User talk:Worldbruce

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

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolXG (talkcontribs) 22:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Worldbruce! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sminthopsis84 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

I see that you haven't done a lot of editing over the years, so a warm welcome seems appropriate at last. It's very gratifying to see you working on the Bangladesh upazila articles, which could use all the help they can get! I look forward to seeing you around. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

SM Sultan[edit]

It was done automatically by the software, rather than being a change that I intentionally applied. Looking over what happened, though, I believe the problem was that you were using the <ref name=german><!-- Gloss by itself --></ref> format in the article body. That doesn't work as intended, unfortunately — a gloss can't be split off from the reference content in that manner so that it's standing alone as the only content nested inside a particular invocation of the ref tags, but rather has to be directly next to the actual content of the reference it's glossing.

So in this particular case, if the gloss is necessary for one particular invocation of the reference but not applicable to others, it might be necessary to create a separate ref=german2 citation for the content that needs to be specifically glossed as "supports solo", citing the specific page number in the source that "supports solo" instead of the entire page range of ref=german, so that the gloss can be left in the references list alongside the content of that particular citation.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

12:09:28, 10 September 2014 review of submission by Swherton[edit]

Swherton (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce, thank you for your comments regarding the article for Tim Hailes. This is my first article and I need some help on how I can improve my submission. Tim has been interviewed for lots of financial articles, has commissioned a book on the history of the ward he serves as Alderman. If I expanded on any of this would that help get the submission approved.

Kind regards Sally

@Swherton: Welcome to Wikipedia. Given what you've revealed about yourself, I strongly urge you to reflect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
If you're determined to go ahead with Hailes' biography, then if you haven't already, familiarize yourself with:
Interviews can be useful sources, but can be problematic for proving notability. If they're just the subject talking about themselves in their own words in response to softball questions, then they're primary sources. If they incorporate other people's views of the person being interviewed, if they're more hard-hitting, then they’re probably independent secondary sources. Note that if the subject of the interview is not Hailes, but some financial topic on which Hailes is quoted, then it is unlikely to establish the notability of Hailes. I don't know if Wikipedia has guidance on this, but I don't think quoting someone authorized to speak on behalf of an organization makes that someone notable. On the other hand quoting a journalist or an academic can show that their body of work is widely cited and that they are therefore notable.
I don't see how commissioning a book on the history of the ward would satisfy any notability criteria for Hailes. However, if it is scholarly it would be a welcome source for expansion of the Bassishaw article. Speaking of which, it would be appropriate for the Politics section of that article to include a sentence about Hailes' election. See Bread Street, Cheap (ward), Farringdon Without, and Lime Street (ward) for examples of how this has been done before. It's best to use enduring phrasing like, "In the 2013 local elections," instead of, "Currently," or "As of September 2014," which become out of date. To avoid the appearance of giving Hailes undue weight, it would be best to improve all the ward articles that don't already mention the results of the most recent election.
A different reviewer might regard being elected to local office in London as sufficient evidence of notability. My sense from reading the draft is that it's his most likely path to notability, but that he may need to be in office longer to accomplish something notable there. You may decide, upon reviewing available sources, that he's most notable for something else, perhaps as an author or as a member of the LGBT community. Whatever you decide, make the claim to notability explicit in the first sentence or two of the lead. Don't bury it under a mouthful like "Managing Director & Associate General Counsel in the Investment Banking Division of JPMorgan Chase & Co." Then back up the claim in the body with inline citations of reliable, independent, secondary sources.
Worldbruce (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub Contest award[edit]

Stub Barnstar.png The Stub Barnstar
To Worldbruce, thanks for getting involved in the Stub Contest and having a go. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Worldbruce. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Battered Soles draft[edit]

Dear Worldbruce: Could you take one more pass at the Battered Soles draft? I have added a link to the info about the Stephen Leacock Medal nomination -- I think it made just the long-list -- but I've clearly not done it properly. I really appreciate your help! GraceOdin (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@GraceOdin: The Leacock citation just needed the "url=" property and a closing </ref> tag. The draft is now as good as I can make it. A better writer than I am would integrate material from the Winnipeg Free Press and Nimble Spirit reviews into the reception section, thereby transforming those citations from further reading into references.
I'm hesitant about the Literary Tourist entry. From its wording and date, I suspect it was copied from Wikipedia's Paul Nicholas Mason article, where it was first inserted on 27 October 2008. If so, citing it would be circular sourcing. I've made a mental note to flag it as citation needed in the author's article. What is really needed is a reference to wherever it first appeared, perhaps the local newspaper or church newsletter.
It's possible that the draft will still be declined on the grounds that the book is not notable enough to have a standalone article. If that happens you may want to consider other options, such as merging the material into the article about the author.Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Worldbruce! GraceOdin (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Worldbruce, I have tried to update the link that you found to an archived review of Battered Soles in Nimble Spirit on the author's Paul Nicholas Mason page, but I messed it up somehow. Could you possibly take a look? ...I have been adding a lot of stuff to pages about other Canadian writers -- Helen Humphreys, Diane Schoemperlen, Miriam Toews -- and I want to create several new author articles, but I'm still having trouble with some of the fundamentals.  :-( GraceOdin (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@GraceOdin: It's taken care of. There are a lot of fiddly bits when formatting references. Don't worry if you don't nail them right away. The real fundamental is to always always record your source for anything you write. Another editor can always tidy up the formatting later.Worldbruce (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SO much! GraceOdin (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate the support you gave to Battered Soles, WB. Feeling a bit discouraged at the moment as there are a number of other books I'd like to create articles for... I think I'm going to step away for awhile and maybe try again in a few weeks. GraceOdin (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC Draft of Vince Molinaro[edit]

Hello Worldbruce, I think I fixed the issues you raised on my AfC . BTW, I moved all the discussion to because it was difficult to edit the article with the discussion and article comingled. Hope this is OK. Anyhow, can you take another look and tell me if it's worth resubmitting? Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Me again. Sorry to bother you, @Worldbruce. I can see you're very busy but I resubmitted it and I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the new version. Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@SageGreenRider: I've read the latest draft and think the text is much improved. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. I don't know what they'll make of your moving AfC material to the talk page. We rely heavily on semi-automated tools to manage the workload, and those tools expect all AfC text to be where they inserted it. Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Worldbruce. I understand. If an issue comes up with automation, I'll move the discussion back to the top of the article.SageGreenRider (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft of QUAY-FM[edit]

Your comments are EXTREMELY helpful. When I get time, I will go through them. I really appreciate your help. I must admit I thought the references were fairly solid so I was surprised at the rejection. You are spot on with the legislative changes comment -- I need to get some references, since this is exactly what did happen.

Perhaps it was a mistake to put the article under AfC, but the reason I did it this way is because of my own Conflict of Interest (I'm involved with QUAY-FM as a presenter). Maybe we can work on this together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelroberts (talkcontribs) 11:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nigelroberts: Hi Nigel, I'll help as able, but can't offer close cooperation. I have too many irons in the fire, and the things you may need help with at this point don't align with my strengths.
As you have discovered, AfC is a slow and often frustrating process. One author had to submit his draft on a Belgian manufacturing company fourteen times over a period of several years before a reviewer finally accepted it. Nevertheless AfC is a sensible choice when you want to write the article but have a conflict of interest. Otherwise you would probably soon become familiar with the Articles for Deletion process. If you haven't already been pointed to it, be sure to review WP:BFAQ#COMPANY.
I recommend that you do your own research to find additional material in reliable sources. As an insider, you know what to look for, you know the jargon, you know the places to search, and you may have access to local print sources out of reach of most Wikipedians.
When you think you can convincingly prove notability, then you can decide whether to a) continue editing and submitting the draft yourself, or b) solicit neutral writing help through Wikipedia:Requested articles and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations and turn your draft and research materials over to them (I don't have any experience with them, they may be as broken as AfC).
If you want to read radio station articles that the community have judged to be good (fewer than 1 in 2,500 are), check out WKEY (AM), WCLG (AM), and WCSP-FM. The QUAY-FM article doesn't have to be up to that standard to get created, but the closer you can come to that level, the better. Worldbruce (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Worldbruce, thanks for noting that the IP had declined the draft for SAFID. It had been previously declined by Eurodyne but I wasn't satisfied with his reasoning, which was that Q&As aren't independent sources. He directed me to an essay to illustrate this point that's clearly tagged as being the opinion of some editors but not official Wikipedia policy. My sense has always been that if they're in a decent publication with editorial oversight and are used to support uncontroversial facts (in this case, what the company does and the type of products it makes) rather than to present opinions as facts, then they can be used? If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this draft yourself I'd be really grateful. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@HOgilvy, Eurodyne, and TheMesquito:
Hi Henry, TheMesquito reviewed Draft:SAFID before I got to it, but I've looked it over and read your discussions with the other reviewers. You are correct that interviews can be used to support content, but that's not the whole story.
Answers by a company spokesperson about a company are not independent of that company. Also the interview questions and answers form a primary source. Any additional analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation published with the interview is a secondary source.
Some parts of the Arabian Business article are primary and are not independent, other parts are secondary. The Climate Control and Middle East Trade and Export interviews are entirely primary. I couldn't access the Steel First interview to evaluate it. The AMEinfo bit appears to be a reprinted press release (i.e. not independent), although I'd have to spend more time researching it to be sure. The Construction Week award does not sound very special, and probably should be dropped from the draft.
There are two problems:
  1. To be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be notable. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Even if all your sources are reliable (and I'm not familiar enough with the GCC business press to assume that), most of them are primary and not independent. What's left does not amount to significant coverate. One Wikipedia essay takes a contrary view, opining that an interview, by the very fact that a reliable source independent of the subject decided to print it, is an indicator of notability. In my experience, however, AfC and AfD follow the notability guidelines and do not count primary source interviews towards notability.
  2. If a subject is notable, an article about it must be based mainly on reliable, independent, secondary sources. When writing about a company, their own website is usually regarded as an acceptable source for basic, uncontroversial information about it's history, products/services, financials, management, and facilities. If there's nothing in the article that couldn't have come from the company website and the chairman's own words about it, it shouldn't be an article in Wikipedia. Did everything in the draft, even the list of interview sources, come from SAFID and
Most companies should not have a Wikipedia article. It may be unrealistic to expect a privately held regional subsidiary in a mundane industry to be notable. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Worldbruce, thanks for your feedback. I must say I've never known an editor to consider a non-Q&A interview in a reliable publication (which Arabian Business is) to be part primary/part secondary and therefore not to be considered secondary for notability purposes. It's hardly the same thing as simply the chairman's own words, it's proper editorial. I put the Steel First interview in storage on the talk page as it's behind a paywall as you say. It's an interview as well. These pieces are linked to from his website, sure, but I don't see what that has to do with their suitability for Wikipedia. And calling air conditioning a mundane industry is a bit subjective – it might not be defence, banking, oil & gas, etc. but in the Middle East it's an important industry for obvious reasons and absolutely central to the huge developments going on there. And SAFID is a major company there. HOgilvy (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Worldbruce, any thoughts on the above? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@HOgilvy: I neither said nor meant to imply that the Arabian Business article does not count toward notability. Assuming they're reliable, it and the trivial Construction Week mention are the "what's left" that doesn't add up to significant coverage.
Nor am I saying that sources linked to from the company head's webpage are unsuitable for Wikipedia. For the other reasons stated they do not all count towards notability and are not allowed to be the basis for the majority of an article, but they may be used - with appropriate caution. My point is that the draft presents the company purely in the way that the company and its head wish it to be seen. It's not a crucial point in this discussion. Perhaps it's the only view there is because the company is not notable.
Call it run-of-the-mill if you dislike the word mundane. However essential air conditioning is, and however big a fish the company is in their pond, the company has not gained significant independent attention. Third parties generally have not found it worthy of note, so it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Worldbruce (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

20:45:47, 3 March 2015 review of submission by RAOBZFCH[edit]

RAOBZFCH (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Worldbruce:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for my entry draft about Ambassador Martin Dahinden, that was helpful. In order to establish the notability of Ambassador Dahinden, I added several footnotes/references linking to independent newspaper articles in English (about his appointment, and the extraordinary humanitarian achievements of his career) - I could add more in German and French, if required. I hope that this addresses your concerns, so that information about the Ambassador of Switzerland is as easily accessible on Wikipedia - just like the biographies of other acting ambassadors to the U.S. from various countries (see for example: Peter Westmacott (UK), Mike Moore (New Zealand), MIkhail Khvostov (Belarus), and Ron Dermer (Israel), among others). The special relationship between the U.S. and Switzerland, with its uniquely important diplomatic cooperation in the representation of U.S. diplomatic interests in Iran and Cuba headed by Martin Dahinden, legitimates this entry, in my opinion. Please let me know if there are other issues you'd like to see improved, and thank you for your re-consideration of my draft.

With best regards, RAOBZFCH

@RAOBZFCH: I've studied the changes you made to Draft:Martin Dahinden. The number of sources is far less important than the quality of sources.
Substituting The Washington Diplomat for a Swiss government source does not help. Notice how it reads like a press release? The Washington Diplomat is repeating almost word for word the official government biography. So the source still isn't independent.
The draft can cite interviews with Dahinden and his writings, but all of those are in Dahinden's own words. They're primary sources, so they don't address the problem that Dahinden is not notable. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.
The lead paragraph of the draft says the most notable thing about Dahinden is that he's the Ambassador of Switzerland to the United States of America. Nobody is notable simply for being an ambassador, regardless of where from, where to, or whether the relationship between the two countries is important. I don't see mention in the lead or evidence in the sources you added that he has made extraordinary humanitarian achievements. If he becomes President of Switzerland, or at least a member of the Federal Council, like Emil Frey, or if he accomplishes something notable like US - Cuba rapprochement, or getting the US to sign the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (and reliable sources say so) - then he would be notable.
I urge you to review the guidelines on notability. You may be putting your opinion of what Wikipedia should be ahead of the aim of Wikipedia, to be a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. You may also find these essays relevant: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
If a draft I have declined is resubmitted, I do not review it again in AfC. I follow this policy so that submitters get the benefit of a fresh look from a reviewer who may judge the same material differently. So you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the rest of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Gosh, I am sorry, Worldbruce - i hadn't seen your previous answer to my re-submission - my apologies, I am new to this. Will do some more smarten-up and see how I can proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAOBZFCH (talkcontribs) 18:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with citations for Draft:Coho Data[edit]

Hi Worldbruce, as you know it's been a challenge getting my article Draft: Coho Data published for lack of reliable, un-biased third-party sources. I am wondering if you could help me identify the sources that are not properly supporting the content so I can make sure to omit them and get a better idea of what to look for as replacement sources. Thank you! Cdunnhartman (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdunnhartman (talkcontribs) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cdunnhartman: My conclusion, after studying the draft and hunting for additional sources, was that the draft is beyond help. No amount of tinkering with it is likely to get it approved because the subject simply isn't notable. You may have difficulty seeing that if you have a conflict of interest. My advice is to set the draft aside for a few years; give the subject a chance to become notable. At present, like most companies, Coho Data should not have an article in Wikipedia.
You may find it useful to examine some of Wikipedia's finest company articles, BAE Systems and Oliver Typewriter Company, or the not excellent, but still good: Monster (company), TouchWave, and Yelp. Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: Okay thanks for hunting around. I understand how you came to that conclusion, however I am reluctant to give up just yet because I am seeing various articles published for companies that were at similar stages as Coho Data is currently, if not younger. For example: Tintri, Pure Storage, and PernixData. Do you have some insight on how these companies were able to get their articles published?

As a part-time intern for Coho Data, rather than a full-time employee, my conflict of interest is relatively weak, so I am hoping that I can carry out this assignment regardless of my affiliation. Thanks for your help! Cdunnhartman (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cdunnhartman: I implore you to formally disclose your conflict of interest, however weak you may think it is. Mentioning it on my talk page is not sufficient. A statement on your user page like, "I am a part-time marketing intern at Coho Data" would be adequate, although you may wish to say more about your editing in Wikipedia.
If your internship is paid, you are required by Wikipedia's terms of service to make a disclosure along these lines. Even if your internship is unpaid, you are still receiving compensation in the form of services - training and work experience, so disclosure might be judged to be required. Failing to disclose your conflict of interest gives the (hopefully false) impression that you have something to hide, and carries consequences not only within Wikipedia, but risks running afoul of U.S. Federal and California State laws regarding unfair or deceptive business practices or acts.
With regard to competing companies' Wikipedia articles, let me refer you to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Worldbruce (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: Thanks so much for your help, I'll add disclosure of my position right away to my user page and take a look at those articles. I understand my case may be lost for the time being. Cdunnhartman (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

10:56:12, 13 March 2015 review of submission by IanHislam[edit]

Hi there, I previously had the following citations (below) in my entry, but FiddleFaddle - a wikipedia reviewer - told me to remove them. I explained that I had added them as per the Wikipedia guidance. Please see the citations below to evidence IHS Maritime's notability and please advise whether I should add these back into the entry.

Excerpts of content from appear at:

Citations include but are not limited to:

I was also advised to remove our links to IHS Maritime's social media accounts, which I had added again to show its mass followship (+50K) please can you advise whether I should add these back also.

IanHislam (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@IanHislam: None of the six sources listed above help your draft. The Guardian, The Star, and the BBC are reliable sources, but the articles are not about IHS Maritime, they merely mention it briefly (without the audio or a transcript of the BBC radio piece it's impossible to know, but from the title it does not appear to be about the company, only to include comments from an employee of the company).
FiddleFaddle was also correct that links to IHS Maritime's social media presence do nothing to prove notability, no matter how many followers they have. They have no place in an encyclopedia article about the company.
I suggest you review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and reflect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY particularly pertinent. Bear in mind that most companies should not have an article in Wikipedia, which is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations.
When I have more time I will reply to your second message; it may be a few days. Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

11:20:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by IanHislam[edit]


Hi, I have resubmitted the draft but cannot tell whether it has come through to you with an additional six references from independent national media. Please could you confirm you have received it?

The entry, for reference, is as follows:

[1]IHS Maritime & Trade provides maritime database information, covering ship characteristics, movements, ownership, casualties, ports, ship companies, news and research [2]. It is the IMO’s sole appointed authority for assigning and validating ship and company numbers [3]. The business evolved from the Lloyd’s Register of Ships [4], which was first published in 1764. IHS, a business information group headquartered in Colorado[5] , became a joint venture partner in Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay (LRF) in March 2008 when it bought Prime Publications Ltd [6]. It acquired the remaining 49.9 per cent of LRF in June 2009. In 2014, IHS acquired the JOC group [7]. IHS Maritime & Trade is based in Surrey, UK, and has offices worldwide[8] .

Data and analysis The IHS Maritime data department is responsible for the maintenance of current ship registration, technical and ownership details, plus coverage of newbuildings, casualty, ship photograph analysis and port facilities . Editorial and publishing IHS Maritime Fairplay[9] is a weekly magazine targeting the international maritime audience. It was founded by Thomas Hope Robinson in 1883 [10] and has been in publication ever since. It's believed Thomas Hope Robinson was a merchant seaman who turned his hand to publishing on coming ashore in the UK. In the first issue he wrote: "There is so little Fairplay in the world. If our own efforts succeed, we shall have taken the first steps towards promoting the habit of calling things by their right name and looking at them through uncoloured spectacles." [11] This ‘raison d'etre’ has appeared in every subsequent issue of Fairplay magazine, and currently appears at the top of the Editor’s ‘lookout’ page.

Additional magazines within the maritime publishing portfolio include the monthly magazines: IHS Safety at Sea Magazine [12] and IHS Dredging and Port Construction [13]. All news is housed at . IHS Maritime & Trade has been quoted in national and international media in relation to shipping matters[14].

IHS Maritime & Trade has a team of staff reporters and editors in the UK, US, Singapore and Shanghai, with additional representation in South America, Canada, Europe and Australasia[15] .

Social media IHS Fairplay has a presence on: • Twitter @IHS4Maritime[16] and @IHS4SafetyatSea [17] • LinkedIn via the IHS Maritime group: • Facebook: • Google+:

External links!/ihs4maritime!/IHS4SafetyAtSea

  1. ^
  2. ^ About IHS
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ Excerpts of content from appear at: , , , , ,
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
@IanHislam: The draft is not in the submitted state. That's good, because this draft is much much worse than the previous draft. It is highly unlikely that it would be approved if it were submitted in it's current state. Undo the changes you made today and study my reply to your previous message. Worldbruce (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

14:31:02, 17 March 2015 review of submission by IanHislam[edit]


Hi WorldBruce, I resubmitted this with independent third-party references on Friday 13 March, please can you confirm that this has been received?

IanHislam (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@IanHislam: No change since my last reply. If the draft had been submitted correctly you would see a big yellow box of text at either the top or the bottom of the draft. The draft is not in the submitted state. That's good, because this draft is much much worse than the previous draft. It is highly unlikely that it would be approved if it were submitted in it's current state. Undo the changes you made on 13 March and study my earlier replies. Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

16:15:17, 17 March 2015 review of submission by IanHislam[edit]


Thanks for your assistance Worldbruce. I have read through all the links you suggested. I have run a Google Search on IHS Maritime and it is cited widely, there are some more links here:

The company is a data and content provider and so the citations are in relation to this. Should I add these in as external links? There are pages of such results.

Thanks. IanHislam (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@IanHislam: No, adding those to the draft will not improve it. No number of trivial mentions add up to notability. I suggest again that you reread WP:CORP. If you still don't grasp the problem, try the essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I'll be as blunt as I can, IHS MARITIME IS NOT NOTABLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

changes to Draft of Byron Schenkman article[edit]

Hi Worldbruce, thanks for your help on the Byron Schenkman draft. I cleaned up a lot of the citations, with help from my husband Bottesinist. We were able to replace some of them with citations from some of the news oganizations you suggested. RoseSong (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@RoseSong: Casting a quick eye over your changes, the draft appears much improved. When a draft I've declined is resubmitted, I don't review it again in AfC. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. I think it's likely to be approved this time around though. The only glaring thing I noticed, and I'm not sure why it didn't jump out before, is that the Wikipedia style for biographies is to refer to a person in the text by last name only, after the first mention. Full name is fine in the discography and citations, but remove all the Byrons in the early life and career text. Just one of the 1001 things in WP:MOS that gives Wikipedia a consistent tone and appearance.
Good work, I hope you stick around and write more about classical music, the Pacific Northwest, or whatever catches your interest. Worldbruce (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:11:21, 29 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Calgarytech[edit]

I would like more detail after a THOROUGH review of the page. There are definitely items to be improved and enhanced but I believe that the notion that Mayor Patricia Matthews does not meet the Wikipedia notoriety standard is mistaken. Perhaps your initial interrogation was a simple spot check and, given the amount of content on the page, you just happened to review the lighter weight references, missing the more in-depth mentions.

Hi Bruce;

Thank you for taking the time to review the page. I have read and understood the GUIDELINES FOR NOTABLE PEOPLE and the GOLDEN RULE, and I believe that Mayor Patricia Matthews fills those requirements:

1: She has navigated the Town to Alberta's 14th largest city for the last decade

   - The reference to CANADA's 14th largest was simply a mistake that was easy to spot and correct... which it is now

2: She lead Canada's fastest growing Town, year after year.

3: She has a huge amount of documented television and print coverage for her work, spanning many years:

   - If you don't like four references you point to, I could remove them but I thought Wikipedia wants as many references as reasonable
   - In depth coverage of Patricia on major media outlets, is available in many referenced articles including:
          - 3 dedicated minutes on Global TV seen throughout the Southern Alberta 
          - 5 dedicated minutes on Alberta Primetime TV seen Province wide  
          - 15 dedicated minutes on Radio Sirsangham heard throughout Southern Alberta  
          - 3 dedicated minutes on Global TV News  
          - 9 dedicated minutes on Radio Sirsangham heard throughout Southern Alberta 
          - 6 dedicated minutes on CBC Radio heard throughout the Province  
          - DOZENS of non-dedicated articles providing repeated and extended references to Patricia Matthews like 

I see there are also some references that have now been notably downgraded. For instance used to point to a 15 minute long one on one radio interview which has now been replaced with a very short text reference to the topic. These degraded references are still valid so I have left them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarytech (talkcontribs) 08:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Further, the suggestion that the Chestermere Anchor newspaper is not independent is odd.

          - The paper has nothing to do with City operations or Patricia Matthews and is not in any way influenced by them 
          - Neither the City nor Patricia would not be considered major advertisers or account for any meaningful part of there revenue
          - Patricia has nothing beyond a passing knowledge of the papers operations and ownership
          - The paper employs many people (i.e. it is not 2 people) and is not tied to any political party

In addition to the above, this page far exceeds Wikipedia's practical standard of notoriety demonstrated in other pages for similar people. There a MANY far less notable, far less referenced, FAR less 'covered' Alberta Mayors and Provincial politicians with far weaker content pages on the Wikipedia site that have been added in recent years, like:

I believe that this page does provide the in depth coverage you refer as proof of notoriety and would be an asset to Wikipedia. As stated, I have read the guidelines and so I ask that you re-review the page in depth.

Perhaps you would like the site to have fewer (more important) references and I should streamline the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarytech (talkcontribs) 08:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration.

Calgarytech (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calgarytech: I spent many hours reviewing the draft before declining it. My conclusion was that Matthews is not notable. Other editors might disagree. There are those, for example, who believe that any mayor of a city with a population of 50,000 and above should be considered notable, regardless of what Wikipedia policy or guidelines say. You are welcome to reach your own assessment. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths.
The audio and video you think proves notability does not for two reasons. Although Matthews may be in or be quoted in the pieces, the pieces are not about Matthews, they are about Chestermere. They prove that Chestermere is notable, not that Matthews is notable. Anything Matthews does say about herself (such as that she moved to Chestermere in 1998) is a primary source and, as you know from having read WP:BASIC, cannot contribute to proving notability.
As CookieMonster755 has pointed out, some of the material on YouTube appears to have been uploaded there in violation of copyright. Wikipedia must not link to a copyright violation. Kindly do not place such links on my talk page.
The Chestermere Anchor article in question is based on a press release "through" the RCMP. They, of course, are independent of Matthews, but on first reading it wasn't clear to me whether they were the authors or merely the agency through which information from other departments (some of which report to Matthews) was being released. On further examination I believe the RCMP is the origin of the material. It really doesn't matter, as the article doesn't even mention Matthews and so is wholly irrelevant to whether she is notable. The uncaptioned photo from who knows where (an Anchor photographer, the RCMP, the mayor's press office?) appears to show Matthews, but that is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
With regard to existing Wikipedia articles about similar people, let me refer you to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That argument cuts no ice with experienced editors.
There are numerous problems with the draft. As you say, it needs to be radically streamlined. All the references with just passing or trivial mentions should be removed. The first sentence should clearly state why the subject is notable. The lead should summarize the article. But all the editing in the world isn't going to fix the problem that the subject is not notable, it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.
My recommendation is to merge some of the material you have into the Chestermere article, set the draft aside, and work on something else. Matthews may become notable, particularly if she is elected to higher office. Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Susana Martinez-Conde[edit]

Hi Worldbruce,

I saw you suggested I delete some of the page I was creating. Is this necessary for the page to go live? I've cited your concerns. Whether it's relevant material or not I suppose is a different matter.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklyUniversity (talkcontribs) 17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@BrooklyUniversity: Articles for Creation can be a slow and frustrating process. It looked as though in trying to satisfy the reviewers you were becoming entangled, so to nudge the draft in the right direction I pointed out the editorial boards. Providing citations for each board membership brought out that being on the boards is not especially remarkable, and that no one other than Martinez-Cohen and the boards in question has thought it worth writing about -- the sources you found were all primary. Primary sources may be used, but independent secondary sources are strongly preferred, and must be the basis for the bulk of an article. Rather than plunging on, providing a source for every single statement, I thought it might help to step back and ask whether the statement really belongs in a biography in the first place. Otherwise I was afraid you might add many references only to be told by another reviewer that the draft was promotional or had the wrong tone.
Primefac slashed the editorial boards and everything else he judged to be superfluous, so you no longer need worry about that. Follow his lead and the draft should be approved in due course. In case no one has said so, "Good work." The draft is much better than many that come through AfC; I hope you stick around and write more biographies, about science, or whatever catches your interest.
A few tips:
  1. The meaningful title you used for this talk page section is much appreciated. Even better is to provide a direct link to any article you're discussing, like: Draft:Susana Martinez-Conde. Bear in mind that editors may be juggling thousands of pages and editing at irregular intervals.
  2. Try to remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). A bot will fix it, but there's a lag.
  3. However tempting it may be, never argue that a draft is better than existing articles in the same subject category, it won't cut any ice with experienced editors. Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to understand why.
Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Afc Backlog for the Music Room (Album)[edit]

Hi Worldbruce - I noticed you just rejected the article for the album The Music Room (album). I was browsing the Afc list last night and saw it was the longest standing entry on the pending list. I read the article, looked up the musicians, easily found and added a couple of sources of press coverage from The India Times and The Hindu, and found a review site, albeit a minor one. I thought that would be enough to move it off the list, but noticed you just rejected it. I have no horse in this race, and was just trying to clear the backlog, but I noticed your rejection comment stated that it was because there were no new sources added since Feb. 14th. Please consider that The Times of India is the largest selling English language newspaper in the world. The Hindu is the third most widely read English language newspaper in India. I wanted to make sure you actually read the article and saw those new sources before rejecting it, so we can be fair to the article writers.Timtempleton (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Hi Tim, thanks for your note. I did not see the four sources you added. I'm guessing that I opened the draft before you added them, went off and read the other five sources, looked at diffs, etc., then clicked review and decline without noticing that you had modified the draft since I began reading it. My fault. I'll be more careful in future. I've reverted myself and will reevaluate the draft when I have time, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Worldbruce:Thanks, and thanks for all your efforts making Wikipedia the great site it is today.Timtempleton (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Aerospeed got to The Music Room before I did, but here's my take on it. The Indipop and Amazon sources are user-generated, so the critical reception section shouldn't be built on them. The "Sonu Nigam and Bickram Ghosh on The Music Room" article, despite having the album name in the title, actually says very little about it, it's almost entirely about other projects the two are working on. The article in The Hindu is very good, but I'm not sure how to evaluate it with respect to WP:NALBUMS's exception of "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording."
All of the newspaper sources fall into that exception to one degree or another. I would be inclined to count for notability those, like The Hindu, that aren't just softball questions followed by paragraphs of the musicians in their own words, where instead the reporter summarizes mostly in his/her own words what the artists have said and adds some measure of analysis. Another reviewer might draw the line differently. The two seem to be on a promotional tour, there was another article in The Telegraph (Calcutta) today, although it focused on their work for films. Approval of the draft may have to wait for coverage to shift from their promotional rounds to in-depth mainstream reviews of the album itself.
The original author regularly edits Sonu Nigam and articles on his works, and only those articles. A very single-minded fan or someone with a close connection. In any case I think we can rely on them to keep an eye out for additional sources and to continue improving the draft. Worldbruce (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. In the meantime, I added a few more sources of critical reception that seem more mainstream. I know almost nothing about these artists, but I did Google the phrase "Sonu The Music Room album" without quotes and got 238,000 results. A lot of those are MP3 sites that seem to be picking up a central feed, and others are different sites showing the same photos from the album launch party, but I did find some other coverage. In any case, these artists seem to be highly regarded in India - I don't want to be Xenophobic. I also learned what Gujarati is, so this isn't all for nothing!Timtempleton (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

05:01:33, 8 April 2015 review of submission by Itscamilla[edit]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the page I'm creating. I added two published journals and properly cited them in the draft. Let me know what else can be improved.

Thank you!

@Itscamilla: You've added more things written by Kimball, which gets you nowhere notability-wise. You need sources written about Kimball by people completely independent of Kimball. I presume you've read the guidelines that reviewers have pointed you towards, and read my comments when I declined the draft. Since that doesn't seem to have helped you, try looking at examples of the best articles Wikipedia has about executives:
Cast your eye over the references. Notice all the newspaper and magazine articles (and in some cases books) written about the person? That's the type of source you need to demonstrate Kimball's notability. Worldbruce (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Navy and Air Force[edit]

@worldbruce how many members are there bangladesh navy and air force if there is 157000 members in the whole armed forces (combinedly). please note that currently it is written 48000 personnel in navy and 52000 personnel in air force . MilitaryBangla (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@MilitaryBangla: You say that "it is written" but you don't say where, so I'm unsure what you mean. Subsequent to my reversion of your unsourced change to Bangladesh Army, another editor dug up a more recent edition of the reliable source the article has been using for size. That source,
  • "Chapter 6: Asia". The Military Balance (2015 ed.). International Institute for Strategic Studies. 17 February 2015. pp. 229–231. ISBN 9781857436426. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
gives the following figures: Bangladesh armed forces as a whole: 157,050; army: 126,150; navy: 16,900; air force: 14,000. Those figures are active military, they exclude reserves and paramility forces. Wikipedia requires that all information added cite reliable sources so that it may be verified. If you think there's a better source that proves different numbers, the place to discuss it is the article's talk page. Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No Good Inormation on BAF (Bangladesh)[edit]

@worldbruce . i didnt find any good information about Bangladesh Air Force and Navy .informations are very less compared to Indian Air Force and Navy. can you imagine 14000 personnel are too short for Bangladesh Air Force. MilitaryBangla (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:42:05, 16 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniellecart1[edit]

I have added some more sources to the page and was wondering how more more external references I would need to get this published. I really appreciate your advice.

As a catholic organisation the church as an integral part of catholic schools and are used as part of the religious life of the school. This building was also used within the school from 1963- 2010 as a building..until new facilities built as stated. It has been a big part of the school's history. Daniellecart1 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

09:00:52, 16 April 2015 review of submission by Daniellecart1[edit]

I have added more external referencing as requested. In QLD as a catholic organisation the church as an integral part of catholic schools history and were built and used as an part of the religious life of the school. This heritage building was also used within the school from 1963- 2010 as a building..until new facilities built as stated. It has been a big part of the school's history. I have updated the points requested with more external references.

Daniellecart1 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Daniellecart1: Quality of sources is far more important than quantity.
  • The chronology adds some key points about St. Declan's.
  • Queensland Places doesn't add any useful content, but does mention another source which might yield something: Anderson, Judith (1995). Cultural heritage study of Daisy Hill State Forest Park: a report for the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage. Brisbane. 
  • The "Consistency of Teacher Judgement" study is of dubious value to the draft. The new paragraph it supports is gobbledygook.
These three new sources only have a sentence here and there about the school/church building, they are not in at least as much depth as the one page Jolliffe article, so they get the draft little or no further towards notability. Better sources are needed.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source and may not be used as a reference. Instead, you may use internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Conversely, external links may not appear in the body of the article. They can only be used as references or in the external links section.
The sources about religious figures contribute absolutely nothing towards the notability of the school/church building. I recommend deleting them and the information they support. For example, change: "Red House is called Nagle. Nano Nagle loved one another and spent herself to the poor.[14]" to "Red House is called Nagle, after Nano Nagle." Rely on internal links to give readers any additional information. (Nano Nagle is not linked internally in this example because she is linked earlier in the draft, and should only be linked the first time her name appears).
Don't hold your breath waiting for the draft to be approved. (By the way, when I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths.) Very very few primary schools are notable. You may never be able to prove notability. Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

18:13:48, 21 April 2015 review of submission by Fvictoria[edit]

I am not sure how the page is unsuitable for wikipedia. Please give me specific examples from my post and let me know what I need to fix in order to get this published.

Fvictoria (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fvictoria: Have you read my comment on the page Draft:Noozhawk? To be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be proven that multiple reliable independent secondary sources have covered the website in significant depth. Furthermore, at least one of those sources must be outside the local region. Worldbruce (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

04:02:54, 28 April 2015 review of submission by Apostle-Watch[edit]

Apostle-Watch (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Apostle-Watch: Is there something I can help you with? Worldbruce (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Definitely yes! However, first I must find the lexicographic documentation that is needed for my first article, and when that is satisfactory, I will try to write more about apostles today. The New Apostolic Reformation is the fastest growing mega-block of Christianity in the world with wide influence in various spheres of society.--Apostle-Watch (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it so?[edit]

Isn't the convention about creating an uniform naming system for different levels of geographic entities? Making it disambiguation dependent would definitely stand in the way of uniformity. Anyways, can you take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:BDPLACE/Log? I want others to participate as well. That way even if I am doing a mistake, the pilot will have a learning. Aditya(talkcontribs) 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I've posed my original question at Wikipedia_talk:BDPLACE/Log as you asked. To elaborate in response to your reply:
To quote WP:BDPLACE, "Whenever possible, articles on places in Bangladesh go under [[placename]]." In other words, the article about Tanore Upazila should be titled Tanore Upazila unless that name is ambiguous.
A small number of upazilas in different districts have the same name. For example, there is a Shibganj Upazila in Bogra District and another in Chapai Nawabganj District. The convention says, "When disambiguation is needed, ... For places and territories within districts, but not in a city: [[placename, district]]. Here, district name would drop the part District from name for sake of brevity." So we get Shibganj Upazila, Bogra and Shibganj Upazila, Chapai Nawabganj.
The convention is about uniformity in the sense that all articles should follow the same naming rules, but the rules are not simplistic, there are a number of ifs ands and buts. 95% of articles already follow the convention, because the convention is just the formalization and clarification of defacto naming rules that have been used for years. Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you so much for taking the time to help me become a better editor; you made some great points, and I will definitely read the article you suggested. The only thing you mentioned that I take issue with is that "author" shouldn't be mentioned; while it is true that a columnist is an author, my intent was to specify that Issam Naaman has written books in addition to columns. Also, although I am aware of its (mis)use in regional (Lebanese) English, in standard Western English "lawyer" is a colloquial laymen's term - the scholarly term is "attorney" (though I left your (re)edit). Oh, and while the succession box is indeed a great tool, it did not contain any external links, therefore, by definition, does not belong in the external links section. I'll leave it to you to determine how to remedy that. Again, thank you for your help! WikiEditorial101 (talk)

@WikiEditorial101: I understand your point about Naaman's books, and have changed the lead and infobox to describe him as an author instead of as a columnist. I don't think both terms should be used there because the Manual of Style/Lead Section, Manual of Style/Biographies, and Writing better articles all emphasize that the lead should be concise, accessible, and stress what is most important about a subject.
You're welcome to change lawyer to attorney if you think that would be an improvement. Although Wikipedia prefers scholarly sources, it tends to prefer the most widely used term when it comes to language. The article about the profession, for example, is titled Lawyer rather than Attorney. My main concern in this area is only that we not create a "sea of blue" by linking common occupations, something the Manual of Style cautions against.
The succession box is not actually in the external links section, it is below it, where it belongs according to the Manual of Style/Layout. What can be confusing is that because of the way the editing tool works, if one clicks [Edit] next to the External links section header, everything from there to the end of the page comes up in the editor. This includes many other things that also aren't external links, like meta-data, categories, stub templates, etc. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you for teaching this beginner. You are clearly right in everything you've said, and I see that now. I'm sorry for swaggering into your territory and screwing things up! Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. You convinced me that lawyer is the right word to use in this context/medium. And I'm removing the UN delegate occupation that I added because you're right that I made the lead too wordy and also did not provide a proper source for him being a member of KRC's delegation to the UN Human Rights Counsel.

Another note:

I distinctly remember not being offered an image of a plate of assumably fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies as a welcome to Wikipedia. I am officially jealous. Good day, sir. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 2:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101: Although I disagreed with a few specific edits, much of your work on Naaman made a definite improvement and is sincerely appreciated. The article is on my watchlist because I made a substantial contribution to it and intend to expand it further when I have time to dig up and summarize good sources, but I make no pretence of owning the topic.
Wikipedia always needs more editors; I hope you enjoy it here and stick around. There are many different welcome templates, so you can choose another if you like. I've kept my cookies for sentimental reasons, but the style of welcome you received is more functional. A colleague commented recently that contributing effectively to Wikipedia involves a lot more reading than writing, and I agree. Exploring the links in the welcome templates will yield rich rewards. Happy editing! Worldbruce (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

LST UT Austin Law School[edit]

Removed data inserted by law school transparency advocacy group, which is an unreliable source. Suggested replacement with more accurate data from the American Bar Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern: Are the extensive edits you're making the result of consensus in some discussion? The first paragraph in this edit removed text that references the ABA Employment Summary on the law school's official website. That is not an unreliable blog, as the edit summary suggests. You write "inserted by ... advocacy group." Is there evidence that the origin of the paragraph was an edit by LST as opposed to one that cited LST as a source, and if so, does that matter if the source cited now is not LST? Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@ As discussed on the reliable sources notice board, citations to ABA data should not use employment categories created by LST. Citations to the underlying ABA data are fine to include, just not emphasis on specific employment categories.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) @ Wordbruce The categories are non-standard categories created by LST, which is an unreliable source, and violate Neutral Point of View policy. The citation should first be to total employment, and only then provide more specific categories. Excluding some categories and including others has no justification--it's just something LST made up, and is therefore not reliable. Inclusion of all categories without comment would also be acceptable. See the reliable source noticeboard for discussion of LST's unreliability.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Retaliation by Epeefleche and Stesmo[edit]

Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 1Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern:I don't know why you posted this on my talk page, but there is as yet no consensus on whether LST is a reliable source. In any case, please train yourself to put new sections at the bottom of a talk page where they belong, indent your replies, and sign your posts. Wikipedia is a collaborative medium; being an effective contributor involves following guidelines large and small, remaining on-topic, respecting other people's work and opinions, and not alienating other editors. Worldbruce (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)