User talk:Bjelleklang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please note that unless otherwise stated, I will reply on your talkpage!

This page does not contain all previous posts, please see the archives in the box to the right ->

Wikidata weekly summary #98[edit]

Hey there -

I've been helping the band Discipline - - on their Wikipedia profile. How can I help make this site more relevant? They don't tour often, but they are playing a show this October in Central New Jersey. I can probably find reviews of their work. What else might you need?

- mike,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progscape (talkcontribs) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 

Rejection of my submission[edit]

Dear Bjelleklang,

I tried to give every reference. Please tell me, why my submission is rejected.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikaviivek (talkcontribs) 15:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #99[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #100[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #101[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oded Maimon[edit]

Please explain what do you mean by

"reviews of his books to establish notability, as they aren't independent of the subject. For the article to be accepted and notability to be verifiable, you need non-trivial and independent sources"

why books' reviews are considered dependent? Can you give an example what is considered to be independent or non-trivial.

Looking on many other biographies of professors in Wikipedia - I find many other with even less resources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 
Replying here and to the IP in question. Sorry for the bad wording, I've updated the decline reason. But basically you need something other than reviews and his own books to establish notability, so the review result is the same. Also, the next time you want to ask a question adding the link to the article would be nice as I'm amongst the least active reviewers but still had to look through my contribs to find the article in question. Bjelleklang - talk 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #102[edit]

Heleen Mees[edit]

Can you please protect the Heleen Mees and Willem Buiter articles? (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bjelleklang - talk 22:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, is this necessary? Mees was not sentenced, the charges are set for dismissal. Why accept an edit that obliterates all her other achievements and only highlight the false accusations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwz3hm (talkcontribs) 00:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a nasty place. The charges against Mees are set for dismissal. She has not been convicted, she did not plead guilty so she therefore can not be sentenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwz3hm (talkcontribs) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #103[edit]

skilled group page[edit]

your turn to edit the page Mr slavery supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K of the net (talkcontribs) 14:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #104[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #105[edit]

Heleen Mees[edit]

When can the Heleen Mees article be unprotected? -- (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Parature Article Rejection[edit]


You declined my submission for an article for the company known as Parature, citing lack of notability and/or reliable resources. I was hoping you could clarify which sources you considered unreliable; I found other sources, but after talking on the IRC with other editors, they recommended I look for others. As such, I found sources such as the Washington Post, Washington Business Journal, Techcrunch, and the Wall Street Journal, instead. I also tried my best in the Awards section to use the official website of the organization who issued the awards whenever possible.

The main reason I am trying to get this article submitted is that Parature was acquired by Microsoft recently (as stated in the text of the article) and I am trying to update this article so that it can be linked to in a list of Microsoft acquisitions, as well as display the most current information about the company. I understand that it was rejected previously because it was not stated what the company does (leading to confusion and the impression that it was a call center of sorts); however, I have tried to state as clearly as possible in my edits that it is a software development firm which creates, sells, and implements customer service software using a SaaS (Software as a Service) model.

If there is other information I can provide, please let me know. If this is an issue with sources, can you please tell me what is wrong with the sources I cited.

Thank you for your time,

kim2jy (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #106[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #107[edit]

Following up on Mike (progscape) message regarding the discipline article[edit]

Dear Bjelleklang,

I see on Feb 22, 2014 Mike of reached out to you about how to improve the page below to make it more relevant

I am interested in the same article.

Have you given Mike guidance on how to prove the article? If not, can you let me know?

What would help make the article and subject more relevant for Wikipedia readers?


Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

RE your review of the draft that you reference at…You wrote "From the contents and the sources cited I'm not convinced that the band is notable. Yes, they have released some records, been on tour and played at festivals, but there is still no evidence as far as I can tell that they've received any coverage outside interviews, tour info and reviews." Can you give a hypothetical example of what might rise to the level of notability for inclusion? The article sites sources, several that are verifiable online, so I suspect that is not the basis of the rejection for notability. The article cites another wikipedia article that specifically references the band. There are no publicity stunts; it is all just music press. Would additional critical acclaim raise the article's notability? For example, would the addition of the following help (this from June 2014): "There is no doubt in my mind that one of the most important bands to come out of America in the last 25 years is Discipline." —Kev Rowland, Amplified Magazine, Number 135, June 2014 (New Zealand). …Any guidance you can provide is appreciated.Disciplineband (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees "pending review" procedure[edit]

I am not familiar with how "pending review" works. I would like to undo IP's four edits to the Heleen Mees article. Am I supposed to wait until IP's edits are reviewed/accepted? (It appears to me that all four changes have gone through.) Who is in charge of reviewing the edits? Can the reviewer deny an edit from being posted?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

--TheCockroach (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I undid my revert of IP user's edit (where he/she deleted Mees' birth name from the infobox without a reason in the edit summary) because I don't understand how the "pending review" process works and don't want to mess up the Heleen Mees article more than it has been already by users,, Kinker020, and Bilbao86 reverting/edit-warring. --TheCockroach (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't used it much myself, but if you review PC, there should be a form at the top of the diff asking you to accept or revert the changes. Undoing/rolling back works just as well IIRC. Reviews can be done by any established editor, and acceptance or reverts will be added to the page history as with any other edit. Bjelleklang - talk 07:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello TheCockroach - I'm Anupmehra. Heleen Mees article was recently protected to make [live] changes only by auto-confirmed users, because of edit-warring between several editors. However, the protection was removed barely after 6 minutes by admin Bjelleklang, for he/she misunderstood the request made to him or request protection page.
Pending changes protection enables only a group of editors to make live changes to the protected page. It may be set as, "[edit=autoconfirmed]" for users belonging to "auto-confirmed" user group or [edit=reviewers] for users belonging to "reviewer" group. Other people are able to edit these pages, but changes do not go live, until reviewed by the some editor belonging to a particular group, protection is set for. Hope, it does help. If not, feel free to open the request. Good luck! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Note: I reached here following "Category:Wikipedians looking for help". Just realized it is on another person's talk page not the requester talk page.

Wikidata weekly summary #108[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #109[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #110[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #110[edit]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #111[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #112[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #113[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #115[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #116[edit]

A question[edit]

Could you explain what makes this entry better than the one I purposed?

Many thanks, PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Afour (talkcontribs) 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #117[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #118[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #119[edit]