User talk:Ringbang/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

16:32:54, 20 April 2016 review of submission by Carrieruggieri


I have a list of third party references. There are many of them. I had planned to put them in the bibliography or use them in the proper subheadings, such as "research." Would you like me to submit the references to you. Also, AEDP is a theory and method of therapy. There are no facts here to verify. What is important is that I am accurately presenting the theory to the readers. I have made no claims as to effectivness etc... (that would require a third party for sure). There will be claims to verify in the body of the article. But it doesn't make sense to present that level of detail in the lead section. thank you. carrieCarrieruggieri (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

16:39:38, 20 April 2016 review of submission by Carrieruggieri


Also, any information used by AEDP to advance or inform its theory is given the appropriate reference.Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: To be clear, we don't want to "advance" the theory at all. I added a second comment about the primary reasons for rejecting the draft. The draft's unorthodox format does hinder review, though. —Ringbang (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:56:06, 21 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lotsakiki


Thanks for reviewing my draft. I've been declined twice for lack of notability and lack of reliable third party reference, but I'm also confused about the consistency of this rule. For example, Judy Kang has no citations or reference, yet the page has been approved. What does the Judy Kang article achieve that the Daniel Morganstern article does not? Thanks for your help. Lotsakiki (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lotsakiki: My pleasure. You make an excellent point about the Judy Kang article, and I understand your frustration. This other article was created before Wikipedia introduced a stricter policy about biographies of living people. The rules about "BLP" articles are retroactive, but the policy about when and how to delete them is slightly different. This is a case of a low-traffic article (that was never vetted by the draft-approval process) being overlooked by experienced editors. (I've now marked it accordingly, so thanks for bringing it up.)

About your article: Two things are needed here: First, it should not be an autobiography. Second, the information should be entirely supported by reliable sources (especially secondary sources) unconnected to the subject. If it's too reliant on primary sources and/or low-quality sources—or if the secondary sources don't evidence the notability of the subject—then it won't pass. —Ringbang (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:41:33, 23 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Knowzalot


I can't help but wonder if this would be happening if I were creating an entry for Michael Wucker. I looked at other entries before I started, have done everything requested, and can't understand what the issues are. There are secondary sources, recognitions (the Guggenheim Foundation) and notable achievements (her three books were published by reputable houses), and she doesn't own a TV network, to whit (MSNBC, Al Jazeera) on which she has appeared regularly.

Additionally, although not worthy of my own Wikipedia entry (which I say in a completely non-ironic and self-aware way), as both a librarian and a journalist, I know something about encyclopedias, sourcing and what makes for an engaging story. This tale of trying- and failing up to this point - to create an entry for someone who is clearly worthy of a wikipedia entry is looking very much like an example of the latter. Knowzalot (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Knowzalot: Hi, I hear your frustration. The issue is with the the types of citations in the article. The New York Times and Washington Post reviews are great. Can you find coverage in secondary sources that focuses on Wucker herself? (Remember the golden rule.) Your emphasis has been on documenting her journalistic output. What we need are references to reliable secondary sources that are about her, not by her. They must be secondary sources. The article should not rely heavily on primary sources, such as press releases, business profiles, websites for companies/organisations she's affiliated with, etc. While the Guggenheim Fellowship is an honour, the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation isn't selective enough for this alone to qualify a person for inclusion.

Try not to feel too disheartened when a submission is declined. This topic has a better chance of succeeding than most that come through draft review. The important thing is to pay attention to the reasons given for declining, to follow the links given, and to read the explanations and policies there. The previous reviewer mentioned WP:CREATIVE because these are special considerations given to published authors, including journalists. All articles are subject to the general notability guideline. —Ringbang (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Susan Stryker

The article Susan Stryker has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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.

Needing your help, please!

I saw your name amongst those proposed changes in the Comparisons of Bittorrent Clients wiki page, thought you may be of help.

I wanted to add the function "Sequential Downloading" to the comparison points but despite the fact this is the second mostly wished function to be supported in Bittorrent clients, that is to download a torrent file of a media file, like music, or video and be able to start using it right away.

Hardly none of the client applications support this function. By the official reasoning because it would slow or kill the downloading swarm while truth is it is working. If you go deep enough to see how the system works, you'll find there's nothing about Sequential Downloading that would make any harm to the swarm. In turn, many streaming sites that makes millions of dollars for providing HD videos, for example, would die out starving as no the fuck one would pay for their shit. So this chip of information, that is we already have 1, I say again, only one client that supports downloading your torrent file of a movie and start watching it, is a war field of business. I want you to help this information stay on the wiki site loud and clear.

The function I mentioned in the first place that is mostly wished is chat function. Well, that is not strictly related to Bittorrent clients although this function is a humongous leap. Best quality, right away, for no cash. This is a big difference. But people doesn't really know it was even possible so this is the least one can do to say it out clear on an independent site as wikipedia that it exists. We needed to mention if a client had the function to chat which is, let's say, not really a relevant function in means of data sharing but we did. So how could that happen that we don't share this information if there's sooooo big need for that. Please, help protect this information on this wiki page that this function already exists and available for everyone.

Thank you!

Thanks for checking my article I need your help regarding Naima Reisser, LLC Company submission

Hello Sir you recently reviewed my article and I wanted your help concerning how I can make it great. The company exist without a shadow of a doubt. They've made those engines and they are actually being sold on Amazon. But I was advised that Amazon sources are not credible. The same I was told regarding YouTube sources so I pulled them out. I've offered news sources of 10TV news as well as a collaboration source of the company and a popular university that occurred recently. Just wanted you to tell me where I'm going wrong and I'll prove the credibility of this company. Let me know if there are sources that I should remove from this list or something like that.Thank will really appreciate your help sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpedia1 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Markpedia1: Hi, thanks for trying to find more secondary sources to support the article—namely, the WBNS-TV story. However, local news coverage alone is insufficient, and the article continues to rely on primary sources. The YouTube link is for a video from the company, so that, too, is a primary source. It's true that Amazon and other retail websites are not admissible. I'm sorry, but there has yet to be any evidence that this company has the breadth and depth of coverage required in nationally or internationally published secondary sources. At this point, it seems unlikely there is sufficient evidence to be found in support of the topic's notability. —Ringbang (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: Hi there, thanks for your help in trying to show me where I'm going wrong as far as my article is concerned. Very quickly if you don't mind send me a mail to this address kobianator3(at)outlook(dot)com. Would really like to discuss something small with you there. Thanks again sir.
@Markpedia1: Hi and thanks for the invitation. In the interest of transparency, I prefer to keep all communication in the wiki. Both I and the volunteers at the Teahouse are happy to answer questions to the best of our ability. —Ringbang (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: Hi Friend, no problem. Anyways, it was nothing significant. Just wanted to know what makes one an administrator here. I love Wikipedia a lot and I think it is only fair that I celebrate this great web page by offering my skills wherever possible. That's what I wanted we talk about.
@Markpedia1: Glad to hear that you love Wikipedia. You don't have to do administrator tasks, there is no end to the work that can be done on the encyclopedia. Bring on the robots, I say. (But I digress.) Wikipedia:Writing better articles is an important read. Wikipedia is a trial by fire; it takes years of experience to feel things out, and it's a continual learning process. Be nice, know policy, work for the good of all. —Ringbang (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:18:12, 25 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Knowzalot


Thanks, Ringbang, that helps a lot. Knowzalot (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

16:13:55, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Bill375


Hi, Alphonse Michaux's name is listed in Wikipedia Article "List of Medallists" under Significant Medallic Artists by Nationality 1.5 Belgian medallic artists. His name is linked to a request to create a Wikipedia entry about him - presumably focused on his work as a medalic artist. My contribution was drafted in response to your request to create this entry. Most 19th & 20th century medalists worked in relative obscurity creating the world's coins and medals -- so published references to many of these artists are limited. Michaux's notability should be established by the fact that he is on your lists of significant Belgian artists - presumably he was placed on this list due to the quality and quantity of his artistic output and the importance of the medals that he was selected to create - not based on personal fame or recognition.

As a collector of art medals, I can comment that 95% of the names listed in "List of Medallists" are individuals who are of interest primarily to collectors and museum curators. When I collect today, I am interested not only in the subject of a medal - often a quite notable person - but also in the individual artist who created the object. These folks are often much less notable as your pointed out. I suspect that the contributor who created "List of Medallists" was interested in providing a resource for the collector or curator trying to learn more about the person who's name appears on an old coin or medal.

I did locate a few additional published references to medals created by Michaux. I'll add these to the article as you requested.

Sincerely, Bill

@Bill375: Thanks for clearly explaining the situation, Bill. The person who requested the article is just another Wikipedia editor like us. AFC requests aren't official or made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if someone requests an article, the topic must still satisfy the general notability guideline, and the article is still subject to the usual requirements for contents and citations. As for List of medallists, I've no doubt that you're exactly right in your supposition. When people make red links, it often implies a bit of wishful thinking. In practice, red links should only be added for articles that are likely to be created.

When you talk about the inherent obscurity of certain kinds of artists and craftspeople, you touch on what I believe to be an unfortunate state of affairs for which I have no solution. There are niche topics that are underdocumented, and I think it does contribute to an imbalance of coverage in the encyclopedia. In this case, however, the topic is one that can be shown to meet the guideline, and there is sufficient evidence—it's just a matter of evidencing that notability by using sources effectively. I'll list specifics in the draft comments. —Ringbang (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

16:48:04, 25 April 2016 review of submission by Cristinr


Hi there. I have never submitted a Wikipedia article before, and I was curious what about the article isn't neutral. Could you provide me with some feedback so that I can edit the article to make sure it adheres to Wikipedia's standards? Thank you!

@Cristinr: Hi, the neutrality issue is that the article is almost entirely about fostering investor confidence, with about 80% of it devoted to funding acquisition, and another 10% or so devoted to damage control vis-à-vis the impact of the discontinuation of Google Compare. None of this is appropriate for Wikipedia, and it is not what Wikipedia is for. After all of that material deleted, the article still must demonstrate that the company passes the general notability guideline. (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources can help with that.) If most of the secondary coverage available is about funding, then the company is probably in too formative a stage to be ready for consideration. —Ringbang (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Question concerning OLI Architecture, incidental mention in sources

Hello Ringbang, Thank you for checking over my recent resubmission of the OLI Architecture page. I was wondering if you could clarify for me what would be significant enough mention of OLI in the press to qualify OLI as a notable topic (if notability was indeed what kept the page from being accepted this time around). Do the articles need to be about OLI the firm rather than about the projects it has designed and run? In most of the sources I cited in the last edit, OLI and the two founding partners were the primary sources who were cited and quoted, though the articles were usually about the significance of the opening of the Mu Xin museum itself. Any insight you can give me would be greatly appreciated, and thank you very much for your help so far. Best, Chersiphron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.171.39 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chersiphron: Hi, yes notability is the issue. OLI Architecture doesn't have to be the primary subject in the coverage, but whatever coverage there is of the firm must be direct and detailed. In the Artnet and Wallpaper* articles, the coverage is decidedly indirect: There is no in-depth discussion of OLI itself.

Another policy that applies here is that companies don't inherit notability from their products. This is not a special dictum just for companies, though; in general, notability is not inherited by association.

To be clear, the two references are valid and citable for Draft:OLI Architecture, but for all the reasons I mention they could only help to establish notability for the museum, not for the firm. —Ringbang (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much Ringbang, that really helps clear things up. I'll look for sources that are more detailed about OLI itself in order to establish notability. Thanks again for your help. -- Chersiphron (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chersiphron: You're welcome, and don't forget that any sources intended to support notability should be secondary sources unconnected to the subject. It's okay if a minority of references are to an official OLI source, but those don't count for notability. —Ringbang (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:50:13, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Stupkamichal


Dear sir/madam, my article about Locus Map application has been refused again, lastly by you as the reviewer. I would like to know why this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OruxMaps was approved and mine not. It deals with a similar topic, has a lot less references. Thank you.

Michal Stupka Stupkamichal (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Stupkamichal: Hello, yes, you are right: OruxMaps was not a well-sourced article; it was deleted today (but not by me). Unfortunately, I don't know why the article was created, only that it was quickly deleted. In order for Draft:Locus Map to be approved (and to avoid deletion in future), the article must be supported by several references to reliable secondary sources that are not connected to Asamm Software or to the product. At least some of these sources must discuss Locus Map in detail. The article itself must not resemble an advertisement or marketing literature, and the facts in the article should be supported by references to verifiable sources. Remember, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles are expected to be written in a formal tone and without any promotional content at all. Similarly, links to official sources about the product should be in the minority, and there should be no external links in the body of the article. If you could use any assistance, you are welcome to ask me or to post a question to the the Teahouse. —Ringbang (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

22:24:42, 2 May 2016 review of submission by Sion55


Hi I'd like to change the title to List of Human Red Blood Cell Morphologies. I'm just including the first table. I got rid of the rest. I'm wondering if that would meet your approval.

@Sion55: Hi, thanks for doing that. I added my feedback to the draft page. —Ringbang (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

21:08:38, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Coastal.culture.vulture


Hi, Thanks for looking at my draft. Apologies if I use the incorrect formatting in this reply. It's been a while since I've chatted on a talk page. Myself, and others, have been creating individual pages for locally important, but short lived, newspapers in our region for a few years. These individual publications are in the final stages of being digitised by the National Library of Australia. While some of these newspapers eventually merged, in their early years they were totally separate entities, had different dates of publications, over lapping owners and were sometimes in competition with each other. When the remaining newspapers are digitised at the end of this month, we'll be able to fully untangle their complexity and reflect this in their individual Wikipedia pages. I understand why it appears that the page appears to be a duplicate of the of South Coast Bulletin, but, while it survived, the Southern Queensland Bulletin was a distinct and stand-alone publication. Could you please reconsider your decision or offer any suggestions? Many thanks, Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coastal.culture.vulture: This sounds like an interesting project; I'm sure you'll make welcome contributions to the encyclopedia. I've posted an explanation and some feedback to the draft page. My intention is to address some issues early and directly to minimise future rework. Bon courage. —Ringbang (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: Thank you for your feedback. The digitisation of newspapers for Trove is a fabulous project and an excellent reference source for Wikipedia pages in Australia. I've read through your explanation and feedback on the draft page and greatly appreciate the attention and time you've taken and the very helpful suggestions. To be honest, my disappointment lies in learning that, after a few years on this project and contact with a number of editors, that the pages (both current and additional drafts) should be merged. I will do my best to be courageous and persevere. Kind regards, Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Coastal.culture.vulture: Hi, sorry for not replying sooner! I haven't seen most of the articles in question, so I don't know which ones are merge candidates. Have you seen Wikipedia:Merging? It outlines when and why merging might be in order, and what to do if you're not sure. —Ringbang (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: Hi, Many thanks for the information on merging (and the barnstar). I took a little break from the newspapers while I reconsidered the best way forward. Merging isn't something I've tried before and, to be honest, wasn't familiar with. I suspect it will be very useful now that we're very close to clarifying the relationships between the different papers. Many thanks for your assistance and guidance. It's really appreciated! Kind regards, Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Blue Northern

(1) open Talk:Blue Northern, (2) press 'edit', (3) press 'show preview', (4) see errors, (5) stop adding errors. and, blp only applies to people, not musical groups. 199.193.137.123 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@199.193.137.123: Thanks for pointing out the missing value in the blp parameter. This parameter most definitely applies to music groups, which are biographical articles about two or more people. The talk page of any contemporary, high-profile music group will evidence this, as its inclusion is mandatory. You might also be familiar with the blpo flag, which applies to non-biographical articles that nevertheless contain biographical information about living people connected. —Ringbang (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bellerophon5685: Indeed I would! Endorsed. —Ringbang (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rose Media

The article Rose Media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books search or searches of other major databases. There are no worthwhile redirect targets.

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. czar 21:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jillian Keenan

Hi! Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Jillian Keenan. I've added information on which publications have profiled the subject & removed sources like the personal website. Is this sufficient? Howkafkaesque (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:22:28, 20 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Justin Jaron Lewis


Once again you've turned down my article submission. As you can imagine this is frustrating.

You suggested that more promotional language has been added. But all the added citations were attempts to establish notability - which was the main point of your and other reviewers' earlier comments. That is, Buxbaum's work has been recognized as good and important by a variety of sources. I can happily delete the quotations, but please explain how to establish someone's notability without including favourable comments on their work.

Earlier reviews commented that there was a lack of reviews of Buxbaum's books. At this point, the draft cites four reviews of different books by Buxbaum from different, independent sources (Tikkun, Sentinel, Hadassah Magazine, The Algemeiner), as well as references to his books in other sources.

The citations also demonstrate the respect according to Buxbaum by people considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and beyond the Jewish community. Not counting publishers' websites and the like, seventeen independent sources are cited, including six printed books from significant authors and publishers. It is true that none of these books have an in-depth discussion of Buxbaum, but all of them acknowledge his importance.

I am troubled by the implication that any personal connection with Buxbaum would invalidate the article. I am a tenured university professor publishing work on Hasidism; in that capacity, I frequently use and cite Buxbaum's books. I have avoided citing my own citations of Buxbaum exactly in order to maintain objectivity, but they are, in fact, further evidence of his significance.

Is the message is simply that without something like a front page New York Times article or an existing biography in an encyclopedia, nobody is going to get into Wikipedia?

If not, more guidance would be greatly appreciated.




Justin Jaron Lewis (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:26:48, 20 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by M.Nishant


Hi, My article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Housejoy was rejected on the grounds of lack of references and notability, which I believe isn't the case since the article has been supplied with notable and important citations and references. A look at similar articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UrbanClap and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmber makes me wonder if the review process at Wikipedia has a benchmark for approving articles or not. If you compare these articles to mine, you'll know what I am talking about. Also, it seems evident that editors donot really go through the article and rely on the approval history (no. of times the article was unapproved) to justify the approval process. It is saddening to see even after making so many changes and supplying strong and trustworthy citations to the article, the article is only being judged on its history and not on its quality. Please go through the article and then share your feedback on the article, will be appreciated. Thanks. M.Nishant (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@M.Nishant: Hi, I hear your frustration. News coverage of young companies is often insufficient to establish notability (see WP:SUSTAINED), especially if the bulk of the coverage is about fundraising. The main thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotion tool (see also What Wikipedia is not).
Zimmber and UrbanClap are not in the encyclopedia because of a double-standard but from a different degree of editorial oversight. I nominated Zimmber for deletion; we'll see what comes from closer scrutiny. UrbanClap was nominated for deletion in April, and passed. The depth of news coverage saved the article, but it's possible that it will be re-nominated in the future. There seems to have been a tacit acceptance of the sources in that case, and no one mentioned the WP:SUSTAINED policy. As volunteers, we do our best to maintain Wikipedia's editorial standards. —Ringbang (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps

Rather than starting an entirely new article, I completed and submitted a draft that someone else had already begun. I used the standard format for existing Drum and Bugle Corps articles and the usual authoritive sources; i.e. dci.org and corpsreps.com, both of which have been used dozens of time in the Wikipedia.

I am not a novice editor, having created well over 600 Wikipedia articles. If I had begun afresh, there would have been no need for any review; I would merely have created it and been done with it. But, since I completed what someone else had begun, a review was necessary, and you rejected the article, because you decided that previously accepted reliable sources did not, for whatever reason, meet your standards.

Please go back and correct your error. GWFrog (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Largest patent settlements

You left a question on my AfC article Draft:Largest patent settlements regarding whether or not it was OR.

I guess the rationale for this question is that there is no single reference which includes all the cases mentioned describing them in the way I have. However, for most of them there are references which dependent on the date refer to them as the largest patent settlement. Obviously what was the largest patent settlement in 1991 is different to now. All I have done is collate them and put in some context. Does that count as OR?

You also mentioned changing the title. I don't know what you had in mind. Does it need to be "Large Patent Settlements".

Thanks Mattojgb (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mattojgb: Hi, I elaborated the comment on the draft page. —Ringbang (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 07:25:24, 10 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saragigante02


I had a question an my page because you rejected it but I really want to have a page about this group. So my question was what did I do wrong and how can I improve it? Saragigante02 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

07:16:51, 10 June 2016 review of submission by Saragigante02



I had a question about my page, you rejected it but I really want to publish my page. How can I improve it and edit it to get my page on wikipedia ?

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

  1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
  2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
  3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 11:23:35, 10 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saragigante02


I have a question. You rejected my Wikipedia page and I want to know what I did wrong so I can edit to improve it. Because I really want to publish this page about the group on Wikipedia.Saragigante02 (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Saragigante02 Saragigante02 (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Saragigante02: Hi, the problem is that the sources provided don't help to establish notability. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? The kind of sources described there must evidence that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

Best wishes,
Ringbang (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

21:06:06, 13 June 2016 review of submission by Richard F Morris


Dear Ringbang, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Italian Artist Walter Noetico, which is greatly appreciated. Sadly, you have declined it, after I have actually made numerous corrections and additions to the citation materials and external links. I am sorry, but I think that you have made a mistake in declining the page for this Artist.

I have cross-checked the Rules of “Verifiability” of sources, and considering the requirements of the Wikipedia for the content to qualify as an “encyclopaedic” one, I think that there is a big error, not to consider Walter Noetico as “encyclopaedic” Artist. This is because with the quantity of sources (citations) which Walter Noetico already has, his profile already greatly exceeds the minimum requirements asked by Wikipedia rule.

For example: in the “Context Matters” section, it says that the sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. And I have prepared the “External links” where every single paragraph finds its supporting source (i.e. exhibition catalogues, TV broadcasting of RAI2 and France 3 Tèlèvisions).

The Section “Definition of a source” has also been adhered to largely widely satisfied, for example including in the case of the book which he wrote, the Publishing House also is cited as source and external links provided in support.

Furthermore, for an Artist is determinant (very important) for his encyclopaedic importance, a support of Art Critic, and Walter Noetico has had the support of the three greatest Art Critics on a international level, such as: Alexandre Cirici (the President of the International Art Critics Association 1978-1981), Gillo Dorfles (the friend of Cirici and important International Art Critic), Raffaele de Grada who has also been a Commissioner of the Venice Biennial, and also it was Raffaele de Grade who invited Walter Noetico to the Venice Biennial, and also it was the same Art Critic who had presented the Neoilluminist Movement of Noetico in 1989 Exhibition Catalogue).

The sources are abundant and of enviable quality, considering that the summit of Noetico’s artistic career was hit about 30 years ago, when there was no internet support for information, and the sources in my possession are enviably of good quality, and are on paper material also (exhibition art catalogues, articles etc). In addition, if I may also add please, Walter Noetico who is a rare Artist, as he is an Innovator of Art, whose art innovations had been backed by the best Art Critics of that time, and who merits to be open to the World. If Walter Noetico is not "encyclopaedic" - then none of the Artists are.

I noticed a very beautiful citation on your page, dear Ringbang, by Ian Maclaren, saying: “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” – and perhaps you will find in your heart to review my submission please, and assist positively and justly.

If you do require the original hard paper material documentation in support, I am at your complete disposal to provide it.

Thank you very much in anticipation for your time and attention. With very best regards and wishes, Richard Morris

@Richard F Morris: Hi, if the 'Bibliography' section is where you put your sources, please rename this to "References", add pages numbers, and move the contents to inline citations. Exhibition catalogues are permissible sources, but these are insufficient to establish notability. —Ringbang (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

00:25:11, 14 June 2016 review of submission by Richard F Morris


Dear Ringbang, I just wanted to request if you could be so kind to look at the "References" and also at the "External Links" sections. Thank you very much for all your assistance and time. Unfortunately, the system that Wikipedia uses today, is a bit inadequate, because many Artists are no longer young and had their activity in a time when there was no internet, and thus everything is mainly on a "paper", and I have been handed over a whole bundle of those newspapers/magazines etc. material. For Artists usually - in the past - was very important to have an major Art Critic's comment, and Walter Noetico has got those from the major ones. I cannot quite understand that those alone are not sufficient to testify of his notability. Many thanks once again for all your valuable help, Ringbang. Best wishes, Richard Morris

@Richard F Morris: Thanks for renaming the Bibliography section. The reason we need inline citations is so that editors and readers can verify the information in the article. You can cite printed material; the sources do not have to be from the Internet; they also don't have to be in English. However, the more accessible the sources are, the faster reviewers can evaluate them. To cite printed sources, you can use Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, or Template:Cite news as appropriate. For websites, use Template:Cite web. The article cannot be properly reviewed—let alone accepted—without inline citations. —Ringbang (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 08:10:14, 14 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saragigante02


Thank you! I will have a look at it.Saragigante02 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Saragigante02

Saragigante02 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:24:38, 15 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Devonwells


Hi Ringbang!

Thanks for reviewing the article I proposed (even though it doesn't meet the requirements yet). I'm wondering if you could help clarify the current issue with its sources: Are there not enough of them (therefore, it doesn't meet the significance requirement)? Are the current ones not relevant enough (so it's a reliability problem)? Or, is it another problem I'm not clear on? I'm currently trying to source more reliable, independent supporting information and I'll submit a new draft when I've found some, but it'd be helpful to know which specific issues are the major stumbling block.

Again, I really appreciate your time and assistance with this. Cheers! Devonwells (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Devonwells (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

15:59:14, 17 June 2016 review of submission by Tigraan


Doesn't this pass WP:ANYBIO, by the Welsh Woman of the Year award? There is also a fair bit of media coverage, though "local" (restricted to Wales). I have seen far worse survive AfD (yes, I know). I am not saying I am 100% sure (that's why I went through the AfC after all), but a bit more explanation than the boilerplate template would not hurt. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan: The trouble with policies like WP:ANYBIO is they fail to define essential criteria—in this case, what constitutes a "well-known and significant" honour (compare criteria 2 and 3 of WP:NACADEMICS). At present, Draft:Helen Molyneux only lists accolades without any detail about what she actually accomplished. I would pass a more substantial, well-supported article about about a Welsh Woman of the Year. —Ringbang (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the vagueness of WP:ANYBIO. Is your argument that WWotY is not a "well-known and significant" award (and neither is the Law Society one)? Or is it that the walesonline.com source is not enough for the WWotY claim? The only other meaning I can see in your comment is that being a stub is a reason to decline the article (but it certainly is not a reason to delete). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tigraan: I'm saying I find it difficult to pass on the strength of WWotY alone without even knowing why she received this or any other award. Regardless of whether one has to fall back on the GNG, the article should provide some information about why Molyneux is notable beyond her status as an award-recipient. She was officially recognised, but why? —Ringbang (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of My Transsexual Summer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article My Transsexual Summer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Thank you! —Ringbang (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

01:28:47, 19 June 2016 review of submission by 71.86.166.168


Thank you for looking at the draft page for "Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology". I have made many edits, including adding quite a few references/citations as requested. I would greatly appreciate it if you could re-review the draft submission. Thanks!

 Done —Ringbang (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My edit on Transgender Studies Quarterly

I removed it, as per the documentation at Template:Infobox_journal "Put "no" if journal is not peer-reviewed (in which case {{Infobox magazine}} is most likely more appropriate), otherwise leave blank."

--Auric talk 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Auric: Thanks for the explanation. I revised the documentation for Template:Infobox journal. I've noticed this quoted material before, and the problem is that it fails to document the use case for a "yes" setting. When you removed the value, you also removed the "Peer-reviewed" line from the rendered infobox, and I'm not sure that such a change is ideal here.

In any event, when you want a field to have the default value, please delete the entire attribute–value pair and comment the change in your edit summary. When you just delete the value, it makes it look like you're intention is to set the value to "unknown"; when you do that with a blank edit summary, it can read like vandalism. —Ringbang (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Also, you should know that adding any yes/no value also puts the page into Category:TEMP Infobox journal with para 'peer-reviewed'.--Auric talk 23:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Auric: Okay, interesting. How did you come to monitor this category? The only reference I've found to it is this thread, which tails off unresolved. —Ringbang (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

13:16:11, 17 June 2016 review of submission by Richard F Morris


Dear Ringbang, good day! Thank you very much for your prompt reply on 14 June. I am sorry I could not reply straight away because I had no internet connections here. I really appreciate the valuable directions you had given re: templates for citations, and once I have managed to do those, I shall notify you at once, so that you can see whether I have done the right thing. Hopefully, all will be well! Very many thanks once again for everything! Best wishes, Richard F Morris

@Richard F Morris: Hi Richard! I'm glad you found the feedback helpful. I hope your submission is a success. —Ringbang (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of My Transsexual Summer

The article My Transsexual Summer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:My Transsexual Summer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

review of Forum Group 21 June

I don't understand why CSG Limited is an article in the same sector and the Forum Group references include the AFR, Australia's leading financial paper (akin to Wall St. Journal or FT in USA or UK) saying the company is about to get listed in next year or two, and this is one of the largest businesses of managed services in Oceania. I find it hard to get articles on endemic Australian companies listed, can you help please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I hear your frustration. Because Wikipedia's editorial policy is to evaluate articles individually, the inclusion of one doesn't imply the suitability of another (first and foremost, we evaluate the content rather than the topic). CSG Limited's inclusion is a result of a demonstration of notability. As you know, notability requires evidence (coverage in reliable published media), and that evidence must be of sufficient depth and import (as opposed to this kind of business reporting). Certainly the AFR coverage contributes to the company's notability, but this coverage alone isn't enough. If the Forum Group goes public, they might thereafter attract greater depth and breadth of coverage.

All of the notices for Draft:Forum Group so far have pertained to notability. Even if the rejection notices look like boilerplate, it's important to pay attention to them. The links inside explain what needs to be addressed in the article.

As for your difficulty getting approval for articles about Australian corporations: Remember that Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, so state the obvious. Write for the person who is reading about the subject for the first time, and link to Wikipedia articles that elaborate on foundational topics.

There is also a trust factor. Every year, thousands of companies try to exploit Wikipedia for self-promotion. If you want to contribute to articles about corporations, that is valuable and welcome—please do! If you're a paid editor or have some other connection to the companies that you submit, you might find that things go more smoothly if you are candid about this (see also WP:COI). It's not ideal, but it's also not an exclusionary factor—our commitment is to the integrity of the encyclopedia. This means, among other things, that we want content to be accurate, neutral, and non-promotional. Thanks for asking these questions. If Australian companies are under-represented, that is all the more reason we need your contributions. Wikipedia learning curve isn't steep, but it is long. Thanks for your efforts; I hope you decide to keep contributing. —Ringbang (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of My Transsexual Summer

The article My Transsexual Summer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:My Transsexual Summer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

05:13:24, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Ardyll jay


Hi, thank you for reviewing my first article.

just want to ask / clarify a few things.

1. Boxing Record via boxrec.com: it has been used by some of the boxer wiki articles. case in point Manny Pacquiao, Donnie Nietes, Wanheng Menayothin, Jose Argumedo. I believe boxrec is the only professional boxing database around at the moment. Please consider. Thank you.

2. I will have to edit re: early life section. Though he is my friend in real life, I need to be more specific and reliable on this. Thank you for the comment.

I hope that you could review it again as I made changes already and reconsider. Thank you.

All the best!

-Jay Lagat (ardyll jay)

@Ardyll jay: Hi Jay, the article is looking good, and I promoted it. Thanks for updating the "Early years" section. I checked WikiProject Boxing, and they consider BoxRec to be a reliable source. (For an explanation of why sites like this are often excluded, see WP:UGC.) Congratulations on your first article! I hope you decide to contribute more to Wikipedia. —Ringbang (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ringbang: Thank you Ringbang. I will be contributing more if it's notable. I can't give you headaches though. :) Thanks again! All the best!
@Ardyll jay: Haha :) Then the sky is blue and the birds are singing. Thanks for writing a nice article! —Ringbang (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

21:26:52, 27 June 2016 review of submission by Richard F Morris



Dear Administrators Ringbang and Majora,

Thank you both very much for all your precious guidance and assistance, without which I could not have managed to complete this task. In accordance with your instructions, I have now included (inasmuch as I could) all the necessary sources/inline citations in the Walter Noetico page, so that the page appears suitable for encyclopaedic publication. I hope to have done my work in a way that you find to your appreciation.

It is necessary to also kindly bear in mind, however, that Maestro Noetico had his greatest artistic activity when the internet did not exist, and thus, did not exist the computerized archives of all the newspapers, magazines, galleries, museums and all forms of information that today can be found on the Internet.

Fortunately, the Maestro Noetico had in his archives - spanning over 30 years - a very rich bibliographic and photographic material, to make him considered as one of the most important contemporary artists.

In addition, Maestro Noetico has had the support of the most important international art critics, when the art critics was the main tool that delivered to history the Artists, and this renders him, undoubtedly, encyclopaedically “with merit”, i.e. that he deserves to be in an Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia as a reference to a Post-Modern Artist, coherent with the Utopia of the New Enlightenment.

Also, we must consider that the art of Walter Noetico is inspired by the aesthetic essays of the great French philosopher Denis Diderot, who was the paramount creator of the modern encyclopedia, and perhaps without Diderot, even the Wikipedia may not have existed today.

I am most obliged to both of you, for your kind attention and time, and remain with infinite thanks for your indispensable support.

If the page meets your joint approval, could kindly advise me as to the best way to proceed with the publication of this page, I would be most grateful. I remain at your complete disposal for any other clarification if needed. Richard Morris --Richard F Morris (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Revolutionary Empire draft

I've just deleted it and a copy in main space by another editor. Not only are they copies of an article deleted at AfD and have virtually no changes, they were copyright violations and certainly the draft was created by an IP evading a sockpuppet block. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

05:03:38, 13 June 2016 review of submission by Landschaftsmaler


Hi Ringbang, Thanks for reviewing my Charles Harris page. I will go and look for more material to verify the relevance of this article. Would it help if I linked to newspaper cuttings published on Charles Harris´ own website? All the best Pat

Hi, I have now added some material by referencing some of Charles´ exhibitions to photographs shown on his personal website. Does that help or do we need scans of newspaper articles? There are also links to books which Charles has had published. All the best Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landschaftsmaler (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Landschaftsmaler: Hello Pat, citations to newspaper articles would be welcome! We are looking for coverage that is about Harris, rather than by Harris. The sources should be unconnected to the artist, and they should discuss him directly and in depth. The most reputable sources should discuss his accomplishments and contributions to the art world.

You can cite newspaper articles by filling-in a Cite news template like this one:

<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |pages= |url= |newspaper= |location= |access-date= }}</ref>

Scans of the articles would indeed help us to verify information. However, I don't know whether a scan linked by a citation qualifies as fair use (cf. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Sourcing). I recommend that you ask about this at the Teahouse. Of course, one might find some of the articles online, either in the archives of the periodical's website or on Google Books.

Material on the artist's website does not help to establish notability. WP:PRIMARY explains the limitations on citing such sources.

—Ringbang (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks a lot for the information. I´ll try and get as much data as possible. I´ve got scanned articles and I´ll contact Teahouse about how to make use of them.

All the best
Pat
--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have added external links to newspaper cuttings and website links to international coverage of Charles´activities. Do we need more or would it be alright to resubmit the article?

All the best
Pat
--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Landschaftsmaler: Hi, I've posted a reply to the draft page. —Ringbang (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your advice on the draft page. Can I add a second external link to a specific page of Charles´website? After receiving some feedback from Teahouse I will edit the article now.--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Landschaftsmaler: That depends: What do you want to link and why? —Ringbang (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There are jpg files on Charles´ and other websites showing newspaper cuttings of the important events in his life. I could link to them if that was permissible giving full details of the paper it appeared in, the author and when it was published. Unfortunately some of those events happened so long ago they have not been made available on the web by the printers.--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Landschaftsmaler: Hi Pat, did anyone address this question at the Teahouse? If it's allowed, the best approach is probably to put the link in the url field of a citation (Cite news or Cite journal), and to add as much information as you have to the other relevant fields. —Ringbang (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ringbang, At the Teahouse someone suggested that using scanned newspaper cuttings might be considered to be a copyright violation. So I have taken out those links and I have introduced references which of course will make research a bit more difficult as interested parties would have to contact the papers to ask for copies. The original papers may no longer be available since some of those events go back 20 years. Here is a link to the Teahouse discussion --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have now edited my article about Charles Harris. Am I on the right track with my references and the revised wording of the article?--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now collected and added some 19 references. Is that enough for me to be able to resubmit the article?--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ringbang/Archive_3&oldid=1141421352"