I have updated the ref's on the page and deleted the 'References' list that I had originally created.
I have also added the ISBN numbers for the books and tidied up the 'Articles' list using Wiki format.
Please check my page and let me know how I'm doing? Is it ready to go yet?
Thank you for your help once again. I really do appreciate this. [[User:Hpe3121|Hpe3121]] ([[User talk:Hpe3121|talk]]) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others]] closed ==
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others]] closed ==
Revision as of 04:56, 5 June 2015
I believe most editors use Incorrect English, the second most common is American English, followed by Indian English and British English. -- Arnd Bergmann
Welcome to my talk page
I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning, please assume good faith.
If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
I will not tolerate anyprofanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.
Archives
Bot archives discussions after 30 days of inactivity into the latest archive
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
Arun Kumar SINGH I don't think they fail GNG or they are Spam. However, I do think Jeffro77 has a point. The information can be presented better in the Central Council of Homoeopathy article. I'm not a fan of a topic having several small articles when one article would better serve the reader.... they can get the all the info in one spot. As it stands now, I'd combine all three articles into one.
I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added. Is this degree available at multiple Universities? What courses are needed for the degree? Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples.
Jeffro77, I understand why you did the redirect and would agree with you. However, after the 2nd round of reverts it became an edit war. At the point you should have taken the articles to AfD and let others not involved decide. Bgwhite (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your confirmation that the articles are unnecessary, three editors other than myself—User:Erpert (the third opinion respondent), User:JamesBWatson (administrator), and User:The king of the sun (the editor who had also previously restored the redirects)—had also told AKS.9955 that the articles are not suitable. No editors have supported AKS.9955's position. It therefore seemed uncontroversial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77, I looked at the history of the two pages above, only you and The king of the sun did a revert. King of the sun has 133 edits. I looked at the article's talk pages, while I didn't read it all, only you and Singh were discussing. I don't know where or what was said elsewhere. My advice still stands from what info I know, after a 2nd round of reverting you should have taken it to AfD. If you took it elsewhere after the 2nd round, depending on where it was, that was also a good thing. From what you've told me on JamesBWatson and Erpert agreeing, sounds like the third revert you did was valid.
I should note that I've had past experience with AKS.9955 in which they have asked me questions and help... including a talk message just above this one. I don't think he did any adminshopping and just asked me because he trusts my opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion continued at User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:AKS.9955 as a result of a false report AKS.9955 made about me about vandalism[1] (which JamesBWatson immediately dismissed as false[2]). The article Talk page also links back to the prior discussion in February which includes discussion by the third opinion respondent.
Thanks Bgwhite, I just went by the guidelines and despite reading all of them, I could not find any reason that go against the pages. I however, have also mentioned several times that should the pages not be in line then appropriate action as per defined guidelines should be taken; either mark the pages for AfD if it fails WP:GNGor if the pages are promotional (or WP:SPAM which is the same thing) in nature then again either AfD or tag it "Advert". If I am insisting for an action as per defined guidelines and rules from a non-admin, then am I wrong in it? As far as an admin is concerned, I am fine with any action taken. In this case, only non-admins have been redirecting the articles; latest being non registered user User:The king of the sun who comes out mysteriously sometimes and in this case came out after 4 days, did some random edits and ended day with these two pages precisely with complete knowledge of the subject (strange).
Just to impress upon the point of having separate articles, Central Council of Homoeopathy is lesser known than the two degrees mentioned. Also, my issue with Jeffro has been that he is not sure of what the real issue has been. He has used reasons such as 1) fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 2) They are not broadly recognised certifications 3) and the information that was in the articles was merely administrative in nature 4) could very likely be viewed as inappropriate promotion and 5) I have WP:COI. All I am keen in knowing is what is his real reason and based on what rules.
AKS.9955 I was going to yell at your for restoring them, but I see you added an AfD tag on them. I think this is good in the long run... It will settle the matter.
"Although I am neutral and also... " I think you meant "Although I am not neutral and also... " Please add the not. Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bgwhite: Something in your message above caught my attention and I wish to answer the questions raised by you there. You said, quote "I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added. Is this degree available at multiple Universities? What courses are needed for the degree? Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples". Unquote. Following;
I think they could be stand-alone articles if more info is added: Agreed and I am sure I will have your understanding that articles evolve over a period of time with multiple editor's help. Out of all the articles I have written, I still have 40+ articles for further expansion (although they qualify WP:GNG, I feel it needs more details).
Is this degree available at multiple Universities:Yes more than 100 universities and colleges and several hundred thousand students have obtained these degrees till date.
What courses are needed for the degree:, Well this is the sore point actually. I had that information (section) in the article (admission criteria, just like in MBA) and was ,told that this is promotional, hence I deleted it.
Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles for examples": I did that and have quoted several examples and was told "WP:OSE".
As I mentioned above, I have nominated both pages for WP:AfD, something with Jeffro77 has been unable to do, despite me saying so and now you too. Lastly, (and I am not talking about an admin redirecting a page), I am of the opinion that a non-admin must not redirect such pages on his own simply because it does not fall under WP:POFRED. There is a reason why we have admins and then we have other users; let an admin decide if the page needs to be redirected. Personally I will just stick to the guidelines and not use my judgment until I am qualified enough to do so. Trust this explains. Cheers,
AKS.9955 Start writing in information to the articles. It will help in your case. If the articles are deleted, you can transfer the material into the main article. Especially mention that the degree is available in over 100 universities.
Coursed needed for the degree: You mentioned what is needed before you get in. How about give a sampling of courses that are required to obtain the degree. For example Bachelor of Education says "A typical BEd program may include coursework in pedagogy, educational psychology, educational policy and leadership, assessment, curriculum development and lesson planning, social justice, special education, and instructional technology.".
Look at other "Degrees in" and "Degrees of" articles: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying look at the articles... See what they have in them and do the same for yours. The Bachelor of Education from above is an example of one.
Any person can make a page to a redirect. Jeffro77 was within their rights to do so. I applaud Jeffro77 in starting a discussion on the talk page as most editors would not. Things broke down on the talk page and it also turned into an edit war. There is blame and praise to be had on both sides. It should have been taken to AfD alot sooner.
Admins are just like any other editor, but with special abilities. No admin can simply do redirects and make it so. Admins also have to take articles to AfD to have a redirect stick. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copied Bgwhite, I will wait for the outcome of the AfD and take further action. Just a small mention, it was me who insisted for a discussion on the Talkpage before taking further action. Your comment on "admin and non-admin use" noted and understood. Much thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borg designation of species Wikipedia admin
Both 220 of Borg and Jeffro77 have edits on my talk page. From Jeffro77's user page, they say they are species 5618. How cool is to have species 5618 and their enemies, the Borg on my talk page. Geekgasm alert. The Borg has designated my species, Wikipedia admin, as 666. The Borg will not assimilate us as it will not help in their goal of obtaining perfection. Instead, if we are assimilated, we will lead the Borg into chaos. Bgwhite (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The assignment of 666 as the Borg designation of Wikipedia admins implies not only that Wikipedia admins are not human, but also that they were encountered by the Borg long before the Borg encountered humans.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77 You are correct about us being non-human. The WP:RFA is a sham. We only "nominate" and "pass" those of our species. Sorry, but you will never be an admin. We our an old and ancient species that move around the stars. Other species have Wikipedia admins parasites, bloodsuckers, devils and Republicans on their worlds. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
OccultZone You have alot of nerve. You are never to place anything on my talk page again. You are forbidden here. Just like you are at countless other people's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed of the the 3 people who are against you on this discussion, you only placed this on my page. Egads. Bgwhite (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was hoping you actually had a source with a year on it which might be better than the 1968 Bairds (which doesn't have anything on the page actually about SPURS, but rather on the entries for the individual schools. Quite annoying...Naraht (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding personal attacks on 'Edit Summary' - Baidya
Dear Bgwhite, I would like to request you to review the personal attacks (on Edit Summary) against me as an admin and take any action that seems appropriate to you. The personal attacks are part of the 'Edit Summary' of the article on Baidya by an anon using the IP 117.194.* and are available in the Revision history dated 29th April 2015 & 17th May 2015. I have replied on the talk page on both the occasions. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot has made some strange edits to article Trerice on 03:12, 13 May 2015 which has resulted in several external links in refs being hidden. Where previously a ref was "See[External link]", your bot appears to have changed it to "[External link See]", which gave the result "See". (the word "See" was placed in front of the ext link to stop bot messages highlighting a bare URL). Please look at the reflist for the article. This is a problem which I would be grateful if you would address, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Lobsterthermidor AWB did things correctly. One doesn't use just "see" and one doesn't surround the url with brackets. The "See" should be removed... Either put a title in the ref or remove the brackets. They are also not external links. If they are inside ref tags, they are references. Bgwhite (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 20 (calendar).
References are now always in the right order. Also, the reference list now only shows references used on the page. [4]
You can no longer create an account with a colon ':' in it. If you already have one, it still works. [5]
The toolbar in VisualEditor now looks different. It is easier to see the icons. [6]
You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday. [7][8]
UploadWizard now shows better matches when you add a category to your file. [9]
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 21 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hey I added the sections to create a more substantial article. Instead of deleting please just change the references as necessary. Thank you, given the subject is a very personal one for a lot of people rather then press revert edit the page. This would allow people to recognize a modern world problem that's really not different from the other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgbug3 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dgbug3 It is your job to add references, not mine. You are the one adding the material. You just added over 100 links. They range from unreliable sources to good sources. If they are just listed one after another, it does no good. Please follow WP:CITE. Look at other articles and how they do them. If you have specific questions, please ask me. The article needs some severe cleaning up or it will be reverted again. Bgwhite (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Did you delete the conclusion I added to the entry on the Malaysian architect T. Y. Lee?
I was trying to add more context, to possibly move the article out of the stub class. There isn't much information available on this once important architect, so the info. is valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAHinch (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just thought I should say make sure that you do not break anything with AWB. You seem to have made an odd edit on 2014 International Champions Cup that only broke the table on the page. The edit did not seem to do anything other than break the table and change the title to a perfectly fine reference. Not a huge deal, but just be careful in the future. Try previewing the page when doing more technical actions like that. Thanks. SAJ(T)20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need an awake admin
A new user and their sock are running amok on Manhattan, mass-deleting stuff, edit-warring, and pretending to actually be at war with each other. I posted a notice on Malik Shabazz's talk page over an hour ago, but like nearly every other admin in Christendom, he is AFK. Care to look and block them? The two accounts don't merit going through normal channels (have both been warned hours ago) because he is so obvious. I promise you they are the same person. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender Well, awake doesn't mean thinking. Then again, "thinking" and "admin" have never been used in the same sentence. I protected the article and blocked HofstraStud, but I wasn't sure about EliteSchoolKid. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
VisualEditor was broken for 30 minutes on Tuesday. The problem was due to a tool it uses. [15]
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 20. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 27 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 28 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hi, in Manhattan, on the "Eduacation and scholarly activites" section, could you please change " Yeshiva University, and a part of Hofstra University and Fordham University campuses. " to "Yeshiva University, Fordham University, and a part of Hofstra University campus." According to Fordham's website, it has two main campuses [19]. Fordham has an 8 acre campus in Manhattan that includes general undergraduate Fordham college [20], both graduate and undergarduate business schools [21], School of law, School of social work, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, School of Continuing and Professional Studies and School of Education.[22]. Its a full campus with many buildings. As for Hofstra, they have executive MBA classes inside a room at Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital in Manhattan.[23] That might not be classified as a campus.--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me understand the significance of adding 'name="saint.fm"' to the <ref> tag [Line 143]? I ask because the <ref> link is to the St. Helena Independent, not to Saint FM. These are separate organisations, though the Independent does publish via Saint FM's website. Should the 'name="saint.fm"' be 'name="st. helena independent"', or some such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgh House (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Many wikis were slow for a few hours on Wednesday due to a code error. Sometimes the pages did not load at all and showed an error. [25]
Some tools in Labs were broken on Wednesday and Thursday. [26]
Edit tags added by the software were broken on all wikis from May 23 to May 28. [27][28]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 3 (calendar).
You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday. [29]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 3 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I am unclear why we need a history merge here. It doesn't seem like they copy/pasted your version into the mainspace. All this would do is modify the history to show you as the creator, which is not what happened. If you wan to change the mainspace article, that is fine, but throwing your edits at the start of an article someone else created does not seem right. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was working on the article in draft-space, and that's why the drafts are, we can merge them into the mainspace if someone creates the article without knowing the draft. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»16:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted redirect
Please explain how a redirect to a disambiguation page is a "redirect to itself". I am trying to understand why a redlink seems to be the preferred option. I was advised earlier that such a redirect is the desired option because the disambiguation page contains information about the actor, which is better for the average reader since the redlink points nowhere. Thank you in advance for your input. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EauZenCashHaveIt It was a redirect to itself. A redirect from Jamie Jackson (actor) to Jamie Jackson is also going to be deleted. People don't type in "Jamie Jackson (actor)", they just look for "Jamie Jackson". Jamie Jackson (actor) should not be included on the disambig page. Generally, there should be no redlinks on disamb pages per MOS:DABRL, WP:REDLINK and WP:LISTPEOPLE.
The advice given by Willondon that there should be no redlinks is wrong and he pointed to an essay and not policy. WP:REDLINK clearly says redlinks are fine. If any person is removing redlinks because they don't like them, they should stop.
If Jamie Jackson is not going to be notable in the foreseeable future, then there should be no links, just leave his name as text. I did a quick look and Jackson maybe notable in the future. This is tough because it is a grey area. I can understand anyone saying there should or shouldn't be a redlink in this case. Personally, I wouldn't link him. Just leave his name as text. If he does become notable, it is easy enough to add them later. Bgwhite (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was EXACTLY my point! The trouble is that both Midas02 and Bkonrad have been forcefully inserting that redlink into the articles and the disambiguation page for several weeks now, and being thoroughly tired of the unnecessary edit war, I created the redirect as a middle ground. The redirect pointed to the disambiguation page James Jackson☆, which is currently the only page (besides the draft) that actually contains information about this actor. The disambiguators are still insisting that the redlink be everywhere, including on the disambiguation page. Please advise. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits but did you swap two references (Dunning and Atkinson) to make them alphabetical? They were consecutive. I haven't got a clue about the abbreviated citations using the <> system, hence me changing some broken ones to Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)., I only really understand sfn's. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264 Alot of refs were changed, especially to named refs. If swaps were done, then they were numerical order. That article could really use a conversion to sfns. Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree, it's finding the time. PS sometimes there's a clean-up edit where the original passage has a minus sign in the margin and the amended one a plus sign but no obvious change to the new version, don't suppose you know why? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264 Pffft... time. That's no excuse (as my wife says as she hits me an orders me do it now). Do you have an example? Adding/Removing a blank line is the first thing that pops into my mind. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264 The diff you gave is adding and deleting lines. A blank line is added above the section headings per MOS:HEAD... The heading must be typed on a separate line. Include one blank line above the heading... At the bottom, in the external links section, it is removing a blank line. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted article due to copyright infringement (G12)
Hello Bgwhite, This is my first article and I have just figured out how to contact you so please bear with me. You have deleted my article titled "Darren Woolley" due to a G12 copyright infringement. This article is about Darren Woolley, the CEO of TrintyP3.com. The information in question is about Darren and I have permission from Darren to use it. It is a paraphrased paragraph about his early work life. I don't know how to rewrite this information without mentioning where he started his career. I have also cited his "about Darren Woolley" page on the TrinityP3 website as the source. Can you please give me some direction as to how I can restore this page without having to worry about any further deletions? Much appreciated.Hpe3121 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hpe3121 This is the right way to contact me. The problem is that under U.S. Law, there has to be written permission to use copyrighted material. You can use the TrinityP3 webpage as a source, but you will need to put it in your own words.
Not sure what you are doing, but the article looks horrible. The sandbox page is much better. Somehow you are copy/pasting it wrong.
You are going to need to add inline refs, and not just list the refs at the end of the article. See Help:Footnotes for more info.
I'd work on your sandbox page. Remove the copyright problems and work on the refs. When you are ready, give me a yell. I can look it over and then I can hopefully move it to article space. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bgwhite. This is a big help. I will follow your advice and get back to you when I have updated the article in the Sandbox. Very much appreciated!Hpe3121 (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bgwhite, I worked in the Sandbox and cited all the references as you suggested. Please check my page in the Sandbox to ensure it is ok to cut and paste to my article page - "Darren Woolley".
Also, I don't know why, but when I cut and pasted from the Sandbox to the 'Darren Woolley' page the last time, something weird happened and the page looked horrible. If I have the same issue, can I call on you to help me with this?
ie =>Darren Woolley started his working life as a scientist at the Royal Children’s Hospital Neuropathology Laboratory in Melbourne, Australia, undertaking research in myopathies, neuropathies, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Repetitive Strain Injury.
I rewrote it (below) but it is still contains several of the same nouns which can't be helped. It's a tough one. Is this ok?
At the beginning of his career, Woolley worked at the MelbourneRoyal Children's Hospital Neuropathology Laboratory, Australia, as a scientist under Dr Xenia Dennett. The research Woolley carried out was on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Repetitive Strain Injury, neuropathies and myopathies.
Many thanks and very much appreciated Hpe3121 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hpe3121 I did some cleaning up. The reason why it looks bad when you copy it over is because you are using tabs. It appears you are copying/pasting from another source and its not in wiki format. Wiki format is not text or html. You might want to use Visual Editor... click the "edit" tab and not the "edit source" tab.
The refs you used in the article were not refs. It needs to source what the previous statement says. If he is the Telecast Liaison, then you need to give the webpage where it says this, not the homepage to the telethon. Without these refs, the page will still be deleted.
I removed the education section, speaking section and the section on the companies. These are not needed. The article is about Woolley, not his company. I'm not sure what to do with the articles and reference sections... the could be refs and combined into the article.
Do you have the ISBN numbers for the books? ISBN should be used over ASIN numbers.
Hello Bgwhite,
I have updated the ref's on the page and deleted the 'References' list that I had originally created.
I have also added the ISBN numbers for the books and tidied up the 'Articles' list using Wiki format.
Please check my page and let me know how I'm doing? Is it ready to go yet?
Thank you for your help once again. I really do appreciate this. Hpe3121 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.
Thanks Bgwhite, this has been extremely helpful. I will work on the ref's then get back to you before I recreate the page. Many thanks for your help. Hpe3121 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bgwhite
You were warmly recommended to me by Dontreader.
He said that in the past you'd helped him a lot and I hope that finally my issue will be fixed.
I wrote an article about a band named Stormy Atmosphere (the link to the article is in the title)
It was declined many times since I am a beginner in my Wiki journey, but people like Dontreader helped me a lot and I learned my lessons.
So I resubmitted my article again almost a month ago, meanwhile it's still waiting for approval, and I think that other articles get before him for some reason, because I had less than a 1000 articles before mine two weeks ago and now it's more than 1300 (!)
I contacted FoCuSandLeArN - the moderator who asked me about the article , and he says that if the band hasn't been in a chart it's not notable and the article will be declined...
Can I get another opinion somehow?
Please don't get me wrong, but as far as I've checked, being in a chart is not the only notability criteria for a band.
For instance, I believe if a band is signed up in a label from another country is enough for notability, right?
(Please check the [metalscraprecords.com] website, a cd section - Stormy Atmosphere are already signed there, and the album "Pent Letters" will be out soon under the label promotion.)
Moreover, Stormy Atmosphere has enough proofs of existence and proofs of performances hand-to-hand with world-famous artists (Mike Terrana, Pain of Salvation, Andromeda, The Flower Kings), and have an album where a famous singer participates (Tom Englund). Besides, I believe that "Fireworks" magazine is independent enough, and they did write about the band in 2009 (the reference to the magazine is in the article: Baldrian, Nicky (8 October 2009). "The music is out there". Fireworks (37): 88.)
Again, don't get me wrong, but for almost a year I find myself having this conversation again and again with many Wiki moderators, and finally they do agree that Stormy Atmosphere deserves being mentioned, but then the article goes to another moderator and I got to explain everything from the beginning...
Thank you for your time and please consider my persistence, I'll be much obliged for your help Silverray123 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silverray123 I don't know... Dontreader is very shifty and smells funny. I'd use my mother-in-law as a reference over Dontreader. :) Music is not one of my specialties, but I can have look. For bands in non "popular" genres, it can be harder to get an article because mainstream press ignores them. This is going to require some time to look at the sources and how reliable they are. Give me a day or two. Bgwhite (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, I cannot believe you said that to the only person on Wikipedia who had some respect for me. Actually, I was going to tell you how to have your own article on the Malagasy language Wikipedia. I had already paid off the key people there, just for you. But now you can forget about it. No one in Madagascar will ever learn about Bgwhite's legendary accomplishments {{wicked laughter}}. But that's not all. I swear I will marry Meghan from the Redhead Express before you can get divorced and get out of that nightmare with your mother-in-law. I sent Meghan lots of Swiss chocolate, the finest, and look at the private video she sent back to show her deep gratitude. I just wanted to have a sweet friendship with her but now I'll marry her out of spite. Dontreader (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sigh pic
I noticed you sigh on the talk of the missed master of the pics, - here's one he found for me, - about consolation see my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 4 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
