User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:24, 27 August 2016

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Worldbruce. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For all your work on Bangladesh related articles Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
		_{this WikiAward was given to Worldbruce by Vinegarymass911 (talk) on 20:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)}

.

@Vinegarymass911: Thanks for the encouragement, I'll wear it with pride. The articles that are in the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh are improving, but it's a slow process. Keep up the good work. Worldbruce (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks much for sending me the material I needed (Treaty of Kurekchay - Mostashari). In reply to your last question, yes, those were the pages I needed. :-) Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Aminul Huq Moni's Wikipedia page issues

Dear Worldbruce,

May I please request you to review the BanglaVision's features on Aminul Huq Moni where notable sports and media personalities spoke about him? The YouTube links have been added to the Wikipedia page.

Once you have watched the presentations, could you please reassess if the tag "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" should be on Aminul Huq Moni's Wikipedia page?

Thanks a lot for your time.

Regards, Masrur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masrur Khan (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

14:42:56, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Zaostao

Zaostao (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Justin Gaethje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no way I can make the subject of the article notable other than asking to change the wiki notability guidelines - which i've already done - so can I at least get an assurance the article will be accepted when Justin Gaethje reaches top 10 in his division's rankings? This was given as the reason for accepting Marlon Moraes by its creator. Zaostao (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding review of Parasite Rex

Hello, Worldbruce. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Silverseren^C 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks so much for your help. Silverseren^C 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Aali

Hi Worldbruce! I really appreciate your comments and comprehensive review of my submission. I was not aware how to handle the COI. Thank you for your reminding. I have revised the article based on your comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giatec_Scientific_Inc.

Would you please review?

Thank you very much,

Aali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aali451 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aali: Thank you for declaring your connection to Giatec Scientific (I moved it to the draft's talk page, which is where it belongs). I'm busy with another project right now, but I'll take a look at the draft next week if one of the other reviewers doesn't get to it first. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam Saleh

Sorry I messed that up. I accidentally accepted when I meant to revert, and it edit conflicted with your revert. Meters (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WJSV broadcast day - Thanks

Thanks for your assistance in the WJSV broadcast day situation. I really appreciated your help. TeemPlayer (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 17:40:52, 12 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 3fivesix

3fivesix (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Janice Marturano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Worldbruce,

I'm wondering if you can give me some feedback and help on a wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janice_Marturano) that can't seem to get approved. Your last round of advice was very thoughtful and accurate and I made each of the recommendations you suggested. However, it was just denied again and I'm at a loss of how to improve it.

Can you take a look and suggest how I can improve it or just approve the draft if it looks ok to you?

Thanks very much in advance!

3fivesix (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@3fivesix: I tinkered with it a bit to try to address all concerns that have been raised. There may still be places where half a sentence could be cut or the wording could be simplified, but the references are strong. I don't see any glaring problems, and it would easily survive a deletion nomination. So it's time for it to brave the waters of mainspace, where it may be edited mercilessly. One thing you may want to think about is what encyclopedia articles, if any, should link to Janice Marturano. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 09:48:12, 18 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Rouken

Rouken (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ModeAudio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft submission. I fully understand your reasons and agree that after only 2 years, there probably is not enough evidence yet to suggest ModeAudio is notable as defined by Wikipedia. I would however be very grateful if you could let me know which references, other than the Music Radar & Music Tech links, you would consider as acceptable for future consideration? I understand why you feel that some look like press releases but would the lengthy review in Ask Audio Magazine for example, which is a popular 3rd party music production e-zine, not also qualify?

I also wondered why the references to the Image Line and Propellerhead stores were removed, as these were included to establish the relationship between ModeAudio and these well-known companies in the digital music production sector. Are commercial relationships not seen as indicators of notability also?Rouken (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Rouken (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rouken: The Music Radar and Music Tech sources are the only ones I'm convinced count towards notability. I was not impressed with Ask Audio. Being popular does not make a source reliable. I couldn't find any evidence of editorial oversight or that publisher NonLinear Educating has a reputation for fact-checking. If reliable, it is still a niche publication with a limited audience, which would weaken any value in proving notability. The author is not a professional reviewer or journalist, which also weighs against it.

If you feel it should count towards notability, you can ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Most likely, consensus will be that the review does not help demonstrate notability, and is not reliable for statements of fact, but is a reliable source for the opinion of the author. In that case, notability would have to be shown by other sources, but you could use Ask Audio to include something like "G.W. Childs IV, writing for Ask Audio, considers ModeAudio Raw Material to be ..."

Commercial relationships do not prove notability. More generally, accomplishments do not prove notability. The only thing that matters is how much notice independent reliable sources have taken of the subject. Media may be more likely to have covered a company if it is successful, but plenty of successful companies never receive the coverage required to establish notability. Most companies do not have a Wikipedia article and are not supposed to. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.

When a company has a business relationship with another, what it has to say about that company is not independent, and does not help establish notability. Since Image Line and Propellerhead don't count toward notability, and the same information is available from another non-independent source already being cited (ModeAudio) it's best not to cite Image Line and Propellerhead, lest the draft give the impression that bombardment (citing many redundant or otherwise useless sources) is being used in an attempt to hide the fact that the subject is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

One more look at Jonathan Sackner Bernstein, please

Thanks for taking the time to look at my article, Bruce. I really appreciate the effort volunteers are putting into making the site work.

I revised it and posted some thoughts on the questions page.

Help_desk#16:46:36.2C_13_April_2016_review_of_submission_by_Sethgodin

(not sure how to give you a shortcut link, I'm sorry) Pasting it below if that's more convenient for you...

Hi Worldbruce Thank you for taking the time. The Creative Computing cite was easy to fix, I added a link to the issue online. The hyphenation was indeed confusing, my apologies, that's been fixed as well. A new photo will be uploaded today.

I hear your points about the lead, but finding the right balance here is quite difficult, apparently. The first reviewer said that emphasizing why JSB was notable in the lead was peacocking. I've done my best to cogently summarize the essence of the notability in a single sentence.

The Wikipedia standard for notability Wikipedia:Notability states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

In addition, two other principles are important: Notability is not temporary and notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.

In the case of Sackner Bernstein, I trust we can agree that the coverage of his work (80 papers, a well-reviewed book in the book publishing trade journal Publishers Weekly, references in the New York Times) is significant, independent and reliable.

Just as important is the fact of the arc of his career. Over more than 30 years, his work has been covered, moving from medicine to engineering to the FDA to scientific research. If this work had been done by 84 different people, it would be different. Connecting the dots requires no original research at all, but provides the person who finds this page (via another article or a web search) with the context that an encyclopedia provides.

Given the notability, then, the question is whether the article is too defective to be shared and improved across the community.

And that’s where I’m hoping you can offer help. I’ve looked at many articles, and I’m not sure I’m seeing the fundamental error here. If you can say, “fix this link and we’re set,” or even better, adjust what needs to be adjusted, that would be fabulous.

I respect the work you and the other wikipedians are doing to upgrade and maintain the quality of the bio corpus, but it can feel like an endlessly moving target. I hope we can agree that the notability of this researcher and his work cannot be seriously called into question. The question, then, I hope, is can the article be improved over time in the way all great Wikipedia articles are. I'd appreciate a look at the revised article.

Thank you.

Sethgodin (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am re-reviewing it, as I work very frequently on articles in this field. He is unquestionably notable, as shown by his citation record. The criterion for the notability of academics is WP:PROF, and the key factor in almost all cases is being an expert in one's subject, which for scientists is normally measured in terms of citations to their work. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

19:29:39, 19 April 2016 review of submission by 86.174.120.95

86.174.120.95 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ben Clappison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do not agree with the rejection of the Ben Clappison article. There are a zillion pages of soceer players on Wikipedia who have not yet played a Championship match. In fact, there are loads who have never played Football League match. It does not matter that he has not yet played a firs-team game for Hull City - he is a professional football player with an English Championship club.

Being a professional football player with an English Championship club does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you can show an inclusion criterion that he does meet, I would be happy to reconsider the draft. Other alternatives include waiting until he satisfies one of the criteria, or getting consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) to change the inclusion criteria. Resubmitting the draft without resolving the problem is tendentious editing, and will not achieve your goal. If there are a zillion biographies of football players who are not notable, they should be nominated for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks very much Worldbruce for all your help with the Janice Marturano wikipedia entry! 3fivesix (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Weather data at Breggia, Switzerland

Hello, Worldbruce. You have new messages at Tobyc75's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

COI query

Hello again, and thanks for the response regarding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Drugs_Wheel. I appreciate that you're busy and apologies for taking up so much time with this. As I was one of the people involved in the creation of this model there perhaps will be no way for me to submit the article myself without there being an apparent COI. There are a lot of people using this model around the world who use the model in teaching/training settings - could I ask one of them to submit the article? As there would be no links/renumeration/employer/employee relationships etc. would that also be a problem? Many thanks Mark

Markadley (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Markadley: New editors are often hesitant to declare a connection to what they're writing about. In some circumstances failing to do so can be a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. In my experience, failing to declare a connection causes some Wikipedians to assume the worst - that there is a close connection, but that the editor is lying by omission by not admitting it. You write above that you are "one of the people involved in the creation of this model". That declaration belongs on User:Markadley and in the U1-otherlinks field of the {{Connected contributor}} template on Draft talk:The Drugs Wheel.

You have been pointed twice to the Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements that the images violate, but have not remedied the situation. Please remove File:The Drugs Wheel (French version).jpg, File:TheDrugsWheelGame blank 1 2-2.jpg, and File:The Drugs Wheel UK version 2.0.1.jpg from Commons using the procedures outlined in Commons:Deletion policy. Claiming that images are cc-by-sa-4.0 when they are restricted to noncommercial use could be an innocent misunderstanding, but failing to clean up after the mistake is apt to cause ill feeling within the community.

Wikipedia strongly discourages editors who have a close connection with a topic from writing about that subject. In contrast to the two points above, however, this is advice; Wikipedia does not prohibit editing by those who have a conflict of interest. It is best to wait for someone unrelated to the topic to decide to write the article. Next best is to request at Wikipedia:Requested articles that a disinterested stranger write the article. If you're determined to write it yourself, then you're doing the right thing by going through Articles for Creation. Nothing would be gained by having someone other than the author submit the draft. That would only give the wrong impression. Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Hotel Jerusalem

Hello, Worldbruce. Thanks for pointing out the copy-paste of this draft. I didn't notice it because of the change in title. I have moved my references to the mainspace article where they can either help with notability or be part of the merger if it goes ahead. I'll delete the draft, since the editor who created it is the same one who made the mainspace article and there's now no content to save.—Anne Delong (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Syed Hedayetullah

Hi Worldbruce. Thank you again for your help a little while back and suggestions for the article I have been working on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syed_Hedayetullah

Recently, I took another round adding three more sources, and citing the obituary that I have taken some of the material from as it relates to his research. I had thought notability would have been established by now given the important positions Syed Hedayetullah had. Would you be able to review the article and let me know if there's anything else I can do? I feel that the entry is so much better than many many existing Wikipedia articles and it just got rejected out of hand with no comments. Thank you for your help!!

You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

-BWhitesides — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWhitesides (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cloudreach draft

Hi,

Thanks for the recent response about the Cloudreach draft. It's been updated - can you have a look and see if it's appropriate for mainspace now? Thanks again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thumperward: I recommend that you or the author resubmit it if you think it's ready for another review. To do so, click the blue Resubmit button on the draft, or to do so on behalf of another user, use {{subst:submit|username}}. There are 700 other submissions in the queue, so the next review may take two or three weeks, but I'm juggling several thousand articles, so continuing with AfC will be faster than relying on me specifically to look at it. Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Harris

I saw that you added Harris to the Requested Articles page, so I just wanted to let you know that I created the article for you. — Chevvin 11:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chevvin: Nice work, thanks! --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)