User talk:Gronk Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Messages for Gronk Oz should be left here.
When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (90% probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives, the meaning of life is not to be found there.

The Pest Returns![edit]

Would you have time to check over my Joseph Swensen article to see if it's safe to re-submit? If you could I would be extremely grateful.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WOW - that article is such an enormous improvement! You have really picked up the Wikipedia way. I have asked the reviewer (Bearcat) a question, because I noticed that you had originally written that Swensen was the author of every single reference, and I am not sure whether this was what gave the impression that they were all primary references. I have fixed up all the references to show the correct authors etc, and I hope this will make a better case for his notability. I have to head out now for the afternoon and evening, so I probably won't see any developments until tomorrow.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much. No, that's my misunderstanding. This time I was using the template (which I had just discovered by the way!) and thought 'second name' 'first name' meant the author! Stupid I suppose. I was puzzled by the repetition of his name. But no, the first one was rejected because my sources were primary sources! Impressive but primary. I'll have to work out what is meant by the second name, first name etc. because then (on the template) you're asked to fill in 'title'(I presume of the article)... There are so many instructions on wikipedia it's impossible to tract down what you need. I'llI'll study what you've done to try to understand. I've also entered refs on the Gareth Williams article but I've still something to sort out on some of the refs I gather. Have a good day. It's sunny here this morning for a change. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You're quite right, @Balquhidder2013: - "first" and "last" are the name of the author of the reference. And Swenson was not the author for all those articles; they were written by all different people. If you need to look up what any of the fields mean (which I still do from time to time), you can check the template documentation at {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}. I will be interested to see Bearcat's response, because most of the citations you gave are actually secondary sources. Perhaps there might be some question because some of them talk more about a performance than about Swensen - but I think that should be okay. My advice is definitely not to panic yet; let's see what Bearcat has to say.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspection of the Foreign Legion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion (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) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Joseph Swensen article[edit]

I guess you haven't had a reply to your query concerning the article. As I explained in my last communication but perhaps I didn't make myself clear, this draft's references are different to the ones submitted in the first draft. The first one contained excellent references but were by and large primary sources, e.g. the University of Indiana on his appointment. But most were changed in the draft I sent to you and which you've sorted for me. If you haven't had a reply to your query Bearcat do you think I should click the 're submit' button?

I would also like you to take a peep at the Irish composer, Gareth Williams's article to which I added a number of references. Do you think it now deserves to have its verification paste-on removed? Many thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ASNSW Article : NPOV Avoidance[edit]

@Gronk Oz: Please note that your edits for the Astronomical Society of New South Wales has been severely edited by me. Even though you have stated in a disclosure a possible conflict of interest, the article clearly and purposefully avoids WP:NPOV. If you have any issues with editing, you should discuss this on the article's Talk Page here.[1]

The Rules on this are very clear. Please kindly read WP:BFAQ closely, and please follow its precepts. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. A similar kind of problem also lies with the Sutherland Astronomical Society article that you've edited. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1:, if you can improve the articles, then of course that is wonderful. But I am not sure that I understand how an edit like this one is constructive, because it removed nearly the entire section of material that was all supported by external references - none of which have any association with the organization at all, and just left an un-referenced stub in its place. If you are concerned that the wording is somehow inconsistent with a NPOV, then it would be more constructive to improve it or flag it, rather than wholesale section blanking and removing references. It is not clear which aspect of WP:BFAQ you are concerned about here - it would be best to continue the conversation on the article's Talk page so others can be involved and I will also mention it at WikiProject Astronomy in case any more experienced editors would care to contribute.
To allay your concerns about a conflict of interest, I verify again that I am a member of the ASNSW but I am not, and never have been, paid or received any other remuneration for this or any other editing of Wikipedia. There is no conflict of interest in the sense used at Conflict of interest, where "the word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit."--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm equally concerned with the conflict of interest and the whole lack of neutrality, which is frankly is among some of the worst I've seen. I removed the text because I tried to look for other independent sources, but couldn't find any. From the selected independent sources, you mostly cherry picked the best bit to place the article in the best light, and not the needed NPOV. Here this one is the perfect example. The text is either "a weekend of star watching beneath one of the world's darkest skies" is biased, impossible to prove, and promotes something which is of commercial interests (I.e. Because it is charges money. I.e. As stated by the society site you linked.) As for the rest mentioning Scouts, the township of Ilford's population, Houston's old 2000 article - are all rather irrelevant, and look like a thin selection from a quite small number of available references. Together it looks like promotion, which is against Wikipedia policies, and when this is noted, all editors have to be extra careful.
As for "excuses", like getting others involved, is irrelevant, because issues exceeding the rules can be deleted by any editor at anytime. This applies specifically to text that cannot be properly verified. (I also see your edits on other astronomical societies which you've edited, which have the very same kind of NPOV issues as with this article.) In this case, some needed deconstruction was the only option.
Further saying; "If you are concerned that the wording is somehow inconsistent with a NPOV, then it would be more constructive to improve it or flag it, rather than wholesale section blanking and removing references." I have no obligation to do that at all, especially if the text cannot be verified through correct and relevant referencing.
So to save two individuals in argument, we should continue discussion on the rest on the Talk page for the ASNSW. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1:, I have no conflict of interest.
I am disappointed to read that you think involving other editors is some kind of "excuse", because editing by consensus is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia; it is the primary way decisions are made. Requests for comment are a normal part of this process. I did not intend any disrespect; just an attempt to engage the relevant people in the discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. You haven't shown any disrespect to anyone here. Yes consensus is important, but the problem here is citations expressed by the source supporting the statements. I think that when people see these reverted edits, they too as a majority would agree that the issue is with the sources. Internal sources usually are skewed in their POV, because the nature is to promote their own brand - human nature. It is not deliberate. But this is not balanced - as I've exampled, hence the objections. If you get past this by just showing more caution in editing on subjects you're maybe too close too. Cheers.Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apex (Ramez Naam)[edit]

Please have a look on Apex (Ramez Naam novel). --Momo Monitor (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Momo Monitor:. I took a look at that page - not sure what you would like me to do with it. I notice that the entire article is just a plot summary so the article still needs some work.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Georg Naumann - article is an orphan[edit]

Thank you for your entry Orphan|date=April 2016 and the working on my article. I've installed some links into other articles leading to my new article. Is that enough or will I have to do anything else? Is it possible to delete the entry now? If yes, can you do it for me, please? Or am I allowed to do that? My second question: The module "This page is a new unreviewed article..." will surely have to be examined by an editor or administrator. Can you do this? Or what else have I to do for it? What's the rule in en.wikipedia? (I couldn't find anything in Help). In de.wikipedia the work is done by an editor or adminsitrator. (I'm an editor myself in I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks in advance. --Klausronjaen (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Klausronjaen:. That article is coming along nicely - well done! Yes, the Orphan tag not longer applies, since it is now linked from three articles and a list:
  • Athabasca oil sands
  • History of Alberta
  • Pelican Portage, Alberta
  • List of articles about Canadian oil sands
So I have removed the Orphan tag. If you want to check about an orphan article, you can look under "Tools" on the left hand side of the page and click on "What links here"; it will show any incoming links and you can filter to show just the articles. In general, any editor (including you) is welcome to remove a "maintenance tag" like that once the problem has been fixed - see Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. Of course, it's also fine to ask for a second opinion, as you did here.
The review tag is a little different. All new articles get reviewed by an editor with Reviewer rights (which I do not have). However, there is a backlog so this may take some time. It is not a problem; it just means that the article is new.
I did a couple more quick copy-edits, especially breaking up the long blocks of text into paragraphs to make it easier to read. Note that in Wikipedia markup you need to leave a blank line when you want to create a paragraph break. If you want to improve the article further, I think the next step should be to work on references. What's there so far is good, but there are still many statements and whole paragraphs that are not supported by any references. I see that this is your first article, and you should be very proud - you have done a great job of it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Gronk Oz:. Thank you very much for the editing, for the tips for improvement, for the proof corrections and also for your good words for my work. That is stimulating and important for my next articles in the en.wikipedia, which I've already planned.Klausronjaen (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Klausronjaen: - to follow up on the last remaining part of your question, I notice that the page has now been reviewed by Meatsgains, so the "Unreviewed" tag has been removed.Gronk Oz (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Gronk Oz, I'm unsure why this page is up for deletion - I tried to make it non-promotional. Do you have any tips for me to not make it promotional? As for the relevancy - it's one of the largest jewellery chains in the country. Our competitors have wikipedia pages including John Greed, Beaverbrooks etc. so unsure why we are undeserving of one? David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGSpindle (talkcontribs) 13:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@DavidGSpindle:As far as I can see, this page has never been proposed for deletion. However, the lack of independent references may put it at risk of deletion in future. Whether competitors have articles or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia; what matters for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term) is the extent of in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources (see the "Golden Rule".
The notes at the top of the article are called "Maintenance Tags" and they are there to guide editors in what improvements are needed for articles; they are not deletion requests. The two tags that were there, for single source and primary sources, do not seem relevant any more so I have removed them and replaced with one to improve the references. The first two references are okay, though they read more like PR releases. The third one is almost irrelevant; it only mentions the company in passing. So if you are interested in improving the article, your task begins outside of Wikipedia, with hunting down those references. Then summarize what the best references have to say, and add that to the article - this will give the best article, and the best chances that it will survive if challenged.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gronk Oz. You have new messages at Gronk Oz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Gronk, okay that all makes sense. Yeah those references are terribly written, I know. I'll hunt down some more references - thanks. I think I must have read an old message about the old page being up for deletion then! I didn't see it on the page either, I just got an email. Strange. Cheers anyway, I'll work on references! Dave

How can we show a real notability for a person?[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Now, I do not understand when you say "independent references that discuss the topic in depth to establish notability", I appreciate if you explain me about this requirement. Please check these links: 1. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): 2. Vanguardia Liberal, (Santander State, Colombia): 3. SemanaNews, Houston, Texas, USA: 4. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): 5. Revista Genete de Canaveral (Bucaramanga, Colombia): 6. Las2orillas (National), Bogotá, Colombia: 7. Los Angeles Times (California, USA): . Full article is one page in paper. 8. Revista Carrusel Periódico El Tiempo (National), Bogotá, Colombia: 9. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): 10. The Seattle Times, Washington, USA: and other articles in magazines/News (not digital version) that I can send them in JPG or PDF and interviews at TV shows such as We are working to find more digital references because “Wikipedia requires significant coverage”. Sorry, we are not expertise in Wikipedia :o) Thanks a lot for your help Olivety (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits[edit]

I am extremely happy to know that my article was edited by you for the silly mistakes that I have made.Thanking you once again. Ktpna (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ktpna - Wikipedia works best when it is a joint activity.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


You patrolled "First Order of Ailuros" in Feb - it was a thinly veiled hoax, copied from Branch Davidian. Clues were there - it was created with tags dated to 2013, the edit filter tagged as likely cut-and-paste, and there was gibberish about pandas. Fences&Windows 23:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fences and windows. I would be interested to see the details, since I have never deliberately patrolled a page. However, I have become aware that when I used Twinkle to mark a page for Speedy Deletion, for some reason the default is to automatically mark that page as patrolled. I disabled that option once I found out about it, and I wonder whether that is what happened here, or is there some other trap that I need to be aware of. But the page no longer exists, so I can't check the details... --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Patrolled may have been the wrong word; the issue is not marking pages as patrolled or not, but rather that you need to carefully check new pages, especially when you are the first across them. You were the first to edit after creation on the same day. The edit summary was "(Clean up, added orphan tag, typo(s) fixed: a Arctist → an Arctist using AWB)". See the Google Cache here for the content: Fences&Windows 08:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)