User talk:Aggie80/Archive 1

Badgeometer
Hey Aggie :)

I replaced your badgeometer with the full version. It works the same just has an extra level. I hope you don't mind. Also, I'm curious how you like (or don't like) the centered formatting? Would you prefer it on the left? Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lyle Ritz
Definitely meets notability, one of those 'glad someone made an article about him' pages!

I added the appropriate infobox (Used Jake Shimabukuro as a guide, love that guy) but you need to add the album names.

Re-wrote lead.

Suggestions - write more as a timeline, less like an interview. Replace "Lyle" with "Ritz" (saw maybe one or two of those.) Wikilink to x-reference other musicians. See if you can get a free-use picture (he might upload one with proper release if asked). -EBY (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you use this? http://www.ne.jp/asahi/matt/uke/jam/vicg60452e.html
 * - EBY (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I know I used that reference on the Sakuma article. I've gone through and worked on the pronoun/first names on all three.  I haven't got the hang of the lead yet.  Thanks for all your help!Aggie80 (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I finished making edits to this article & unfortunately created a save conflict. You may need to check the versions. I don't think I've got anything else to add - though you may want to change my spelling of Hawai'i to remove the accent. Outdented sections. Added main article link. Feel free to use this as template now, other editors will make changes (nothing on Wikipedia is ever done.) Let me know if you need anything else.
 * Good work. Good luck. EBY (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! I've learned a great deal watching your changes. Nice rearrangement.  I was trying to get there in my head and realized that there needed to be a bit more bass in the mix! re: Jake Shimabukuro-> Yeah, he is great!  I've seen him live 3 times with a 4th time coming up in August.  Even had my picture taken with him!  Jake and I I'm going to see if I can get some photos, I have had correspondence with Jim Beloff and I'll bet he has photos that can be used.Aggie80 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: JS - Fun picture. We've seen him live, as well, and it was a really good show.
 * Glad to be of help, excited for your articles. You've got a knack for finding reliable sources and using them which is the bigger half the BIO:LP battle. EBY (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Roy Sakuma & May Singhi Breen
Hi, another editor confirmed Sakuma's notability and I think Breen will pass, too, but both need similar treatment to Ritz: add infobox, re-write lede sentence according to the template (name, birth, nationality, instrument, high points of notability), use last name or pronoun, write along a timeline, keep personal information minimal, wikilink associated articles. Does this make sense? EBY (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been wikilinking like crazy on these! But how often do I wikilink something?  How many times in one article should I wikilink ukulele for example? Once various pages are approved, I can go back and link the new pages to them.  Ritz/Sakuma/Beloff/Hill are all interrelated. I'll work on the info boxes and think I've gotten most of the pronouns taken care of.  Nice to know that Sakuma is good.


 * On a related note -> does it make sense for me to reply here, or should I put it on your Talk page? Aggie80 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Went to your page and learned about the Talkback function! Aggie80 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Talkbalk works great. Remember when you like something, steal the template.
 * The rule of thumb is to wikilink something once per article. Not everything needs to be wikilinked, but anything with a proper name should be as well as key concepts or material in an article. (e.g. The Wrecking Crew, ukulele, Chicago, jazz, US Army Band). EBY (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've re-written all the leads and done some re-arranging, as well as general clean up. There are lots of wikilinks I can add, but I'll putz along at that for the next few days, I suspect it will be next week before they get officially reviewed. Aggie80 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 J. Chalmers Doane, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

— Mike moral  ♪♫  00:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Lyle Ritz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Falkirks Talk   04:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 May Singhi Breen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Falkirks Talk   14:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Jim Beloff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Roy Sakuma, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Award for you

 * Hey, Aggie, I just wanted to welcome you to AfC and the Teahouse. It's always awesome to see a new user jumping right in to really valuable tasks on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! TheOneSean &#91; U &#124; T &#124; C &#93; 21:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Theonesean! I'm not sure what got me started, other than I found a terrible lack of articles on some of the most important people in the ukulele world and set out to remedy it. So I'm slowly fixing the situation and have already added six articles!  The Teahouse has been very helpful, as well as the reviewing committee! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm always willing to recognize a good editor. And that's interesting! I never really looked at the ukulele articles on WP. Perhaps you could start a Wikiproject or a task force with that purpose. I would be more than willing to help you out with that. My only advice to you is to do as much as you can, and then do some more. Thanks, TheOneSean [ U &#124; T &#124; C ] 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

AFC Helper Script flubbed your decline
You may want to move the contents of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElcaminoplaza&diff=560742847&oldid=560186336 this edit] to User talk:Peterzapp where the now-renamed user will see it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Programmer notified, see WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. It would help the programmers a lot if they knew if you were using the beta script or the production script (the "gadget" in the preferences).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability on submission - Conflicting information

 * Hi Aggie, I just wanted to get some information from you and try and figure out this process a little better. I am trying to craft my ability to create articles on Wikipedia.  The version that you reviewed was created after a discussion with Gtwfan52.  Gtwfan52 told me that Smoke Magazine was an acceptable source to show notability because it has been used as a primary source for other cigar production companies on Wikipedia.  The only concerns after the last discussion we had seemed to be language that did not sound neutral (which I removed).  If you could give me some suggestions on how to produce an acceptable article that shows notability I would appreciate it.  If you are curious about the conversations I had with Gtwfan52, you can visit his talk page to see where we ended up at.  Thank you for any advice you can give me.  Prpiranha (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I also did just add an additional source from Fox 2 News. This is a television interview discussing the recent growth of the label.  Let me know what else I can do to get you what you need. Prpiranha (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have several concerns, so I'll lay them out. Note that we can only use one of about 12 reasons for declining an article at any one time, and the notability is considered the most critical, so takes priority.  The Fox 2 new blurb is not likely to remain for any length of time, and it adds so little to the overall knowledge, though it does help.  The first two sentences seem to disagree with each other.  One says they manufacture cigars.  Later in the article it says they don't own any manufacturing facilities.  The next sentence says they sell high end cigars and accessories. Do they sell other brands?  Do they make the accessories?


 * It is also a bit of a turn off to discover that almost half the length of the article is dedicated to cigars they no longer make. There is so much more that could be added to the article, such as the bow tie shaped banding.  Why don't they make them anymore?  (Reading between the lines, because they are launching the new Metallic lines.) I'd create a sub-category under Cigars for Discontinued and Current types.


 * Try these for some more resources [Smarta - Personal Branding] Sort of a rehash of the Entrepreneur article, which is by far your strongest reference, but adds an additional voice. go ahead and add some of the review blogs such as . The production section starts off with a negative sentence.  People don't care what a company isn't, they want to know what it is.


 * At best this might classify as a 'stub.' It would be better if we can get it to at least start level. (I'm usually okay with getting a "Start" on an article I begin, happy with a C and downright ecstatic to get a B!) Give us some more info on the company itself.  Is it privately held?  A partnership? Sole proprietorship?  What have their revenues or sales been like?  (I see that another editor didn't like the idea about saying much about the founder.  I wouldn't go overboard on it, but a bit more about it would be appropriate)  Another area that could be expanded would be about the founder.  He has some great quotes out there!  His success in branding is evident and worthy of a few sentences, just avoid the Puffery/Peacock/Advertising language unless you have the documentation to back it up.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Aggie, I think I took care of the concerns you brought up, but I'll never know until you check it out. If you take a look at the article and it appears to need more work, just leave me a message here and I'll keep working on it.  I appreciate you taking the time to outline your concerns and assist me in developing my Wikipedia content creation skills.  I already feel as though this article is better, and can only assume my skill level on Wikipedia in general is growing as well.  Prpiranha (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I do like it much better! So, three things I would work on:

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Replace the use of Bow Tie Cigar Company in places with an appropriate pronoun in some places.
 * 2) Make sure your capitalization is correct (the Copper Line) is mixed.
 * 3) Formatting challenge. I think the discontinued section would be improved by using some columns to shrink the page space.
 * 4) Add some wikilinks. The obvious one would be one or two of the uses of cigar.  You get them by putting double square brackets on each side of the word, phrase or name.


 * Hi Aggie, thanks again for the help and providing more feedback. I went through the new revisions that you suggested and I think I got what you are looking for.  The article is ready for you to take another look when you have a chance. Let me know what you think and I'll keep working with you!  Prpiranha (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Made some edits.
Hi Aggie80, I'm trying to get this cleaned up. Josef Kote is a pretty remarkable artist, this seams like a good place to start my contributions. I hope to learn from this process. The page is getting better. Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCorbu1987 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A good starting place would be to get the references set up correctly. Right now there is no clear listing.  WP:REF provides a good overview of how to place them inline and with the items they are supporting.  Clean up some of the essay type phrases, such as "Slowly but surely" and "Always looking to widen his scope," there are a lot more.  Remember that this is factual, no fluff, no advertising, nothing that can't be backed up with a reference.  You should take care of those two things before you re-submit for review.  Thanks for asking and for moving forward!The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you get a chance check out the revised Articles for creation/Josef Kote. Still working on some images. Reading up on them now. I have about 10 more sources to review and add. Thanks for your help, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCorbu1987 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Telluride Bluegrass Festival
Dear Aggie80: Thanks for improving the Telluride Bluegrass Festival page. Blog posts aren't considered to be very reliable information sources, but at least it's a start! There are so many articles about great bluegrass festivals, bands and musicians that need work. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know, but I've been trying to find anything that lists the band contest winners! I've been working on an article for Run Boy Run and they won in 2011, and have been going non-stop ever since!  Love to have your feedback on it Run Boy Run before I send it for review.  They are sending me a picture that we can use, with appropriate release.  Is it appropriate to add them to the Bluegrass Band list or is it only for bands that already have a page?The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add them to the band list if you add a citation next to the band name demonstrating that they are a known band - one of the ones from the article will do. Or, you can wait until you get the article approved and then just add them with a link to the article.


 * About the article: I filled out a few of the references for you.  I think you have enough to get the article approved for notability.  You may have a little trouble with the reviewers about some promotional comments - maybe leave out the first and third  sentences about gaining attention; they don't really add any info, since the following sentences make that obvious anyway.  The Prairie Home Companion remarks need a reference - but you should be able to use the broadcast itself as a reference for Garrison's comments if you can find out the broadcast date and station.  The OFAM reference appears to be a dead link.  You've got some good information there; maybe try to make it a little more neutral and formal. You can submit it any time now; remember that if it is declined you can always continue to improve it and submit it again. Good luck! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Mighty Uke (movie), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burger Bakar/Submission declined on 22 June 2013 by Aggie80
Dear Anggie80,

Please help me. I dont understand. Tried to follow but seems cant figure it out on that 'Citations' part.

ref > This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamuse (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The citations are only one part of the problem. There is not much content here, just a few sentences.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this burger joint is notable in any way to deserve an article in Wikipedia.  The English grammar is poor.  There appears to be a single reference, other than the company web site itself. It is full of puffery/peacock words without any evidence to support them.  ("created a burger revolution" "new phenomenon"} Read some of the other articles on Wikipedia and compare them to what you have written.  There is a big difference.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Aggie80, Thanks for the reply. Will improve it and resubmit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamuse (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!
'''Congratulations! You have earned the'''

Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80. I am new to Wikipedia, and still learning. Please bear with me, in case some comments are not displayed as they should. I submitted an article on Antoni Peretiatkowicz a while ago. Today, I noticed your comment about formatting, and in line citations. I would love to improve the text, but need you guidance. Can you let me know what exactly you are looking for. Anna Peretiatkowicz (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adam Zemke
How did Adam Zemke not get an article, yet Henry Yanez and Martin Howrylak have one? That seems totally inconsistent. Additionally, Zemke is a congressman who could play a key role in Michigan legalizing same-sex marriage, which would make him a somewhat historic figure. The other two have no claims like that. Wikipedian77 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't believe they meet the notability criteria either, and have flagged them as such. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I happened to see your notice at Wikipedian77's talk page about this proposed article. I believe you have made a mistake here. The subject is a member of the state legislature and is thus automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I am willing to work with the author to improve the article, but "not notable" appears to be an incorrect interpretation here; please reconsider. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being an elected official does not automatically make someone notable. They have to meet WP:BASIC first.  It is a secondary criteria and I don't believe any of them have enough written on them to independently show notability.  You want to accept it, go for it, but I don't believe they meet it.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will definitely improve upon the article. There is a lot written about Zemke, as you can see by Googling his name. Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! That's what is needed, the additional references.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Being an elected official does not automatically make someone notable. At the national or sub-national (state) level, yes it does. Please see WP:POLITICIAN and also Common outcomes - which says "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.)" Even if an article is dreadful, like the unreferenced stubs you tagged above (I will go deal with those articles later), it is long-accepted consensus that elected members of state legislatures are regarded as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note 12 indicates that people who meet this criteria usually meet the primary criteria. In this case, from what is/was provided, they did not meet the primary criteria.  If they can provide additional resources to show notability, great.  But all 7,382 state legislators currently in office aren't going to meet it.   I don't see having 100,000 (conservative estimate) stub articles on state legislatures being what Wikipedia has in mind. I think we should get some input from others on the interpretation, there may even have already been a discussion on it. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note 12 goes on to say "Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." In other words, REGARDLESS of coverage, the intent is that coverage of major political offices should be COMPLETE; the policy really does want coverage on all 7,382 state legislators and 100,000 ever-been-a-state-legislator. What we have here is a difference of interpretation. At AfD discussions I have often seen people cite as gospel that "state legislators are presumed notable per WP:POLITICIAN;" the rationale is that you can ALWAYS find significant coverage of someone at that level if you look. You disagree with this interpretation (I get the feeling this is the first time you have heard of it); you believe that state legislators must explicitly meet WP:GNG within the article. You are an experienced editor; so am I; clearly we need some more input on this. Please ask some experienced editor whose opinions you trust to weigh in here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see that you have already posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability. That's even better. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (I get the feeling this is the first time you have heard of it) Ouch! The Notability guidelines are the first thing I read. And I suppose being an attorney I'll argue the interpretation. You are an experienced editor Thanks, but not that experienced.  While it is true I've been registered for many years, 99% of my input is in the last month.  Oh, I see that you have already posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability. That's even better.  Figured to go directly to the main area.  It appears they agree there is a presumption, but that it can be challenged, as I did on the other two articles. I hate the presumption, it should be done right the first time, that's the purpose of the review process, to get an article in decent shape so that it doesn't get challenged.  And a complete listing can be created on the appropriate state legislature pages.  On the other hand, I can create articles for a dozen of my ancestors that served at one time or another.  All it takes is their name and when they served and it is presumed valid.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to say you had never heard of Notability; I meant you had never heard of the "all state legislators are presumed notable" consensus. You are not the only one who disagrees with that interpretation, and it has been challenged in the past - most recently last April - but never to the point of rewording the consensus-based guideline at WP:N or the "usual outcomes" result at WP:COMMONOUTCOMES). And MASEM's opinion that the articles can be challenged later is not necessarily universally held either; such articles would almost always get Kept at AfD if they had verification of the office they held. That can be one of the frustrating things about Wikipedia: it operates by consensus, not necessarily by what we individual editors think is the best way to go.
 * As for your ancestors, go for it! All they need is verification. I have "rescued" dozens of articles about state legislators at Unsourced biographies of living persons just by adding a couple of sources for verification.
 * As for This noob is sufficiently chastised and will go away, please don't go away! (I understand; you just meant from that discussion, but I mean don't let this discourage you.) It is great that you are reviewing Articles For Submission, they have a terrible backlog there and they need all the help they can get. I would just suggest that (as a relative newcomer to the process) you be a little more open to input from more experienced users; sometimes there will be a consensus tradition that doesn't make sense to you but that you still need to follow as a Reviewer.
 * Will you now go back to Wikipedian's article and release it, or what happens next? --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't release it until the creator does what they said, add some more references and resubmit. I've had enough of my articles accepted, some as high as B level, that I know what it takes and these aren't even close to being good submissions, I don't feel they even meet stub level, but because they are elected state officials, they 'have' to be accepted, regardless of quality and it can't be questioned, though there it is. So I can create stubs, too. And I foresee a few thousand stubs coming into the system, and I won't bother taking them through the AfC process, as that is evidently considered a joke. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your recent creations of stub articles
Hey, I understand what you are doing here - you are making a point - but would you at least mind adding a category to those stubs? It isn't hard, I went ahead and added the appropriate category Category:Members of the California State Assembly to several of them, but if you do it at creation it makes one less flag on the article that somebody else has to deal with later. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added it, but it isn't supposed to matter. Isn't that what they are saying?  Don't care about the quality or review, if it is an elected official, the article has to stay regardless of how bad it is in the hopes that someone will do something with it.  I'm sorry, but in 50 years most of these people will not be considered notable for anything.  Most big city mayors are more notable than these part time politicians.  Well, there are the first 50 submitted. Stubs, but they are there with reference. A few, the real notable ones, are even linked to from other pages already.  And a handful I was able to pull in a bit more info from Wiki articles.  Don't suppose the ones that pushed their agenda down my throat will care. There seems to be this "Don't care about anyone else's opinions, we're right and we aren't changing anything. Obviously they would rather have stubs in great quantity rather than quality articles.  I can do that. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, and thanks for adding categories and additional info where you had it. (Too bad the first names weren't available.) Yes, these may be stubs now, but we would have needed articles about them eventually. Don't forget to do articles about your ancestors, you can probably provide more info there! --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and look how quickly other editors moved in to clean up and expand the article; that's Wikipedia at its best. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With Dale C Williams you have him listed as a State Assembly men when he was a State Senator....William 14:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your new page contributions on historic California legislators. I'll help out with the categorization of these new pages; one thing you can do to make categorization easier is to add code like somewhere on each page as you go. This gets them sorted by last name in the category pages. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. You can see from the conversations above why I'm doing this. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Harry I. Thornton Hey, how about removing the speedy deletion tag from this page? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. But hey - when Matt said to add to the articles, he meant to use the actual name - as in  --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see I have to fill in the name stuff, it is an autobat type thing! Thanks MelanieNThe Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One other thing - instead of you might consider using  - it's a start.  Otherwise, I, for one, welcome the new stubs, and wish I had a little more time to play around with 'em. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! I started with California simply because David Fairchild was elected to the legislature there.  He's my 4th Great Grandfather.  I can create one of these stubs in about 20 seconds, but it requires having the research lined up properly.  I start with a search on the name.  50% of the time there is no hit at all, 25% there is a hit to a list someplace, sometimes wikilinked already and 25% they already have an article.  If there is a hit on another page, I can usually add another fact or two to the stub, such as another position or the district.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope very much that you continue. I'm glad to see some solid work being done on local politicians on Wikipedia.  Wish I had the time to do more...but there is a database for Virginia, if you're ever interested, going back some years. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Even better categories are California State Senators and Members of the California State Assembly. MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If the source tells me which they are! My current one is a listing of all veteran "Legislators" without mention of the house.  I've put in over 130 stubs!The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Ray W. Hays
Hello, Aggie80,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Ray W. Hays should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Ray W. Hays.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ghostboy1997 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread the submission. He was an elected official in the California State Legislature.  As such he meets the notability requirement under WP:POLITICIAN.  You can read the discussion about the notability requirement for politicians on the notability pages, as it comes up over and over again.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent submissions
Hello! In view of your recent submissions of micro-biographies on California legislators, I would respectfully request if a bit more research and text went into these articles. As they currently stand, we don't know when these legislators were born and when or if they passed away. Nor do we know what they achieved in their careers outside of serving for unspecified periods of time in the legislature. More editorial input would be extremely helpful for Wikipedia's readers. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. These stub articles are being created to fill requests from other pages and the desire for Wikipedia to have a complete listing of every legislator elected on a state level.  They are part of a larger project.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your speedy response. I only raised my concern because a number of these articles were marked for deletion, and I did not want to see your work erased in one sweeping wave. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the point you're trying to make, and I only request that you allow the community to provide some input on the template that you're using. Ideally, every article would include two wikilinks, at least one category, a date of birth and death, a rating, and a reference to a more solid source than Political Graveyard (a quick Google Books search turns up information on many of them).  The notability of a subject is unrelated to the quality of its article, and some of your edits are making more work for other editors.  Andrew327 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "requests from other pages"? Dricherby (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Links to the non-existent page from other pages. The 'red links' that appear often.  In this case Members of the California State Legislature has dozens of red links.  I've already resolved a couple dozen of these and hopefully they will all have at least a stub page as we get further into the project.  And there are 35 session that are not even included on that page!The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A redlink isn't a "request" per se; it's just a placeholder that says, "This topic is probably an appropriate subject for an article and, if that article is ever created, this page should link to it." In what way do you feel that creating all these stubs, which just duplicate the information at Members of the California State Legislature, improves the encyclopaedia?  If somebody clicks on a bluelink, they expect to find more information, not just a repetition of the statement that So-And-So was the senator for such-and-such district, which they already know from the table. For example, when somebody clicks on the bluelink at for Randolph Collier under Second District, 1963–66, they expect to find more information but actually find less. Randolph Collier claims he served the First District from 1977–82, when, in fact, he was Senator for the 2nd from 1939–66 and the 1st from 1967–76.  (According to the table, it was Ray Johnson was Senator for the First from 1977-82.)  This was just the first example I chose; I hope the others are more accurate. I'll fix the Collier article in a second but please consider the work you're causing for other editors. (By the way, no need to leave a talkback, since I'm watching this page.) Dricherby (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Randolph Collier now corrected. Also, he was a Senator; his article claimed he was in the Assembly. Please take more care. Dricherby (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take more care. Yes, please do, replacing one error with another doesn't help anyone. Randolph Collier now corrected. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing my fix. Apologies for getting the parties the wrong way round. According to the NYT obit you used as a source, the party change was in 1959, not 1952 or 1963. Cheers, Dricherby (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And thank you for writing a good article on Randolph Collier. I really do think that ten articles like that are much more valuable to the encyclopaedia than a hundred near-empty stubs. Please consider putting your time into that, rather than stub creation. Dricherby (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find that the more recent stubs (the last 100 or so) have a bit more going for them. In response to the feedback in conversations above, most have one or two categories, at least one reference, are marked as stubs and at least one additional piece of information.  It may seem counter intuitive, but I go through a single source and create pages for all of those listed.  I then go to a second source and start through their listing.  If the page already exists, I add more info and another reference to it, eventually it should constitute a full article for each politician.  There are just so many that don't exist.  This is a faster way to get to the end result than doing one article at a time, it just may not look as nice from the start.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that does seem like a faster way to proceed. It's also much more reassuring than some of your earlier comments, which sounded a lot more like you were trying to make a point, rather than create good articles. I certainly agree that a short article with a couple of sourced facts is a big improvement over no article at all. Dricherby (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benoit Poirier d'Ambreville
Hi Aggie80. You declined the creation of the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benoit Poirier d'Ambreville. The author, Inongimke asked me to help with the article and I made some improvements. Could you please take another look and see if d'Ambreville's notability is clear enough now? The article is pretty well sourced from the standpoint of verifiability, and I think the references are sufficient to establish notability. There are 14 reliable, independent sources that discuss d'Ambreville, and several of them very clearly satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement at WP:GNG. In a few cases, citations are to articles in print magazines, but there is a URL linking to a copy of the article on d'Ambreville's website. This should not be a problem: the printed magazine is the referenced source, not the website; the url is a convenience to readers.

Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks.--Srleffler (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that most will agree it meets notability simply because it meets the minimum requirements. However, I would say that it still reads like an essay, with a lot of fluff and peacock words in it.  Words like 'exclusive' and 'upscale.'  Also, dividing up sections for a single sentence doesn't really fit either. In my opinion it is a lot closer, but still needs some work.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made some changes based on your suggestions. I left one occurrence of "upscale" because it seemed like a useful description of the market segment of the businesses described, rather than a gratuitous adjective.--Srleffler (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Anne Janelle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benoit Poirier d'Ambreville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stylist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You "warn" templated the wrong person
See: User_talk:MatthewVanitas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with inline citations
Hi,

Would you be so kind to give me an example in the article I submitted wher I should add an inline citation please? I´m new in this.

Thanks a lot,

Juan Pablo

Article Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Charles_W._Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpvial (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kings of the Sun (band)
Hi. You declined this AfC submission here with the comment "Notability shown by RCA Records deal and time on charts." If an article deals with a notable subject that is suitable for Wikipedia, you should pass the submission - while it can be valid to add wikify or other cleanup templates, these in themselves do not affect the ability for a review to pass. In this case, a quick read of the Billboard magazine source confirmed their notability, so I have passed the article. I hope that clarifies things - if not, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I've had many article rejected because of things like that.  So as long as the notability is obvious and it is close to being in the correct format (and not violating the other obvious problems) you just accept it?  I'll have to learn the problem correction scripts to add in.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the basic rules are "Is it notable? Is it verifiable? Is it suitable?" That's it. "General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission" in the guidelines for reviewing has more information. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:DCOInternet/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:DCOInternet/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

European Conference on Visual Perception
Hi Aggie80, before I resubmit my entry "European Conference on Visual Perception" in Articles for creation (which you reviewed), can I ask your advice? I have added two independent references, moved an external link to the references, and have slightly expanded the text. Are the references now sufficient? I have also written an answer to you on my talk page which I'm not sure you would see (still struggling with Wikipedia techniques here) Strasburger (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are heading in the right direction. The references are good, but more would certainly be better.  I would probably pass it as a stub at this point, not sure how other reviewers would evaluate it.  I'd like to see a larger article with more content as well.  Such things as it drew a 1000 participants should be referenced if possible. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fine. I have polished the text a little and in particular added another reference to a scholarly text (Cavonius, 1999), an eight-page review of the ECVP from the beginning up to 1997. That paper is not open-access, though, so the link to it will not work (I have the paper on my computer). For checking, I could make it available through a hidden link on my homepage. I could also ask the publisher to make it open-access but that might take a while. What is the recommended way? -- Another question: In my answer to you on my takl page I listed Wikipedia articles that I will link to the new entry once it is up. Is that list in itself of use (e.g. for back linking)? (Or just for myself to remember which links to put in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strasburger (talk • contribs) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delaney Davidson Page Creation
Hi Aggie80, I have tried to persevere with the referencing - I am not a computer person so i have had alot to learn! I am hoping that when i finally get there it will be a great satisfaction! Please let me know if i have done better this time with the referncing and anything else. Much appreciated - Pippasouthbound — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippasouthbound (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aggie - Thanks for that - i will keep working the page, making it better  - i find the talk process difficult to work out, so i hope i am doing it the right way. Thanks PippaSouthbound — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippasouthbound (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk is a bit confusing. The TalkBack function is the best thing to use.  The other thing is to use the ~ sign 4 times at the end of your post.  It automatically puts in the link to your talk page and user page.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Fairchild
Hi Aggie80! Is there a reason that you removed the Afc templates and comments from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Fairchild? I was going to leave a message about including the title of the article in a reference, and I noticed that the templates were gone. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, meant to blank the whole thing. The article has already been accepted as David Fairchild (California politician).  (He is my fourth great grandfather, Corydon, who stayed in Ovid NY was my 3rd.) The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, as to your comment, I would, but there is no article title. I can show you the actual articles from the microfilm!  The papers were typically 4 pages, with one or two of the pages being all advertising.  The others were a combination of news copied from other newspapers and whatever literature they could find to fill the space.  The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)


 * Well, if you don't need the page anymore, you can request that it be deleted by adding at the top of the page db-g6|rationale=article is already published with the double curly brackets around it. The admins will make it go away.  I have spent many hours working with old newspapers on microfilm.  In our town we are lucky that the government was giving out money for Centennial projects years ago and the local library decided to hire students to make an index of the local papers from the 1837 up to 1929 at which point they ran out of funds.  The next two towns over had their newspaper buildings burn to the ground before any microfilming could be done. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about notability of article
I recently submitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Xander_Demos and have been denied the submission due to notability issues. However, Xander has been named on another wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._J._Snare under his discography section. Shouldn't that give him enough notability to be cross-referenced on his own page?

Nova5282 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't. Notability is not inherited or based only on relationships. An individual has to have to be notable on their own merits and with their own independent references.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

Talkback
Mat ty. 007 16:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Rejection of Article on Dinorah Varsi I added press quotes from Germany and Spain to underline "notability" of subject. I would like to point out that Varsi won first prize in the Concours Clara Haskil in Lucerne, in 1967 (may be checked on the Haskil page) This is a major international competition which has produced, inter alia, major pianists and conductors such as Richard Goode and Christoph Eschenbach. Also, Varsi recorded, among other labels, for Phillips, EMI and Deutsche Harmonia Mundi, major recording labels. These two last items are included among the criteria for notability in classical music according to Wikipedia. Please let me know if further changes are required. Thank you very much. Alberto Reyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoreyes (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Rejection of Article about Aveleen Avide
Hi Aggie80, you just declined my article about Aveleen Avide with this comment:

"No independent references supplied. Wikipedia and self made web sites are not sufficient. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80"

The sources you're referring to weren't even my references though - they were just additional weblinks. The references were/ are listed under "references", one section below the "weblinks" that actually lead to the Wikipedia and self made websites. Would you please check that again? Thanks and best regards. Avide Project (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Frank Bencriscutto significantly revised/expanded
Hi! Thanks for reviewing my submission for a new article on Frank Bencriscutto. Could you take a look at it again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Frank_Bencriscutto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darb02 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)