User talk:78.26

This is 78.26's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

thank you

Hi Thank you for reviewing the Cloudmachine page. I will follow your tips and resubmit in a few days. Hopefully it will work then. Thank you. William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkum (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFCBuddy

78.26

Thanks for creating this script! A couple of questions. First, shouldn't anyone appearing in the "Running Total" list below the leaderboard automatically be included? Also, the script seems to have a bug. I haven't counted anyone else's, but I've reviewed 31 articles, not 21. The script changed the number on the leaderboard. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, i didn't expect people to find my tampering with the scoring in my favor so quickly! ;). It seems i forgot to tell the script that capital letters don't matter (AFCH != afch unless you explicitly state it is.). The reviews it missed are now correctly being counted.

On the other hand, it is now assuming you have 40 reviews since it counts both the actual article and the redirect page that was created by moving the page. I'll iron that issue out in a bit. Hopefully the script will be quite stable in a couple of days. Oh, and thanks for mentioning the issue - much appreciated! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedReader

Yes, Why am I not on the leader board? at the time that the script ran, I had 40 reviews. Thanks, Jakob 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for relieving me with the script! Before, I was the one who had to manually update the leaderboard [reply]

It seems that you aren't using the AFC helper script to review pages. AFCBuddy detects pages by the default summary's it places when accepting or moving a page. There are a few possible solutions i can think off:

If you could review pages using the AFC helper script it would detect edits as normal (Any reason why you are not using it?). Since updating the review list is manual copy-n-paste work i could leave any old reviews there. Equally i could adjust the review count of your username in the tool, so that it would offset the reviews it cannot detect itself.
If you cannot or don't want to use the AFC Helper script for reviewing i can simply use your review list as a basis for the scoreboard (A simple count of the diffs on that page). A side effect would be that you would need to keep updating that page manually, since AFCBuddy wouldn't be able to detect any reviews from you :/ Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Your" AfC

I have no idea why that notice went to you instead of the article creator (National Technological University (United States)). I see you made a couple of edits, but the AfC helperbot sent that to you instead. Since I am bot-clueless, would you take a look? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was because i was technically the editor who placed it in the queue, and afterwards forgot to change the parameter in the template to point to the actual user. I remember i placed it in the queue for some reason, but i cannot seem to recall the specifics anymore... Ah well, in the end it worked out just fine anyway. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good info, thanks much. I've run across one situation where that might have happened to me. Now I'll know to look out for it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (United States) (AfC)

Thanks for reviewing the article titled National Technological University (United States). I'm a bit confused about the outcome, however. On the first submission, I was asked to go back and provide independent references, which I did (including articles from the New York Times, Stanford University, etc.). But, the new submission had a lot of format problems, which I readily admit I corrected those and resubmitted the copy that you then reviewed. Your input back to me was "it reads like an advertisement." Most of the references are from independent sources, NTU was a fully-accredcited university, and had more than 50 leading engineering schools as partners. I pretty much wrote it up as it actually was. Very much the leader in the early years of distance education, not only in the U.S. but abroad. What are your specific objections? I am more than willing to edit it, because I really believe it belongs in Wikipedia. But, I can't quite figure out where we are in conflict on the facts and/or on the references. Please talk to me.Dmy55 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and question. First, I think you're article is almost there. It has the sources, it has the facts. The biggest problem is that the article reads like a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend taking a look at Baltimore_City_College for an article on an institute of higher learning that you could pattern after. Like I said, I think your article is almost there. I'm glad you asked, and if I can do anything to help you out, please let me know, and I'll do what I can to get this article published. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (U.S.)

Thank you for your response.

I have followed your advice and removed what might be considered promotional language. It was a bit painful for me to do, but I've done it. Please review the revised text to see if you agree that the article is now ready to be posted.Dmy55 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! The short answer is yes. The long answer is I'd like to see the formatting improve. Again, I'd look to the Baltimore City College for a frame of reference. Notice how the section headers aren't IN ALL CAPS, and how the narrative is layed out in a logical manner. Here are a few pointers (my opinions, take them or leave them). The first section (called the lead) should be a summary of what this organization is, and what role it plays (from a neutral perspective). All statements in this first paragraph should be re-iterated in more detail in the article body (the following sections). The next paragraph can be called "History" and in it you can talk about the founding, and about the growth in participating students and univsersities, and the section currently called "New Developments in Distance Education" (combine these sections). Then the next section can talk about the "Organizational Structure". Next I'd recommend you have a section called "Curriculum" and here you could combine the sections currently called "Accredidation and Degree" and "Non Credit Short Courses. Do keep the list of participating Universities, this is significant. Again, I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With your help, I think we're there. What do you think?Dmy55 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more things. If it were promoted now, I would judge it a "Start" class article. There are a few things that can be done to make it a "C" or even possibly a "B" class article. First, the lead paragraph still needs work. Was it a private university? Did it primarily offer online courses? More context needed to define what the article is about. It is not clear that this organization no longer exists, but has been merged/folded into Walden. That definately belongs in the lead paragraph. Just a short sentence. I have made a few edits that will help the structure. If the first sentence were to read "National Technological University (NTU), Fort Collins, Colorado, was an instutue of higher learning founded in 1984 as a non-profit organization in order to offer graduate courses leading to a Master of Science (M.S.) degree", would that be accurate? Anyway, good work! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have revised the lead paragraph as you suggested (i.e., delivery via satellite and sale to Sylvan Learning). Are we there now?Dmy55 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused about exactly what this was. Was this an accredited University/College? I don't want this to be declined again because of "no context". 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

I believe you recently declined the article located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT, and instead, on the premise that the subject of the article already exists. A redirect now sends folks seeking information about "McClatchy-Tribune Information Services" to The McClatchy Company.

The problem is that although McClatchy is one of MCT's parent companies, the McClatchy Wikipedia article makes no mention of MCT (McClatchy-Tribune Information Services).

Another editor suggested I post my draft article at requested articles, so that someone else can pick up the article can "build [the] article into one that will be ready to 'go live,' 'per se.'"

How do you feel about this suggestion?

--MCT Susan (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a backlog at WP:RA that I am afraid your article might never be developed, and I'd hate to see all your hard work scrapped. I actually don't know how to post a draft article at Requested Articles anyway, this is a place for completely un-written articles. I would suggest you just create the article yourself, but your user name suggests a conflict of interest with the article subject, so Articles for Creation (AfC) is the way to go. Having not actually used the AfC process myself to create articles (I've always done it directly), I don't know if the creator (in this case, you) can add comments. If so, you will want to point out that your article subject is currently a re-direct, and you want to create an article that eliminates the need for this redirect. Before you re-submit this, you need further references, in my opinion. You have good references regarding "Los Angeles Times and Washington Post Break Up News Service" and information about the parent company (The News-Tribune article) but none of the sources are a substantial source about the Information Services branch. I think if you were to re-submit, it might get declined on an "insufficient, independent sources" basis. I hope that is helpful, and please feel free to ask further questions. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really helpful comments! Thank you very much. I tried the help desk chat line, and they recommend I create links on the McClatchy page and the Tribune page, that will direct to the MCT page. That gets around the "subject already exists" issue.

I agree that AfC is the way to go. Do you think it's possible that one of the (numerous) editors that have been so helpful to me in figuring out how to post this article will pick up the cause/article in AfC and post it??

p.s. I hear your concern about the "insufficient independent sources" possibility, too. need to keep working on/chewing that one over. haven't been able to find more sources online so far...

--MCT Susan (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 78.26! I went on the help desk live chat and received a lot of advice. One editor suggested I add some information on MCT to the McClatchy and Tribune articles, then link to my proposed article, once it's live. I made those additions.

Another editor suggested I convert the timeline format in my history section (article is here-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT) to a narrative format, more similar to McClatchy and Tribune articles. So I did that. Can you please take a look at the article and the edits in the McClatchy and Tribune articles and let me know what I should do next?

--Media Maven (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(for own reference, page has moved to User:Media Maven/McClatchy-Tribune Information Services) Really good improvements. As presented, I would have passed it. I would like to see the last header changed from "An important content addition and new technology" to something more specific. Explain in the section why this was important, but I would title something like "Expanded local service" or some such. Good job! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (U.S.)

NTU was fully accredited by the standard accreditation organization in 1986, You have absolutely no worry about its legitimacy.Dmy55 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source this! Put it in the article! Then the subject is inherently notable, by the way. Can you specify which accreditation organization? There are actually several for colleges. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (United States)

The accreditation information is already in the section titled Curriculum but I will also include it in the lead paragraph later today.Dmy55 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (United States)

Okay, I think we should be there, and I hope you agree. I have identified an independent source for the accreditation information and have cited it in the lead paragraph, along with the title of the accrediting organization. Do you see any other potential issues that need to be addressed? Dmy55 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to review it, I would pass it. I can't speak for any other editors, but in my opinion it is notable, verifiable, and now passes WP:MOS. Go for it! And congratulations for all your hard work. Good job. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Technological University (United States)

How do I now submit it?Dmy55 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you submit it the first time? There is no re-submit button for you? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how you, as the submitter, would do it, but I figured it out by doing it the hard way. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Uski Roti

Thanks for your review of the article on Uski Roti. I agree that it needs more references. However, I couldn't understand your comments about the two existing references. One is a quote from an article by a film critic writing for a well-known daily newspaper. That seems to be quite typical in Wikipedia articles on films. The other is from a website which has already been cited in the Wikipedia article on Mani Kaul, and thus presumably can be considered reliable. Although the piece on the website is about the film maker, it has a whole paragraph devoted to this film. Could you please clarify? Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amuk! Thanks for writing back. I hope I can help you. The second reference, from the Times of India, is excellent, and goes a long way toward establishing notability. One more reference like this and I would have passed the article. Regarding the first reference, upperstall.com, there is nothing wrong with the reference itself. The problem with this refernce is that it is not about the article subject, namely the film Uski Roti. This reference is about the director Mani Kaul. By all means leave this reference in the article, but find at least one more reference that is primarily about the film. Let me know if you have any other questions! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your inputs. I have re-submitted the article. The new improved version has five references. I can see where it can be further improved, but I believe it's now ready to be accepted. :) Please take a look. Thanks again! Amuk (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it needs another reference that is primarily about the film. Again, the new references are good, but they are about the director, not about the film itself, which subject of the article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like Alexrexpvt felt differently! Congratulations on getting your article created. I know this was a lot of work, and I hope you find your future Wikipedia endeavors as successful, and that you have fun doing it! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Your barnstar came at a terrific time in my Wikilife. Much appreciated. Andrew³²⁷ 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark of Quality TMOQ have " has multiple issues." ???

Flyspes (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)== Trademark of Quality TMOQ have " has multiple issues." ??? ==[reply]

Hello

It took me some time&thinking to find out that 78.26 is in fact a Wikipedia user and not an automatic process. I am responsible for updating 99% of the TMOQ article with information and release serial numbers.I am a bit puzzled by the remark put on the article that is...quote "has multiple issues" and "needs attention from an expert in Albums, Rock music"..unquote...

I have specialized in collecting these -70ths bootleg label and started to do so in 1970 and have 99% of all LPs in my private collection.In addition to using information from my collection have I verified most of the facts and serial numbers from other experts and also from KEN (who was KEN Douglas and DUB Taylor who runned the label)...There is also a link to the well know book about this,the "The Great White Wonders" by Clinton Heylin.

So could you please specify which containt in the article you dispute or find untrue ? I am of cource interested to follow all guidelines of Wikipedia.I find this article the best there is on this subject so I am a bit confused about this warning when I saw..

have a great weekend

^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyspes (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Flyspes (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I got a problem with my PC while posting the subject about TMOQ to you and when I went back online and wanted to edit my posting then I accidentaly mixed it up into previous post by another user..

193.212.163.70 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Flyspes! Thanks for writing. Yes, I am a real person, a record collector who specializes in 78rpm recordings (78.26 is the exact rpm of most electrical 78s in the USA). I can tell you are an expert in the subject. Note, I did not put the article up for deletion in any way. I did tag the article with several issues, because I think the label is important, and I am trying to draw attention to it so that other knowledgeable editors will improve it. Nor did I say that there was anything in the article that was untrue. Here is a point-by-point list of why I tagged this article.

Neutrality is disputed. Many of the phrases portray the company in a positive way. For intance "They were quality-conscious perfectionists who pressed all their...." and "The most lovely ones are probably Jeff Beck's "Beckfast" album with..." These are opinions. Any opinions should be put into context as from a notable individual, such as "Bob Roberts of Rolling Pebble has noted the high quality vinyl used" and then best to use inline citations. In fact, using inline citations to source each claim is one of the best things you can do to improve the article.
Insufficient context. Why is it notable, or important, that these performances were released? What type of bootleg? Did they have a specialty? I think some of these issues could be solved by reorganizing the article a little bit.
Needs attention from... This is just to draw attention to the article by those who are knowledgeable of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tone not encyclopedic. It is not written like an encyclopedia article. It is written conversationally, like someone who wants to share their knowledge. Better than no article at all, but take a look at some of the better articles written about other record labels, and see if you can't copy some of the style.
Needs additional citations. There is nothing wrong with the single citation you give. It is an excellent source. As mentioned before, it would help if you had inline citations, so the reader can tell which assertions are supported by the source. The other problem is that there is only one. An article should have at least two independent, verifiable sources with substantial information about the article subject. (This tag has been on the article since 2007, I didn't add it)

I hope that helps! Please feel free to ask further questions, or let me know if I can help in any way. This is not my area of expertise, but it is an interesting subject. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 78.26 ( I really like that wikipedia "alias")....

thanks for constructive remarks.I got a bit "carried away" as this label is THE label which started it all..I will review the wikipedia article once more and try to use some of your remarks to change it into a better one...Flyspes (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regards

Rune

Glad it was helpful. Feel free to have me look it over, and also to ask questions. There are other editors with a lot better advice than I have, but I like to try to help anyway. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

I have started to update by adding 2 more books.There are not many books printed about this subject and the "Hot Wacks" books is the best one.

I have today sent an email to artist mr William Stout who designed a lot of the LP covers and asked if he would agree to be quoted on some of the opinions in the article. I have also asked for his comments and suggestions for improvement.I will change the article a bit after I get a reply from him.

I also found 2 interviews with Mr William Stout on the web.It seems to be an American news paper but when I tried to put the links into this article to show you, then I got a warning from Wikipedia that this link was on a black list. However,if I find some interviews or articles about this subject in for instance a newspaper, can I link that into the article ? Is that a valid source ?

regards

Flyspes (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, direct quotes would be seen as original research WP:OR and would probably be reverted. Good find with the books. Before you add more to the article, I would recommend switching to Inline Citation style. See WP:IC. It would really help improve the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey_Evans_(Entrepreneur)

(ZeldaChick (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jeffrey_Evans_(Entrepreneur)[reply]

Thank you for your advise on Jeffrey Evans page. I followed your advice and added some more reliable references and a few more references that talk about him individually. Also, I wanted to clarify that he doesn't own the Huffington Post he is a author for the blog. Thanks and anymore advise would be much appreciate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeldaChick (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This still probably won't pass. I don't see anything specifically about Mr. Evans except the Huffington Post bio. I know he doesn't own Huffington, but the reason the bio does not establish notability is that the only reason a bio at Huffington is there is because Mr. Evans is an occasional contributor. If he weren't a contributor, the bio wouldn't be there. Therefore, notability is not established by the existence of this biography on Huffington post. The article is still too biased. Take the statement "Evans is known for his merger and business development ability". Who knows him? How do we know this? Also, external links such as what you have to Andra Day are viewed as promotional in nature. Andra Day is not notable (no wikipedia article), so this does not help Jeffrey Evans case for notability. Unless there is significant coverage about this, I would remove this section. It would seem Mr. Evans' case for notability rests on his work with TigerText. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanzhou Railway Station

When looking at Wikipedia, I noticed that it had an article on the smaller Lanzhou West Railway Station but not the main central Lanzhou Railway Station. That is why I decided to submit this article, because Lanzhou is a major provincial capital and it is this station that the majority of trains pass through from China's east to west along the former Silk Road route and into Tibet. Very few trains stop at Lanzhou West Station by comparison, however it has been placed on Wikipedia because it is stop on the Baoji-Lanzhou High Speed Railway, bypassing the main station via a tunnel.

I do intend to expand the article on Lanzhou West Railway Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireshock (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created the article. Aside from what I thought was a duplication, I was ready to approve it anyway. I think the article would be improved if you were to spell out the differences between the stations as you did on my talk page. Happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Brutus

Thank you for reviewing the Lou Brutus article. We have made numerous changes and improvements based on your comments including additional quotes and reference links in regard to both programming style and interview style. Also note many of the references in the Special X section make mention of the rather free-wheeling programming style of the subject. Please take a look when you have some time. We hope this will better the feel of the article's neutrality. More feedback very welcome. Thanks again! MusicMediaMatters (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Buddy Counts

Hi Excirial, I am trying to figure out why AfC Buddy is counting differently than my list. Am I making a mistake somewhere? If I review an article more than once (because it has been re-submitted) am I to only count that once? Not a big deal, but am curious, as I am the only one who seems to be inflating his review count. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyas there seveneightdottwosix,

All reviews are counted (Or should be), including deleted and double reviews (actually all AFCBuddy does is download all edits made by an editor in a certain timeframe, and check for AFCH tags). Even so it is quite likely it can and will be off by a review or two for any editor - The editor may have missed a review, listed a review that didn't use the AFCH script or AFCBuddy might simply not detect a review correctly at times due to some form of special condition. Initially i tried to debug these missing contributions, but due to the mistake ratio being less then a percent i eventually stopped doing this since it was quite time consuming to run trough 200 edits to figure the contributer missed a review.

The reason you are the only one who's currently off isn't exactly because it only misses a review on your contributions - most of the editors are on the request list for AFCBuddy's diff generating feature by now. Since AFCBuddy is now generating that list for them it is actually comparing the contribution list against itself (And i would really be worried if that count was off!). The other 5 editors who generate their diff list manually only did a handful of reviews, so statistically taken it is unlikely AFCBuddy would miss one for them. Since you did a whole lot more you're chance of running into a miscount is simply quite a bit higher. :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Langer

Many thanks for reviewing this. I see there's still a note on the selected works bit - how can I improve this? - and any comments on improving the rest of the article would be welcome too. Clontibret (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graebel Companies, Inc.

Hello;

I followed your advice to add new notable references for the article that I submitted but can't seem to find the area to re-submit. I have submitted a few different times, so am wondering if there is a limit? If not, will you please review again and let me know if I am more on track?

Your help is much appreciated.

65.126.191.168 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)TJ[reply]

Take a look at the "Submission declined on 17 January 2013 by 78.26" box. If you look under the box-in-a-box where the reasons for declination are specified, you'll see wording that says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here. I believe that will take you where you want to go. Happy editing, and thank you for taking the time to improve the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gozuyilmaz Marine Industries Ltd.

Dear Madam/Sir

Thanks for your time and feedback. I will add more references and send the article again.

Best

Ozgur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelkencioz (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

burning music productions

Hi 78.26,

Can you fill me in on why the Burning Music Productions page has been declined.

I have been told that it is lack of reliable secondary sources. I provided several from secondary sources to back up the claims made by the business owners.

I was also told the label wasn't notable - it has won 2 Grammys and been nominated for 12 more - surely that makes it notable by the standards of the recording industry.

I was told that the label exists only to serve and distribute Burning Spear music - and that isn't notable in itself. There is a listing for a Tuff Gong records - which only distributes Bob Marley - and that is deemed notable. (I agree, but Marley didnt' win any Grammys if we want to be ridiculous about our criteria - of course he deserves to be there)

I understand that a cottage record label operated by two elderly Jamaicans maybe doesn't make the cut for you, but this company has shown so many other artists how to run a label, described the advantages.

They were profiled by the AIM at the AIM conference - surely that honour (being honored at the American Independent Music conference) is notable within the industry.

I ask you to reconsider given the importance of this group and the modest claims and scope of the article.

best,

writeousWriteous (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi 78.26, Thank you for reviewing the Nair & Co. page. I made the changes, added more references, deleted few stuff and resubmitting. Please check and respond. I am back to wiki after a long time, would be glad to receive more suggestion and guideince. Hopefully the page should be good to go. Please let me know if there are any suggestion or other articles I can help with. Thanks so much. --rvs 06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)