User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Thanks

Thanks for the time and trouble of getting those BSSA articles, and the Richter extract. They will fill a significant hole in my understanding of seismic scales — as soon as I get time to study all this cool stuff! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, one little problem: the Richter (Elementary Seismology) extract is missing pages 142 through 147. Could you grab those also? No need to redo the others, as I can merge the pdfs. Thanks. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I scanned all that I judged to be related to Richter's 1956 modification of the Mercalli intensity scale. While I was waiting for your email, you added tentative page numbers to your request, but by that time I'd long since left that library. Next time I'm at a library that has the book, I could scan more pages, but there's no telling when that will be, so you'd be better off opening a new resource request. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. In a couple of weeks I may be able to hit a library, and hopefully I can get it then. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Book

Thanks again.The book that you got for me did you get it through on of the WP:LIBRARY collections?If yes which?Thanks.--Shrike (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike: I got the chapter through a contact at a university library, but the Wikipedia Library partners with Taylor & Francis, and that database may include the work. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My movie should have an article.

I made a movie, so it should have an article on here. It is a real movie. Why has it been continuously refused? It should not be. I made a movie. It's a real movie. It is not a hoax. Fraction7 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not fragment discussion. Your question has been answered here. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for your suggested further reading reviews on my Draft:Alan Parsons Live article!

Four of the five are available online, and three of those four are behind paywalls. I was able to view the Washington Post review, and incorporated his and the AllMusic review comments in the article. I will be resubmitting the draft for review shortly.

Many thanks again for your help. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

RX

Massive thanks for those works! How do you have access to them, if you don't mind me asking? Number 57 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious

helpfulness

Thank you for constant contributions at WP:REX, helping to expand the encyclopedia, the astounding time and effort you go to in ensuring quality sources are accessible for articles. For disambiguations, draft reviewing, Bangladesh-related content and more - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Phaneroglossa bolusii

Hi Bruce, Thank you again for providing the requested pages of Opera Botanica 44. However, it turns out my information was not entirely correct and that the description starts on page 66, and you send me the pages 67-69 (as requested). It would be very helpful if you would be able and willing to sent me page 66 as well. Sorry for initially giving wrong information. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: sent. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

HBM Iqbal

Hi Worldbruce, thanks for your suggestion. Requesting your kind feedback and help in updating the bio of HBM Iqbal.

As you can see that For any persons living biography, there should be a proper introduction, early life, career, personal life.

However, here in this profile, we can see a career paragraph of one line with an incorrect citation. "He is the Chairman of Premier Bank Limited" has been cited with this link to the daily star news proves that the previous editor was biased and has a sole intention to deframe the individual. Within this paragraph, you can also see that this line "he is the vice-president of Dhaka city Awami league" has been wrongly quoted with this citation, "Rising high the audacity" doesn't make any sense.

We can also see that instead of early life or personal life, the editor quickly jumps to controversy' which btw is the biggest part of the bio of this individual. This individual was wrongly charged, as he was a target of a political game. He was acquited from the high court. Here is the news, "High Court acquits HBM Iqbal’s family of charges" by the Daily Sun.

The previous editor also mentioned an irrelevant topic in the individuals' controversy. "His 16 year old nephew crashed his car in Gulshan, Dhaka in 2016. He was under the influence of alcohol, four people were injured in the accident. The boy was not charged but taken to safety by Bangladesh police.", doesn't have any connection to his bio and neither was he of any influence in this incident.

"In 2007 he was charged with corruption by the Bangladesh Anti Corruption Commission." from the controversy portion of the individual has been proved wrong by High court.

On 20th May 2018 the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 2602/2017 observed that the family members of Dr. HBM Iqbal were the dependents of him and consequently the allegation under section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2004 is not applicable against them. by the Daily Sun.

From the information provided above, I strongly believe the existing bio is inaccurate and misleading along with outdated news sources. Since this is a community for everyone, I believe we should not give any room for biased biography. Requesting for help and support is reverting back to my suggested part. I have put in all the relevant sources and citation to back up my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papyrus cyrus (talk • contribs) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Papyrus cyrus: You also posted much the same on User talk:Vinegarymass911, and on Talk:HBM Iqbal as World bd7000. It is best to keep a discussion of article content on the article talk page where every concerned editor can find it. I have replied there. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Noitom Technology Limited

Hello Worldbruce. Thank you for your comment and information about my page. I technically do work for the company in question but I am not being paid directly for writing this article. If I disclose this through the proper procedures that you shared with me, then I understand that Wikipedia will not accept my article anyway as I will not be seen as a credible source. To be completely honest, this is my first attempt at writing on Wikipedia and I am a bit overwhelmed by all the procedure. Before I go any further, is it possible for me to find a Wikipedia Editor that can write and submit the article for me so that it meets all criteria? The topic is motion capture which may be of interest to some editors. I have been informed the article "reads more like an advertisement." I have done my best to be as neutral as possible only stating facts. I kindly ask if you can please advise on how best to move forward with having this article published. --Wikimocap (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikimocap:. Thank you for your note. It's best to keep an exchange on one talk page. Fragmenting discussions across different pages makes them hard to follow.

You write that you are not being paid directly to write the article. In that case the paid-contribution disclosure requirements may not apply to you (although Wikipedia interprets compensation broadly; unpaid interns, for example, are treated the same as paid ones).

Even if not a paid contribution, working for the company you're writing about is still a conflict of interest, one you should disclose on your user page. You express a reluctance to do so, out of concern that it will hurt your draft's chances. Any reviewer reading the draft can tell it was written by someone with a close connection to the company. Not being transparent about it will only make reviewers think that not only do you have a connection, but you're concealing it, lying by omission. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged, but it is not prohibited.

You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY helpful. As it explains, Requested articles is a way to get a volunteer to write the article. That's much better than trying to write the article yourself, but the company must still meet the notability guidelines. Noitom Technology doesn't appear to. The referencing in the draft is much weaker than you realize. The guidelines were toughened last year in order to exclude more companies. Now it's extremely difficult to get a draft about an extant private company accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

My request for assistance on my first article

Firstly thanks for your reply and for the suggestions you made regarding the beer and Bucks communities, I will follow up. I would hope that a successful outcome for me would be similar for Wikipedia, assuming that a quality factual article about another microbrewery is a good thing. The breweries you mention are mostly large commercial corporations and whilst I have seen similar, Fullers being a good example, my research prior to drafting the Malt the Brewery piece was on smaller, local and slightly larger startup/scaleup microbrewery pages. Examples being Rebellion, Castle Rock and Tring breweries. My draft effort was modelled on the style and type of content which was accepted previously and published on Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I am perplexed, somewhat disappointed and confused as to why some brewery articles have been accepted with less references and mine hasn’t. I will continue to redraft, further research, to find the elusive key reference and at some point resubmit. Thanks again, any further advice gratefully received.

BobScott63 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@BobScott63: When I scanned Category:Breweries looking for examples, I noticed that there were no good microbrewery articles. The three you mention are all rated start-class, three steps below good.

You described them as "accepted previously and published". It's important to realize that existence of an article doesn't mean it has been approved, accepted, or is welcome. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.

None of the three went through the Articles for Creation process. Until late 2017, anyone could register an account and publish an article about anything. Many articles created that way were quickly deleted, but others that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines slipped through the net and are still waiting for someone to delete them. Of the three, only Rebellion Beer Company has received much scrutiny. It was nominated for deletion within hours of being created, and again about six months later. The resulting discussion came to the consensus that Rebellion was notable and should be kept. That makes it a fairly safe topic, although last year the notability criteria for companies were made much tougher, and it hasn't been formally tested against the new criteria yet.

What distinguishes Rebellion from Draft:Malt the Brewery is the article about Rebellion in The Independent, and the paragraph in McFarland (2009). Those meet the requirement of having received significant coverage from media other than solely local media. I searched EBSCO, Gale, Google Books, Google News, and ProQuest, but couldn't find sufficient similar coverage for Malt the Brewery. It may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about it.

If you can't advance the draft, consider setting it aside for a while and attempting to improve existing articles. Rebellion is near the top end of start-class, with a history section, a prose description of their beers, and a fair number of references. It wouldn't take much work to bring it up to C-class. The Castle Rock Brewery and Tring Brewery articles are awful, but that means it wouldn't take much work to make them a lot better than they are. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page for Catapult Ventures

How do I declare that I am the founder of a company Catapult Ventures, but not paid by a client for my work? Do I still use the {{paid} tag or something else?

Dliccardo (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo

@Dliccardo: The {{paid}} template would be the most conservative way to proceed. Wikipedia interprets compensation broadly. An unpaid intern, for example, is considered paid for these purposes because they're receiving experience, networking, and perhaps getting a grade. As founder, even if no boss ordered you to create a Wikipedia page, you may have a considerable financial incentive to portray the company in a favorable light. The less cautious approach would be to use the {{UserboxCOI}} template, under the argument that you aren't strictly speaking being paid to create the article, so that only the vanilla conflict of interest disclosure requirements apply.

Whichever path you take, these templates would go on your user page. You may supplement them with additional information, such as that you are a founder, to give a more nuanced picture of your situation.

An explanatory supplement, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is available. Its goals notwithstanding, it's actually a bit longer than the conflict of interest guideline. Something else that I point anyone writing about a company to is WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Help settling disagreement

Hey I was wondering if you could help me out with something? I noticed you moderate the Aurangzeb page pretty frequently and I was hoping you could help settle the disagreement between me and Crybaby747?

I tried to engage them on the Aurangzeb talk page, but they seem unwilling to contribute. I even sent a message directly to their own talk page at one point. The only way I can get their attention is by the undoing their edit due to a lack of response, and it feels like it's going into editwar territory. Could you take a look on the Aurangzeb talk page and help settle the issue? I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Thanks Alivardi (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

why did u leave a message like that on my page? that was very uncalled for. i restored information another user deleted completely, that time u did not write any such thing and even i added a lot of updates to a backdated page with my citations. u have deleted all my work on the page and all my edits with one go left me a strange message. if users are free to make edits then why did u completely remove mine instead of making ur own edits? kindly check and fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandPeak (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

LexisNexis

The site requires me to have an ID and a password to view the sources, but I have neither of those. Can I create an account somehow? Scrooge200 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow. What I attached to the email are ordinary pdfs. If you download them from your email system to your computer, you should be able to open and read them using Adobe Acrobat Reader, even offline, and with no login required. The pdfs may contain links, which, if clicked, would require a login, but there's no reason to follow those links since the full text and complete bibliographic information is already plain in the pdf. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bangladeshies

Would you mind taking eyes on this page! I’m not regular here so people are editing including every possible bullshit there like all Bengali dialect speaking people are made a new ethnicities there. Suddenly people of sylhet n Chittagong are ethnic Bengali n Bangladeshis which they named as nonbengali gruop n offensive term. Thanks in advance -2A0A:A540:DBAC:0:51B1:DEBC:EC2C:357E (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter Demers submission

Dear Worldbruce - at last. Thank you for taking the time to respectfully respond to my submission in a meaningful way. Your comments clarified your issues that prevent publishing the draft. As such, they can be addressed.

There is no pride in pummeling people who submit articles to Wikipedia, and my experience so far is that most editors do just that. They seem to take a particular pride in trouncing writers. Moreover, they are patronizing.

I can tell you are a professional, and I appreciate your thoughtful review of the draft. In the meantime, if you have a chance to communicate with your virtual colleagues in a global way, please pass along this observation.

A question: You said I can find more sources, or "wait until Demers has died." Would his death affect the need for mainstream media sourcing?

I will be in touch as I revise the draft so that hopefully it can be successfully published.

Again,my thanks. MarionPB (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarionPB: The rules for biographies of living persons are stricter than those for other articles. Having different rules is somewhat arbitrary, but pragmatic. It's best to follow the stricter rules as much as possible even when one isn't required to do so, in my opinion. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul Suggitt Submission

Thanks for helping clean up my submission of Paul Suggitt.

Can I take a moment of your time and ask if it is still out for re-consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia since my addition of notable information and your edit, and are you able to give it re-consideration, given you have edited it?

Thanks for your time and help. PilotSuggs (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@PilotSuggs: My evaluation, based on the sources cited in the draft and my own searches, is that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). It's possible that another reviewer reading your post at the AfC help desk will examine the draft and reach a different conclusion, but it is unlikely. You would be better off leaving a message on the original reviewer's talk page, explaining exactly how you believe the topic meets the notability guidelines. He is scrupulous, and if he should have accepted it or declined it instead of rejecting it (which is meant to be final), he will remedy the matter. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Edapt and John Roberts article

Hello Worldbruce, thanks for your message.

There is no conflict of interest here and I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for the creation of these articles. Edapt just doesn't have a page on Wikipedia and needs one as it is an alternative to the traditional trade unions. John Roberts is its CEO, who has appeared in national press coverage for the creation of this organisation. If there is anything else I can help you with please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liff182 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Grant proposal review request

Please look at a grant proposal written recently for San Diego Wikimedians User Group. Please review/edit/endorse the proposal as you see fit.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Amir Siraj

Hi Worldbruce, you had asked if there was any WP:SCHOLAR criterion that were met by the page Draft:Amir Siraj. Criterion 1 is met, as Siraj discovered the first known potentially interstellar meteor (a significant discovery in planetary science).

Jordanslp312 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC

@Jordanslp312: Thank you, that helps clarify what you're thinking in regard to the Draft:Amir Siraj. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that any reviewers will agree with you about the discovery and WP:NACADEMIC criterion #1. The "Specific criteria notes" section of the guideline explains that the academic's work needs to be cited or reviewed by a substantial number of peer-reviewed scholarly publications. The two relevant papers are pre-prints, and have not been cited by any other researchers in academic journals. The draft cites only non-acadmic works, which are insufficient to show a significant impact in Siraj's scholarly discipline. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft : BAITSSS

Hi Worldbruce, thank you for the comment. I know about BAITSSS as I am in the same field, so I developed the page and some of my friends in the same field edited. After your comments, the text and citations had been significantly reduced, I would appreciate your comments.

ISBN's

On Draft:Jeevan Job Thomas you provided the edit summary (December 1, 2018‎) "so long as a book has an ISBN, no other source need be referenced as to its existence/authorship.". Would you please provide the discussion, or decision of consensus, and possibly a rationale, that removing links "just because" there is an ISBN number" is acceptable. An ISBN is not required but the citation templates provide for the use of an ISBN so the reasoning would be counter to the claim. Anytime someone locates an ISBN they could simply use that and delete the reference. I have a problem with that idea or reasoning as deleting good faith sourcing does not seem to be something acceptable. Otr500 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary was intended to clarify the specific edit. Don't generalize too much from it. The creators of drafts are frequently novices who don't understand what statements need a reference, and what sources will help get a draft approved.

• Lists of an author's books are not likely to be challenged. Perhaps that's because they are effectively self-supporting. The title and copyright page of a work constitute a reliable source for who wrote it, who published it, and when. If there's an ISBN, OCLC, doi, or similar link, that's enough for a reader to find the source in WorldCat, Google Books, Amazon, or what have you, and check that yes, the author wrote it. In such cases an inline citation adds no value.
• AfC reviewers are looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Novice editors frequently throw in as many sources as they can, thinking that quantity will carry the day. It won't, and in fact is counterproductive. The more poor sources they throw in, the more they obscure what reviewers are seeking, and the less likely it is that the draft will be accepted. The essays Citation overkill and Bombardment discuss the general problem of over-citation. When the problem is acute, reviewers sometimes refer submitters to the essay WP:THREE.
• When no source other than the work itself is needed, adding an unnecessary citation to a book sales site such as onlinestore.dcbooks.com tends to be viewed by reviewers as promotional, another problem that frequently torpedoes drafts. This is touched on in the brief discussion of Amazon in Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. (Of source it is a completely different matter if the only evidence that so-and-so wrote such-and-such a book is a book sales site, or if the site is being used to support more than existence and authorship, such as if a review on the site is being used to support a statement about how the work was received.)
• Goodreads is user-generated content, and vipinjozaf.wordpress.com is a self-published, non-expert, personal blog. Neither is a reliable source. That's sufficient reason to remove them. See guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources and its explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

So the edit was based on a mix of policy, guidelines, my experience with how they are interpreted and applied, and common sense. It was my good-faith effort to nudge the draft and the author in the right direction. If my explanation of why I made the changes doesn't convince you that they were an improvement, not just acceptable, but desirable, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning.

I see that another editor with little editing history has taken over the draft and more or less undone my edit. I think that's a mistake, but am not interested in challenging it. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again at AfC. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and taking the time. I appreciate the comments. I have absolutely no issue with your assessment nor improvements. I just looked at the edit history to see if previous reviewer concerns are addressed and saw the above so inquired. I always look to see if previous reviewers concerns are addressed. With AFC's I like that editors look more closely at sources and even excessive sources. I do see citation overkill, turned off by it, and recently saw the essay "WP:THREE" and like it. Otr500 (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

article "Jonathan S Stamler"

Thank you Worldbruce for looking at this page for clarity and typos. One typo correction you made on May 10 I had reverted as it was not a typo. You have 'fixed' it again on May 16 so I have reverted it to what it is intended. You changed the word "synthase" to "synthesis". To clarify, in this instance the article is discussing an enzymatic activity that converts one molecule 'A' into another 'B', and such an enzyme can be termed a "B synthase", and it is in this sense that the word is used in this article. I hope this helps explain this technical word and its use in this article. Thanks! RPremont (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Dear Worldbruce! Can you find references of Shrestha Bangali starring Sunny Leone? Thank you! —-92.100.194.222 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft: The ROADEX Project

Hi Worldbruce. Thank you for explaining why the ROADEX project page was moved to Draft and for attaching the unsubmitted draft template. Would it be in order for me to resubmit the page at this point to check it has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article? Regards Ronmun (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you Sir. I will follow your advice and look forward to more tips in the future.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Worldbruce! You created a thread called Most effective forum to discuss problematic BLP? 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, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Deepak Agrawal (musician)

Did you mean to tell the draftee that this was the type of source we needed or did I misread? Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I believed it to be a faithful copy of the Rolling Stone India article, but on second reading see that it was the "author's cut" before a second writer was brought in and editors did their work. I've amended my advice on the draft to use the official link, https://rollingstoneindia.com/the-rs-interview-ar-rahman/. The two examples I gave are ones used on the B-class article A. R. Rahman, but if you have a different example to offer, please do so. I don't think the submitter has a clue what significant coverage means. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject posting

Hi WB, Thanks for your post on WP:MCB and WP:GEN. Would you mind if I moved it over to the WP:Molbio talkpage? I'm hoping to eventually centralise posts relating to multiple projects over there but haven't finished updating all the relevant headers yet. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Sure, move it wherever you need it. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to new Rebecca Frazier article

Hi Worldbruce, thank you for cleaning up the article about 'Rebecca Frazier.' The citation #4 shows the archived nominations and there are no women in those archives. Also I would like to better understand why she would not meet notability guidelines and am respectfully requesting that that tag be removed. Many thanks. Stanford1993 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stanford1993: I've replaced {{failed verification}} with {{deep link needed}}. The supporting information needs to be on the page linked. It is insufficient to link to a higher root page somewhere below which the information exists. More generally, I'm sceptical about the value of that "first woman" statement. Such things are always better if someone has commented on the fact in a reliable source. If no one has, the article might be better without it.

Members of notable groups are routinely redirected to the article about the group, per WP:MUSICBIO, unless sources demonstrate notability independent of the group. Having done solo work is insufficient. One has to show that they would be notable if only their solo work were considered. I don't see that in the cited sources. I'll reconsider the tag if someone adds the necessary sources, or if I find them the next time I visit an appropriate library. If nothing happens in the next 90 days (topics do sometimes drop off my radar), you're welcome to remove the tag and see if anyone else objects. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Steuart Pittman

@Worldbruce:

Hello and thank you for your previous assistance with my question on the Help Page regarding Draft: Steuart Pittman. Your previous answer to my question is below:

"Marc Elrich has been nominated for deletion twice. The first time, it was deleted. The second time, it was kept largely because of considerable coverage in The Washington Post and on WTOP. Another factor for some participants in the discussion was the population of Montgomery County, about a million (roughly twice that of Anne Arundel County). Angela Alsobrooks has not gone through any formal assessment. If it did, it might be kept because she is the first woman elected to the office, or for reasons similar to those that arose in the case of Elrich. Or it might be deleted. Don't confuse existence with "should exist", or use existence as an excuse to create similar articles."

Thank you for your helpful response. Would you be able to help me with a follow up question I had from it? Do you know if there is a definition of "considerable coverage" for Wikipedia? You stated Elrich's page was partly kept due to considerable coverage in The Washington post and on WTOP, and I'm not sure if you meant coverage of the race, coverage of him, or if it would make a difference either way. The Anne Arundel County Executive has had many of his policies covered in The Washington Post and WTOP, but my understanding was that I should show a variety of sources, not cite consistent coverage from larger more national sources like these. Is there a way for someone to determine is there has been substantial coverage or if he is notable enough? Thank you for your help. Jrpmd1221 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jrpmd1221: "Considerable" is my own characterization in an attempt to summarize that particular deletion discussion.

Marc Elrich currently cites 16 pieces in The Washington Post. It cites them 21 times, accounting for 40% of the citations in the article. You are correct that you should cite a variety of sources, but that doesn't limit you to one citation per publisher. It might be a step in the right direction to cite the Post more often, but quality of sources is far more important than quantity.

The most heavily cited source in Marc Elrich is nearly 1500 words entirely about him, and almost completely other peoples' views on him rather than him talking about himself. It's an almost perfect source. It would help Draft:Steuart Pittman if there were a similar Post (or Sun or similar major media outlet) article about Pittman. The one cited is not primarily about him, and its coverage of him is entirely primary and of the form "Pittman said this" and "Pittman said that" about himself. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Thank you for all your efforts in responding to editors at the AfC helpdesk. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

AfC Reply

Your comments raise a few queries - firstly you state "submitters have been asking a lot of questions at the AfC Help Desk about drafts you've rejected" - which raises the question what constitutes a 'lot' in your opinion, as far as I can tell based on the number of AfC assessments I've done over the last few months there has only be a 'few' queries, which primarily relate to editors lack of understanding of what constitutes notability and proper referencing using appropriate sources. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Secondly my error if I hit the wrong button when the assessment template went up. I very rarely ever use the reject option and always err on the side of decline. Thirdly unlike a significant number of assessors I always try and provide a comment as to my reasoning, which I did in the case of User:Mikedc73/Mornington Cinema. Finally his comments at the help desk was "Please give help in how to get this published." In this case I struggle to see how a suburban cinema built in the 1970s is likely to satisfy our notability requirements - as I've searched and can't find any supporting sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: "A lot" was my impression, I wasn't keeping a tally. It hasn't been a huge number, but has been large enough to be noticeable and ultimately to prompt me to mention it to you. To quantify it more objectively, I examined the AfC Help desk for the seven days from June 25 through July 1. Drafts you rejected were the subject of 13 questions - about two per day. That's 15% of questions overall, and 40% of all questions about rejected drafts.

Those numbers aren't necessarily bad, the more drafts one reviews, the more questions will be asked. In a perfect world, the standard review text and reviewer comments combined would be so crystal clear that even the most clueless submitter would understand what to do next, and would not ask any questions. AfC will never be perfect, but if mixed messages (reject coupled with a comment about how to improve the draft) can be avoided, perhaps the number of questions can be reduced.

Your reviewing philosophy - rejecting rarely, erring on the side of decline, providing additional comments - sounds great, I wish everyone reviewed that way. So probably the thing to focus on is the reviewer interface. A couple other reviwers (using IE and Edge) have complained about the AFCH script turning their declines into rejects. Perhaps a bug can be reproduced and fixed, or the reviewer interface improved. If not, I would just ask you to be extra careful about which button is selected and whether your comment reinforces that choice.

FYI, here is the list of rejects that prompted recent questions - the one I mentioned on your talk page plus the 13 above. You're right that none of them was acceptable when you reviewed them (two have been improved and accepted since then). I suspect you meant to decline some of them rather than reject them.

• Draft:A Night in New Arabia (1917 film) - "Before any resubmission ..."
• Draft:Anshuman Chakraborty
• Draft:Fragmentationous (Rapper)
• Draft:List of regional beverages of the United States
• Draft:Mornington Cinema - "Please rewrite ..."
• Draft:Palumbo Superyachts - "Please cite ..."
• Draft:PartySlate
• Draft:Raymundo (musician)
• Draft:Samrat Raichand
• Draft:Soprano Plc
• Draft:The The Youth
• User:EmilLattelife/sandbox
• User:Kendoma/sandbox
• User:Moonsoftwizz/sandbox - "Do not submit for review until ..."

If, for drafts you intentionally reject, you can come up with comment text that hammers it home - that goes beyond stating what is wrong with that version (fails notability, promotional) to say that based on your own searches (or whatever) no amount of editing would make the draft acceptable - such a comment could further reduce the load at the AfC Help desk. "A lot" of the questions there are of the form "My draft was rejected. How can I get it published?" because novices don't know that reject is more serious/final than decline. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've checked back on my end and it would appear that when I undertake the reviews on my computer the AFCHG script is turning my declines into rejects, even though I'm entering in that it is a decline. This doesn't appear to be the case when I undertake a review on one of mobile devices. So if the script can be fixed that would certainly iron the problems with the automated messages. I tend to primarily review the most recent AfCs where there are substantial issues or where they clearly don't meet policies or guidelines - so as to provide users with a quick response rather than waiting days or weeks, which given the current backlog can be an issue. Happy to continue to refine the advice wording to users however I tend to utilize/modify the standard rationale rather than being too specific, purely because of the workload in clearing the backlog. If you can see from my edits where a user raises a query on my talk page I try and give them a more detailed response/feedback. Let me know if there is anything further you want me to consider changing... Dan arndt (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Porygon-Z474

I see you have left multiple messages on my talk page. Did you want to talk to me about something?Porygon-Z (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: No, I didn't want to talk to you about anything. In this edit you inadvertently broke the --> closing tag of some hidden text on your talk page. That mistake hid the text you added, and prevented the ~~~~ you added from being converted into your signature. It did the same thing to every subsequent posting on your talk page, such as next two messages from Atsme. I repaired the broken tag so that you could see those messages. When I saved my edit, various templates in those messages were expanded, and the three ~~~~'s that hadn't been converted into signatures were converted into signatures of the current user - me. In the next edit I fixed those three signatures in the text, to reflect who really wrote them, and when, but by then you'd already received three notifications, ostensibly from me. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So you were just fixing the programming. Yeah, I didn't understand them either but thank you for fixing it.Porygon-Z (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Kaschkasch

Dear Worldbruce,

thank you for your help. Can you tell me how long it will take until my article kaschkasch is online? Or can you tell me what to do to speed it up?

Best, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauKri (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@LauKri: Draft:Kaschkasch has been in the pool of drafts to be reviewed for 7 weeks. The current backlog is just over 16 weeks. There is nothing you can do to make that happen sooner. Nor is it certain (or even likely) that the draft will ever be published as an article.

When it is reviewed, one of three things will happen. It will be accepted (only about 20% of all drafts are), it will be declined but you will be allowed to make improvements and resubmit (this is what happens to most drafts), or it will be rejected and you will not be allowed to resubmit. It the draft is declined and you resubmit it, you will have to wait another 16 weeks for the second review. So you can speed up the total process by making the draft as good as possible now, thereby maximizing its chances of being accepted at the first review.

External links like this → Blomus, are not allowed in the text, and should be removed. If there is a Wikipedia article about the company, you may use an internal link instead, like this → Habitat. Also note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Pay particular attention to the guidelines for capitalization of trademarks, section headings, list formatting, and the layout order of standard sections. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Worldbruce, I changed external links to internal links. Since my first publishing of the article it has been over 8 weeks and still its on draft. Is there nothng I can do? Best, Laura

@LauKri: Remember to WP:SIGN your posts. There are many things you can do. We have nearly 6 million articles, almost all of which could be improved. Closer to "home", you could make the draft conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. But there's nothing you can do to get the draft reviewed earlier. Since the start of this thread, the backlog has grown to 19 weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting

I see that Eugene Maynard Freedman has been speedied by the author shortly after I added its controversies section. I'd actually have said this was an illegitimate speedy, but it's a fairly clear warning that readdition would come in a non-balanced state, so I'll leave it be. I'll keep an eye out for its recreation and check it again then. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Nurul Absar Mohammad Jahangir

Hi! Well, I can't work that one out – I expect your "common source" explanation is the right one. I just didn't feel I could reasonably delete it as a copyvio of a source that's six years more recent. Not that I have much hope that listing it at WP:CP will lead to any clarification either. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: How did you arrive at "a source that's six years more recent"? I tried to date the londoni.co page, but it has no obvious date, and wasn't archived until I raised the issue yesterday. There is strong circumstantial evidence, however, that londoni predated the first version of the Wikipedia page (29 March 2013‎).

The londoni site says it was launched a year earlier, on 26 March 2012.[1] And of the sources the londoni page cites, the most recent that can be dated is from 30 July 2012, all the others being 2011 or earlier.[2] The source londoni cites for their Nurul Absar Mohammad Jahangir section, an article in The Independent (Bangladesh), is unfortunately permanently dead. The URL gives no clue to its date, but given the other sources it's hard to believe that it would be after 29 March 2013. Alas, The Independent (Bangladesh) is not indexed online, and is extremely scarce in print or on microfilm, so finding the original article without a date is impractical.

The hypothesis that the copying went the other way - that Wikipedia had the text first and it ended up on londoni - strains credulity. I specialize in Bangladesh-related articles on Wikipedia, so I frequently encounter The Independent (Bangladesh), and have never caught them copying from Wikipedia. In other cases where londoni cites a source, such as The Daily Star above, it copies it almost word-for-word. It would be strange if londoni cited The Independent but copied from Wikipedia. Furthermore, if either The Independent or londoni copied from Wikipedia, they would have had a relatively narrow window in which to do so, since flowery text like "Under the hypnotic call of this leader" and "The fateful day came as a nightmare" (alas all too common in the Bangladeshi press) was stripped out of the Wikipedia article after less than two months, on 20 May 2013‎.

In my experience, SPAs on Bangladeshi topics frequently either don't understand copyright or choose to ignore it. The cavalier attitude toward copyright extends beyond text to the photo, which the author claims as their "own work". From its dimensions, the photo drop background, and the Defence Service rubber stamp, it appears to be a passport-size photograph from an identity document. In 1960s East Pakistan, such a photograph would have been taken by a professional photographer, perhaps a military one. The idea that editor Sangita2008 was the photographer and ended up with the stamped photograph isn't plausible. Far more likely is that they don't hold the copyright, but inherited the photo as a family member, and wish to memorialise him. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce, indeed I should have written above "... a source archived only six years later". I agree with every word you say, particularly the "strains credulity" bit. Even so, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of speedily deleting a page as copyvio unless the evidence is solid and verifiable – G12 is specifically reserved for "unambiguous" cases. Unless someone comes forward with a rewrite, the page will probably disappear in a week or so. I've marked the file on Commons as "no permission", so that will probably fade away too. Thank you for all you do! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Foote

I added the videos from the French Wikipedia page, why you delete it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.218.229.158 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The videos are under copyright by TF1. They have been uploaded to Dailymotion in violation of that copyright. As explained at WP:VIDEOLINK, en.wikipedia.org may not link to them. They are, in any case, primary sources, so they do nothing to establish the notability of the topic, one of the main aspects of the discussion about deleting the draft.

Some language versions of Wikipedia have adopted policies regarding copyright that are more stringent than US law, but generally, other language versions of Wikipedia are subject to US copyright law because their content is hosted on servers in the US. If any non-English language versions of the article link to the videos, those links almost certainly should be removed.

For that matter, if any non-English language versions of the article exist, they probably should be deleted. That's less clear cut than copyright, since each language version operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the French Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. But it's more likely that a non-English version only exists because no one has gotten around to applying the local policies and guidelines to it yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Foote

If the vidéos are in copyright, how can I source the Bulgaria - France catégory ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.219.181.200 (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Books are a good source for historical events. Magazines and newspapers can also be useful, but instead of primary sources like match reports, use secondary sources that reflect on and analyse past events. Past events might be discussed this way at the end of a season or when two teams met next. The draft has been deleted and salted to prevent recreation, so let it go and edit a different topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:STEMUp Educational Foundation

Hi Worldbruce, I edited the draft as per your guidance. Appreciate your support for new editors.

Pending AfC submissions

The drafts that I've submitted Draft:Michael de Courcy (artist), Draft:Susan Aaron-Taylor, and Draft:Walthamstow International Film Festival appear to be stuck again on the # of days pending. Does this pending date affect in any way when the might be looked at by a potential reviewer. If not I will stop being concerned about it. They update when you took a look at them but then seem to be stuck on that day (I think). Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: I've left a note for the bot operator. The age of all drafts is "stuck" at the moment. When the problem is fixed they'll all jump to their correct ages. It shouldn't affect the timing of any draft's review, which I'm afraid you can't assume will happen in less than about 4 months. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Foote

Can you remove the protection of Ian Foote page ? I am able to put a table about his matches who refereed Ian Foote during his career but you have put the protection when I am able to do this. I have references and books.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12071216.ian-foote/

https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=8AdoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT135&lpg=PT135&dq=ian+foote+referee+books&source=bl&ots=Wt38qJvZOg&sig=ACfU3U2mOdKFsnZALQRgQLeJX-HgTX3hpQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiet-jIx-TjAhUcAWMBHS-2Cu0Q6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://worldreferee.com/referee/ian_foote/

No, I can't. If I could, I wouldn't. You are beating a dead horse; drop the stick. Editors who will not accept consensus may be blocked from editing for tendentious editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Nin Brudermann

Hello, thank you for your edits on the draft page for Nin Brudermann. In your opinion is the article ready to be sent into the article space? You are the second person to make edits through the review process. Thank you! Emily Glascott (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Emily Glascott

@Emily Glascott: I didn't formulate an opinion on the draft. About 90 drafts have been awaiting review longer than this one, so I'm afraid it's likely to be at least another month before someone reviews it. You can monitor its status by cheeking how close to the top of this page it is. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Waston-Marlow Fluid Technology Group page

Hi - thank you for your comments re:Draft Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group page

I would argue that the decision to not even offer an opportunity to revisit the page is very harsh. Watson-Marlow is cited across many pages across Wikipedia. It is a company that turns over nearly a quarter of a billion in sales worldwide. It is a significant, global player in pumping technology and fluid management engineering

Examples where Watson-Marlow are cited as manufactures/ a world leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinusoidal_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_pump

This is an example of competitor who have been in operation for less time and is not a world-leader in a single technology like Watson-Marlow, its sales are based on a diverse pump range.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prominent_(Unternehmen)

An example of a large pump group but whose references are their own website and a very weak article that mentions them indirectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundfos References[edit source] ^ "Our company". Grundfos.com. Retrieved 2018-02-23. ^ http://www.gea.com/global/en/news/corporate-news/2015/gea-acquirers-leading-supplier-of-hygienic-pumps.jsp

The decision to not allow for an edit seems to comes with the oversight of these pages and I would ask that it is reconsidered so I am able to shape content with reliable sources as the subject is without doubt notable when considered in relation to the above.

Replied at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#12:18:12, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey. Keep discussions in one place, don't fragment them. See Help:TALK. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CDEK Wiki article

Dear Worldbruce! I represent the international development department in logistics company CDEK. We are now expanding our business worldwide and my colleague began to translate our article in Wikipedia from Russian into English. But for some reason the English version was declined for publishment. As for the article, its contains useful information for those, who are interested in develoment of the Russian international logistics segment, and also in the history of our company, CDEK, which is one of the major express-courier delivery companies in Russia. Besides, our article in Russian and Arabic are already available in Wikipedia. So if you could provide us additional information or maybe help us with publishment of our article in Wikipedia, we would be very grateful.

Yours sincerely, CDEK international development team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiamarkov (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Sergeiamarkov (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CDEK Wiki article

Dear Worldbruce!

Concerning your letter - I do not seek any financial compensation for my edits and so on.

Actually, what matters to me the most, is the awareness of my company, CDEK. Next february we are celebrating our 20th anniversary, we are well-known all accross Russia and the CIS countries, and all I want is to present the information about the achievements of the company, its history, so that people who speak English get to know about the development of logistics business in Russia! And I repeat - I do NOT seek any interest from publishing information about CDEK! I'm a newbie in Wikipedia and people publishing in Russian and Arabic segments of Wiki helped me correct the articles so that they could be published. So what I'm trying to find here is some help and advice.

Looking forward for further contact. Sergeiamarkov (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hlw

Hlw, @Worldbruce: I noticed more than 3-4 months that Peya Bipasha most of the sections is unsourced except Television (some have links). And in tv Commercial section there have one personal blog/site link which is misinterpreted. So I want to remove all unsourced conten from her page. I didn’t remove,because it will say later as vandalism (if I have good faith to remove). so I think let first tell any admin. I amzed that when I added any content and didn’t add link then my edit was reverted as unsourced. I want to remove this or will you remove those unsourced contents please.And bd admin didn’t look at this contents but they all interested to remove if one sentence is unsourced. -Rasi56 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rasi56: I suggest you start with the prose in the body of the article, in other words with the "Early life and study" and "Career" sections.

Instead of simply removing unsourced material, first try to find a source for it and add inline citations. Except for the blog cited in the "TV commercials" section, all the sources already cited by the article are reliable. Other reliable sources may exist.

After finding sources for as much as you can, decide whether remaining unsourced content is contentious material or not. If the material is innocuous, such as where she went to high school or what she performed in, add a {{citation needed}} template. If the unsourced material is likely to be challenged, such as age, height, family, or why something happened, remove it. If it is not neutral, which may be signalled by adjectives like leading, strong, talented, terrific, top, wonderful, and other peacock words, remove it.

Different considerations apply to the works sections (Television, Short films, Music videos, and TV commercials), to the infobox, and to the lead. I can give you advice for those sections, but wait a few days after changing the body to see if anyone objects to your modifications. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: what will start? I didn’t understand your first line. It's unsourced (above mention sections) from the beginning of the article, which I found! when I saw the edit history. And there have no news for his unsourced section, so if you do not remove now it will be unsourced in future. And please see tv commercial link it’s just misinterpreted, there have no news about him.and his television work have links but tv commercial its not verified. it should be also to remove. I think from the top of the article "peya came it from media limelight" to before the television it should be remove, then music video,tv commercial also unsourced. Please remove it,if needed then anyone can add info with news link later.don't need any unsourced and self writing things. Waiting means it will stay so many years. And about {{citation needed}}, there have thousands of articles Where have unsourced content just because of this tag.when admin saw this tag they don't remove content just hope for someone will add citatio. This tag is best if very few sentences are unsourced. Please take an action or give me permission to remove.Doesn't need to keep unsourced content and passages , unsourced info misleading the readers. It is not good to keep unsourced content per wiki guidelines, you know better than me. -Rasi56 (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rasi56: Deleting unsourced statements that are not newly-added without first trying to find a source for them is lazy and unhelpful. The majority of such statements are true. The absence of a citation does not mean that a source does not exist for them. When faced with unreferenced information, an editor should make an effort to find sources before deleting material. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

বাংলা উইকিতে অবদান রাখান অনুরোধ

শুভেচ্ছা নিন। যদি পারেন বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়ায় যে কোন বিষয়ে অবদান রেখে বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়াকে সাহায্য করুন। ইংরেজি উইকিতে তুলনায় বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়া অনেক অনেক পিছনে পড়ে আছে (৫৯ লক্ষ বনাম মাত্র ৭২ হাজার নিবন্ধ বাংলা উইকিতে) । আমাদের মাতৃভাষার উইকিকে এগিয়ে নিতে সাহায্য করুন। ----Muhammad Nabil (☎talk) 18:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sher Shah Suri

Hi You mentioned me in a revert and mentioned if the sub category is present, parent category need not be there but i guess when you reverted my edits you did the opposite ! Now we have both the parent and child category in the article The page that i am mentioning is Sher Shah Suri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami2018 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft deletion

Can you remove this draft please ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canal%2B_(Poland)

I already modified the NC+ Wikipedia page.

I've created this draft but I don't need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.44.235 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirect

@Worldbruce: I understand what you said. From the view of yours when the city information grows much larger than district, and starts to overwhelm the district information, then it can be spun off into its own article. But how? The city page is already redirected to district page. Then if I want to create a city page i have to redirect the district page and then undoing this redirect so that i can get the city page to write it's article. Then you will say redirecting and then undoing that redirect is not acceptable. Then how city article can be created?

Please answer.Great Hero32 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Weekly Television Digest

Thanks again for the documents! As for the remaining articles: to me the most important one is

https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&id=FXQfAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22channel+f%22

because there is no other source that states Milton Berle was doing promotion stuff for Fairchild. Any help is highly appreciated, Schnurrikowski (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is WOW! Many thanks, Schnurrikowski (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Your comment on my draft:Plastiq was really helpful Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources helped me find better sources, I've cleaned up the article and I think is better than it was. Would you review it? please. JamesRodir (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, have a nice day JamesRodir (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your help with formatting my article about Linda Williamson (Headlee)! You guessed right! Ellencooper (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

EvoShare page

Hi @Worldbruce:, thank you for adding tags to Draft:EvoShare linking it to various projects. Could you possibly review it for approval? --TDuVal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, @Worldbruce:. I haven't heard back from you yet and wanted to see if there was any chance you could review our article. I understand you are probably busy. please let me know if there's a more suitable avenue to pursue for requesting review. Thanks!

TDuVal (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		This is for your hard works in reviewing submissions in Articles for creation. I appreciate your efforts. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 05:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Need to

access this NYBooks review for Yellapragada Sudershan Rao. Posting here, since you seem to be the only one at RX, with access to NYBooks archives. Any help will be appreciated :-) ∯WBG^converse 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I can probably get that for you, but it will be between 10 days and a month before I visit a library that provides it. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I will not be able to supply this after all. It turns out that on 1 November I lost my free access to the library where I was planning to get it. So you'll be better off requesting it at WP:RX. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

AY-3-8500

I am currently working on an article about the 6-in-1 video game chip AY-3-8500 by General Instrument from the 70s. After extensive research it turned out that there still are some gaps: 1) How many chips were produced and 2) When was end of production. I am stuck. The main source left to be checked is the journal Weekly Television Digest. You helped me out with that magazine when I was looking for info about Fairchild's Channel F video game console some time ago. So, I would like to ask, if you can help me again? Unfortunately there are no entries for the the term 'AY-3-8500' but for 'General Instrument' and their 'chip' (16 entries for 1975 https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&id=7B8qAQAAIAAJ&dq=general+instrument+television+digest+1976&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=general+instrument ; 13 entries for 1976, pls. cf. https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&id=gSEqAQAAIAAJ&dq=general+instrument+television+digest+1976&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=general+instrument). So, everything has to be be checked manually (1975 - 1982/3). I know this is a difficult task, but I don't know who I should ask as Weekly Television Digest is not widespread where I live (Germany). Please let me know, Schnurrikowski (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Schnurrikowski: I couldn't find the answers you're looking for, but have emailed you what I found, along with an explanation of what I couldn't search and suggestions about how to proceed. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Many, many thanks for all your efforts and great help! Best regards from Germany, Schnurrikowski (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled post

Hi Worldbruce. Thank you for the educational information on what qualifies as an official webpage. I was wondering why people such as the musician Prince still have official web pages linked to their accounts when he is no longer with us. If it is because the owners of his licensing run it and that qualifies then my question is why would Steve Kaufman's official website not qualify when the owners of his rights and licensing run that current webpage for him after his death? Thank you so much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTazz (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@DrTazz: Thank you for your question, which has been moved to the bottom of the page. New talk page topics should always be added to the bottom. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right to place discussions correctly. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Fuzzik15 requested on 27 May 2017 that an official website be added to Prince (musician). Their request was correctly rejected. An IP editor added one on 10 November 2017. It appears that no one noticed until you mentioned it. The website has been removed from his biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you think?

Do you think the two recent votes on the A. Sims AFD are socks or meatpuppets? I'm wondering if it is worth an SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, they were socks, as is Dr Tazz in the above thread. Blocked quickly by ST47.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks, I'm not surprised. DrTazz's limited contributions also included edits to another artist represented by American Pop Art, Inc. (Steve Kaufman), so it may have been undeclared paid editing as well. So tiresome. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the help and suggestions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Isaac_Adeola_Odeyemi have added more citations and revised sources. Thanks for your input, really appreciate the feedback. CraigMc1979 (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.73.26 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thryv Article

Hey Worldbruce -

I appreciate your response to my attempts to update the article on Dex YP/Thryv. I apologize if I was unclear in my original message.

To clarify... I am NOT being compensated for my work on this article by Thryv or anybody else.

Full disclosure: I *did* used to work for Thryv, but left the company in April of this year. I still have a number of friends who work there, some of whom are in the Marketing department. One of them was concerned because the Dex YP article has been languishing for years on Wikipedia with info that is outdated and/or inaccurate. He asked me if I could wrangle it into shape, and I agreed to do so as a personal favor.

The last article was written back when the company was called Dex YP. They officially changed their name to Thryv earlier this year. Also, the last article had been flagged for sounding too much like an advertisement. Those were the two issues I was trying to address.

When I agreed to write the article, I explained to the folks at Thryv that it would be factual. They wanted me to sugarcoat some of the info, such as the bankruptcy, but I explained to them that wasn't how this worked. I fully understand that Wikipedia is not a marketing channel, and I've explained to them that this is not the forum for hawking products and services.

I honestly made a good-faith effort to rewrite the article so that it was factual and unbiased. I included a number of secondary references, such as BusinessWire and Wall Street Journal. The information I pulled from Thryv's own sources was strictly factual (number of employees, locations of offices, earnings in 2018, etc.) and in no way promotional.

I really am trying to work within the system here and do this correctly. I'll admit, it's a bit frustrating. My first attempt was rejected because the editor claimed I didn't cite enough secondary sources. I suspect this was a misunderstanding, as the sources I cited referred to the company by its previous names (Supermedia, Dex Media, and Dex YP), rather than its new name (which, as I mentioned, they haven't had long). And my second attempt, as you know, was rejected because of a perceived conflict of interest.

If there is an actual issue with the content, then I would be delighted to address it. If you feel some parts of it are skewed or need to be reworked, I'll be happy to do so.

If, however, you honestly believe that I'm incapable of writing an unbiased article about the company, then I'll defer to your judgement and tell the folks at Thryv that they'll just have to sit and wait and hope that one day, somebody with no affiliation with the company will happen across their article and take it upon themselves to fix it.

Thank you,

CapnPhantasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnPhantasm (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hi, I was wondering if you would review the page of Shah Sultan Rumi, an 11th century Sufi saint who settled in Bengal. Thanks and greetings. Mosesheron (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TOMMY ROBERTS

Thank you for the information. I am perplexed as to how to add another subtitle. Above RETIREMENT I want to add AWARDS Is it possible for you to make that change for me. I can then add those to the article. Then I can add citations and finish it. THANK YOU Monmouth1946 Monmouth1946 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Monmouth1946: I added an awards section to Draft:TOMMY ROBERTS and adjusted the existing use of sections to more closely conform to other Wikipedia articles. Be aware that trying to write an article before laying out the sources is like building a house before pouring the foundation. Such an enterprise has a very high risk of failure. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank You so much... I have the references. I finally figured out how to number them in the text. When and most importantly if do it the right way, would you take a look at the finished product.. And let me know what you recommend. I can’t thank you enough for your input N

Monmouth1946 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. I have the references. I just need to place them in the correct portions of the text. I think I have it figured out. Would you be kind enough to take a look at the finished product when that happens. Again, I cannot hank you enough. Monmouth1946

Monmouth1946 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert issue

Hi, Worldbruce, you revert my edit. it is wrong direction. please undo that after verify. 1973 Bangladeshi general election is first election in Bangladesh after liberation. I have added the names of the winning parliamentarians in two successive elections ‍at Brahmanbaria-4 . One of them already has an article. thx for your wiki activities. --DelwarHossain (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@DelwarHossain: No. I agree that the 1973 Bangladeshi general election was the first election in Bangladesh. But it was not the first election in Brahmanbaria-4, because that constituency did not exist in 1973. Brahmanbaria District was not created until 1984. The first election to represent Brahmanbaria-4 was in 1986. Sirajul Haque (or possibly Serajul Huq (politician), I'm not sure if they're the same person) was elected to parliament in 1973, but to represent Comilla-4, not the non-existent Brahmanbaria-4. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce, You are Right. I see comilla-4. Parliamentary seat format has been set up next Brahmanbaria-4. Serajul Huq (politician) was a member Comilla-4 . Now some area is Brahmanbaria-4. thank you for your reply. --DelwarHossain (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8