User talk:Blythwood/2016/August

Library Project
Thanks for making changes to the page Cecil Barror. Its good to get feedback as this is the first page I have created on Wikipedia.Libraryproject (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Bach cantatas
Thank you for your message regarding Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728‎. If I had known that it related to the works of Bach, then I would not have nominated it for deletion -- as I explained in the AfD, the article was titled in such a way that the link to Bach was not obvious. There was also no explanatory material which made that link (at the time of nomination, the article consisted of a table) or expressed any claim to notability, and there were no secondary references -- secondary references were not added until long after my nomination. As I am sure you will appreciate, on examination of the revision of the article at the time I nominated it for AfD, it was very difficult to discern why the subject matter was worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. The article has now been fleshed out and, accordingly, I withdrew my nomination for deletion earlier today. Kind regards,  Specto73 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - fair enough. I've gone through the history and seen the diff you tagged for deletion, and I sympathise. This is one reason why when looking at new pages I often look at a user's join date and edit count on Special:NewPagesFeed before doing anything rash. Every now and then you encounter editors who do constructive work but are not so familiar with formatting, standards that expect an article to be finished before posting, or who just haven't figured out draftspace. (Things like this whose creator said he hoped it would encourage someone else to finish it...) I most often see this in editors who registered a long time ago when standards were weaker but who haven't made that many edits recently - very often a message asking if they can get the article to a minimum viable product state as soon as possible is all that's needed. Blythwood (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's why you should never Bach down, even when no one else has your Bach. I've got to go now, but I'll be Bach. MSJapan (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Electro-diesel multiple unit
Thanks for taking the time to review this page and sort out the odd bits that needed doing, much appreciated! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Rank and File
Hello. Thank you very much for your nice review. I did my best.

Are you sure that this was Play for Today and not The Wednesday Play? It says The Wednesday Play on this BBC page.

Cheers. Epa101 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies! I've just realised that a different user did that edit.

Thanks
Thank you for patrolling and adding to William Matthews (priest). That was an important distinction that I overlooked. If you are so inclined, would you care to weigh in on the article's DYK nomination?  Ergo Sum  19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping
FYI, editing a preexisting comment to add a ping will not ping the user. For it to go through, it has to be solely an addition of content (not removal + addition) and has to contain a new signature. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - ah, drat, thanks. Should probably know that. I hope I've made it work now. Blythwood (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Antarctic Women Wikibomb
Hi Blythwood, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please forgive any errors, but I see you asked if I was involved in an Australian women academic Wikibomb initiative. I just wanted to let you know that I don't know anything about the one. The wikibomb I am involved with is the Antarctic Women WIkibomb here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR_2016 Cheers Janstrugnell (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. Best of luck with this - it sounds like a valuable project. Blythwood (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
for your encouraging new Australian editors in yesterdays bunch as I have gone through, I have thoughts regarding some of your comments but will leave any discussion on that to some other time

as it is thanks for your support of the new editors JarrahTree 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly suggest you try archiving your talk page, it is hard to negotiate being so big... JarrahTree 14:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Debbie C. Crans
Thanks for your prompt review! Is it OK to cite Google Scholar to support the statement "has been highly cited"? It seemed the best way to support the statement. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - eh, it verges on own research rules (what standard are we using to judge highly cited? etc.) but it seems reasonable enough to me. Hope your event is going well! Blythwood (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right
A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at  New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog
The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap: You naturally  don't  have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 13 July 2016: 7,000
 * 1 August 2016: 9,000
 * 7 August 2016: 10,472
 * 16 August 2016: 11,500
 * 28 August 2016: 13,158

QuoteWizard
Hey Blythwood, Thanks for reviewing the QuoteWizard page as it is up for speedy deletion. I wanted to get more specific suggestions from you about the contents of the page being too promotional or my status being a conflict of interest. Understanding why our content is in violation will help me revise content to fit the guidelines. Once I have a revised content I would like you or another editor to proofread it. Please advise. Adam CJohnson (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for page review
Hello there Blythwood! Thank you for reviewing the page I started on Todd and Clare. This was my first Wiki page, so please bear with me. Todd and Clare is the first and only member of the United Nations Global Compact to be a dating site--and on that UN basis--I was thinking the dating website is notable as a stub? What made me set up the article is because I think what makes Todd and Clare interesting is because of their membership of the United Nations Global Compact office in New York, which obviously isn't a promotional media outlet. I haven't removed the proposed deletion on the page, as I wanted to check with you first what the best course of action would be to take if Todd and Clare should be left as a stub? Kind regards, Katy Narniakaty15 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits
hi, Thanks for your edits in Assumption Cathedral, Kalocsa.--Warairarepano&#38;Guaicaipuro (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Article
Hello...I was wondering what needs to be changed in my CrewSafe article for it to become approved. I wrote it with no bias tone, so I was wondering what was bias about it? I appreciate your help! Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleyannv (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)