User talk:Gronk Oz/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!

Thanks for your points on List of medical mnemonics. If you happen to be surfing past any more anatomy-related articles, a very untended lot, please feel free to leave a message on the talk page, make improvements, or contact us at WP:ANATOMY! Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to DYK
Hello, Gronk Oz. New DYK nominations have to have their own individual templates and then transcluded to the main nominations page (like below). We created that template for you by copying and pasting what you had left onto a template. Here's hoping you submit more nominations to DYK. But next time you do, just go to Template talk:Did you know:To nominate an article. Then input the article title in the blank where it says "Your Article Title", and click Create Nomination. It then takes you to a page where you input the rest. After you've created the template, transcluding it is simple. If you open this thread I'm typing into your edit window, you'll see how to do the transclusion. I've transcluded the nomination template here on your talk page. Good luck, and thank you for contributing to DYK. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

---
 * , you are a truly wonderful human being. You have no idea how grateful I am for your assistance with this. Since I wrote the article, I have spent two days trying to penetrate the convoluted, contradictory instructions for DYK.  In the end, I chose to follow the instructions at Did you know/Nomination but obviously they were not the right ones.  Now that I know which instructions are the right ones, it's all smooth sailing from here on!  Thank you so very much!  --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Astronomical Society of New South Wales
The DYK project (nominate) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Readable page size
Hi again. When we calculate page size, we don't look at the byte totals, but at character counts. I paste the text (excluding headers, footnotes, charts, text boxes, and captions) into this tool to get the character count and figure out 5x expansions. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the work you are doing on the demographics!

Kerry (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 

BLP expansion
Hi, I suggest you familiarize yourself with two other pages, Did you know (the basic rules) and Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. On neither of these pages is the 2x BLP rule spelled out, but in my years of working on DYK, I can tell you that other experienced editors always point out that the BLP must have absolutely no refs to qualify for the 2x expansion. Even an external link counts as a ref. Good luck, Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, - I will read up on those. As a relative newbie, it is frustrating to keep bumping into all these conflicting instructions and rules, so I appreciate you taking the time to clarify it for me. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been around since 2005 so hardly a newbie, but I share your frustration with policies and processes. There's loads of them, they often poorly documented, and they are also constantly changing. So don't take it personally. We are all travelling in the same leaky boat! :-) Kerry (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flim-Flam!
Hello! Your submission of Flim-Flam! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

probably in wrong spot but...
Why did you delete my question on teahouse? --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry; I did not delete your question intentionally. If I did it accidentally, then you have my profound apologies.
 * The situation was this: another user had left a question which overlapped with the Teahouse headings, so I edited the whole page (normally I would just edit one section at a time). When I went to save my changes, there was an edit conflict - that was probably you asking your question. I thought I had recovered all the input, but perhaps I missed yours in the conflicting changes. My fault completely.
 * I see that you asked your question again, which is great - the Teahouse is a tremendous resource which has helped me a lot and I hope I didn't put you off using it. Did you get the answers you needed?  If not, I can help with those ones. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Everyone is so nice on Wikipedia! You deserve a cookie. --DangerousJXD (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maynard (broadcaster)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bart Bok
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Flim-Flam!
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy
Please don't add double headers to people talk pages, its irritating William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * U|William M. Connolley - I agree and I apologize. I included one heading, and then the transcluded template added another one automatically. Next time I will know better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Innsbrucker Hütte
Please try not to be so anxious getting stuff deleted. There is really no hurry. Consider taking it to AFD and making a good case for why you want it deleted. --Hegvald (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, - I allowed the other editor's personal insults and refusal to follow the process and discuss matters to get under my skin. And that is not the best way to be.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - I notice that you also removed the Unreferenced tag from this article. It has no references at all, so can you explain why you removed it?  --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't notice it when I undid your speedy edit. Anyway, please give the article a week or so and see what happens. Even then, I think you should consider whether the content isn't mergeable somewhere (Habicht?) before trying to get it deleted. Unless one is dealing with a BLP making some horrible accusation against some person (or something of that sort), there is hardly ever any hurry to delete a page. --Hegvald (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that, . Another editor has tagged the article in the meantime, so as you suggest, I will withdraw for a while. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Teahouse/Questions, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in Teahouse
Thanks for answering my question in the Teahouse :) SerieLover (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I have noticed that you may be a little too eager to give nominations for speedy deletion: BTW, I appreciate your work in the Teahouse. —teb728 t c 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You nominated G K Bharad Institute of Engineering under A7, but A7 explicitly excludes educational institutions. (Don’t feel bad: I’ve made the same mistake, and an admin bought your nomination.)
 * You nominated Innsbrucker Hütte under A7 and G12. In the first place I don’t see anything the least bit promotional in the article. And from your comments, you seem to think that references are needed—not so: any credible indication of significance is enough. So far the article doesn’t have much indication of significance; to my mind the closest thing is that it is a station on the Stubai Hohenweg, and even that link was not in the version that you nominated.


 * Thanks for your comments, - it is hard to get feedback on this sort of thing so I do appreciate it. Especially that you did so without biting my head off. I am still trying to get the numerous strategies really clear in my head for when I find what appears to be a problem: when to tag speedy deletion, or to add a tag like Notability, or start the AfD process. And the subtleties of the codes will take more study; maybe I need to print them out and stick them up on my wall (it's an old-school approach I know, but it's always worked for me). So I will slow down a lot, take a couple of deep breaths, check the code's definition and give more benefit of the doubt before adding those tags in future.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Vivaldi Partners Group
Hi, you called me out as a single-issue user on the Vivaldi Partners Group page. To clarify, I have edited articles before, but without a user - I needed a username to start an article. Sam_Milne (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, . I have put a copy of your message onto the article's Talk page so it is visible to other editors involved in the discussion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dupree and Asa Gray
I've got the Peters hook under 200 now. Take a look at Asa Gray. I've used the the Dupree book (and other sources) to vastly improve Asa Gray. I have a bit more to do. It was when I was reading Dupree yesterday that I came across the fascinating story of Peters and decided make the Peters article. Thanks for the DYK review. HalfGig  talk  13:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, - the Asa Gray page looks great, and the Dupree book certainly fills out a lot of the information there.  I have given my approval for the DYK, but another editor might always disagree so keep watching it for other comments.  Good luck! --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone brought up what I think is a minor point. Please revisit.  HalfGig   talk  19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Warrick Couch
Harrias talk 09:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * and here's what I can offer about your article. Let me preface this by saying I don't write bios, I live north of the equator and all I know about astronomy is it is not astrology. That being said:


 * 1) You need to shorten the lede. It should only briefly summarize the most important parts of the article.
 * 2) Parts of it read like a CV. I'd lose the lists of publications and of positions and only discuss the most important in prose.
 * 3) Parts, especially the personal stuff, reads like an essay. Frankly, it makes me wonder if you may possibly have a close connection to the subject. You should rewrite it in a dryer tone.
 * 4) Lastly, lose the Twitter link. We don't put links to social media in external links sections.

You may want to contact the reviewing editor to see if he has any further advice. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Brlliant, thanks for that, . I will work on those points.  To set your mind at ease, I do not have a relationship with the subject. I met him just once very briefly after a public talk he gave. The reason that the personal material probably sounds "like an essay" is that most of it was sourced from a single audio interview he gave.
 * I am a bit puzzled by your mention of a "list of publications", because I used to have one but I removed it before publishing the article. Now there is a text description of how many publications he has and the citations of those, along with the associated recognitions as a "high citation" researcher.  There is the list of awards; is that what you meant?
 * I did also leave a message on the Talk page of the user who added the WikiProject boxes, assuming they might have been the one who did the review; I am looking forward to their input as well.
 * Once again, thanks - it is frustrating to have nothing to show were the problems are, and your response really helps!--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gronk Oz. I read the article too, and I have some additional comments.  Information in the article should not be cited back to sources created by the subject himself, except, sparingly, to mundane facts such as where he went to high school or some such, and only then temporarily until a reliable independent source can be found.  Words he has written or spoken tell what he believed was important about himself and his work - but that it not what is needed in an encyclopedia article.  Instead what should  be included is a summary of facts about him that professional writers or experts thought important enough to be published, and with which their editors agreed after careful checking for error.  Otherwise, what we have is a memoir or a tribute.  Independently published interviews can be used as references, but only the words of the interviewer are considered to be reliable and independent, since the words of the interviewee are usually written verbatim without fact-checking and often contain unsubstantiated opinion.  I hope that you will continue to adjust the article text with this in mind, taking into account as well John from Idegon's excellent advice.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to send those comments, . I have admit it was something I struggled with, since scientists generally publish their work and subsequent work cites it, but does not generally write about it at length - that is something that is done more for a lay audience. Even the interview was mostly a question-and-answer format, so not much help. Ah, it seems that I have so much still to learn; thank you for helping me along the process.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, Gronk Oz, that many journal articles cite another researcher's work with only a brief mention. However, if a particular scientist's work is considered important outside of his or her narrow group of associates, someone will write about it in a magazine, or the topic will be covered in a book  or there will be a column about him in a newspaper , etc.  By the way, YouTube is not considered a reliable publication.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Warrick Couch
The reason I gave it a C rather than a B was that it reads like a puff piece, not as a balanced article. Of course it has always been questionable whether Wikipedia should have articles on living people, because career objectives conflict with the search for knowledge.--Grahame (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know, . I appreciate the irony that even for a scientist, whose career is all about the search for knowledge, one can still say that "career objectives conflict with the search for knowledge".  I will re-examine how I write biographies in light of your comments, and I will review some of the more highly-rated biographical articles to get a better understanding of the distinction.  Thanks again for your guidance.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Person data
Hi Gronk, Thanks for ypur contribution to Yazıcıoğlu Ali. However I moved the title. Although the text is basicly the same, the title now is about a book rather than a person. Do we still need person data? Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention, . You are quite right; I have removed the Persondata from Selçukname.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!


Thanks for thanks
Hello Gronk Oz, you sent me a "thanks" for my comment in the Teahouse (Revision as of 14:09, 4 April 2015) on a question by Maxim Pouska. Thanks for your thanks :-).

The reason for my comment was that it took me a few minutes to understand the question posted by Maxim Pouska. Judging from his formulations he clearly is a native German speaker, and I needed my knowledge of German to help me understand his English. I got the feeling that English readers unfamiliar with German might have more trouble than me understanding his question, so I stepped in and interposed a clarification (of what I suspect to be his intended meaning).

I see on your user page that you have strong experience and background in both Mathematics and Computer Science. (Myself, I'm a computer programmer with MSc Electrical Engineering background.) As I wrote in another section in the Teahouse, I'm currently considering starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics about changing the title of the article Montgomery reduction (the article is about a certain method for fast multiplication). Do your interests include algorithms for fast arithmetic?, and would you by any chance be willing to look over my proposal for the renaming of that article? If and when I actually get to posting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, then can I alert you and invite you to look over my renaming proposal and maybe give your opinion? (Feel free to decline if your current package of interests has too little overlap with the Montgomery subject.)

With best regards, MRaccoon (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, . When I saw your Teahouse question about Montgomery reduction, I was struck by how thoughtful and well-considered it was, both technically and in terms of the Wikipedia community standards - and how well you expressed those thoughts. I am not a very experienced editor myself and I thought it best to let somebody give a more informed answer to your question, so as the old saying goes, "drawing on my command of the English language, I said nothing." Then when I saw you offering to help another editor, I had to do something to acknowledge that you're on the right path.
 * As for the article in question, I started reading it and now I am starting to develop an interest in the topic. (This is the danger of Wikipedia!)  So yes, I would be happy to look over the proposal and make comments, although this is not my area of expertise.  Also, keep in mind that as well as renaming an article, there is also the possibility of using a "redirection".  For example of a redirection, the "Anglo Australian Observatory" was renamed as the "Australian Astronomical Observatory".  But many people still use the old name, so if they use either name they will end up at the same article: there is a redirect from the old name to the new one.  I look forward to getting my teeth into some mathematics again; it has been too long! --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Gronk Oz, thank you for your very polite reply.


 * One thing that caused me to write in response to your thanks was your (to me) extremely likable sentence "Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees." on your user page. I'm not sure whether with the following question I'm overstepping the bounds of discretion, but are you familiar with MBTI, and could my feeling be correct that in that system of classification of "psychological" preferences you are in the same category as I am, namely INTP?  Please ignore this if you do not like to publish that information.


 * Many thanks for your volunteering to give feedback on my (future) proposal regarding the Montgomery reduction article. That would be very helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRaccoon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On the Montgomery thing, I am constantly in doubt myself whether I really have time for it. I have a feeling of getting drawn into it whether I like or not.  The problem is that I am pretty sure that I could make improvements to the explanation of Montgomery multiplication in the Montgomery reduction article.  My main trouble is finding a way to limit the time I put into it.  I am pretty sure that in the end, writing a separate and completely new explanation of Montgomery multiplication (e.g. on a webpage of my own) would cost me less time than improving the Wikipedia article -- considering all the interaction and discussion involved in editing the Wikipedia article (which interaction and discussion I obviously believe to be necessarily inherent in a group project like Wikipedia).  However, Wikipedia has in the past been of great use to me, and improving the Montgomery reduction article seemed like a way in which I could partly pay back and do something in return.


 * So my goal would be to try at first to make a few few small changes in the Montgomery reduction article. I already outlined the main changes I would like to make in Talk:Montgomery_reduction (but I will post a better-formulated proposal on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics).


 * (By the way: I understood that with a rename, the redirection is always created as well, either automatically or as a standard procedure. Is that correct?)


 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was that a redirection would not suffice for the improvement I am envisaging. Namely, the "rename" I will be proposing doesn't include only changing the article title, but also the header text of the article (I mean the brief introductory text before the Table of Contents -- what is the technical term for it?).  What I would like to do is to clearly write there that the main topic of the article is Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, and that Montgomery REDUCTION is only a subroutine inside Montgomery multiplication.  In the present article, one thing that confused me on first reading was that the subroutine (= the Reduction) seems to be presented as the main thing, not only in the article title, but also in the header text.


 * Writing this, I now discover that I should maybe present my "rename" proposal clearly and explicitly as a combined proposal, of which one element is to rewrite the header text, and the other element to change the article title. What do you think?


 * Sorry for the long posting. Do inform me when this size of posting is less fitting (in general or here on your Talk page).


 * With best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've been a bit slow to respond, ; real life (family stuff) has been busy over the Easter break. You raised a bunch of points, so let's see how I go addressing them:
 * I had a boss who was really into MBTI a while ago, so I read up on it then. From memory, I was ISTJ or ISTP (it varied each time).
 * I am glad to see you appreciate what a big job a rewrite can be. It always looks so seductively simple before you start. Then "the devil is in the details" and it blows out bigger than you imagined.  That's my experience, anyway.
 * Now that I understand your proposal better, I agree that is more than simply a redirect. Anyway, the first question is whether the existing page should be expanded in scope to become Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, or whether that should be a separate article. That is, should the final result be one page or two?  That would be a discussion to have with the experts in the subject.
 * I absolutely support the idea of starting small, with improvements to the existing article. If the rewrite happens, those improvements will be carried into it, so the effort will be valuable no matter which way it turns out.
 * WP doesn't "rename" pages in the strict sense: it moves them. In practice it's the same, but using that terminology makes it easier to look up the instructions, etc. I have not actually done a move (I told you I'm not the most experienced editor!)  My understanding is that redirection from the old page is created automatically. All the details are at WP:MOVE.
 * Finally, reading the comments, there are mentions of other terms and it is not clear to me whether they are separate aspects which might also need to be catered for: " Montgomery modular multiplication" and "modular exponentiation". Apparently there are different issues for the two, so this might affect the choice of one page or two (or three?) --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gronk Oz, thank you for your friendly and helpful reply. Sorry to have mistaken you for an "N".

Of course I meant "rename" as a synonym of "move". Thanks for your reply on the rename/move. I will try be careful in my terminology when writing my proposal to be posted on the Mathematics project talk page.

You write: >> Anyway, the first question is whether the existing page should be expanded in scope to become Montgomery MULTIPLICATION, or whether that should be a separate article. That is, should the final result be one page or two? That would be a discussion to have with the experts in the subject. <<

That is a good point, thank you. I will ponder this and integrate this in the posting I will write on the Mathematics project talk page.

With regard to your last paragraph :  It is vital to understand that all of the Montgomery stuff is exclusively only about modular arithmetic. The whole Montgomery idea applies strictly only to modular arithmetic. (Which is extremely clear from Montgomery's 1985 paper but could maybe be stated more clearly or prominently in the WP article.) I.e. whenever the term "Montgomery multiplication" (or addition, or exponentiation) is used, it is understood that it is modular multiplication (or addition, or exponentiation, and so on).

In the Montgomery representation, you can execute any type of modular arithmetic, i.e. you can do e.g. (modular) addition, (modular) subtraction, as well as (modular) multiplication. The reason why multiplication is stressed is because it is for multiplication (and not for e.g. addition) that the Montgomery idea yields a speed-up. I.e. one uses the Montgomery idea when one has a computation that includes many (modular!) multiplication operations. Therefore, it seems right to me that "multiplication" (i.e. modular multiplication) is the keyword under which the Montgomery idea (method, invention, discovery, algorithm) is classified. (As Montgomery himself also did, since he titled his 1985 paper "Modular Multiplication Without Trial Divison", whereas in it he describes the whole thing, including all other (modular) arithmetic operations that are possible in his number representation.)

Further, modular exponentiation (i.e., "Montgomery modular exponentiation") is mentioned in the WP article, I think, because it seems to be the primary example of a calculation that involves many multiplications -- i.e. a good example of a calculation where the Montgomery idea yields a large speedup. If I understand correctly, then modular exponentiation is typically carried out by successively squaring the operand to be raised to the given power, then summing the relevant squares (this is explained in an easy-to-read way in the webpage by Martin Kochanski = item Nr 2 in the Reference section in the Montgomery reduction article). I.e., I am pretty sure that the exponentiation is mentioned in the WP article because it is the most obvious useful application (and maybe also the most-used application) of Montgomery modular multiplication. Therefore, mentioning of modular exponentiation, as an example of an area of application of the Montgomery idea, is IMO definitely on topic in an article on Montgomery modular multiplication.

There does not exist a specific algorithm for exponentiation in the Montgomery representation. In the Montgomery representation, exponentation is simply performed exactly in the same way as in any other number representation (namely, for example by successive squaring). Therefore, in my view, "Montgomery exponentiation" does not deserve a separate WP article.

Thanks again for your replies, which have been very helpful to me towards writing a better proposal on improving the Montgomery article. I hope to post a first proposal on the Mathematics talk page in a few days. With best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: Hello Gronk Oz, this is to inform you that I've just posted my proposal concerning the Montgomery reduction article on the Mathematics project talk page, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I would cordially invite also your comments there, if and when you have time.  Many thanks in advance.
 * BTW: It is clearly very presumptuous for me as a new user to say this, but I loved your comment on the teahouse, about whether veteran editors are "officially above criticism". :-) If you're an "S" type in the MBTI, then I would tend to peg you as an ISTP (a type that is described as generally impatient with and irreverent towards authority) rather than ISTJ.  It's the same with me.  I greatly respect people who by copious contributions have gained a high-status position, but also have a strong streak of distrust of "experts" and "authority figures" (I mean that as a general statement independent of Wikipedia; I do not intend here to criticize how Wikipedia is run).  --MRaccoon (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well,, you obviously made a very convincing case because D.Lazard has made the move already! And he put the logical redirections in place so that one article should cover everything well.  (I love redirections for this sort of issue; they save you from having to make awkward choices, and allow the reader to find the article they want.)  Ozob is right about being bold, but the corollary to that is often "be bold, but not reckless" and the line between them is often hard to discern, so I think you did the right thing by asking. Now, as the other commentators on the Mathematics project point out, you have their encouragement to proceed.  And if you come across questions which don't get answered on the page's Talk page, you know where to go for some expert help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Gronk Oz, I've seen it, thank you. I have to say that I am finding the Wikipedia community quite very civil and polite, and also open and helpful.  Thank you again for your help and encouragement, & with best regards, --MRaccoon (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your merger tag on Edina, Minnesota article
Hi, Gronk Oz, I'm not following the rationale for why you proposed merging the article Edina, Minnesota with what appears to be an article that does not currently exist. Could you let the rest of us editors know what you have in mind in the talk page discussion I have opened on the talk page for the existing article? See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention, - I will do that straight away.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Wow - that's such a surprise,, and such an honour coming from you - I have always seen you as a model to aspire to. (Should that say "a model to which to aspire"?)  Anyway, I'm not officially a host, I just pitch in where I think I can help, and I try to do more good than harm.  So thank you!--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashestoangels
I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, . --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding new User:Aniltheultimate
Do you believe thus is reliable source?

This looks like a website starting with :  http://www.darkmoon.in/mrx-review

But when i opened it, it became this: http://blog.darkmoon.in/bollywood-horror/mr-x-film-review/ -- C E  (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I honestly don't know whether that source is reliable or not, nor whether the reviewer is well regarded in the field; it's not my area at all.  That's why I have been pushing in the Teahouse that the best approach is to discuss it at the article's Talk page, where the points for and against it can be examined. Website redirections like you describe are common practice, so I don't think that is a factor one way or the other. I got the impression that Aniltheultimate only understood part of the problem with using a blog; he/she seemed to get the possibility of it not being independent, but not the question about whether it was reliable.  WP:BLOG allows limited use of blogs with care, where appropriate so if he still thinks it is worth pursuing (and I guess he does, because he put it back) then it's worth having the discussion - if nothing else, a new editor may learn something from a well-conducted, fact-based discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How did you get here?
Dear Mr. Gronk, or is it Mr. Oz, thanks for getting me to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mold&diff=prev&oldid=639658991. Can you tell me how you got here? Thanks.69.230.179.59 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I wish I could lay claim to something really clever, but it was just brute force and ignorance.  I saw the question at the TeaHouse, so I went to have a look at the Mold article.  I clicked on the "View History" tab and browsed them.  About half-way down, I saw couple of edits to the section "Molds in art" and a quick look showed it was the insertion and deletion of the material in question.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Costello (fashion designer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Costello (fashion designer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael Costello (fashion designer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I notice that you nominated this article for speedy deletion as A7 - Non notable on th 18th April. It was so deleted but it has been recreated. I do not believe that the subject is any more notable today than it was one month ago. I B Wright (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this, - I will put in my two cents over at the AfD discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May I quote you?
Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees.


 * We Ozians seem to think in similar ways. It must have something to do with our national separateness from the human race.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I would be honoured - help yourself! --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Challenge
Please chat with me on Broken Valors speedy deletion. I tried to write it in a encyclopedic method. Please inform me what is wrong Traceymak (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for starting the conversation.  The difficulty with this article, and with most articles about bands in their early days, is that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for what is called "notability".  In general, encyclopaedias of any type don't include articles about everybody and everything - just those that are most widely known and covered. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.  The general guideline is that the subject needs to have a "credible claim of significance", by showing that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  The detailed explanation can be found at Notability, and there is a section outlining the specific considerations for bands at WP:BAND.
 * In practice, this normally means showing extensive coverage in reputable newspapers, major magazines, books, etc. There is no mention of anything along those in your article, and a quick Web search did not reveal any news coverage about the band.  I found their own Facebook and Twitter pages, but those tell me what they say about themselves which does not contribute to notability. And there were a couple of "What's On"-type listings, but again that does not establish their notability.
 * Of course, it is quite possible that there is coverage which I missed. If so, your first action should be to contest the deletion and explain that situation.  Then it will be a matter of expanding the article to include the relevant references.  But if that coverage is not there yet, then their article will need to wait until they are better known. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I just noticed that another of your articles, Justin Michael Bell, has also been proposed for speedy deletion due to lack of notability. This needs the same sort of attention as above. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying References Issues and Thanking You
Hello, This Proloumbo

Firstly, I want to thank you for explaining clearly the problems and where I have gone wrong. It was a relief to wake up to your messsage, as I had read the guidelines quite thoroughly and was quite bemused by the end of yesterday. Would it be possible for you to help me clarify a few things to help me going forward?

The first question is: Are you saying that Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations are NOT reliable sources, even when they have been accepted and are available? Or are you saying that the one you mentioned is unacceptable because it is a Masters by Papers. The University in that case offers a post-graduate degree 'by papers', rather than by a single Thesis or Dissertation. I should really know the answer to this before proceeding with any further work. The second question is, rather than using the cite reference, can I add the URL of where the paper is available online, after the reference. That would suit me, because I do all my research outside of the Wikipedia editor, but pasting in url's, though extra work, would be fine for me. Lastly, can you tell me if the article Bertold Wiesner is also needing the ref improve tag on it, which was put there by Bronan, so I know if I have to do any more work on it. It took a huge amount of work to gather ll the information for that, and I thought I had been pretty thorough. But maybe not. I will go through the audio therapy article and clarify each reference when I have finished the few articles I am working on now. And I will cease referring to Masters and Doctoral Theses if that is prohibited. Again, thank you for your kindness. It makes such a difference to incentive. Best wishes

PS: I founf the answer to one question: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised.......etc

--Prolumbo (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I apoplogize for the delay in replying; I am currently on an extended road trip, and I only have occasional access to a computer at the moment.  I will try to answer, but it may be a while before I can converse again.
 * Firstly, I encourage you to take heart. The article is good.  And there is still room to improve it.  That is how Wikipedia works, and it shows that you're on the right path.  Placing a tag such as Refimprove on an article is part of that process, guiding editors where to spend their time on improving articles.
 * The issue of what is a "reliable source" is one of the trickiest in Wikipedia. There is no single answer; it depends on what claim the source is being used to support. As a simple example, a company's own Web site may be fine for supporting "their head office is in Springfield" but not "they are the leaders in their industry".  In general, and this is very general, a reliable source will be subject to a thorough editorial or peer review.  This does not guarantee the quality of the information there, but it is much better than nothing. This is why professional journals and well-regarded newspapers are generally considered very reliable, whereas self-published items are much less. Secondary sources are much preferred to primary sources, since they provide some oversight and balance (see WP:PRIMARY). There is a lengthy discussion of all this at WP:RS; you may not wish to read the whole thing (and I wouldn't blame you), but it would be good to look at the lead and the sections entitled "Scholarship" and "Medical claims".
 * Regarding the way the sources are cited, it is best to provide as much information as possible to allow readers to find the sources for themselves. If an online source is available, then the URL is great.  ISBN for books is also a huge help.  Most of the references in that article are fine, so there is just a few that could do with some improvement.
 * For questions about the reliability of particular sources, you can ask the experts at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't be shy to let them know that you're not very familiar with Wikipedia's conventions and they will help out.
 * As a final note, the normal practice with discussions would be to reply on the same page (in this case, your discussion page) and ping the other person to notify them. The advantage of this is that the discussion thread is kept in one place, so it's easier to follow. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Loretta Marron
Hello! Your submission of Loretta Marron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Loretta Marron
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor typo
Just giving you a heads up (in case it isn't on your watchlist) that I corrected a slight typo on your user page (which is very nicely laid-out, by the way). Please revert if you object, and I apologize in advance if I have offended. Happy editing, GrammarFascist   contribs talk 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, . Good catch. I'm just relieved that you didn't take exception to the heading "Stuff wot I dun". --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--


 * Signing with false date to allow this section to be archived.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Astronomical Society of Victoria) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Astronomical Society of Victoria, Gronk Oz!

Wikipedia editor Grand'mere Eugene just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Well done. Sorry to see that 2 photos were deleted from commons for lack of OTRS permission."

To reply, leave a comment on Grand'mere Eugene's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.
 * Signing with false date to allow this section to be archived.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

 * Signing with false date to allow this section to be archived.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

2 Headed Dog
Hello! This page has actually been live for a short amount of time and is a joint effort between myself, a social media liaison, and troupe members Craig Anton, Mark Fite, Dave Allen (actor), and Jim Turner (comedian). It is not complete, but I have already linked and referenced well-known comedy shows and festivals 2HD has participated in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirkinitup (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, . I will reply on the article's Talk page, so that all the discussion is available to all editors. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Using teahouse talkback template
Hey there, I'm leaving you this note because I noticed that you forget to leave a teahouse talkbalk notice on 's talk page, this may have been a mistake or you may not know this but please remember to leave a teahouse talkback notice on users' talk pages after replying to them with, just as I did here. Thanks, feel free to delete this message. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have never heard of that template before; I always just pinged the user in question.  I will add this to my notes so I don't forget it; thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of the five host expectations, useful scripts for adding various teahouse templates can be found here! Face-smile.svg &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 17:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's good to see, . I will take a look around that "Host lounge" as well; some good ideas there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Matagarup
I removed the tags because there was no explanation at all what issues were had with the page, and everything there was sourced - including most of the issues you noted in your comment on my talk page, strangely enough (it is perplexing to challenge the validity of statements that are in basically all the media coverage and not disputed by either side - the council is certainly not denying they're raiding them, or that they've refused their right to camp). I'm certainly not arguing that it couldn't be improved, but you should lay out any issues you have (that actually hold up) on the talk page if you want to tag it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Software bug or wetware glitch?
I noticed this edit, which added to the lead a copy of a link that was tagged as dead. If this is an issue with reFill rather than your fingers, Zhaofeng Li might want to know about it. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing that out and for fixing it. I think it must have been my error, because that URL is one that I tagged as a dead link later in the article.  I must have somehow pasted it there by accident.  I will keep a close eye on ReFill just to make sure, but I think the cause is finger trouble.  Thanks again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Vaughan
Hi Gronk Oz, looks like the issue with Dorothy Vaughan has been cleared up. Thanks for reaching out, look forward to perusing your pages, looks like we share some of the same interests. (Margotleeshetterly (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)).


 * I'm glad that came to a happy result, . I am keenly aware that Wikipedia's policy of needing robust references, while laudable for promoting verifiability, can make it very difficult to support articles about whole groups of people who were largely excluded from coverage in the media. Many women, for instance, played major roles in well-known technical and scientific advances, but they were not written about, they were not given awards, they were ignored and forgotten.  This makes it very difficult to build encyclopaedia articles about them.
 * This article would still benefit from being fleshed out with more references, as you uncover them. No rush, but it's something to bear in mind as you work on other articles - you may come across material which also relates to this article. All the best, --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Over hasty A3 speedy deletion nomination
Hello. This A3 CSD nomination, less than 2 minutes after the article has been created, is specifically discouraged by the New page patrol instructions, which say: "Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision." In cases like this, where users are clearly acting in good faith to add content (even if we apparently already have an article on it) we shouldn't scare them away with over hasty speedy deletion nominations. Give users time. Valenciano (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wow, there's yet another set of secret, hidden rules in Wikipedia; why does that not come as a surprise... Your comment makes sense in general, but I'm not so sure in this case.  Perhaps I would be more inclined to go along with you if the same user had not already created the same "article", with the same lack of content, and had it speedy deleted before on the same basis.  You might have come to the conclusion that they are "clearly acting in good faith" somehow, but I find that becomes less apparent when they repeat the same behaviour, and that editor never did return to make any improvements to the article.  So I appreciate your feedback and I will hold off pulling the trigger for similar issues in future, balanced with common sense.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a hidden, secret rule, it's displayed prominently at the top of New Pages Patrol and on the CSD page itself. The article was indeed deleted before, but it's more than possible that it was also hastily speedy nominated in that case. Bad faith would only apply if the user was restoring a clearly inappropriate article (copyvio, attack page, repeated spamming of a business etc) but an article about a geographical place outside the anglosphere is not only perfectly valid, it's exactly the type of article we need to overcome systematic bias. I disagree anyway that "Cruces is a place in Panama" even qualifies under the A3 criteria. That seems to me to establish clear context about what the subject is about (CSD.A3:"a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context"). Sure, it would have helped greatly if the contributor had specified exactly which Cruces they mean, but I see no attempt at guiding them, just faceless templating, exactly the type of biting which many have identified as a reason for the decline in new editors here. I've made exactly the same mistakes myself, but, in the case of A1 and A3 there really is no mad rush and nothing to gain by such nominations. 2 minutes is definitely too soon. Valenciano (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're all learning, . Out of more than five million articles on Wikipedia, I think it is a bit unrealistic to expect that every editor will somehow stumble across that one about "new page patrol".  I had not, and I was not aware of it until your note. I don't use the word "secret" to indicate that it is deliberately kept from people, but merely that a well-meaning person of normal intelligence and diligence could not reasonably be expected to find it if they don't know it exists to search for. As far as I am aware, being "outside the anglosphere" does not exempt an article from the normal rules.  I could not see any way to build that article into anything more than a simple re-statement of the article's title, which was my understanding of A3.  I have already apologized for nominating it prematurely and promised to  hold off pulling the trigger for similar issues in future; if there is anything more you require from me then please let me know.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I'm sorry if I came across as harsh or overbearing, but I think that an article like that could easily become more than a restatement, as it's about a geographical place. Anyways, good luck with your editing. Valenciano (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

 * Hello Gronk Oz, you added orphan tag here. The gesture is appreciated but please allow sometime to new articles before taking an action. The page was created at 21:16 and the same minute you added the tag. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, - you are quite right.  The AWB tool adds that tag by default when appropriate, and normally I would just skip it if that was the only effect.  But in this case, a large number of Category tags also needed correction so I accepted that change.    I see that the article now has a large number of incoming links, and the Orphan tag has been removed.  I apologize if it caused you any inconvenience.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No Gronk Oz, no inconvenience caused. Just wanted to let you know. I know it was with best intentions. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Labyrinth CCG
I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to understand the 'Credible claim of significance' thing that caused the Labyrinth CCG page to get speedily deleted. I am trying to create a video game stub describing the game, similar to these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudbuilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackguards_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_stubs

but it keeps getting deleted. Are these stubs that I am designing it after also supposed to be deleted? What information do I need to include in order to prevent instant deletion?


 * Hello,, and thanks for reaching out with your question. I know the procedures and conventions of Wikipedia can be confusing and frustrating, especially when they are not always spelled out to new people.  Starting at the beginning, not every thing and every person will be listed in an encyclopaedia - including an online one like Wikipedia.  They concept that Wikipedia uses to determine whether a subject warrants its own article is called "Notability".  Basically, it says that in order to be "notable" enough to have its own article, the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.  That means:
 * Significant coverage
 * We need several sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it.
 * Reliable sources
 * Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking and the text must be approved by an editor before it is printed. Choose books from reputable publishing houses, mainstream newspapers, other periodicals or reviewed journals. Not: tabloids, discussion boards, fansites, Facebook, YouTube, or blogs.
 * Independent sources
 * Sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist that puts a positive "spin" or a CV.
 * Considering that your game has not been released yet, it is unlikely to have received that kind of press coverage. In that case, it may just be too soon for it to have its own article; it may have to wait until it has garnered enough attention. It's not about how you wrote the article or what information was included. It's all about being able to show notability with the article's references, and that is where the Labrynth article fell down.  Not only did it lack references in the article, but when I searched online I could not find any substantial references (once I weeded all the other things called "Labrynth").  I took a look at the other articles you mention and while they have some citations, I'm not sure that they come up to the standard either; I will take a closer look at them.
 * Sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but please remember that Wikipedia is not here to help promote upcoming games (or anything else for that matter); it is an encyclopaedia that aims to summarize the best information available about the most notable subjects. If you have questions, please feel free to get back to me, or else get a broader view by asking at The Teahouse, where expert hosts are always willing to help new editors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - I took a look at Cloudbuilt and Blackguards 2. Both of them have at least a couple of detailed reviews on independent gaming sites.  They are not great references, but I think they are enough to make a reasonable case for some notability.  If somebody really pushed the case and nominated those articles for deletion then I don't know which way the decisions would go.  Contrast this to the lack of reviews or other commentary about Labrynth at this time, and I hope you can see the difference.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the clarification. It makes perfect sense at this point. I will double check to make sure that I cannot find a 3rd party, credible source (such as a game reviewing site) before completely dropping it myself. If there is none, I will not longer bother wiki with it until actual release. InvincibleWall (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, .  I wish you all the best with the game, and with any other editing you might contribute here on Wikipedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update - Are any of these considered credible proof of notability if they were incorporated into the article?


 * http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151027006725/en/Free-Range-Games-Launches-Kickstarter-Labyrinth-%E2%80%93
 * http://www.develop-online.net/press-releases/robert-kirkman-rsquo-s-skybound-entertainment-partners-with-free-range-games-rsquo-labyrinth/0213781
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/27/ca-free-range-games-idUSnBw276725a+100+BSW20151027#D70js4eqvOL1dLh5.97
 * InvincibleWall (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I will be happy to have a look.  But it has just gone past 4am where I live, and my eyes are starting to glaze over.  I'm calling it a night now, and I will come back to look at this tomorrow.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,. You might like to re-read the part about "Independent sources" above - in particular the part about press releases not being independent. The three sources you listed are all press releases, so they are of no value in establishing notability. Basically, they show what the company has to say about its own product (or at least what a paid PR firm says about it), and that is not what Wikipedia cares about: notability is a matter of what other people who have no connection with the company have said about it. It would be very unusual for a game to pass that hurdle before release; I suspect it might mean waiting until the reviews roll in. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So, third party coverage of a press release, and fan reception is classified as a "press release"? Sorry if I had known that, I wouldn't have bothered you with something that trivial. InvincibleWall (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After looking at them again, they appear to all be adaptation from the same article, and what appears to be the original seems doesn't look like it was created by an independent third party. Thanks for all the help.InvincibleWall (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth date uncertain
Hallo Gronk, I spotted your edit to Josh Schache where you used Birth based on age as of date. It's a useful-looking template I've not seen before (I often struggle with the calculation of birth year in just this sort of case), but sadly the output isn't compatible with WP:APPROXDATE which insists on "1996 or 1997". I've amended the article, but have also mentioned this difficulty at Template talk:Birth based on age as of date and at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. Pam D  09:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I'm not sure I understand the problem: Birth based on age as of date gives his birth date as "1996/1997".  Your manual update gives it as "1996 or 1997".  One uses a slash and the other uses the word "or" but otherwise they are the same... What is the issue?  --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I see - it is the format, not the content, that is your concern. I am amazed that this has not come up before, considering how widespread issues like this are.  I will be interested to see what comes out of the template discussion you started; thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be fine to use it in infoboxes, just not in the main body of the article. But I await comments! Pam  D  12:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, - there is no point having guidelines if we ignore them.  But check the discussion at Template_talk:Birth_based_on_age_as_of_date - they already have the change in their Snadbox, ready for your comments.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, been there: it looks great! Pam  D  13:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nu Gospel
Hello Gronk Oz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nu Gospel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Check out WP:CSD. Consider PROD or AfD. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did consider WP:CSD which would apply if this band had actually invented the term, but it seems from this that it is in more general use. There might even possibly be enough sources out there to establish notability, so in the spirit of WP:BEFORE I advise doing a bit of research before nominating it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - I have never attempted to CSD outside of the standard templates before, and now I understand why.  Unfortunately I read your note just AFTER nominating that article at AfD, so I will check what you sent and whether I should cancel the AfD.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam Feldt (Musician) page
Hi, I have introduced links from other pages to this page Sam Feldt (musician) and linked from this page to other pages. So can you take away the tags you placed in the page Sam Feldt (musician) Thanks Always :)  13:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ Hi, . I have removed the Orphan and Dead-end tags from that article.  I also fleshed out the bare URLs in the references, and introduced a section on "Reception" as a place to mention the Gold Record, number four on the UK charts, etc.  I will let the discussion at Articles for deletion/Sam Feldt (musician) know about the updates for their discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Always :) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

Forgotten
(whisper mode) Maybe you should sign your latest post at Talk:Free Spins Bonus. It looks better. ;) Cheers, w.carter -Talk  09:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks for the prompt,.

hi
how are you today
 * I'm fine, thank you . Can I help you with a question?  By the way, please put four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments on Talk pages, so people can easily see who said what.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

hi
no but made my own code if you want to see it
 * I'm not sure I follow you, . What sort of code?  Does this relate to an article you're working on; if so which one, because your history does not show any activity apart from these questions and creating your own User Talk page.  Please send the details if you like, but it is 2:30 in the morning here and I am about to go to bed, so I may not get back to you until tomorrow.
 * By the way, you can continue the conversation under the same heading, without having to create a new section each time, and please put four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments on Talk pages, so people can easily see who said what.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)