User talk:Smmurphy/Archive4

User talk • Archives: 1 2 3 4

Thank you for your contributions

Thank you for participating in the Black Women's History edit-a-thon
	February 2016 More than 170 articles were created Hosted by Women in Red (... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, congratulations and thank you for all of your work. I added some redlinks to the National Association of Colored Women's Clubs page that I hope to fill in in the near-ish future.Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New Biographies

Smmurphy, the new Omaha-related biographies you've written are outstanding. I stand in awe of the depth of your research and the breadth of what you've uncovered. By comparison, I feel my contributions here have been lazily minimalistic and unnecessarily narrow. Thanks for showing me a different way. • Freechild | talk to me 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't always write with the best grammar and spelling, and I don't perfectly follow Wikipedia:MOS, but I'm happy enough with the articles when I finish. Make sure you check out the Lucy Gamble article, the Edwin Overall article, the articles about the Mahamitt's (Thomas, Ella, and Helen are each WP:N, I think) and Desdunes'. I've really enjoyed all of these. I don't plan to write articles for the newspapers; I think I'll stick mostly to biographies. I thought about an article called something like NAACP in Nebraska, but I've decided against it. I'd also love articles about the old public schools in Omaha (Dodge, Cass, etc) and the old town mayors, but I probably won't do many if any of those. I'm not sure I mentioned it, but along with the Omaha Public Library World-Herald archives access, chronicling America's historic black newspaper collection, and genealogybank.com newspaper archives, I use Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, which is part of WP:TWL. I really recommend your checking out WP:TWL for your work.Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done with my project. There is a lot of copy-editing to do and smoothing for readability, but I've created all the articles I plan on doing for now. If you want a list, you can see the additions to your list of African Americans in Omaha here.Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Letter

FYI, I left that letter out of The First National Conference of the Colored Women of America article because Maude Jenkins, Ruffin's descendant, specifically wrote, "The famous letter accelerated the timing for the call to meet in Boston. It was not the catalyst." My personal feeling is that the name of that letter writer should be forgotten forever, and he should not be given credit for an idea that these women came up with on their own - but if we must mention him, can we at least not use the word "catalyst"? :) Rosekelleher (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Also, I think I remember reading that she sent out copies of the letter with the call to the conference, not before. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

p.p.s. Sorry to keep p.s.ing. Jenkins also wrote, "A club member in New York City wrote a letter to the Woman's Era which expressed the fear that history might record the Jacks letter as a catalyst." And finally, yes, I remembered correctly, the letter was distributed with the call, not before it. Take a look at the actual call, if you get a chance: [1] I have to run but I'll be back Rosekelleher (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Damn, you're fast!

LOL. Whatever supplement you're taking, I want some! Rosekelleher (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right. "The specific catalyst" was the wording in the source I cited, but is a bit strong. I had weakened it to "a catalyst", but have now changed the article a bit more, let me know what you think. I'm not an expert on these things, but I'm not sure it can be forgotten forever. I followed the source in calling Jacks "obscure", and kept discussion of it short, both I think are respectful of the discretion the conventioneers kept in regards to the letter. If you wanted to remove Jack's name or event direct reference to the letter, I won't put it back. On the other hand, I think mention should be made of Belgarnie and the role of the international anti-lynching and anti-slavery community in the work of Ruffin and Wells in general and in this conference in particular. Further, some mention should be kept about how the conference was not only an expression of ideals like "lifting while we climb" and "Help to make the world better", but also it was a defense of the character and intelligence of black women against attacks being made in the press and against physical violence (both threatened and actual).Smmurphy^(Talk)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Thank you for contributing to A+F

Thank you for participating Over 800 new articles were created in connection with Art and Feminism
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism March 2016 (check out our next event Women writers worldwide online edit-a-thon)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

A page you started (Mary Louvestre) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Mary Louvestre, Smmurphy!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good - added two more citations. The first bit, "Mary louvestre or Louvestre", doesn't make sense to me though - maybe it needs correction?

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks, and thanks for your help. It is a kind of tricky page because not much is known and I can't easily separate fact from myth, so I wanted to cite Smith and Zeidler where I could which is a source I like.Smmurphy^(Talk) 11:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Smith and Zeidler isn't the best source either. I've rewritten the article to represent what I believe most fits historians' views.Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!

You are invited...
	Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red July 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar time!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Jeremiah A. Brown. You are clearly long, long overdue to be autopatrolled for new starts, I'll see if I can light a fire under some administrator's hiney to get that taken care of... Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a suspicion being autopatrolled was a thing and maybe should have requested it for myself. I'm happy to be recognized, though. I've been creating a lot of new articles recently and appreciated an even cursory look over from the npp people, but you are right that there is no reason for my work to add to that backlog. And thank you for your edits to Jere Brown. As you can see, I've been working my newspapers.com subscription pretty hard.Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're good to go. Keep up the good work, and all that good stuff! (Newspapers.com does rock the house, doesn't it?) —tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago)

Hello! Your submission of Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The alternative suggested seems fine to me. Thanks.Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago)

On 21 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at an 1892 rally attended by anti-lynching activist Ferdinand Lee Barnett, participants refused to sing "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" until the United States was more truly a "sweet land of liberty"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve U.S. national anthem protests

Hi, I'm Rasimmons. Smmurphy, thanks for creating U.S. national anthem protests!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is actually a really good article, I think - or at least it has the makings of one. It's just written like a research paper rather than an encyclopedia article. That can be easily remedied with some changes to diction.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea to tag it. Thanks for looking it over. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

What is Woodruff's connection to the AP Poll? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No connection, really. Best I can tell, Woodruff tried to create an all-time version of the AP Poll sometime in the last decade or two. It didn't take off anywhere, but somehow ended up on wikipedia. [2] I don't think the SEC had an Assistant Director of Media Relations in 1934, but maybe. ;) Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yh, I found this article confirming he didn't make it. I mean unless he lived to be 100 and was the "assistant director of communications" for 50 years lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I found the original insert into the article. The edit to AP Poll was here, referring to this article.Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Mladiinfo International

Hello Smmurphy. You recently declined the above-named submission. Although I had submitted that draft, I did so only because the article creator had botched the submission process and requested help at the AfC Help Desk. The notifications that appeared on my Talk page have been copy-pasted into the Talk page for User:Ivana Petriskova. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll watch that user talk page for a bit.Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Smmurphy,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smmurphy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

02:02:10, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Qin790

• Qin790 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Science and Technology University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think the BPPE is the reliable source for reference: https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppe/view-voc-names.asp?schlname=california+science+and+technology+university&Submit=Search

which is a link from the government. Please let me know if you can agree.

02:03:20, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Qin790

• Qin790 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:California Science and Technology University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think the BPPE is the reliable source for reference: https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppe/view-voc-names.asp?schlname=california+science+and+technology+university&Submit=Search

which is a link from the government. Please let me know if you can agree.

02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Qin790 (talk)

@Qin790: The BPPE link is a primary source. It does look reliable, but a secondary source would be better. Also, the statements in the article should come from reliable sources which are independent of the subject in the article, the BPPE source doesn't touch on many of the statements in the article. Have you tried looking in google books (or your local library) or google news (or any hard copy edited newspaper or magazine) for books or news items about the subject? See WP:Sources for more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Because of your good comments, I started a discussion (hopefully) at Wikiproject Law, here. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good luck! To someone like me with no legal training, a court brief looks like a primary source and a casebook sometimes looks like a condensed version of a court brief. I think this is why there is a native resistance to accepting inclusion in a casebook as evidence for notability. In other words, a secondary historical source (for example, a biography) looks very different than the primary source it draws upon (say, a census record), while a secondary legal source (a casebook) often seems more similar to its primary source (a court brief). Thinking about it, maybe this is because the language of law is more different from English as I use it than the language of history is to English as I use it, but maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, you've changed my mind, so thank you. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

When I opened my first law book to a chapter title I was interested in, all I saw was an extended excerpt from a what appeared to be a lower court case - no introduction, no explanation, no indication of why it was significant, nothing - then it was followed by a section titled "notes and questions", which excerpted another case - again with no introduction, no explanation, and nothing to tie it to the first case other than the concepts in my head I got from reading the two case excerpts. I was mystified... and most of the whole rest of the textbook was just like this!

From reading the Sattlekau case in that textbook, it seemed like the kind of "celebrity criminal case" that would likely have received lots of press coverage, especially given its topic, location, and year. Do you know how to search for and find old "celebrity crime" news stories from that far back? Where did you find all of those variations of spelling of Sattlekau? MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have access to newspapers.com (possibly through The Wikipedia Library)? It is a nice place to start. Although I didn't see anything about Sattlekau, now that I know a bit more I have found that there are stories about the case under the name "Ernest Paul"[3]. If you don't have it, apply for a newspapers.com account, it is nice to have and easy enough to use. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied the link to my user page to follow up on it. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

16:59:44, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Kaforney

• Kaforney (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Skye Canyon, Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Smmurphy,

I've made several revisions to the page after looking at the page with a set of fresh eyes and realizing where I went wrong when creating. Wondering if it makes any difference if the sources cited are configured as footnotes--or if they need to be written in the form to go under the "References" section. Please let me know if one is more valuable over the other.

Thanks! Kaforney (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kaforney: Thank you for your question. As the article is a draft and may have others look it over, I replied in a comment to the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

17:53:25, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Kaforney

• Kaforney (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Skye Canyon, Nevada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you Smmurphy for that response! Incredibly helpful! This is my first time creating an article so I'm still learning about what's considered encyclopedic vs. advertising. Your direct feedback and tips are much appreciated and extremely constructive for my understanding.

Kaforney (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. The advice I added to the article is actually a bit harsh, it signals to other people who might consider/approve articles for creation what I think are the issues with your sources. Looking at the article again, here is even more specific advice. tl; dr, start smaller.

Your lede talks about the different contractors used and includes mission statement-like sentiments, all of which could be cut. A better lede might simply say:

Skye Canyon is a master planned community in the northwest region of Las Vegas Valley, located in Clark County, Nevada. It is being developed by Olympia Companies in conjunction with New York investment firms Stonehill Capital Management and Spectrum Group Management. First construction of the community began in the fall of 2014.

I would drop the recent developments section, they won't continue to be recent developments for long and wikipedia isn't a newspaper.

The location section could better read:

Skye Canyon is located along U.S. Route 95 in the Las Vegas Valley about 13 miles from downtown Las Vegas. It was intentionally selected for its proximity to Mount Charleston and Lee Canyon.

The climate section is fine, it is a bit too much info given how short the rest of the article might be, but perhaps the rest of the article will grow as the community does.

For the history section, I'd write:

Initial planning of the community began during the last quarter of 2013 and plans were officially approved by the city on April 10, 2014. The first neighborhoods to be built and released to the public in Skye Canyon were Teton Falls, Teton Cliffs, and Evergreen. On Jan. 21, 2015, City Council approved the stretch of Horse Drive between U.S. 95 and Iron Mountain Road, as well as the segment of Fort Apache Road between U.S. 95 and Moccasin Road to be renamed Skye Canyon Park Drive to begin establishing the community as a distinct territory. Hualapai Way between Grand Teton Drive and Moccasin Road was renamed Skye Village Road at the same junction in time. Eagle Canyon Park was first opened to the public January 2016 and the master community held a grand opening on March 19, 2016.

But even that is a bit much. Perhaps someone else would recommend some more cutting.

I would combine the neighborhoods and amenities sections. This combined section would consist of one sentence which basically names the neighborhoods. Then another couple sentences with the names of the parks and the neighborhoods they are in, including, perhaps, the two parks outside the boundary. Community buildings might not really belong in the article at this point.

The schools section is ok, but cut the list, so all you need is the paragraph you wrote:

Plans for Skye Canyon's ongoing development includes the building of new school facilities for elementary, middle, and high school education, but construction will be subject to Clark County school funding--to be determined when that phase of development approaches. William & Mary Scherbenback and James Bilbray Elementary schools are located inside of Skye Canyon's borders, while Ralph Cadwallader Middle, Edmund Escobedo Sr. Middle, and Arbor View High schools are all located within five miles of the community. Somerset Academy charter school lies approximately four miles south of Skye Canyon's southern most border, with separate facilities for elementary and middle/high school students.

Then make sure each paragraph has a citation at the end and most if not all of your citations are from third party sources. In my opinion, that would be a good place to start. After that, you can look at sources and see if there is anything else that encyclopedic to add. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Smmurphy:

I looked at the Wiki pages on notability, verifiability, and the golden rule, then searched for Skye Canyon reporting from the third-party sources that you provided in your header and on Wikipedia's news sources. I can find plenty of news sources from Google News "Skye Canyon," but the sources are mostly local Las Vegas news channels (KLAS-TV, KTNV Las Vegas, and News3LV), in addition to Las Vegas Review Journal, with an 1-2 article(s) by VEGAS INC, Nevada Business Magazine, Las Vegas Business Press, and Builder Magazine in the mix. I found one article by Manufacturing Close-Up magazine when searching on the HighBeam Research database you gave me. I thought these sources had sufficient credibility, but I think I used many of the same or similar in the original draft I submitted, in which you commented that they weren't credible enough to be found reliable. I can't seem to find any sources other than those mentioned... Does that mean I'm out of luck? For example, here is the one I found on HighBeam: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-35475353.html

Thanks again for all of your help! Much appreciated! Kaforney (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kaforney: I think Manufacturing Close-up looks like a good magazine. If you have that full article, it might work as a good in-depth source and as a citation for a number of your sections. I'm not sure if anything works as a great second in-depth source, but a number of them might be good enough. Feel free to use local sources to cite facts, just note that they will be discounted when an editor is trying to judge notability. The Las Vegas business magazines you mentioned are probably slightly better than local news articles. Local news articles are much better than press releases, government documents, or project-related websites. Do add inline citations to each paragraph, either based on the sources already in the article, on sources that were previously there, or whatever else you may find that are good.

I should mention that I am very forgiving to historical articles and relatively harsh on articles about contemporary subjects. So for me, I usually look for reasons to decline an article like yours. Other editors have other tendencies, so take my advice with a pinch of salt, your article might be better than I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

20:17:11, 5 December 2016 review of submission by MattyJ44

• MattyJ44 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:LedgerLite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Have all the other accounting softwares listed in the article Comparison of accounting software satisfied the notability requirement? MattyJ44 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@MattyJ44: I'm glad you've asked, take a look at the sources used in those pages. From what I see, most articles cite independent news sources. I think that is the main issue with the LedgerLite pagep; In my opinion reliable sources are usually considered those which have an editorial process independent of the article's source. Can you add some sources like that to LedgerLite that are about LedgerLite? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean - can I find an article in the New York Times or some academic journal about LedgerLite? It's very unlikely I'd say. MattyJ44 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@MattyJ44: It need not by the New York Times. Perhaps a respected tech or business paper has an article on the program. Articles online are fine. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that. Do you know how long an article can stay in draft before it gets deleted? MattyJ44 (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Quite a long time so long as the article doesn't contain anything that clearly violates a policy (for instance defamation of a living person or copyright violations). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

07:07:14, 6 December 2016 review of submission by Adrian.94

• Adrian.94 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Queensland University Exchange Student Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the article "Queensland University Exchange Student Society", I don't understand what the expectations are to make this article credible.

The article I'm trying to add is for a university society, it's not like there are peer-reviewed journals on the topic. All references to the club are within the online sphere of the university, as would be expected of most university clubs. Many of the clubs at UQ have wikipedia pages, despite much lower membership or notability, and judging by those pages, the referencing for this article is at least as adequate. Please see the approved pages of "University of Queensland Business Association" and "University of Queensland Medical Society" as examples and tell me how these are acceptable yet my article is not.

Thank you. I'll try and make some improvements but I don't understand the different standards.

@Adrian.94:Thank you for your message. The standard for having an article accepted at articles for creation is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, although reviewers have their own interpretations. In my opinion, while it seems clear that the QUEST exists and is useful for many people, it isn't clear that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the general notability guideline for what is suitable for a wikipedia article. As the article is, perhaps it should be made a subsection of an article on QU student societies. If independent, third-party sources discuss the body in depth, that would go a long ways towards showing its notability.

The two pages you mention did not go through the articles for creation process, but rather were created directly in wikipedia's main space. As with the QUEST article, those two pages have issues with sourcing. If they were submitted to articles for creation, they might also have been rejected.

Any page may be nominated for deletion. The two pages you mention may be nominated for deletion. If so, they may be deleted. Often when a page is nominated for deletion, someone will volunteer to add sources establishing notability, increasing the chances that the article not be deleted. Deleting pages can require a number of editors to look over the work and is frustrating for them and for the article creator as well as for any volunteers who try to keep the page from being deleted. I have declined the submission, which avoids the chance that the article be nominated for deletion before it is ready.

Since you are interested in QUEST, it would be very helpful for wikipedia if you found some independent, third-party sources that can be used as citations. Indeed, it would be nice if you added such sources to the other two pages you mentioned. Once you've done so for the QUEST article, you can resubmit if for creation. Depending on a number of things, I or another reviewer may accept it. While I do not recommend it, you may also try to create the QUEST article directly in the main space rather than draft space. Doing so would be frowned upon, as new users are encouraged to use articles for creation and draft space. Also, doing so could likely result in nomination for deletion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:57:17, 6 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Bobbys1953

• Bobbys1953 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gerald "Gerry" Ramsberger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your feedback. I shall make the necessary changes relative to the tone in an attempt to avoid what you term as "peacock" terms, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more with regards to the "Inline Citations" since I have included references below for source materials. Do you mean simply number them within the paragraph sections as well then cross reference them in the reference section?Bobby Salerno 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Salerno 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bobbys1953: Thank you for the message. I've tried to provide an example,[4]. First, I expanded the citation to be easier to understand without clicking a link (links may die, anyway). Then I used ref tags to put the source inline. It is fine to do inline sourcing in other ways, but this is what I like. I also put used the name parameter in the ref tag to show how to use a citation in multiple spots in the article. Let me know if that makes sense. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft submission for "Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park"

Today you declined my draft submission for the above-mentioned wikipedia article. You stated that the article "read more like an advertisement" and that it needed 3rd party references. I've just re-read the article, and need some help identifying any statements that "read like an advertisement". And the references I used were from the governmental agencies that own and manage the park ... which would seem to be pretty authoritative sources for statistics about the park. It does not seem to me like links to newspaper articles about the park would be necessarily accurate, or have a permanent presence on the internet.

I live in close proximity to this park, and would like to submit an accurate, helpful and informative article. The information I included so far in the draft is only a start ... but I wanted to see how everything here at Wikipedia works before committing a large number of hours to writing an in-depth article. I would welcome your help in pointing out specific sections of the article that you feel are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. pfh 02:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfranklinherman (talk • contribs)

@Paulfranklinherman: Great question. I'll try to help some more later, but for now, I've made some quick edits that change some of the language to be more encyclopedic, here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort in showing me some edits to the page. After a lifetime of honing skills to make articles more enjoyable to read, it will take a slight change of mindset to avoid emotional adjectives. During my experience as a writer for computer journals, newspapers and blogs, the most frequent comments I received from editors was, "Don't be so dry ... lighten it up a bit ... or, don't be so technical". I am realizing that Wikipedia has a different take on that issue. If you have any further comments, they would be welcome.pfh 12:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfranklinherman (talk • contribs)

I have a technical question for you ... the article mentions that reservations are required for picnic shelters. Pasco County has a website for making such reservations - and it would be nice to add a link to this website in the article. Using a citation does not seem appropriate for this type of link. It seems that adding an "External link" would be better. But how do I refer to an external link in the text of the article to let people know where to go to make a reservation?pfh 13:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfranklinherman (talk • contribs)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

12:19:28, 8 December 2016 review of submission by MarkKosmopolit

• MarkKosmopolit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Eress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Smmurphy! I've tried to create a better context starting off this article about Eress as per your advice, please check to see you think it's what we need.MarkKosmopolit (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarkKosmopolit: Thank you for your message. I've tried to improve the lede section a bit and reorganize the article so that its flow is more in line with other wikipedia articles, in my opinion. I think it could still use some work along the same lines, but hopefully the way the article looks now is easier to read, starting with an explanation of what the thing is, and then talking about how it formed. I think you could expand the opening section a bit more, and maybe clarify or expand the other sections.

The next issue, and one that may cause your submission to be rejected again when resubmitted, has to do with your sources. Generally, it is best if you can provide multiple, independent, third-party sources that talk about your subject. It doesn't need to be in English, but your article would be improved, in my opinion, if it cited (preferably two or three) non-advertising or press release based news stories which profile the organization.

Another issue has to do with using an acronym in the title, which is covered by a wikipedia policy, here. Read that policy and decide if the title should be "ERESS", "Eress", or "European partnership for railway energy settlement systems". My guess is "Eress" is correct, but you should make sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:03:33, 8 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wordsetc

• Wordsetc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bassim Haidar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Snmurphy Thank you for reviewing my draft profile on Bassim Haidar. I am really keen to get it right but do not understand what you mean by your comment "It is preferable that citations not consist solely of bare URLs; any full format is fine". The citations do not consist 'solely of bare URLs' - you will see that I have already included several footnotes as substantiating references following Matthew Vanitas' initial feedback. I do not understand why linking to an external website for supplementary information is considered unacceptable as this seems to be accepted practice on Wikipedia. I have read the page you referred me to on Citing Sources but am none the wiser.

Please would you explain what I need to do, if anything, to meet the required standard as this is my first submission? Thanks in advance for your help. Wordsetc Wordsetc (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wordsetc (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wordsetc: Thank you for your message. My message was mis-worded, I meant that you should avoid linking directly to non-wikipedia pages in the body of the article, for instance in your first line you link to the Channel IT website. This is often done to cite a fact, although at other times it is done to give context to the article. In either case, I don't think it is good, and I would recommend only having external links in the external links section or references section. By the way, their usually aren't that many external links, if these can be shortened to two or three, that might be better.

By expand the references, I mean include the author, title, publisher, and date of the reference. I expanded the first reference in the bibliography as an example. Also, I'm not sure what the bibliography section is. It seems to be additional references, or maybe it is something else. In any case, it might be the case that the section should be cut or made into references. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

13:27:16, 14 December 2016 review of submission by MarkKosmopolit

• MarkKosmopolit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Eress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello again and sorry to disturb you with this matter again. I´ve included a set of external links to news articles from all around europe in order to show the notability of this subject. What du you think of this? I dare not to click on resubmit... Kind regards. Mark MarkKosmopolit (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarkKosmopolit: I'm so sorry that you are nervous to submit. The environment here can be rough, editors do a lot of work and don't show the time and patience we wish we could. Plus, for a lot of processes, including articles for creation (AfC), there is no one, single threshold for what makes a good article. Each editor makes a decision based on their own, slightly different, criteria. There is a general consensus, some understanding of different editors idiosyncrasies, and editors are supportive of each other's decisions, but for a new editor like you it can seem baroque. It isn't supposed to be scary, though, and I'm sorry it is.

The article as it currently is would be rejected by a number of editors at AfC, including possibly myself, because the article does not cite any facts to independent third-party sources. Strictly speaking, every article does not need to have such citations, but AfC endeavors to create articles that better follow norms and guidelines than the minimum standard. The additional reading does give those sources, but those articles are better incorporated into the main body as references, rather than set off in their own section.

For Eress, I'm sure it is notable as it is a mid-sized intergovernmental organization with international relevance, so you don't need to worry overmuch about establishing notability. I picked out the two articles from the additional reading section you talked about that I think are the best (my Norwegian is very bad, but from what I could folow, that article seemed good, I could be wrong). My feeling is that two independent third-party, articles that give in depth coverage of the subject published in a source which has editorial review of a high standard are exactly what is needed to establish notability. More is great, but if others give repeated information, then it is just extra work for you and for a reviewer. Note that I wrote out a more full citation, I roughly follow the Chicago style and generally avoid wikipedia citation templates, but you can do your citations in any format so long as it is complete, and should use the citation templates (Template:Cite, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web) if you want guidance. Simple links as you have provided are frowned upon.

There really should not be an extra links or additional reading section. What I would do is take the two articles I selected and use them to cite facts from the article. Leave the existing inline citations you have, but write out the full citation (see WP:CITE and Template:Cite web - again, different formats are fine, those are good suggestions to follow). Some statements will end up cited to multiple sources, that is fine but avoid using more than two or three sources per statement and one is best (citing a statement to multiple sources is clumsy, one source is usually most definitive on a point). I'd consider using the articles from the extra links section to cite other facts, but I didn't see anything in those articles that seemed especially broad in their coverage. Awards given to Eress or Erex mentioned at those links could be cited and included in the article. Also, you could use those links to cite partnerships with different rail administrations.

If you like, do the things I recommended, and get back to me (at my talk page is best) and I'll take another look. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

12:14:56, 16 December 2016 review of submission by Davidrajamuthu

• Davidrajamuthu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:St.Mark's Anglican Church Seremban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Smmurphy,

I've have seen that you have rejected my article due to unverifiable resources.As I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and still not familiar to creating and editing articles,I would really like to ask your help in adding the resources necessary for the article under the "References" section.I am doing this article for my parish church for the 110th anniversary.All your help would be appreciated.Below are the few online articles related to the one article i'm creating.Thank you, Yours truly,Davidrajamuthu

http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/11/190350/why-homes-are-still-needed

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2014/12/12/early-yuletide-treat-for-the-kids-church-group-treats-100-needy-children-from-bahau-and-segamat-to-l/

@Davidrajamuthu: Thank you for your question. Sorry for the delayed response. The links you've provided are interesting, but they aren't really about the church, rather they are about an activity the church is doing. Does the difference make sense? Try to find some sources that talk about the church, its size, its age, the building, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Habib Construction Services

For the second time my article submission declined by Wikipedia of the name “Habib Construction Services” It is stated that I being a national of same country, i want to have complete knowledge regarding details about my country and its locations. While searching for new developments in Pakistan I came across many pages at Wikipedia few are listed below with few things in red fonts and carry very little info about them i.e.

Chowk Minar-e-Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chowk_Minar-e-Pakistan ) Saggian Interchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saggian_Interchange ) Harbanspura Interchange ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbanspura_Interchange )

Lahore Ring Road ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Ring_Road ) Lahore Metrobus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Metrobus )

And many more are on Wikipedia if you search above name in wiki… so I decided to put info about those in red fonts I started with Habib Construction Services. One example I want to give here regarding the reason tagged while declining my request is about Turner Construction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Construction ) which inspired me to lodge a request about my proposed contribution. Almost same words are being used in this wiki article and this becomes legal how can be? On the other hand you tagged my article as advertising… if this is the case then Turner Construction page is also advertising. So my first point is why these double standards are on Wikipedia… my 2nd point is that I have edited my article for the third time to meet your requirements because I want to be a senior editor on wiki and want to contribute regarding info about my country Pakistan.

Another example is on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Construction_Company ) If I was the one submitting the above linked page article (Suffolk Construction) I swear one of your wiki moderator will reject my article… but because its from a US based company the page is alive. Kindly give me a reason why my article fall in advertisement category and these above examples are exempted, just give me one convincing reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.5.55 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@103.255.5.55: Thank you for your comment. I really do wish there were more and better articles on wikipedia about a great diversity of things, Pakistan in particular. However, the article on Habib Construction Services is demonstrably in much worse shape than the other pages you linked. First, the articles linked mention the company in passing. That is, they only say that the company won a contract, but they do not say anything more in-depth about the company, that I can see. Are there reliable sources talking about when the company was formed? How many people it employs? What its revenue is? Or any of the other things the article mentions? The current article seems to be based on your knowledge, and thus would be comsidered original research. Wikipedia frowns on this for many reasons, and such a page is unlikely to pass Articles for Creation and even if passed, would likely be deleted later. So to me, the first thing you should do is find reliable sources about the company, rather than simply mentioning the company in passing. Another thing is that your references should be in a full format such as Chicago or MLA style, and should be referenced inline using <ref></ref> tags (see WP:CITE). Also, use wikilinks to reference other wikipedia pages. I am on vacation this week, but if you message me, I will be happy to help you out. Welcome to the project! Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor people

Minor people is a reference to people who have not received much coverage in reliable sources in the context I meant when all the coverage focuses on one event. That is all I meant by the statement. They are people who have not made a major impact and not received major attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I guess I understand the idea in the real life sense, but it seems very relative. The terms you use which fit into my understanding of what subjects are suitable for a wikipedia article include, "much coverage" and "major attention" which fit into the question of whether or not a subject has received "significant coverage" (a part of GNG) and "major impact" which fits into the question of whether of not a subject has made a "widely recognized contribution" (a part of ANYBIO). But "significant coverage" and "widely recognized contribution" are left (purposefully?) poorly defined. So to me, a figure like William Buck is extremely minor, but due to his being a graduate of a top tier American school in the mid-1800s and playing baseball at a relatively high level, he passed the Heymann standard at a [AfD] in which I was involved. My thinking is that wikipedia is a great place for a minor figure like Buck, and in my opinion he passes GNG, although his coverage isn't as significant as many editors like. So my question is, is it bad that wikipedia has articles about minor figures like Buck? Or is Buck not really a minor figure if he passes GNG? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scott Eric Kaufman

A tag has been placed on Scott Eric Kaufman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A7 Non-notable academic.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Parkywiki (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scott Eric Kaufman

The article Scott Eric Kaufman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject was a minor blogger and adjunct professor. Clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Scott Eric Kaufman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Eric Kaufman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Eric Kaufman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Newspapers.com and The Wikipedia Library

Your account is ready and should be live now! Happy editing!--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 09:19:30, 26 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Juliamiddleton

• Juliamiddleton (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrea Wilde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I was wondering if IMDB counts as a reliable source as my page has been declined. Could you lend me a hand in getting it approved? What should I change? Thank you!

Juliamiddleton (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Juliamiddleton:, Thank you for contacting me! As was pointed out on the page, Draft:Andrea Wilde, IMDB and primary sources such as genealogy databases should be avoided and generally do not satisfy notability guidelines which defines what is suitable for inclusion as a wikipedia article. For some insight into the preferred sources, look over the guideline, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In general, for an article like the one you have drafted, try reputable newspapers and magazines, and perhaps google news or another news content aggregation that might suggest articles about your subject. I am currently very busy and do not have time to give you very much direct aid, but feel free to ask me questions here or to ask questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Good luck, Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks again for your efforts in coordinating for Wikipedia's Library. Do you use IRC at all? --JustBerry (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I never have, but could be convinced I suppose. Is it useful/valuable? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Kind of. There's the IRC help channel, in which new Wikipedians can receive help editing Wikipedia. Recently, a few of the library coordinators and I have collectively created a TWL (the Wikipedia Library) channel and added some bot functionality to the channel to track new account requests, etc. --JustBerry (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 12 years ago...

Hey, Smmurphy. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Stefanie Rabatsch, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:12:26, 20 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MarkKosmopolit

• MarkKosmopolit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Eress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So, finally I've done a thorough update on the Eress page. Following your guidelines I've included a full citation (chicago style) where it's useful, but please note that in a very few places a found that inline citation made the page easier to read. Maybe it's just me not being in my native tounge... I also erased a couple of blocks of text that I started to think wasn't needed. There is still a couple of uncited lines of text. Do you think that will be a problem? I'm thankful of all the help you've already given me in this subject. Best regards. Mark MarkKosmopolit (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) MarkKosmopolit (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@MarkKosmopolit: The format of the references doesn't really matter, any format is fine (I mostly use Chicago). Whichever you use, it is best to then use <ref></ref> tags so that the references get kicked to the bottom, as you can see. I've added those tags, and your references are, in my opinion, ok at this point. The next important task is to cut flowery language which makes the article look like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Consider the sentence: "EREX provides an efficient, reliable, accurate and flexible energy settlement system." The words "efficient, reliable, accurate, and flexible" stick out as too flowery. Either, a neutral third party calls EREX efficient, reliable, accurate, and flexible, so you should say, "So and so has called EREX an efficient, reliable, accurate, and flexible system for energy settlement." Or just say "EREX provides an energy settlement system." Note that if an article is too much of an advertisement, it can be deleted with short notice, even from draft space, so since another reviewer has pointed out this issue, you should fix the problem as soon as you can. After that, you should write a lede paragraph starting with a lede sentence that defines what ERESS is and then in the rest of the paragraph explains it a bit from a broad perspective. This paragraph doesn't need to include references if it is summarizing points presented in more detail and with references later. You are really getting there, keep it up! Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:07:00, 21 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MarkKosmopolit

• MarkKosmopolit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Eress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi again and thank you for your positive words, having a huge difference to me as I surely would have given this up already last year! I've redone the lede paragraph and I like it, I think I'm getting the hang of it, thanks to you. But what I would like to do at this point is to clean up the References a bit. One of the articles having several relevant facts are cited multiple times thus clogging the references part a bit. I've tried naming the REF's, but got an alert. How do I go about fixing this issue, and do you think we are ready to let this baby go public after this touch up? And if you notice more areas that can be improved, do not hesitate to tell me, please. Best regards. MarkMarkKosmopolit (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

MarkKosmopolit (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've edited your lede a bit more for readability and clarity. My grammar isn't great, but I've made some grammar edits as well. I've also changed your wording a bit for readability in other sections. Although I told you that it is best to write, "So and so said such and such", I've made some changes which vary this format for readability, writing, "One study found such and such", etc. I've also fixed the reference issue you mentioned. I then did some jiggering of the sections. Finally, many editors reason that claims to notability should be made in the lede, and so I added a sentence to the end of the lede which will, ideally, help the reader understand why Eress is important. I think you should go over the changes I made and make sure I didn't introduce any errors, and then resubmit at AfC. I would probably accept it at this point, but it doesn't hurt to get a second opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

hey about AFDs

Thanks for helping at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteside, Northumberland. I learned a bit from that. For the heck of it I followed you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wholeness axiom. I tried to make my !vote there sound like I had a clue about the topic! :) --doncram 05:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks. I like to keep an eye on certain subtopics of AfD, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History. I agree with your userpage that the environment is negative (by definition if not by design), and am glad at the result for Whiteside. I think AfD is a really interesting, if difficult, place to spend time, and am glad to see you using it to improve articles (as I like to think I try to do). Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising

Hello! Your submission of Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)