User talk:Bernie44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Orphaned non-free image File:Haxan Cloak Excavation 2013.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Haxan Cloak Excavation 2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Small Town Brewery has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Bernie44. I've nominated Small Town Brewery, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. North America1000 16:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks good to me.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Small Town Brewery[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 19 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Small Town Brewery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... a new category in the alcoholic beverage industry, referred to as "hard soda" or "flavored beer", was created due to the prosperity of Small Town Brewery's Not Your Father's Root Beer brand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Small Town Brewery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Small Town Brewery), 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.

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoff Lloyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The New Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jordan Fisher (July 8)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tseung Kwan O (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Bernie44, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tseung Kwan O, I'm surprised the draft was declined. How is Jordan Fisher not deemed notable? He has had significant roles on The Secret Life of the American Teenager on ABC Family, Liv and Maddie on Disney Channel, Grease: Live on Fox, on both Disney's Teen Beach movies, and as a musician is signed by Hollywood Records, with press to back it up. He is mentioned on over 20 other Wikipedia pages, which I realize can't be used to prove notability, but it is certainly meaningful. In what ways do you think this draft is lacking? And how would I go about removing the create-protected tag? How do I know which administrator made it create-protected? Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the name Jordan Fisher is create-protected, so there's no way you can create such a page without admins removing the protection label. The reason why they've installed a create-protection label on the name might be because of the person's failure to meet WP's notability guidelines, which are very rigid. Yes, Fisher may have participated in various movies and tv shows, but that does not mean he is notable by WP standards, because a lot of other people have as well. You need to read the guidelines closely and meet all of the relevant criteria before your topic can be considered notable. As for the create-protection, you'll have to submit a request to the admins, because even if your article is perfect, AfC reviewers still can't accept your article.
@Tseung Kwan O: I agree with Bernie44 regarding notability. You point to the general notability guideline, which specifically states the conditions "significant coverage, reliable and independent sources". Looking through each source: is certainly a reliable source and is independent of the subject, and the coverage is non-trivial (in fact he is the subject of the article). The Composure Magazine source is probably somewhere in between a primary and a secondary source. I would say since it's published in a print magazine it minimally helps demonstrate notability. The Alabama News Group source appears to be an independent, reliable source with content focused on Fisher, which demonstrates notability. Next source (AXS) is a weak, fairly softball interview. Minimally shows notability. The OhmyDisney source is rather short, but it's still a reliable, independent source giving nontrivial coverage and explains why the figure is notable in the article. Idolator is nearing trivial coverage, just seems like a listing that something is happening that involves Fisher. The AOL source, like quite a few others, is an interview. However, in this case I think it does demonstrate notability because the AOL team wrote a significant amount of content about him before the interview section.
NASCAR source reveals he was a singer for the one of the top-level stock car racing events in the US, which definitely demonstrates notability. TeenVogue is yet another interview, though it is a reliable independent source. Another Idolator source, nearing trivial coverage but I suppose it helps demonstrate notability. Vibe source is OK, but fairly short. Still, there's been a lot here that has helped demonstrate notability. HeadlinePlanet is a weekly summary or something like that - doesn't help demonstrate notability at all in my opinion. GirlsLife is yet another softball interview, as is Glitter. The next source is suboptimal, but he is the subject of the article and the magazine is a reliable independent source so it does demonstrate notability for GNG. Next Alabama News Group source is fairly good as a secondary source that shows he's been at least important enough for some level of coverage since mid-2013, which helps show that he's not famous for one event. Cosmopolitan source is not great. Another interview. While Fisher is the subject of the next source PopSugar, it's so short that it approaches trivial coverage of a larger event. And while Fisher is not the subject of the Entertainment Weekly source, he is mentioned in a reasonably substantial paragraph.
I did briefly look and add one AOL source. While it is an interview, the first few paragraphs are secondary source material that does help demonstrate notability.
A lot of these sources were not great. However, the broad amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources, such as OhmyDisney, the two Alabama News Group sources, the NASCAR source, Vibe source, and mention in multiple important sources such as Entertainment Weekly lead me to believe he meets the general notability guideline. Sure, a lot of people have participated in various movies and TV shows. But the Wikipedia standard is not based on whether his profession is unique, but rather his coverage in sources. Many of these sources are not great. But the sum of a large number of interviews as well as a handful of complete sources easily passes GNG in my mind.
Anyway, I'm just a talk page stalker, not an expert in this subject or field. I can see why it failed notability earlier, but within the last six months or so, numerous new sources appear to demonstrate notability (which probably was nonexistent when the article was deleted at AfD in September 2015). Appable (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Appable. However, Bernie will still have to make the case for the admins to approve, because I'm not one myself, and it's still create-protected. I wish you the best of luck Bernie, and I hope you can get the admins' approval in removing the create-protection. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tseung Kwan O: Per RHaworth's reply to Bernie44, the article needs to be approved in AfD before create protection is removed. I wasn't sure in your last statement whether you were saying that the article's subject is notable enough for inclusion (which would probably mean the article is approved, though of course you can't move it) or if you haven't fully come to a conclusion about the article's notability yet/still don't believe it's notable. Either way, it sounds like the procedure is that the article should be approved if it is suitable for inclusion in mainspace and then protections, etc are cleared by administrators. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Appable (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Appable When I read a draft, I often apply the most effective method of gauging a topic's notability: what is the chance that this page will be PRODed for notability? After hearing your case, I believe it probably won't receive a PROD after entering WP mainspace, so I'm fine with it and the create-protection can be removed to make way for it. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tseung Kwan O: RHaworth has removed the create protection from Jordan Fisher, discussion can be viewed here. I have resubmitted Draft:Jordan Fisher, and it is currently awaiting review.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Bernie44, I note your declaration that you sometimes edit for pay. Are you paid to promote Jordan Fisher here? If so, you must – as you surely know – make the appropriate disclosure on the talk page of the draft, on your user page, and on any other page that you edit in connection with this topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I was paid to create a page for him. Typically I make the appropriate declaration on the talk page after creating the page. This situation is unique, as there was already a draft I edited to try and bring it up to speed, and I hadn't realized I should create a talk page for a draft. I'll put the disclosure on there now.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jordan Fisher has been accepted[edit]

Jordan Fisher, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps why is the NYT article on Pogge not used for the clear claim of fact that the Yale records only note the improper use of stationery? It seems to me that this claim is made explicitly in the NYT article after all. Collect (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As the section is worded right now it includes the bit about the stationary. But that seems to me to be a minor point in the article. Personally I feel like the section as worded right now is an accurate and fair summation of the NYT article.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)