User talk:Worldbruce: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:10, 29 June 2016

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Direct action day

Thank you for gangraping the article of its truth. People like you are the reason why wikipedia continues to be a laughing stock when it comes to South asian articles.

Welcome!

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)[reply]

SM Sultan

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></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)[reply]

Up for a challenge? Yes!

Hi Worldbruce,

Yes, I'd be interested in improving the article about the luthier Brian Lisus. I do need help getting hold of the sources. I've already searched and there isn't much. Please send me what you have. I'm not sure how to use sources that you have to subscribe to read. I avoided them when I wrote the Schenkman article.

My husband used to work for a violin maker and I'll ask him if he has any ideas for this project.

RoseSong — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSong (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugwah, Bangladesh

This is an old post office location, found in P.D. Allen's list, at http://worldpostmarks.net/HTML Countries/IndiaandStates.htm

Rajshahi division may have been superceded; on maps it appears to be almost due east of Rangpur.

http://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-3770753&fid=548&c=bangladesh Latitude in decimal degrees : 25.716667 Longitude in decimal degrees : 89.716667

"The information regarding Bugwah in Bangladesh on this page is published from the data supplied by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a member of the Intelligence community of the United States of America, and a Department of Defense (DoD) Combat Support Agency."

They then print this disclaimer: "No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Bugwah information contained here."Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fconaway: Thanks! With that additional information I found that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency records "Bugwah" as a variant of "Bagua, Anantapur", which is a village in Hatia Union, Ulipur Upazila, Kurigram District, Rangpur Division, Bangladesh, very close to the coordinates in the article. Anantapur appears on the upazila maps, and appears on Google maps as Onantapur.

Bagua, Anantapur is quite small, so I'm not sure that it is the same as the early Indian post office using killer cancel 158. There are at least five other Baguas in what is now Bangladesh, some of which seem more likely candidates for a match. Our local philatelic library has a copy of Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations, so I'll check that as soon as I get a chance. Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress! Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations may not have what you are looking for. The latest word on this is Denis R. Martin, Numbers in Early Indian Cancellations, 1855-1884. I would look it up, but my copy is in storage. I hope your library has it. Remember, it must be specifically the B/158 in the Bengal Octagon, or "Bengal spiderweb": that is Renouf's Type [7], which would also be Cooper's Type 7. Renouf, the pioneer, listed this as Bugwah.Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a scan of a letter cancelled B/158, dated 29 September 1869. It was back-stamped "Traveling P. O. Bengal"; it may have been carried by a river steamer. This appeared in a Feldman auction lot in Sept 2013.Fconaway (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fconaway: Intriguing. I don't actually see a scan ... am I missing a link?

Regarding review of Parasite Rex

Hello, Worldbruce. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Silverseren^C 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Thanks so much for your help. Silverseren^C 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aali

Hi Worldbruce! I really appreciate your comments and comprehensive review of my submission. I was not aware how to handle the COI. Thank you for your reminding. I have revised the article based on your comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giatec_Scientific_Inc.

Would you please review?

Thank you very much,

Aali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aali451 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aali: Thank you for declaring your connection to Giatec Scientific (I moved it to the draft's talk page, which is where it belongs). I'm busy with another project right now, but I'll take a look at the draft next week if one of the other reviewers doesn't get to it first. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Saleh

Sorry I messed that up. I accidentally accepted when I meant to revert, and it edit conflicted with your revert. Meters (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WJSV broadcast day - Thanks

Thanks for your assistance in the WJSV broadcast day situation. I really appreciated your help. TeemPlayer (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:40:52, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 3fivesix

3fivesix (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Janice Marturano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Worldbruce,

I'm wondering if you can give me some feedback and help on a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janice_Marturano) that can't seem to get approved. Your last round of advice was very thoughtful and accurate and I made each of the recommendations you suggested. However, it was just denied again and I'm at a loss of how to improve it.

Can you take a look and suggest how I can improve it or just approve the draft if it looks ok to you?

Thanks very much in advance!

3fivesix (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3fivesix: I tinkered with it a bit to try to address all concerns that have been raised. There may still be places where half a sentence could be cut or the wording could be simplified, but the references are strong. I don't see any glaring problems, and it would easily survive a deletion nomination. So it's time for it to brave the waters of mainspace, where it may be edited mercilessly. One thing you may want to think about is what encyclopedia articles, if any, should link to Janice Marturano. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:48:12, 18 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Rouken

Rouken (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ModeAudio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft submission. I fully understand your reasons and agree that after only 2 years, there probably is not enough evidence yet to suggest ModeAudio is notable as defined by Wikipedia. I would however be very grateful if you could let me know which references, other than the Music Radar & Music Tech links, you would consider as acceptable for future consideration? I understand why you feel that some look like press releases but would the lengthy review in Ask Audio Magazine for example, which is a popular 3rd party music production e-zine, not also qualify?

I also wondered why the references to the Image Line and Propellerhead stores were removed, as these were included to establish the relationship between ModeAudio and these well-known companies in the digital music production sector. Are commercial relationships not seen as indicators of notability also?Rouken (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Rouken (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rouken: The Music Radar and Music Tech sources are the only ones I'm convinced count towards notability. I was not impressed with Ask Audio. Being popular does not make a source reliable. I couldn't find any evidence of editorial oversight or that publisher NonLinear Educating has a reputation for fact-checking. If reliable, it is still a niche publication with a limited audience, which would weaken any value in proving notability. The author is not a professional reviewer or journalist, which also weighs against it.

If you feel it should count towards notability, you can ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Most likely, consensus will be that the review does not help demonstrate notability, and is not reliable for statements of fact, but is a reliable source for the opinion of the author. In that case, notability would have to be shown by other sources, but you could use Ask Audio to include something like "G.W. Childs IV, writing for Ask Audio, considers ModeAudio Raw Material to be ..."

Commercial relationships do not prove notability. More generally, accomplishments do not prove notability. The only thing that matters is how much notice independent reliable sources have taken of the subject. Media may be more likely to have covered a company if it is successful, but plenty of successful companies never receive the coverage required to establish notability. Most companies do not have a Wikipedia article and are not supposed to. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.

When a company has a business relationship with another, what it has to say about that company is not independent, and does not help establish notability. Since Image Line and Propellerhead don't count toward notability, and the same information is available from another non-independent source already being cited (ModeAudio) it's best not to cite Image Line and Propellerhead, lest the draft give the impression that bombardment (citing many redundant or otherwise useless sources) is being used in an attempt to hide the fact that the subject is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more look at Jonathan Sackner Bernstein, please

Thanks for taking the time to look at my article, Bruce. I really appreciate the effort volunteers are putting into making the site work.

I revised it and posted some thoughts on the questions page.

Help_desk#16:46:36.2C_13_April_2016_review_of_submission_by_Sethgodin

(not sure how to give you a shortcut link, I'm sorry) Pasting it below if that's more convenient for you...

Hi Worldbruce Thank you for taking the time. The Creative Computing cite was easy to fix, I added a link to the issue online. The hyphenation was indeed confusing, my apologies, that's been fixed as well. A new photo will be uploaded today.

I hear your points about the lead, but finding the right balance here is quite difficult, apparently. The first reviewer said that emphasizing why JSB was notable in the lead was peacocking. I've done my best to cogently summarize the essence of the notability in a single sentence.

The Wikipedia standard for notability Wikipedia:Notability states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

In addition, two other principles are important: Notability is not temporary and notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.

In the case of Sackner Bernstein, I trust we can agree that the coverage of his work (80 papers, a well-reviewed book in the book publishing trade journal Publishers Weekly, references in the New York Times) is significant, independent and reliable.

Just as important is the fact of the arc of his career. Over more than 30 years, his work has been covered, moving from medicine to engineering to the FDA to scientific research. If this work had been done by 84 different people, it would be different. Connecting the dots requires no original research at all, but provides the person who finds this page (via another article or a web search) with the context that an encyclopedia provides.

Given the notability, then, the question is whether the article is too defective to be shared and improved across the community.

And that’s where I’m hoping you can offer help. I’ve looked at many articles, and I’m not sure I’m seeing the fundamental error here. If you can say, “fix this link and we’re set,” or even better, adjust what needs to be adjusted, that would be fabulous.

I respect the work you and the other wikipedians are doing to upgrade and maintain the quality of the bio corpus, but it can feel like an endlessly moving target. I hope we can agree that the notability of this researcher and his work cannot be seriously called into question. The question, then, I hope, is can the article be improved over time in the way all great Wikipedia articles are. I'd appreciate a look at the revised article.

Thank you.

Sethgodin (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-reviewing it, as I work very frequently on articles in this field. He is unquestionably notable, as shown by his citation record. The criterion for the notability of academics is WP:PROF, and the key factor in almost all cases is being an expert in one's subject, which for scientists is normally measured in terms of citations to their work. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:39, 19 April 2016 review of submission by 86.174.120.95

86.174.120.95 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ben Clappison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do not agree with the rejection of the Ben Clappison article. There are a zillion pages of soceer players on Wikipedia who have not yet played a Championship match. In fact, there are loads who have never played Football League match. It does not matter that he has not yet played a firs-team game for Hull City - he is a professional football player with an English Championship club.

Being a professional football player with an English Championship club does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you can show an inclusion criterion that he does meet, I would be happy to reconsider the draft. Other alternatives include waiting until he satisfies one of the criteria, or getting consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) to change the inclusion criteria. Resubmitting the draft without resolving the problem is tendentious editing, and will not achieve your goal. If there are a zillion biographies of football players who are not notable, they should be nominated for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks very much Worldbruce for all your help with the Janice Marturano wikipedia entry! 3fivesix (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weather data at Breggia, Switzerland

Hello, Worldbruce. You have new messages at Tobyc75's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

COI query

Hello again, and thanks for the response regarding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Drugs_Wheel. I appreciate that you're busy and apologies for taking up so much time with this. As I was one of the people involved in the creation of this model there perhaps will be no way for me to submit the article myself without there being an apparent COI. There are a lot of people using this model around the world who use the model in teaching/training settings - could I ask one of them to submit the article? As there would be no links/renumeration/employer/employee relationships etc. would that also be a problem? Many thanks Mark

Markadley (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markadley: New editors are often hesitant to declare a connection to what they're writing about. In some circumstances failing to do so can be a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. In my experience, failing to declare a connection causes some Wikipedians to assume the worst - that there is a close connection, but that the editor is lying by omission by not admitting it. You write above that you are "one of the people involved in the creation of this model". That declaration belongs on User:Markadley and in the U1-otherlinks field of the {{Connected contributor}} template on Draft talk:The Drugs Wheel.

You have been pointed twice to the Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements that the images violate, but have not remedied the situation. Please remove File:The Drugs Wheel (French version).jpg, File:TheDrugsWheelGame blank 1 2-2.jpg, and File:The Drugs Wheel UK version 2.0.1.jpg from Commons using the procedures outlined in Commons:Deletion policy. Claiming that images are cc-by-sa-4.0 when they are restricted to noncommercial use could be an innocent misunderstanding, but failing to clean up after the mistake is apt to cause ill feeling within the community.

Wikipedia strongly discourages editors who have a close connection with a topic from writing about that subject. In contrast to the two points above, however, this is advice; Wikipedia does not prohibit editing by those who have a conflict of interest. It is best to wait for someone unrelated to the topic to decide to write the article. Next best is to request at Wikipedia:Requested articles that a disinterested stranger write the article. If you're determined to write it yourself, then you're doing the right thing by going through Articles for Creation. Nothing would be gained by having someone other than the author submit the draft. That would only give the wrong impression. Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hotel Jerusalem

Hello, Worldbruce. Thanks for pointing out the copy-paste of this draft. I didn't notice it because of the change in title. I have moved my references to the mainspace article where they can either help with notability or be part of the merger if it goes ahead. I'll delete the draft, since the editor who created it is the same one who made the mainspace article and there's now no content to save.—Anne Delong (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Hedayetullah

Hi Worldbruce. Thank you again for your help a little while back and suggestions for the article I have been working on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syed_Hedayetullah

Recently, I took another round adding three more sources, and citing the obituary that I have taken some of the material from as it relates to his research. I had thought notability would have been established by now given the important positions Syed Hedayetullah had. Would you be able to review the article and let me know if there's anything else I can do? I feel that the entry is so much better than many many existing Wikipedia articles and it just got rejected out of hand with no comments. Thank you for your help!!

You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

-BWhitesides — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWhitesides (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudreach draft

Hi,

Thanks for the recent response about the Cloudreach draft. It's been updated - can you have a look and see if it's appropriate for mainspace now? Thanks again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thumperward: I recommend that you or the author resubmit it if you think it's ready for another review. To do so, click the blue Resubmit button on the draft, or to do so on behalf of another user, use {{subst:submit|username}}. There are 700 other submissions in the queue, so the next review may take two or three weeks, but I'm juggling several thousand articles, so continuing with AfC will be faster than relying on me specifically to look at it. Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Harris

I saw that you added Harris to the Requested Articles page, so I just wanted to let you know that I created the article for you. — Chevvin 11:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chevvin: Nice work, thanks! --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SW

Hey, Bruce, I don't know if you saw that in this edit I said I would like to know what "SW" stands for. Also, I would like to confirm if the content is located in the first page (there is something like an "I" in the right bottom of the page). Regards, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: Yes, the review comes from page 1, and yes, I saw your note. It didn't come as a surprise because in your position I'd want to know who SW is too. Who knows why they didn't include a reviewer key in the 2003 edition. Checking the 1997 edition again is on my list, but will have to wait until I'm next at a library that has it - probably about three weeks from now. Even then the mystery may not be solved - SW may not have been a contributor to the first edition - but we can hope. Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji:

SW - Steve Whitaker is a respected colourist, with credits for all major publishers. It's less well known that he's also a repository of recondite information of all kinds.^[1]

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Plowright, Frank, ed. (1997). The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide (First ed.). London: Aurum Press. p. xiii.

The Genealogist pdf

Thanks for the pdf, it is seems excellent. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your request to "contact the editor"

Hello, Worldbruce. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dorlee Michaeli (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorlee Michaeli: I do not know what you mean by "I received a notification to email you with respect to 'Wikipedia page Draft talk:Financial Social Work.'" My only editing to that draft has been to add two wikiprojects; I did not ask you to contact me.

Glancing over the draft, I would suggest you read Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once and apply the technique described there to the draft's references. It will make the list of references shorter and emphasize which ones the draft depends on the most heavily, both of which will make the draft more reviewer-friendly (and reader-friendly). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - Reading the notification more carefully, I see that the page I submitted for a review was listed as within the scope of WikiProject Finance and WikiProject Business and that one needs to contact you if one has a question about this. And that the article is still in the queue for a review. I apologize for my misunderstanding!

Dorlee Michaeli (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhit pages

Hey Worldbruce

Not to trouble you, but if you haven't returned the Bakhit book yet, would you mind scanning me some more select pages? I'm interested in expanding the Damascus Eyalet and Ottoman Syria, i.e. pages 88–92, and the Arab tribes in Syria at the time, i.e. pages 193–197 and 205–208. If it can't be done, no worries, I'll post a request on the WP:RR page in the near future. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sent Worldbruce (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks again! --Al Ameer (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanking for attachment of the Label Wikiproject Chemistry on the 2 newly created pages. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thanking for your work on pages granatane and granatanine. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks again for your response on the issue (granatanine and granatane) in hepdesk, informing where they has been listed ( Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry ) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Thank you @worldbruce. I'm still not understanding how the communication on WIkipedia works. For some reason it is very confusing to me. I thought i was writing to the user. And i hope i am writing directly to you now. I did not see a way to reply to your comment to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtothez (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Draft:Ravensbourne Morris Men

Thanks for taking the time to look at this for me. As a novice at this, I've been looking at the AfC assessment flowcharts and at the grading criteria. Are articles ever published at Start / C / B grades or do they now need to be graded higher before being accepted?

I am relieved that you feel that the subject is notable and I will now need to go away and try and gain access to some of the other written material. I am guessing that this will need to be done offline at the local library as I think I found that some of the online resources I'd need to pay for if I accessed them from home.

CPBearfoot (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CPBearfoot: Most drafts, when accepted, are assessed as Start class. Next most common is Stub class, with C class a close third. It is very unusual for a reviewer to initially assess an article as B class, and impossible to initially assess it higher than that. Quality grading, perhaps counter intuitively, actually has nothing to do with whether a draft gets accepted or not, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. It's just an extra step routinely performed after acceptance.

The British Library will be your best bet for research. If it isn't your local library, or you don't have access to it through your local library, Wikipedia's Resource Exchange may be able to help – but it's only really effective if you know precisely the article or book pages you need. Good hunting! --Worldbruce (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic July 9 at Fanuel St Park

Worldbruce, Here are the details about the Wiknic Wiki Editors of San Diego are hosting on July 9. You’re invited to a WikNic

When: Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 4 PM Where: Fanuel St Park, 4000 Fanuel St, San Diego (on the Mission Bay side of Pacific Beach) http://www.pacificsandsvacations.com/attractions/fanuelpark-sandiego-ca-parkandrecreationarea Directions: Take Bus no. 9 from Old Town to Ingraham and Pacific Beach Drive then walk about 3 blocks down Pacific Drive. The park is on the left. Free parking if you drive. Please note: no alcohol or smoking in the park.

Potluck list: Please let me know what you can bring. 1. Finger food 2. Salad 3. Main dish 4. Dessert 5. Beverages (non-alcoholic) 6. Paper plates, eating utensils, napkins

Contact: Deborah: wikisandiego@gmail.com Swedam (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create subpage for Wiki Editors of San Diego

Worldbruce, would you have time to create a subpage for Wiki Editors of San Diego? It would be deeply appreciated. We have been requested to create a subpage to [|Wikipedia Meetups in San Diego]. The purpose is to make it easier to find our activities. It would also be easier to add to our activities if we had a subpage. What do you say? Swedam (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Swedam: @DrMel: To get an idea of best practices, I examined the meetup pages of groups I believe to be the most successful (because they have the highest numbers of watchers and highest page views): NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and DC. Having studied them, unless there are grant-related reasons for doing so, I recommend against creating a subpage for the "Wiki Editors of San Diego" group. Instead I recommend a subpage for each event.

The subpages for named Wikipedia-wide events would have the event name and year in the title (e.g. Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/ArtandFeminism 2015 and Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/Wiknic 2016). The subpages for "ordinary" local events would simply be numbered sequentially (e.g. Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/8). Each subpage would be linked from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego. Check what I've done for the wiknic and for last weekend's edit-a-thon.

A few questions about the edit-a-thon pages:

Should end times be included?
Should the specific name of the room be included, and if so, what is it? The library's publicity says Mary Hollis Clark Conference Center, but that's wrong.
Parking for the full three-hour event, after two-hour validation, runs about $5, depending on the Padres schedule. That may deter some attendees, so if there's an alternative it should be explained on the event page.
It would be a good idea to tell people what to bring - explain that the room has PCs with the Internet Explorer and Chrome browsers, but they may prefer to bring their own laptop.

If the basic format for edit-a-thon pages meets your approval, I'll use the same format to back-fill the photo safari and March 26 Mission Valley Library events with information I removed from the main San Diego page. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: You are brilliant. That is exactly what representatives for the WMF requested and I didn't understand, i.e. a subpage for each event. 1. The Editathons are 11 am to 2 pm (end time). 2. The name of the room is the Wells Fargo Technology Center, fourth floor. 4. Yes, please explain what the technology center has and that people can bring their own laptops. The library provides WiFi. 3. If attendees register with Swedam (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC) or wikisandiego@gmail.com in advance, the library will provide them with a parking voucher. A voucher can be obtained at the Editathon, however, it is time-consuming and entails hunting down our liaison to get one.[reply]

You have done an excellent job on the subpages and on the wiki picnic invite. Please continue with your chosen format. Thank you very much!

Great to see the work on this, Worldbruce. I organize some of the NYC pages, let me know if you ever need help, or want to talk.--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pharos, that's good to know. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:46, 27 June 2016 review of submission by BioWriter818

BioWriter818 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Maralou Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. I do have a question for you: as you suggest that Maralou's career in television and film isn't notable enough to justify a Wikipedia presence based on the guidelines, as you can see she did have several articles in the Los Angeles Times and Successful Meetings magazine, referencing her special events career and business, working with notable high-profile individuals. If I removed a significant portion of the TV/Film content and focused more on her later career, and just added in the references that highlight her more extensively, would you reconsider the submission? While she did have some interesting moments working as an actress and singer, I believe her later career in special events was more notable, considering the many high profile people she worked with. I do have photos to submit to substantiate this. Her entity, the National Special Event Locations (NSEL) was an original business of its kind, handling large privately owned estate locations around the country. Her event clients represented a who's who of the film and corporate worlds. Thank you! BioWriter818 (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)biowriter818[reply]

@BioWriter818: The draft's description of her early career routinely goes beyond what the sources say, but that can be fixed by editing.

The 1985 and 1988 Los Angeles Times pieces contain very little biographical information about Gray. She is quoted briefly, but Wikipedia is interested mainly in what people say about Gray, not so much in what she says. Who Gray worked with, be it the Pope, President, or Prince, is immaterial. Notability is not inherited from them. Successful Meetings Magazine sounds like a trade journal. Trade journals don't necessarily count towards notability, because they often have a limited audience, little editorial oversight, and a too-cozy relationship with the companies in the industry they cover. The fact that their website features "supplied content" is a bad sign.

If you nontheless feel that there are reliable sources with really substantive coverage specifically about her, you're welcome to resubmit. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again at AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Plowright, Frank, ed. (1997). The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide (First ed.). London: Aurum Press. p. xiii.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
+==Direct action day==
+Thank you for gangraping the article of its truth. People like you are the reason why wikipedia continues to be a laughing stock when it comes to South asian articles.
 ==Welcome!==