This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let him know if he did something wrong. He also thinks you should do the same to any user as long as you follow some guidelines: remain civil, assume good faith and don't bite.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Thank you for reviewing our first draft for the page.
Your Comment: As far as I can tell, all "references" now found in section /References/ instead of inline are publications by subject. Rename that section to something like /Selected works/ and turn it into a bulleted list removing the ref tags. Then find some reliable sources on subject and add them inline. If you need any help and guidance just leave me a message on my talk page. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I have made the updates that you suggested and renamed the references section to be called "Selected Works" and made that section bulleted.
On the question of reliable sources. Are you able to take a closer look at the "Selected Works" which have links to let me know if any of them are "in" or "out" in terms of reliable sources?
With this I was going to request further information from Ned on the context of the production of the items listed. I then will need some help with how to do the technical referencing in line as I was having trouble with that...
Thanks you for reviewing the draft and providing instructions for improvement. I added additional references to provide evidence for notability of this particular academic. Also, I changed back to professor (from associate prof): the CV with associate professor tittle found online was outdated and and I replaced it with an updated faculty directory citation. Please see the new version and please let me know if there is a need for further editing/referencing.
131.212.4.169 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, a month ago, the St Joseph School page was rejected based on lack of notability. A reference to this school already exists on wikipedia lists, so could the subject not already be considered notable because of that fact? I am not sure how much more notable facts that I can find about the school, as I seem to have exhausted online references. I would be sad to see this page not get created, as this is the only US-based St Joseph School not to have a page on wikipedia. Thank you!
[[1]]
[[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcraig (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thanks for asking me about possibility of reviving page. But as discussion came to a concensus of delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Abdel Moghny it is just too early to try to reestablish it so soon. In any case, we have an Arabic page for the individual here محمود عبد المغني which is sufficient for now. Anyway most of those interested in the Arab World do have access to that quite extensive presentation. werldwayd (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Neither am I, and after having browsed sources it is likely UNESCO is right in saying that "the exact origin of the Ranthambhore fort is still disputed". It's also possible that parts of the material Ranaharra removed should either be pruned or be better sourced, but a 4.8k deletion of otherwise sourced material without at least an explanation in the edit summary is bound to be treated under WP:BLANKING. If you think I have been unjust while STiki'ing, please do revert me. Since the heading on Talk:Ranthambore Fort is "Disputed dates", notice that the 944 CE assertion/assumption was not disputed as such. I will leave Ranaharra a message. -- Sam SailorTalk!17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for what you did to List of Rectors of the University of Copenhagen. I created the article two years back but shied away from categorizing the individual rector bios and adding the missing (1537-1850) part. I see the number of red links in the page outweigh the blue links. I wonder if you know folks who will be interested in creating the articles.
I feel there is a scope to create a page listing all red linked rectors/academic heads of universities (not limited to Denmark) and link it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. All of them would pass our notability requirements per WP:PROF (criteria 6).
Sam, wanted to check in on the notability updates in the VICIS page. Added a number of third-party links. I think these changes will satisfy your notability requirement. Thanks,
To editor Thepantry: The tone of the draft should be addressed, it starts out bad with "Seattle-based VICIS, Inc. is developing new football helmet technology that better addresses forces thought to cause concussion." and gets worse, e.g. "VICIS is filling this void by completely re-imagining the football helmet." -- Sam SailorTalk!17:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, thanks for the feedback on the proposed VICIS article. Can you give me a little more information regarding the tone? Is it too commercial, too vague, something else? I could use a little more direction in order to fix the problem. On a separate note, can you tell me if I've satisfied the notability requirement? Thanks,
Hi Ray. Two year old company, working on a sports (football) helmet, not yet on the market. Did I get that right? I think you need to refocus here. The WP:ARTICLETITLE suggest that the reader will get info on a company, but right from the third word the promo-propulsion churns away talking flattery about a product that is still on the drawing board/in development. Mentioning products or services in business related articles are naturally not prohibited, but featuring them in the WP:LEAD easily leaves an impression of WP:PROMOTION, and notice that our notability guideline for organizations and companies expressly states that "If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely." The tone in the draft is really perfect, e.g. "VICIS is filling this void by completely re-imagining the football helmet." and several other examples, that's perfect for a marketing brochure; but no good for an encyclopedia. So focus. Or maybe WP:TNT and start from scratch only using what the secondary sources say. Yup, it'll be short, it'll be without passion, but that's how it done here. For inspiration on writing better articles about companies and organizations read Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines. I hope this helps. By the way, did the Swedish bicycle airbag-helmet Hövding make it to the US yet? Youtube -- Sam SailorTalk!00:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I sincerely appreciate your feedback. I'm going to post a new draft of the article that expunges the marketing speak and self flattery. I've linked all claims in the new draft to credible, third-party sources. The one thing that will remain is a focus on the product. At its current stage, the company VICIS is the helmet it will introduce next year.
I've never seen the Hovding helmet. That would be one heck of sight on the football field.
Thanks again. I hope the next draft is much closer to acceptable. Best,
The first edit was actually going to be on the AGA, a group connected with the Italian Mafia. The new article, the Quibb, is literally a first-time start-up. I need some help in giving sources for it though. This is the first time I have submitted "The Quibb".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfriendlybee (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not blocked. As for the contents dispute please take it to the talk page if you so wish, but do not keep edit warring for your preferred point of view. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and a bit of respect towards process and fellow editors would be most befitting. -- Sam SailorTalk!11:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You removed the prod tag for this article, and I have no issue with that, I'm just trying to figure out if my understanding of the prod blp is correct. When I initially read it, I thought that it had to be at least one reliable source. I saw the one reference, but when I went to WP:prodblp, it says that the references need to be reliable. Now, re-reading the guideline, I see that I was in error (I think), and that reliability is not a condition, it can be even a non-RS citation. Is that correct? Thanks. Onel5969TT me13:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel. Yes, your reread is correct. Reliability is not a condition if there is a source that confirms anything about subject. (A common analogue mistake is to tag with {{BLP unsourced}} in articles without inline citations but one or more URLs in say § External links.) However, if no source of any kind is present, and {{Prod blp}} is added, then it can only be removed once a RS is added. Even among admins this is sometimes misunderstood. I had recently endorsed a PRODBLP, the creator (likely subject) added two sources, articles written by himself and posted online; an admin removed the Prod blp. I left her a polite note asking her to reexamine those two sources pointing to WP:BLPPROD and WP:IRS; she did, and deleted the article. No big deal. Just goes to show the finer details of some rules can be tricky.
Likewise the rules concerning WP:PROD are sometimes misunderstood: WP:CONTESTED: anybody can contest a PROD by removing it, no need for sourcing, no need for edit summary, and it may not be reverted and may not be re-added. An editor with more than 10 years under his belt recently misunderstood that at AfD.
There's a lot to learn here. I recently tagged a userpage that was a WP:FAKEARTICLE with CSD#U5, only to have it declined and asked to take it to MfD. Why? Because the user had made more than a handful of edits in main space, and then CSD#U5 is no longer a possibility. -- Sam SailorTalk!16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam, Your comment on submission suggested that I was writing an autobiography when this is not a case - I am Sonia Lall writing about Daniel Galvin - a prominent person in the hair industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielgalvinOBE (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. Strange choice of username. I see Voceditenore has posted on your talk page. If it's partly a matter of you forgetting passwords to the other accounts, please say so so we can remove two of the three drafts and move forward. -- Sam SailorTalk!15:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam. Yes, I'd thought about a preemptive strike as well. I've done a couple of those at AfC, although in both cases they were caused by editors who simply could not wrap their heads around "no copyvio". I guess the main problem here is that an article might then be the subject of constant inappropriate "improvements". The two previous accounts ( User:DanielGalvin1 and User:Colourguru2015) are not worth worrying about, but this current account is almost certainly being shared by 2 employees of a PR agency hired by Galvin. That will certainly have to be dealt with if that account keeps editing. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore, you are right and I have posted a {{Uw-paid1}} on their talk page. Yes, a Daniel Galvin would have to be watched, but at least we would save precious time at AfC trying to explain the BLP policies and declining the drafts. But I'll heed your advise any day. -- Sam SailorTalk!11:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to go ahead and create a brief article, and we'll just have to watch it. I note that Daniel Galvin had been deleted in 2011 as copyvio and blatant advertising. It appears to have been created by someone from a different PR agency. Plus ça change and all that. {{{Sigh}}}. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mais oui,Voceditenore, après nous, le déluge! ;) Can I be of any assistance? My gut feeling from when we met once in an BLP about an oboist (?) is that you'd rather DIY. Could I collect a bunch of {{cite book}}s with quotes and drop them in a sandbox for your consideration? -- Sam SailorTalk!15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward, I am the PR representative of Daniel Galvin and writing this article freely and for no profit as he is a prominent person in the hair industry such as Charles Worthington and Vidal Sassoon that both have pages. I have been unaware of the strict structure of Wikipedia and the guidelines but would appreciate any help on how to move forward and make one final edit for the page to be accepted. Or does the page have to be completely deleted and re-created to be reconsidered? Jessica Psaila (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessica Psaila: An article on Daniel Galvin has been made in main space by Voceditenore. I don't think it is marginally possible to believe that you were trying to write an article about Daniel Galvin for no profit when you run a small PR company and list him as a client. I'm always glad to help other people who without auxiliary motives edit on Wikipedia and contribute to this extraordinary experiment. Single purpose accounts should read our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and edit accordingly. -- Sam SailorTalk!10:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up 2. Me to pretty sure that UserRanjithsiji is not involved as what he did was trying to revert some edits by them. you can leave userranjithsiji out of this . Thankyou Irvin calicut (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yeepsi: Yeah, sure, I'll watchlist it. Did you try to address the creator directly? It might be a simple situation where they are convinced the album is viable under NALBUMS, but they want to have credit for creating it. Obviously per normal spelling the article should be at Regional at Best, the one you redirected. Best, -- Sam SailorTalk!18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw what you did on the List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel page and I was just wondering about the List of WWE personnel page and seeing if it passed MOS.-Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Sailor, add the list of European and other continents winners, as cited, because they had been removed as a result of the vandalism and left out of dateElaych22 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I understand that the Image part which I edited was not correct as I was unable to upload the Image, but the part which I added in the Description was Correct.
I have no idea why you removed it. You can check out the facts just by going to the hyperlink mentioned. http://djmag.com/top100dj
Please reply as to my Mistake and when I can ReEdit it.
-jonnie craig page. Made an edit to make it more concise and to the point. There was a lot of useless information up there. The edits were made to make it a more simple and broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.104.16 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined for now, but you are encouraged to work on it. Please read the advice given in the pink and grey box on the draft, and in my comment: follow the links, read the instructions, then ameliorate the draft accordingly. Thanks, -- Sam SailorTalk!08:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I made an addition to the "Your Highness" article earlier and you reverted it, claiming it was vandalism. Do you really believe that calling that movie a "stoner" film constitutes vandalism? Note the title.
Thanks 110.32.147.60 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have gone through and updated the page dramatically, including several new citations and links.
Also, I have joined the IRC help channel to ask them if they could take a look at the links and give any advice on the article. They were very helpful, and after some work, the page seems to be in order.
Poorly sourced, vanity piece. Nothing indicates that this mag had any lasting impact in the gay community, let alone that it made any impact in the world in general. -- Sam SailorTalk!22:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, this magazine has helped save the lives of countless gay men who may otherwise given up on life. To this day, those involved prize themselves over those letters that we have received from those that have been helped. To assume that it has had no impact is highly judgmental and offensive to those who gave so much to make this magazine a reality, but possibly understandable given the limited focus for the magazine.
Make no mistake, General Motors, Gillette, Orbitz, and many other national advertisers felt this was an important magazine for the gay community.
Please take a second look and if your assessment is that it needs improvement in a specific way, or if we can make looking this information up any easier, could you please send me an email at: nick@xodus.com or post here and I will check in regularly.
That's great, but if nobody wrote about it in secondary sources it does not really matter what you as the former publisher or other persons involved with the mag say. Sam SailorTalk!22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About the talk page of Internet Horror Movie Database
Hello Sam Sailor, in the talk page of the internet horror movie database you have writtern: "Nothing to do here, it's not a valid request. Please refrain from cross-posting, this looks identical to your filing at ANI. Notice that the AfD closed as a redirect to Antony Coia and further edits on this talk page will largely be in vain." What do you mean? That there aren't any possibility in the future to re-open the page? Thank you--Pizzole (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. It just was not a valid edit request. It was a verbatim copy of what you subsequently posted at ANI. Please take my advice: stop the argumenting now and take some time off from Wikipedia. You are not doing yourself a favor right now with what you write on ANI. I say this with a good and kind intention. -- Sam SailorTalk!15:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam Sailor, I instructed him to submit the draft on IRC. Later looking at the condition of the draft, I thought it's better to improve the draft before submitting. Thanks - Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just saw that you declined my article. This person is a reputed singer and dance and is famous in many places. I am new to wikipedia so I would be thankful to you if you could help me out here. Thank you Draft: Umer Jubapu
If he is reputed and famous it will be easy to find sources and show his notability. Please read the advice given in the pink and grey box on the draft: follow the links, read the instructions, then ameliorate the draft accordingly. Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you for the help! I have completed The Wikipedia Adventure and I feel it has made me a better Wikipedian. :) Keep doing what you do! JLanzer (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, the problem is that there are other WP articles using the word Akamai besides the corporate one. The disambiguation page lists them. But if you enter Akamai, you get sent to the corporate article. This short circuits the disambiguation page and keeps anyone who just remembers Akamai and doesn't remember the other relevant words (such as "v. Limelight" or "Foundation") from being able to find any of the other Akamai entries. This redirect should never have been created.
Hello, Sam. I confess I haven't done much Wikipedia editing, so I'm not sure to go about what I was trying to do. I was trying to remove the redirect for "Irish goodbye," which currently goes to a fairly unremarkable recording artist for the title of one album. The real meaning of the phrase, to leave a party or social gathering without telling anyone or saying goodbye, might not even be notable enough for a full Wiki page... but it also shouldn't be used for this rather obscure redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.197.148 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 75.163.197.148. I get what you are saying, and I see your point. I'm just not sure what to do in this case, so I have posted at WP:HD. Thanks, I think your point is valid. Best, -- Sam SailorTalk!23:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello it's me again. I would like to inform you that my intentions for my article Draft: First Order (Star Wars) were to get it accepted in hopes that other users would add to it. I feel, and with all do respect Sam, that you declined my article for the wrong reason(s); "The new Star Wars film hasn't been released yet, so much of the content of this draft appears speculative. Sections like 'Much like the old Empire, the First Order employed the services of Force-sensitives' appear to be based on guesses from the trailers." Anyone who is a Star Wars fan knows that Lego has First Order products that almost to that of the Galactic Empire, except the first order has different liveries from the Empire. Now as for the sources, I can add more if necessary, but other than that I'd say my article is ready to be accepted. JLanzer (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I had mistaken you for somebody else, can you still review my article? I will inform the reviewer about the stated above. JLanzer (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that with the new language and references now incorporated into the revised submission, I have totally addressed the "notability" issue, per WIKIPEDIA guidelines, which "notability" was the reason for the initial decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank.everett.white (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Umer Jubapu: The criteria for deletion was posted on your talk page, quod vide. Wikipedia is NOT a place for promotion, stick to e.g. social media. My advice: go do what you like and enjoy: music, dancing. If one day you make it, somebody else will write your biography on Wikipedia. Good luck! -- Sam SailorTalk!20:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody edited your promotional user page prior to it being deleted. We usually leave each other's user page alone, but that goes for editors that sincerely are here to help build the world's biggest encyclopedia. Several other options exist for user pages that are e.g. just cheap attempts to promote a product or a person. -- Sam SailorTalk!20:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sam Sailor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gyeseong elementary, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 does not apply to redirects created after a page move. Thank you. — foxj15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Thank you, Widr. Just out of curiosity, how can you have amazing 500k+ edits with STiki but "only" a measly ;) 186k+ edits when I look at your stats? OT I really enjoy the Kaurismäki brothers. Best, Sam SailorTalk!07:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume it's because all actions (including each time you press "pass" and "innocent") are added to the STiki count. I'm a fan of Kaurismäki movies as well, especially those of Aki's. :-) Widr (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with Draft:Synchronous Link Control article. The issue here is Missing subheadings on the page Wikipedia:Template_messages. It appears to me those subheading refs once existed; and later, the Page was improved by eliminating then and replacing their text with some king of wikibox. Since I am too new, I seek some assistence to find out the intended behavior and how to implement it. Thnks Airliner 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomFerreira01 (talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada. For the disruption, to me the main part is the absolute insistence that sources supporting their view are correct and everything else is faked and therefore can be ignored. There are sources for both dates, at this point both probably need to be noted with a very brief mention (maybe as a note?) about the dispute. Block-evasion and a strong sense of WP:TRUTH, all wrapped in one. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@All: Please refer to my 22k post in Diff of Talk:Dada Lekhraj. There are no reliable sources supporting 1884 as the year of birth. I could not care less what agenda Brahma Kumaris may have had in the past of may have today, the only thing that matters here is what the sources say. And they all say 1876.
deliberately by one of the BK adherents, Bksimonb.
I have, or at least had no outstanding blocks or bans and I am seemingly being bundled in with everyone else the BKs do not want to edit their topic pages.
I think you need to look a little deeper at what is going on here. It's another case like when the Scientologists were fighting over their topic pages. --79.64.210.79 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@All; Please don't invite this individual back for anything until he has addressed the reasons for his original block as Lucyintheskywithdada. It is >80 unique IPs and accounts later (when you count the Januarythe8th line also) and usually the chances of a successful appeal diminish with further attempts to evade a block. I personally don't think this individual really cares much about the 1884 issue either. It is just a pressure-point to make a conspiracy theory plausible since WP:THUTH is one of the aspects of WIkipedia that people unfamiliar with WIkipedia maybe don't expect. I have reached the conclusion that it is really all about attention. From experience, when every single thing he posts on any page, talk page, or user talk page is reverted immediately then he will stop for between a few weeks and a year. Bksimonb (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
19:21:56, 3 November 2015 review of submission by DawnBreak
Please note that all content is carefully referenced by strong, verified sources. Further, sources referenced are reputable. I'm concerned that this content continues to be declined simply because it's about a company vs. reviewing each editorial reference that clearly backs up the content.
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for your message. Yes, I know he had a hit single, I added the {{cite book}}. WP:MUSICBIO says "Musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". May is the key word. My biggest concern with this draft is that it was written by his widow, is in general sourced only by the SPS of subject's web site, and that searches leaves me very empty handed. If you think about accepting the draft I would suggest ... well, I was about to say condense all those two and three-lines heading 2 sections into one Biography section and cut away the unsourced puffery ... problem just is, there's almost nothing to write that has not been said in the lead, so maybe a TOC-less article where everything is condensed? I have my doubts it would survive in main space with the current sourcing, but I could be wrong. I'm sorry I'm not to much help here. Sam SailorTalk!18:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deal with music stuff normally, so I don't know what the typical AFD looks like. With some WP:SNGs, "may be notable" means "more than 99.9% of the time". In other SNGs, it's "maybe, maybe not". My guess is that meeting that objective requirement plus having written a state song would result in keep !votes, but hopefully you know more about that area than I do. I'm not super worried about either the short sections or the puffery. Some of it's "factual" (large audiences = measurable), even if it the WP:TONE isn't perfect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a level-2 heading for every two or three-lines makes the reading choppy. It also leaves me with the impression that there isn't much to say. The only guideline I can think about that deals with this is MOS:PARAGRAPHS that says, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
Yes, a statement like "he attracted large crowds" is measurable, but it is currently not verifiable as we can't find secondary sources.
A sentence like "Tom had musicians and singers joining him on stage and many went on to also become well-known." is just void of any substance.
A sentence like "He cultivated a strong following for his love, rock, and pop tunes." would probably only survive if it could be attributed to a notable commentator in a reliable source. Without such, it just screams WP:MEMORIAL.
A sentence like "His piano talents have been compared to those of Billy Joel, Elton John, Bruce Hornsby, and vocals to James Taylor, Edgar Winter and Michael McDonald." would only survive if it could be attributed. Without supporting sources it's just the normal WP:LARD.
All in all we have a COI-written tribute to a late husband and fellow performer (cf. http://www.jpowersband.com/) with the only secondary mentions being in passing, and I, like you, do not know if the fact that he had one hit-single and composed a US state song is enough to meet inclusion-criteria. If somebody felt like applying WP:BURDEN rigorously, there would not be much left. Why not post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music and ask for some opinions? Sam SailorTalk!09:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. It was discussed with my portal to move the article. I used the redirect page to move the old label. I planned to set a delete request on both old, cleared pages. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Thank you, a cuppa is always appreciated, and it's dawn over here. While we're at it, what's your personal opinion on relisting for a third or fourth time rather than closing with "No consensus with NPASR"? Sam SailorTalk!07:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam: I generally follow the guideline at WP:RELIST. However, sometimes it is appropriate to relist a third time when particular circumstances occur, such as when a bunch of new sources are found and presented in a discussion, or when other matters that demonstrate topic notability come to light, such as how a topic may be notable as per secondary notability guidelines. Just a couple of examples. North America100007:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Yes, that one makes sense. I saw one the other day that had been relisted for a fourth time, i.e. running into it's fifth week. Might have been well justified, I can't find it. No biggie, just always curious about how the cogs fit in the machinery here. Thanks, Sam SailorTalk!11:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Cheers, mate. So the edits made by me and two other users during the AfD were not substantial? I'd say adding refs is substantial. Well, don't take this the wrong, it's restored and I'm going to have a go at it. Thanks, enjoy your weekend. Sam SailorTalk!19:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.
@JMHamo: Hmmm, I can identify with your standpoint, but why would this matter cause any drama at all? It's a banal job, and the drafts I have been tagging are mostly outright A7ish or G11ish had they been in main space. Best, Sam SailorTalk!19:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the Admins make them rulez and they don't like more than fifty G13 nominations, as it's too much to review. I have no opinion either way, just wanted to make you aware. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JMHamo: I know, and thanks again. I have been searching the archives of WT:CSD and could not find it mentioned, but I believe you. But apart from the rules not being made by the admins alone, the situation highlights a bottleneck that should be dealt with in a more productive fashion. We have a backlog? Well, what are you waiting for, start working, don't stop and tell the other guys/gals to slow down. You're too few at your end of the production line? Call in some more hands. (None of that is about your, obviously.) Best, Sam SailorTalk!20:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts on this - (i) We are all volunteers here, so it's up to the individual to decide on their activity levels; even the Admins, backlog or no backlog. There's no "call in more hands" really. (ii) With 42% of the 1330 Admins active, Wikipedia will never be backlog free, so it's something we'll have to accept. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The project is based on us volunteering time, but if there is a constant backlog, there is a basic lack of people being productive. Whining about it is not a solution. And neither is something to accept. Sam SailorTalk!21:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose making volunteers more productive if they can't or won't give up more of their time to the project than they already are? Wikipedia is a hobby, not a paying job, so I don't really understand your point. You could of course put yourself up for RfA but I have my own personal gripes with the whole RfA process which is a conversation for another day. JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to have a silver bullet; I can hardly imagine me being able to suggest something that has not already been said by others and said better in the past 10+ years of this project. I do pretend to know from working together with other people for 30+ years that getting the jobs done is far more rewarding than sulking about there's too much to do. Sam SailorTalk!09:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.
Hello, a move from King Scorpion to Scorpion II has been approved after a vote on the talk page of King Scorpion, essentially because "King Scorpion" is unscientific, is often confused with the movie "Scorpion King", and "Scorpion II" is the term universally used by Egyptologists to refer to the real king. However, the move cannot be made using the usual "Move" tool as the page "Scorpion II" already exists (it is a redirect to "King Scorpion"!). Hence a good old "Copy and Paste" move is the only solution. The purpose of this post is to inform you so you will not revert the manual move. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Sam Sailor and thanks also to Anthony Appleyard for taking care of the move. Iry-Hor please note that one should never perform a "good old copy and paste move." Take a moment and read Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page especially the section that states
Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. (Wikipedia's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)
Hopefully you have not performed a cut and paste move in the past. Please remember this information in the future. Apologies for taking up so much room on your talk page SS but this is an important item for I-H to be aware of. Cheers to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Iry-Hor. There are so many things to be aware of in editing on WikiP. I've been here for over ten years and I still learn new stuff all the time. This move info is (IMO) very important. Also Anthony Appleyard deserves the credit for performing the move. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD well I will certainly be careful from now on whenever I need to move something! I have already thanked Anthony Appleyard for his swift work. I must admit I really like the "thank" button in edit histories. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am writing in order to find out how I could improve the article about Dj Ventolin that I've submitted. Given the fact that there isn't much information about him on the internet, I couldn't add as many references as needed. He is a notable musician, that should be known also outside the Czech Republic, and that's why I chose to write a Wiki article about him. Could you please give me more specific information about the way I should treat this subject?
Thank you in advance!
Sorina Neaga
Please read the advice given in the pink and grey box on the draft, and in my comment: follow the links, read the instructions, then ameliorate the draft accordingly. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. Sam SailorTalk!12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made changes to this and many other templates. I haven't looked at the content changes, but you have caused all these templates to fall into the category of "CU needed" at WP:SPI. Please fix them as soon as possible. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; I could not see which of your two changes caused the problem, the edit summaries implied that each added more entries, while as looked at it the SPI page was incorrectly populated with many non-SPI changes, starting with {{Done/See also}}, so I thought it best to revert both. I can see now that the second change fixes it, so reverting my change to restore that.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnBlackburne: I should have made a decent edit summary stating that I thought the problem was solved instead of a crappy one, my apologies; you did nothing that I would not have done myself had the roles been reversed: take action in a way that serves the project. Thank you. Sam SailorTalk!18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi Sam, I have no idea what barnstar is but wanted to let you know I appreciate your help the other night. I am trying to go through the Universe tutorial but it won't load properly. I will continue to bumble my way through trying to learn this thing. Thanks again. Evelynmck (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my draft first of all :)
I am new wiki user and even though i thought i edited the article after the first rejection, i could not quite understand why it was rejected again. Can you please help me understand what i am doing wrong.
Hi Leafm, nazilsin? We need the draft referenced with independent, reliable sources. Probably most of these are in Turkish, and that is OK, sources do not have to be in English on the English Wikipedia, although they are naturally preferred. Unfortunately I have to say türkcem csok iedil (sorry, I can't even spell it, only say it!), so you will have to dig up good sources. If you need help in adding them to the draft, leave me a message here and I'll help you. Sam SailorTalk!11:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! thank you for the help (and your turkish is pretty good!) will edit the page now and see how that goes :)
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.
Could you please move this article. There should not be a German ü, but an ordinary u in the end of the name. I have tried everything, but it does not work. --Muniswede (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesG5: No problem, the thing to remember is that tags should be used to inspire other editors (often the article creator more than anyone) to help with some issues that are maybe not easily done by (s)he who tags. In this case I would have googled him, tagged with {{BLP sources}} and WP:PRODed him for failing WP:BASIC/WP:FILMMAKERfor now. AFD is fine as well in case the bio gets re-created. Sam SailorTalk!08:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of Portuguese articles
Thanks Sam. Yes, I know, I got some angry messages telling my entries will be deleted. I forgot to link the original Portuguese article. I hope they wil not get deleted now.--Targumferera (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Australian Government records show this to be the truth. I was at the wedding. What kind of secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJack12341234 (talk •
[Special:Contributions/BlackJack12341234|contribs]]) 00:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:PSTS. Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Dear Sam, I read the suggested material but still don't understand what secondary source you require? Would you like me to get verification from other wedding guests? What else do you suggest? They were married and divorced on the above dates. I'm very new to this. Please help me to ensure accuracy of your site. Thanks, Jackie — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJack12341234 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack12341234: Dear Jack. I do want to believe you, but the matter of fact is that we need a secondary source here, rather than you claiming to be an eye-witness or quoting official records that we cannot confirm. Would you be able to find any kind of published info on the wedding and divorce, say some news paper articles? Cheers. Sam SailorTalk!00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC) FFS Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:[reply]
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
Dear Sam, Please note an article by Brad Norrington published in The Australian on September 25th 2008 under the headline "MP's marital woes pose dilemma for billionaire". The article states "The pair (Deborah Beale and Bill Shorten) met in 1999, while both were studying for MBAs, and quickly married." As stated above, they married on March 25th, 2000. Please also note an article written by Andrew Rule and published in the Sydney Morning Herald on September 26th, 2009 under the headline "The Charm Offensive". In this article it states that "Shorten politely ducks talk of his personal life. So does his estranged wife, Debbie Beale, at least on the record". She is still at this stage his wife as they didn't divorce until October 13th 2009, as stated above. Please let me know if you require any further information to have this article corrected as per my edits. Thank you, Jackie. Not sure what an official sign off is but will try BlackJack12341234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJack12341234 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack12341234: Dear Jackie. Have a look at the article now, I have corrected the year of marriage to 2000, and I have added references to books supporting 2000, and supporting 2008 as the year of divorce.
I'm sorry that this might have been a rough start on your Wikipedia career, but we're unfortunately so used to people messing with articles, that unless and until they speak up and support the changes they wish to make (especially in articles dealing with living people) they are oftentimes reverted. I'm glad you took the time to address the error in Bill Shorten, and you are always welcome here if you have any questions, although you are guaranteed quicker feedback at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Happy editing, Sam SailorTalk!07:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sam, Thank you. Please note October 2009, not 2008, was the year of divorce as supported by official records and newspaper articles. Please let your article reflect that. Thanks again, Jackie — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJack12341234 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jackie, the book source I found says quote: "Even when Bill and Debbie divorced in 2008 and Shorten ...". Could you open a discussion on the article talk page to get more eyes on this? Thank you. Sam SailorTalk!21:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
