User talk:LJF2019

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Archival

The page has been archived. Continue leaving messages below. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello CatcherStorm: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Keep up the great work, and I hope you have some further mentoring for you soon :) -- samtar whisper 16:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Jeremy Chan, CatcherStorm.

Unfortunately Blasher has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I don't think this meets notability guidelines.

To reply, leave a comment on Blasher's talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sangdun Choi

Hello CatcherStorm. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Sangdun Choi. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I personally believe this person doesn't meet notability guidelines and the sources clearly indicate a lack of significance. The sources consist of the professor's personal webpage, a link to the university's staff directory, and then the rest are links to the university's school online newspaper, who's subject happens to be the professor. Also, note that all the sources are exactly the same, and are repeated multiple times over and over again. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your response shows a clear lack of understanding of the speedy deletion process. "Doesn't meet notability guidelines" is not a reason for speedy deletion. A credible claim of signficance is a much lower standard than notability. In general, being a professor at a notable university is a sufficient claim to defeat A7. I also note you've apparently made no effort to assess the article subject's Google Scholar presence, an absolutely essential step in assessing the notability of an academic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Apologies for the misunderstanding, I've tagged the article for AfD seeing as its deletion would be controversial CatcherStorm ^talk 05:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:David A. Karnofsky

Good evening, CatcherStorm. I would like to ask you for a renewed overview and an approval of the Draft:David A. Karnofsky. In fact, this draft has been recently improved, especially by User:Sarahj2107 (I suppose a lady), who added two reliable references. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Zbrnajsem: Have you resubmitted the draft? CatcherStorm ^talk 04:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: I am sorry, not yet, because I am not sure how to do it. I have read your instructions, but am not sure if I then do it properly. Will try it, however. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: Really sorry, I have done something, but it has possibly not functioned. What to do now? It would be pitty not to have this page on Wikipedia. My wife is a doctor, and she used the Karnofsky scale frequently. So it is of importance. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: It may be that the draft has now been resubmitted. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The Honorable

Extended content

Please do not continue to edit against consensus by adding honorifics to Wikipedia articles. Please also read and understand WP:BRD. If you are interested in forming a larger community consensus on this issue, then feel free to start a centralized RFC over at Talk:The Honourable or some other policy or guideline talk page. However, if you continue to edit war, you will be reported. A formal warning will follow this comment. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: My edits were reverted with no explanation. I know what BRD is and after my edits were reverted, I changed a few of them back before remembering this policy. After they were reverted, I left a question on the talk page of the person who reverted my edits. Please note that I reverted edits once on the given US president page, and not 3 or more times on one page. CatcherStorm talk 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. On Wikipedia, the burden is on the editor adding content; this means it is up to you to provide an explanation. Per BRD, if you are reverted, you need to discuss your addition. In this particular case, you additions are controversial and need to be discussed at higher levels, which is why I pointed you elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: I honestly don't think my edits were controversial at the time I added the honorific, and I want to note that BRD isn't a policy that's required to be followed. I still don't believe I needed a uw-ewsoft as 1. I didn't revert all of my edits back, and 2. I reverted it once. CatcherStorm talk 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Again, thank you for your reply. On Wikipeida, some of our most important rules aren't required or policies. I realize that might sound odd, but in practice, good ideas are rarely made into "laws" you must follow. There is no law mandating that you brush your teeth or get enough sleep, but those are good ideas. If you don't follow them, the dentist will either be forced to work on your teeth or they will fall out, and your physiology will decline with less sleep. In the same way, there is no requirement that you discuss after having a bold edit reverted, but if you don't, the policy on edit warring will kick in. I think you'll find, therefore, that good essays and guidelines supplement good policies, so there is no need to require people to follow them. In fact, good essays and guidelines merely expand upon the policies, so I think your approach is entirely wrong. Your edits were most certainly controversial, not just because you were introducing a novel honorific to one page, but they were controversial because many of these articles were of high quality and had been reviewed by the community for accuracy. Finally, your edits were controversial because they could apply to the entire class of articles without previous discussion. Your best step forward is to file an RFC and get wider community input. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: I understand what you mean. I admit my view might've been extremely narrow, as when I edited Barack Obama to add the honorific, my edits were left alone. About 3 editors had made other changes to the article with the honorific still up, so I assumed that there was no community consensus specifically against the addition of an honorific to the POTUS' page. If there was a discussion specifically regarding this, could you direct me to it? CatcherStorm talk 07:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Undisputed edits on high traffic pages does not mean they are acceptable by default. It can easily mean that nobody saw them, particularly as we go into winter break when most editors are on holiday. I catch previously undetected vandalism all of the time; it doesn't mean other editors accepted it. Again, you are reversing the burden by asking me to prove why it isn't acceptable, but the burden is on you to show that it is. You've now appropriately posted a request for discussion, but you haven't filed the appropriate RFC to advertise the discussion. You've claimed that this honorific is a "formal" manner of address for American presidents, but I have seen zero evidence this is true. And given our article on Mr. President (title) and the history of opposition to such formal honorifics, it appears extremely unlikely. What I think you are really getting at is etiquette, which is entirely separate and distinct from a formal honorific. That's where your confusion lies. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: Alright. I see what you mean. CatcherStorm talk 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Good job adding the RFC tag, but don't add it to the top of the page. It needs to be added just above your original question at the bottom in the same original section. After you do that, simply delete my comment. I would do it for you, but the request will add my sig instead of yours. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: Have I done it correctly? CatcherStorm talk 07:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, but you have stray characters that need to be deleted. Please remove "07:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)" from the top. And consider neutrally advertising your RFC on the relevant WikiProjects and naming convention talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC) I looked at the bot listing and it was completely blank because you left stray timestamp characters. The bot won't add any text after characters like this. Please read the instructions and try again. You almost got it right. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: Ok, how about now? CatcherStorm talk 08:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, but the bot has to cycle through first, so we won't know until it adds it. I don't understand why you changed the original question with your new edit. Now there isn't anything for an editor to respond to in the RFC. You changed it from a specific question, which is what the RFC is for, to a request for discussion, which is not oriented to an RFC. There's a big difference. Nobody is going to respond to a request for discussion; they are going to respond to a specific question. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

the honorific is not sourced and does not help readers. In practice it is rarely used. It is NEVER used for dead people so all the dead presidents involve a misuse. Source: " The courtesy title the Honorable is used when addressing or listing the name of a living person. When the name of a deceased person is listed it's just (Full Name) + Office Held that is pertinent to the story being told for which the photo is included.....it would never be The Honorable John F. Kennedy. Robert Hickey Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but the user needs to discover this for themselves. CatcherStorm, the bot successfully listed your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. However, since you removed the original question, there's nothing for anyone to respond to here. Asking "can we generate consensus" is the purpose of the RFC, but you have to have a specific question to generate consensus about. I recommend going back and adding specific questions people should address or answer. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Do I edit Talk:The Honourable or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law? CatcherStorm ^talk 10:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The former. Currently, RFC listing pages are updated only by bots. Look at the page history to get an idea. It's up to you at this point. You could go back and add questions or options for people to discuss, as I think that would help a great deal. Also, look at other RFC questions on the listing page to get an idea of how to do it. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Help

I need help regarding the RfC issue above ^^^ and I'm also wondering why I haven't received any requests for comment from Legobot, even though I signed up for the FRS. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems the issue regarding RfC has been resolved? I get relatively few messages from Legobot, normally around two a month so give it a while -- samtar ^whisper 09:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 11:36:39, 24 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Prabhat 9

• Prabhat 9 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jubin Nautiyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This is in reference to the article "Jubin Nautiyal",which was declined. This was declined earlier citing reasons of inadequate sources.So,I now have furnished enough references(22 already) so that the information is verifiable.But,the article has not been accepted.He indeed is one of the young notable contemporary singers of India.Please guide me through this. Thanking you...!! Prabhat 9 (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Prabhat 9 (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prabhat 9: Have you heard the term "quality over quantity"? This applies here. Though you might have added a large amount of new references, that does not necessarily imply these sources are reliable. See this Wikipedia content guideline for help regarding this. Once reliable sources have been added to your draft, which effectively demonstrate that the subject is notable, I'll be more than happy to accept your draft. CatcherStorm ^talk 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 02:22:01, 25 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MarcosFenn

• MarcosFenn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr John Burton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Extended content

Hello, Sir. Regarding comments on the Dr John Burton article, in terms of notability and sourcing, this personality seemed to be associated with controversial contributions to a whole range of high profile cases and many of the sources given were from the British newspaper The Guardian, widely acknowledged as a very serious and professional - indeed, distinguished - source. So I'm trying to learn - without evident success - how this high profile and controversial personality with highly reliable sources is apparently unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Whereas numerous 'celebrities' who have arguably little or nothing to say, are indeed included in Wikipedia.) I see the date; many happy returns, Sir! :) MarcosFenn (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC) @MarcosFenn: It'd appear that none of the sources directly mention the subject, as well as it lacking enough in depth tertiary sources. This person really only appears to be notable due to one event and would probably fail WP:GNG. CatcherStorm talk 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, Sir, this is MarcosFenn; I think you kindly commented just now while my edit was still in progress, so I have cut and pasted it: Just to make a US comparison in relation to this British figure: Dr John's Burton's handling of the death of Blair Peach in 1979, which occurred when non-white and white residents of London, England were protesting about a neo-fascist event, caused a national outcry; not dissimilar to Gov. Orville Faubus's attempts to exclude non-white students from a school in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. British gun laws are more strict than those in many US states, and Dr Burton's claims that police can and should be allowed to use lethal force and not expect to be cross-examined, made during his high profile investigation of the death of an Irish Republican suspect, is not dissimilar to those on the extreme of the Zimmerman case in the US who might argue that a police officer can supposedly execute people at will and not even be asked questions about it. Diana, Princess of Wales, was not an elected British figure (Royal and ex-Royal figures occupy more the area that in the US the Stars and Stripes flag or a First Lady does), but she was found to have been unlawfully killed only after 10 years had elapsed after her death because Establishment figures led by Dr Burton sought to limit the scope of the investigation into her death; he wrongly assigned himself the case without jurisdiction and publicly called the very need for her death to be investigated in the UK as supposedly 'absurd'. Perish the thought, but if a former US First Lady died violently and leading officialdom successfully led 10 years of obfuscation and denial, the personality involved in the autopsy and in long efforts to obfuscate would likely be regarded as highly notable and controversial. In turn, the British Guardian newspaper occupies approximately the position of the Washington Post; if the Washington Post were to publish many articles on the aftermath of the death of a highly known American public figure, accounts quoting many Washington Post articles would be regarded as well sourced. @MarcosFenn: It'd appear that none of the sources directly mention the subject, as well as it lacking enough in depth tertiary sources. This person really only appears to be notable due to one event and would probably fail WP:GNG. CatcherStorm talk 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, Sir, this is MarcosFenn; thank-you for your further comment. Many of the articles cited in the Guardian and elsewhere actually contain numerous references to Dr Burton. In some of them he is directly quoted for words which are objectively startling and high controversial. The sourcing does seem to be in depth. At least three major events are indeed mentioned - the national outcry over the Blair Peach death handling, the call for police users of lethal force to be free from being asked questions, and the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. I am willing to learn more. Kind regards. MarcosFenn (talk) December 24, 2015

@MarcosFenn: The subject of the article is about a coroner who oversaw someone's murder. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Along with that, I think your comparison of his controversial remarks to a Southern US governor upholding segregation is a bit of a stretch. There is no media coverage that you sourced outside of the United Kingdom. I'd highly suggest this should be merged into Death of Blair Peach, it's quite obvious this person doesn't need his own stand-alone article. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, Sir; thank-you for your further comments.

Regarding the subject of the article, a (Royal) coroner, one would indeed expect that the personality and stated views of a coroner would be subsumed into the even sometimes perfunctory stages of an investigation; in the case of Dr Burton, however, his actions and public comments were significantly controversial, not only with the Blair Peach case but also with his treatment of an Irish Republican suspect and with the whole way he dealt with the early investigation of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Regarding reliable reports with editorial integrity, the British Guardian has a very wide reputation for exactly this, and would broadly correspond with the Washington Post in the US.

Regarding comparisons with US public affairs, while most comparisons of people and personalities will ultimately cease to match exactly, there is widespread acknowledgement of parallels between different forms of die-hard reaction in both England and the United States; although this is not the subject of the article.

Regarding sources outside the United Kingdom, I did indeed include sourcing from the Republic of Ireland's RTE; and the FOIA source relates to principles of freedom of information quests which are worldwide in scope; I shall, however, be very happy to add further sources from outside the UK.

Regards.

MarcosFenn (talk) December 25, 2015

The 2015 conflict with the national youth front section on el Camino Real high school

Hello, I removed the section on the national youth front because I did not regard the situation as important or noteworthy. A small group decided to flyer the school but did not get much coverage. A lot of what we could gather is from a Youtube channel which is unreliable. We don't even know if they did flyer the school(that's what the channel claims)or even who the group national youth front is. I think the best thing to do is to remove the section until we can find more information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.134.25 (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@97.104.134.25: It's great that you want to improve the article for the better, but big changes like removing an entire section of an article are subject to a community discussion. I suggest you follow the instructions at WP:RfC and then you can campaign for the section's removal on the talk page of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, CatcherStorm! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Wye School

Not sure exactly what you are saying at the AFD. Are you saying the school is unremarkable? Or that the article is? CalzGuy (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@CalzGuy: I'm saying your article's references don't adequately show why the school is notable/remarkable. Other than minor local opposition to its construction, I don't see how it's notable. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine. It was just the way you worded it I thought you had some specific personal knowledge of the school that led you to believe that it was an unremarkable institution. BTW, please don't ping me.I watch your talkpage, so can see when it has been updated. Thanks. CalzGuy (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

18:27:47, 26 December 2015 review of submission by 2605:A000:CCC3:C100:D982:17ED:8E05:5230

• 2605:A000:CCC3:C100:D982:17ED:8E05:5230 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Haider Khaleel Raad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer,

I believe that I have exactly followed the guidelines of living persons biography, and adopted the following article of a scientist\academician in the same field:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_A._Balanis

As can be noticed in the above article only 2 links were used to support the article (Google Scholar profile, and Faculty webpage), while in my article I included 3 more links in addition to the Google Scholar profile and faculty webpage. These links are posted by Sonoma State University and North Bay Business Journal which are reliable 3rd party sources. I highly appreciate it if you be more specific on what exactly is wrong with these sources or with the article itself in comparison with the provided sample article.

Thank you in advance for your time, and Happy Holidays!

2605:A000:CCC3:C100:D982:17ED:8E05:5230 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 12\26\2015

Dear IP user, thank you for your contributions, but please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Your "references" are actually just external links. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Shippo

At Draft:Shippo you commented "I'll be accepting the draft after the Shippo page has been deleted per CSD G6", but I don't see such a page with a pending G6 - all I can see is Shippô, which is what I get if I search for "Shippo". If that's the page you mean (or if there's something else that needs deleting), let me know and I'll be happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Luganda tones

Extended content

I am somewhat surprised that you find that the sources cited in my article 'may not be reliable'. The late Earl W. Stevick, who co-wrote the Luganda Basic Course, was the major expert in the field of Luganda tones; Larry Hyman is acknowledged as an expert on tonal languages; Francis Katamba, now retired, was a professor of Linguistics at Lancaster University in England for many years. I would like to see anyone produce better sources than these!!! I could well have cited other articles on Luganda tones (Hyman and Katamba list a number of writers) but I chose the Foreign Service Institute's Luganda Basic Course as the main source, since it is the most detailed and available on the internet, and it is easy for any Wikipedia reader to gain access to it and check the information for himself or herself. As for the grammar of my article, I would be very grateful if you could find any errors. But since you flagged up that notice apparently after spending only five minutes reading the article, I doubt if you have had time to find any. As a professional copy editor myself I am well aware that errors sometimes inadvertently get left in a long document, but in this case I should be very surprised if there are many. Your two flags therefore seem groundless, and unless you can justify them, I see no reason why I shouldn't shortly remove them. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @Kanjuzi: The grammatical errors are within the section titles of your article. The words are capitalized where they shouldn't be, such as "Negative Present" and "Relative General Future". As for your sources, I was concerned because they appeared to be mostly comprised of references from one source. CatcherStorm talk 07:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. The capital letters in the headings are not carelessness but deliberate, since I am following the practice of linguists such as Bernard Comrie and writing the names of tenses such as 'Perfect' and 'Near Past' with a capital letter. It would be inconsistent to use a capital letter in the text but not in the headings. So I think they should stay capitalised, in the same way as proper names. But that is a small point - the thing is that your global assertion that the grammar needs checking is overexaggerated and I feel somewhat insulting, considering that I have already checked the whole thing very thoroughly! As for the sources, the fact is that, apart from Stevick, there are virtually no other sources about the general facts of Luganda tones - where they go, how they should be applied to verbs and so on. Hyman and Katamba's bibliography lists a number of articles, but apart from Stevick most scholars are mostly concerned either with very minor points (such as Dutcher and Paster's study of falling tones in the infinitive of verbs) or with theoretical issues such as whether the tones are accentual or purely tonal. Most of the grammars, such as Ashton's, give few details on the tones. So we must rely on Stevick. But the advantage of Stevick is that it is possible for Wikipedia readers to check his assertions by listening to the recordings. You will notice that in one place I have made a note where his rule does not seem to be matched by the recordings, and another (concerning the Future tense) where Stevick's data does not match the data given by Hyman and Katamba, which I also noted in the article. - Three years earlier Stevick co-wrote the Chinyanja Basic Course, which similarly is virtually the only grammar giving a detailed description of Chinyanja or Chichewa tones. It seems that most people who write grammars are unable to hear the tones, or think they are too complicated to record fully, so they miss them out. At any rate we are not dealing with a European language here that has hundreds of sources to choose from, but an African language which has been described by only a few, and of which the tones have been described fully by only one or two scholars. An article on Winston Churchill which relied only on Martin Gilbert's 8-volume biography (although everything you might need to know for a short article is probably in there) would be a bad thing, but then for a famous person like that there are lots of sources. It is a different story with Luganda tones. So I don't think the flag is necessary. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC) @Kanjuzi: I'm very sorry to hear that you feel insulted, and it wasn't my intention for that to happen, but that being said, if you can't find any secondary or tertiary sources regarding Luganda tones, it might be feasible to merge the content into Luganda#Tone. I personally don't think the tones of the language is notable enough to have a stand-alone article, because it borders on an indiscriminate collection of information. Having a condensed collection of the info into the relevant article might be useful to readers. Mandarin Chinese, another tonal language with its article on Wikipedia would be another example of this. However, this is just a suggestion, I might be wrong, so you don't have to follow accordingly. Regarding the capitalization, bear in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and most if not all content on here should conform to English grammatical standards. Capitalizing where it is not necessary because it is not a proper noun, location, or a name would be grammatically incorrect. Whether or not you choose to go forth with my advice, I still appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks. CatcherStorm talk 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I would have said that Stevick is a secondary source really - the primary source is the recordings of Luganda which he analysed (and no doubt he himself used earlier sources). Plus of course several other scholars have also written about Luganda tones: Hyman and Katamba's article, which summarises and criticises their theories, is 34 pages long. But there would be no point in using points from their articles as well, since they would merely repeat the same things. Now would it be feasible to merge my article with the article on Luganda? No, I don't think so, since that article already has a section on tone (much of it contributed by me), and to add any more would make the article unbalanced. It is Wikipedia policy, after all, to write separate articles on individual topics if these are too long to include in the main article. Have a look at the main article if you like; it seems to consist of long sections of details about Luganda grammar without any source mentioned. If you were to force the writer to note the sources, they would probably either (if they are a native speaker) say it is from their own knowledge, or otherwise say it is all from one particular grammar. I have taken the trouble to detail each piece of information which makes up my article, so it looks as if there is a lot from one author. But I have not merely summarised or repeated that author's work. Stevick's own notes on tones are fiendishly complicated and difficult to follow. I have simplified, rearranged and re-presented the same facts but in a way that (I hope) makes it easy for the layman to follow. - But as for Luganda tones not being 'notable' enough to merit a separate article, you know that Wikipedia at present is very much too Euro- and Americo-centred and it is the editors' policy to try to make it a bit broader. For linguists who study tonal languages (and most of the world's languages are tonal) Luganda tones are certainly of interest, especially as they are so complex. The similar article I wrote on Chichewa tones has been viewed by 128 people in the last 30 days alone. And there are many articles on particular aspects of languages. If we are talking of Mandarin Chinese, for example, there is a very long one on Chinese grammatical classifiers - a featured article too! It is perfectly within the spirit of Wikipedia to have a separate article on Luganda tones therefore, and it is not as if Wikipedia is a printed encyclopedia where we are short of space. So before condemning the article as being on too abstruse a topic, let's wait and see how many people actually read it. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC) @Kanjuzi: If I came off as condemning your article, then I really do apologize. CatcherStorm talk 12:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

From Audiojeff

Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to erase my recent edit, which was just a heads up that your article needed work.

It still does. The article is made worse by removing my edit without addressing the issues it raised.

The article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_migration_to_France#Social_issues

makes the claims that "The Britons living in France are well integrated are a community of relatively large size and with a good level of education and income," without citing a single source to back up the claims. Please add a citation, otherwise we are just reading uneducated opinion. "Well-integrated" needs qualifying: what does it mean? What is a "good" level of education and how do you know the level of education of all Britons living in France? What source have you consulted for information concerning the average income of British expats in France? I'm afraid this reads like subjective opinion.

I am sure you have the relevant sources to hand so do please go right ahead and cite them.

Thanks again for taking the time to bring your project up to standard.

Audiojeff (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Audiojeff: I reverted your edit because you didn't properly insert the citation needed thingy in, which is {{citation needed}}, not "[citation needed]. I'll put in the proper template now, and thank you for your contributions. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

re Bureaucrat

I hadn't considered it in years. Things are different now; My activity on WP is much lower, and I've become much more cynical; anyone diving into my edit history would probably find multiple reasons I can't be trusted with more power. I don't have any "duties" on WP at the moment, and being a bureaucrat would add those. Hm. Maybe. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

17:46:28, 28 December 2015 review of submission by Surfjk

• Surfjk (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:WalletHub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Happy holidays! I am a bit confused about my entry being declined. The reason given was that it is not supported by reliable sources. But the sources used include Time, Parade, NBC, MarketWatch, Kiplinger, CBS, The Washington Post, The Detroit News, The Houston Chronicle, The Atlantic and a variety of respected industry publications. They clearly and reliably show what the subject is and why it is notable. Both the subject and its products (research reports and free tools) are written about extensively by reputable news media, so I would really appreciate it if you would take a second look. I am trying to learn the ins and outs of the Wikipedia process because becoming a regular contributor interests me, but it seems that changes that satisfy one editor don't necessarily sit well with another. Thanks a lot!Surfjk (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:expert-subject

Is there a way I can tag it on the article's talk page? Is that allowed? Because honestly, I really don't want to put any tags on the page. The article is pretty good and it's all factual, but I just feel more information could be added by someone who knew more about the subjects than me. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You left on my talk page an accusation of sock puppetry

1. There is no evidence
2. I haven't done anything wrong, and so even if the account you mentioned was my previous account, I have not used this account for an improper purpose (rule clearly stated on WP:SOCK) TheJack15 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)