some facts which are known to the members are not included, because they are not independently verifiable. There is a problem with writing an article you're too close to, that you tend to write what you know, rather than summarizing what the sources say. To make the quickest progress, use of the Talk page associated with that article to make specific suggestions, and get input from other editors to work out the best way to incorporate those changes. (It's a pain, but it's better than having your changes reverted and it's back to the start.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

AWB

Hi,

Thanks so much for the edits you made to Edward G. Stoiber!!! I used to used AWB on every article I worked on to catch things I missed, but I have a Mac now, and haven't been able to figure out how to install it (afraid to mess up my computer).... anyway... I would like to ask a favor. I worked on Ute people, making a lot of changes and adding content. It would be wonderful if you could run AWB on that article. I am happy to barter research effort, review an article, etc. in exchange.

If it doesn't work out, no worries.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, CaroleHenson. I ran AWB over the article Ute people, and it did not find any corrections - well done. I'm afraid I can't help with your Mac issue though - I have never used one so I don't know how to set it up for AWB. There are some suggestions at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Running_on_Linux_or_Mac but I see your point: they do look risky. As an alternative, I am always happy to run AWB across anything, so feel free to send me a list at any time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I'll wait til I have especially long ones like Ute people, but I greatly appreciate the offer! Let me know if I can help out somehow sometime.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: For peace of mind, I just ran AWB over the 200 articles you edited most recently; it just picked up a couple of minor things (and I'm sure they were not in your contributions anyway). --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, that was really nice of you! I really appreciate that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Betty Cecilia Lugo

Hi, and thanks for the comment about the links. I have now included some from Internet. Could you please take a look?--Isamares (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Isamares. You should be very happy with that article: it is looking good. I did a quick cleanup of the references and minor copy-edits. I imagine that the "comment about the links" you're asking about is the Orphan tag. If that is the case, it's not a question of working on this article itself: it is a matter of what OTHER articles link to this one. At the moment, no other articles link to Lugo's article. So if you want to tackle that, find other articles about topics where she played a significant role, and add the link to this article. You can always check by clicking "What links here" on the toolbar to the left of the article. I hope that makes sense: please let me know if there are any more questions. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the answer. Yes, I did refer to the Orphan tag. I thought a link like this would make it: https://noticiaalminuto.com/efemerides-20abr-nacio-betty-cecilia-lugo-filantropa-dedicada-al-zulia-y-confundadora-de-la-casa-de-la-misericordia/.

I also want to inform you that this page is a translation of the original page in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Cecilia_Lugo.

Would this help the page to be published?--Isamares (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: The article is already published. Now starts the ongoing process of improving it, as for every article. That reference to noticiaalminuto is fine but any number of references doesn't affect whether the article is an Orphan. It is an Orphan because there are no other Wikipedia articles which link to it. For instance, on Spanish Wikipedia there is an article about AZUPANE-Lagunillas, and that article links back to Betty Cecilia Lugo. But there is no such article on English Wikipedia that mentions her. This isn't a substantial problem, but it is good when articles are inter-linked. I have added a note to Talk:Betty Cecilia Lugo saying that this article is a translation of the Spanish article - that's a good thing to add, thanks for letting me know. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and for adding the note about the translation from Spanish. In fact, I am now translating from Spanish the article "AZUPANE-Lagunillas". According to what you wrote, once this article is published the article "Betty Cecilia Lugo" is not anymore an orphan. Am I right? --Isamares (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: As long as that article includes a link to the Lugo article, then yes - that will mean the Lugo article is not an Orphan any more. It will be rewarding moment when you get to take that Orphan flag off, because the article will be connected to another one. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for your help.--Isamares (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: My pleasure! Get back in touch if there is anything else I can help with. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Update August 2018

Hi, I am back. Since the page was considered an "orphan" I collected data to make an article that I could connected to it. Now I saw that the "orphan" notice is not there anymore. That is good. In any case I have now all data and plan to make a new page soon. I would need your cooperation in fixing references when it is published. In the same way you did the first time. That and more.--Isamares (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I just learned something. The Orphan tag is still on that page, but a recent change means that the message only displays if its date is either the current month or the previous month. Otherwise, the tag still places it on the list of orphans so editors who wish can follow up, but "the community consensus is that this issue is insufficiently critical to merit notifying general readers of the issue for more than a couple of months."

I'm glad to hear that you started your next article the right way, by collecting the sources. Let me know if you need a hand with something.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have made the page. Find it here and please take a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZUPANE-Lagunillas--Isamares (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: - looks good! I cleaned up the references a little; I hope you don't mind. Apart from that, I just have one very minor suggestion - I notice that the capitalization is not consistent: sometimes it is "Azupane–Lagunillas", while at other times it is "AZUPANE-Lagunillas". Unless there is a reason to vary it, I think it would be best to chooose one and stick with it. But like I said, that is just a little thing, and the article looks good. The photos really lift it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all corrections. It is AZUPANE-Lagunillas. I only found it in the text in capital letters. You are welcome to correct it if I missed one. By the way, I had made that mistake in the title but someone gently corrected it and wrote AZUPANE in capital letters. I didn´t know how to do it.--Isamares (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

One more thing. I don´t know how to include "Spanish" in the languages. Could you do it for me? Remember this is a translation from the original in Spanish.--Isamares (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected link to the article: Azupane–Lagunillas.

@Isamares: - the uncapitalized version is in the article title. I notice that you have a redirect from the capitalized version, so there should not be any confusion for the reader.

I had never used an inter-language link before, and I was surprised by how easy that was to do. Just under "Languages" on the left hand side was a link to "Add links" - it popped up a window where I filled in the language code and the article. Done. And I learned something, so it's a good day. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I did no deal myself with the capitalization in the title. It was someone else. I thought that person had changed it in the page, but now I see it is not the case. I want to change the title in the page and write AZUPANE in capital letters. Is it possible? Could you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isamares (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: - You're quite right, the article was originally created with capitals, and another editor changed it believing it was "correct capitalisation". To make sure everybody is agreed, I have asked for their agreement first at User_talk:Frayae#Page_AZUPANE-Lagunillas_moved_to_Azupane–Lagunillas. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The name of that school was AZUPANE-Lagunillas. If they write Azupane-Lagunillas the article is about a school that never existed. It´s simply a lie. If it could not be changed it would be better to eliminate the page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Isamares (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I just saw that the person who made the mistake restored the capital letters, thanks to your help. I appreciate it. I must say that after reading the explanation he gave about why he has changed the capital letters I was astonished. This is certainly not a reason to change the name of a page. That person obviously did not even read the article!

Thanks a lot. I am deeply grateful.--Isamares (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, @Isamares: but the job is not finished yet. The article still needs to clarify what "AZUPANE" stands for. I pinged you on that discussion with a suggestion on the other editor's Talk page at User talk:Frayae. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood. On my side I could edit the first paragraph as follows:

AZUPANE-Lagunillas (Zulia Association of Parents and Friends for Children with Special Needs-Lagunillas District) was the first school for children with learning disabilities in the western region of Zulia, Venezuela.

I guess you refer to something else, don´t you? In any case this would be the name of AZUPANE-Lagunillas in English.--Isamares (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added the expansion of the initialism to the section on The school. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I made minor changes on that and I take it for granted that the page is now OK. Tnanks for your help.--Isamares (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Epping, NSW discussion continued

Hi there, unfortunately I’ve had issues continuing our discussion on the Epping discussion, as Wikipedia seems to have a glitch. Sorry for not signing my posts. You made a good statement. My main purpose was to tell you there are not enough resources to show that Sydney is part of “great western Sydney”. Your statement on the media describing the area as north west time to time is correct, however suburbs such as Hunters Hill, Wahroonga and Normanhurst to name a few, have also been stated as North-West by the media due to their geographic location from the Sydney CBD. The only source provided to state that Epping is west of some sort, is by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, which doesn’t even say its “Great Western Sydney”. I can’t find any other source to describe Epping as being in that region. The reference of Epping being considered as part of the North Shore is also seen in this documentary describing the tragedy of the Lin Family murders provided In a documentary with channel 7, on the series “Tonight”. The documentary was called “Brenda Lin: Soul Survivor. Other references are like I said, by businesses. This doesn’t make Epping part of the North Shore, however in describing the suburb on the article, it will help readers understand the confusion as Epping is the “in between” of various regions. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@HornsbyBbSyd: if you look at the article on Epping, there are two references supporting that it is in the Western region, and none for the Northern region. Nevertheless, both are mentioned in the lede.

Rather than spotting individual stories where the term has been used, it is be better to refer to use something with broader application, such as the Daily Telegraph's local paper "Northern District Times" includes Epping in the area it services. Unfortunately I can't find anything like a coverage map or a list to show how they have divided Sydney up into regions: there is just this search box. Better still would be to find a source which specifically discusses what is called by various region names. I hoped there might have been a general interest article in one of the newspapers about this, but I could not find it.

However, establishing that some people refer to it as North does not mean it isn't West. I don't have any problem with saying it is North - that is already there in the article. I just don't understand why you want to remove the reference to it being West when the position of the relevant government authorities say it is, not to mention the compass.

Of course, all this will change soon when the new Greater Sydney Region Plan is adopted - at that time Epping will be part of the dreadfully named "Central River City".

References

All of which brings us back to the main question: what different wording do you propose? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Please forgive me for such a late response to your last edit. I recently tumbled across this news article referring to Epping as the North Shore once again. https://www.9news.com.au/2018/08/24/06/39/epping-train-station-stabbing-police-investigation

This is another prime example of suburbs between Epping and Thornleigh being referred to as the North Shore, including surrounding suburbs such as Macquarie Park and Marsfield.

The different wording I propose would be “Epping is sometimes referred to as the North Shore” or “Epping is part of the Northern Suburbs and North Shore regions.” This could be used on suburbs that are frequently referred to as the North Shore that sit against lane Cove National Park. In particular, North Ryde, Macquarie Park, Marsfield, East Ryde, Beecroft and Pennant Hills. This would make a clearer perception for readers and researchers.

Would love to have your help, thank you.

HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Gronk Oz! You created a thread called Disambiguation quandry at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious

astronomy and scepticism

Thank you for quality articles such as Astronomical Society of Victoria, Loretta Marron and Alan Duffy (astronomer), for consolidating references, for good answers at the Teahouse, for illustrating the Aust Scep Con and honeybee on lavender, for "Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees." - member of the Australian Computer Society, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Gronk Oz! You created a thread called DYK quick question at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gronk Oz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)