User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 2

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Aminul Huq Moni's Wikipedia page issues
Dear Worldbruce,

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

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

Thanks a lot for your time.

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

14:42:56, 22 February 2016 review of submission by Zaostao
There is no way I can make the subject of the article notable other than asking to change the wiki notability guidelines - which i've already done - so can I at least get an assurance the article will be accepted when Justin Gaethje reaches top 10 in his division's rankings? This was given as the reason for accepting Marlon Moraes by its creator. Zaostao (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding review of Parasite Rex
Silver seren C 05:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I got it. Thanks so much for your help. Silver  seren C 05:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Would you please review?

Thank you very much,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks very much in advance!

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


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

Request on 09:48:12, 18 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Rouken
Hi there, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft submission. I fully understand your reasons and agree that after only 2 years, there probably is not enough evidence yet to suggest ModeAudio is notable as defined by Wikipedia. I would however be very grateful if you could let me know which references, other than the Music Radar & Music Tech links, you would consider as acceptable for future consideration? I understand why you feel that some look like press releases but would the lengthy review in Ask Audio Magazine for example, which is a popular 3rd party music production e-zine, not also qualify?

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Help_desk#16:46:36.2C_13_April_2016_review_of_submission_by_Sethgodin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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


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

19:29:39, 19 April 2016 review of submission by 86.174.120.95
Do not agree with the rejection of the Ben Clappison article. There are a zillion pages of soceer players on Wikipedia who have not yet played a Championship match. In fact, there are loads who have never played Football League match. It does not matter that he has not yet played a firs-team game for Hull City - he is a professional football player with an English Championship club.


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Cloudreach draft
Hi,

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


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

Ralph Harris
I saw that you added Harris to the Requested Articles page, so I just wanted to let you know that I created the article for you. — Chevvin 11:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thanks! --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

SW
Hey, Bruce, I don't know if you saw that in this edit I said I would like to know what "SW" stands for. Also, I would like to confirm if the content is located in the first page (there is something like an "I" in the right bottom of the page). Regards, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the review comes from page 1, and yes, I saw your note. It didn't come as a surprise because in your position I'd want to know who SW is too. Who knows why they didn't include a reviewer key in the 2003 edition. Checking the 1997 edition again is on my list, but will have to wait until I'm next at a library that has it - probably about three weeks from now. Even then the mystery may not be solved - SW may not have been a contributor to the first edition - but we can hope. Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "SW - Steve Whitaker is a respected colourist, with credits for all major publishers. It's less well known that he's also a repository of recondite information of all kinds."
 * --Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The Genealogist pdf
Thanks for the pdf, it is seems excellent. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bakhit pages
Hey Worldbruce

Not to trouble you, but if you haven't returned the Bakhit book yet, would you mind scanning me some more select pages? I'm interested in expanding the Damascus Eyalet and Ottoman Syria, i.e. pages 88–92, and the Arab tribes in Syria at the time, i.e. pages 193–197 and 205–208. If it can't be done, no worries, I'll post a request on the WP:RR page in the near future. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Worldbruce (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks again! --Al Ameer (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on Draft:Ravensbourne Morris Men
Thanks for taking the time to look at this for me. As a novice at this, I've been looking at the AfC assessment flowcharts and at the grading criteria. Are articles ever published at Start / C / B grades or do they now need to be graded higher before being accepted?

I am relieved that you feel that the subject is notable and I will now need to go away and try and gain access to some of the other written material. I am guessing that this will need to be done offline at the local library as I think I found that some of the online resources I'd need to pay for if I accessed them from home.

CPBearfoot (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Most drafts, when accepted, are assessed as Start class. Next most common is Stub class, with C class a close third. It is very unusual for a reviewer to initially assess an article as B class, and impossible to initially assess it higher than that. Quality grading, perhaps counter intuitively, actually has nothing to do with whether a draft gets accepted or not, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. It's just an extra step routinely performed after acceptance.


 * The British Library will be your best bet for research. If it isn't your local library, or you don't have access to it through your local library, Wikipedia's Resource Exchange may be able to help – but it's only really effective if you know precisely the article or book pages you need. Good hunting! --Worldbruce (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Create subpage for Wiki Editors of San Diego
Worldbruce, would you have time to create a subpage for Wiki Editors of San Diego? It would be deeply appreciated. We have been requested to create a subpage to [|Wikipedia Meetups in San Diego]. The purpose is to make it easier to find our activities. It would also be easier to add to our activities if we had a subpage. What do you say? Swedam (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To get an idea of best practices, I examined the meetup pages of groups I believe to be the most successful (because they have the highest numbers of watchers and highest page views): NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and DC. Having studied them, unless there are grant-related reasons for doing so, I recommend against creating a subpage for the "Wiki Editors of San Diego" group. Instead I recommend a subpage for each event.


 * The subpages for named Wikipedia-wide events would have the event name and year in the title (e.g. Meetup/San Diego/ArtandFeminism 2015 and Meetup/San Diego/Wiknic 2016). The subpages for "ordinary" local events would simply be numbered sequentially (e.g. Meetup/San Diego/8). Each subpage would be linked from Meetup/San Diego. Check what I've done for the wiknic and for last weekend's edit-a-thon.


 * A few questions about the edit-a-thon pages:
 * Should end times be included?
 * Should the specific name of the room be included, and if so, what is it? The library's publicity says Mary Hollis Clark Conference Center, but that's wrong.
 * Parking for the full three-hour event, after two-hour validation, runs about $5, depending on the Padres schedule. That may deter some attendees, so if there's an alternative it should be explained on the event page.
 * It would be a good idea to tell people what to bring - explain that the room has PCs with the Internet Explorer and Chrome browsers, but they may prefer to bring their own laptop.
 * If the basic format for edit-a-thon pages meets your approval, I'll use the same format to back-fill the photo safari and March 26 Mission Valley Library events with information I removed from the main San Diego page. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are brilliant. That is exactly what representatives for the WMF requested and I didn't understand, i.e. a subpage for each event. 1. The Editathons are 11 am to 2 pm (end time). 2. The name of the room is the Wells Fargo Technology Center, fourth floor. 4. Yes, please explain what the technology center has and that people can bring their own laptops. The library provides WiFi. 3. If attendees register with Swedam (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC) or wikisandiego@gmail.com in advance, the library will provide them with a parking voucher. A voucher can be obtained at the Editathon, however, it is time-consuming and entails hunting down our liaison to get one.

You have done an excellent job on the subpages and on the wiki picnic invite. Please continue with your chosen format. Thank you very much!


 * Great to see the work on this, Worldbruce. I organize some of the NYC pages, let me know if you ever need help, or want to talk.--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, that's good to know. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

GREAT to see the progress - thank you so so much for joining us, Worldbruce! You rock... DrMel (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , All of the above is complete. Also:
 * A nationwide geonotice for the Wiknic is running. Interested editors can click through to the San Diego Wiknic 2016.
 * The San Diego Wiknic has been added to the meetup calendar.
 * Invitations to the San Diego Wiknic have been placed at talk pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego and Talk:San Diego as suggested at Meetup.
 * A mass message list, Meetup/San Diego/Invites, has been set up.

-
 * Please add to Meetup/San Diego/Invites the names of any Wikipedians who attended your events to-date. This is urgent because a mass message should be sent soon inviting people to the wiknic. (I don't have mass message privileges, but I can have it done by someone who does).
 * Consider adding something to the sign up sections of your past events. People are more likely to sign up for future events if they see that you're consistently drawing a critical mass. You probably can't add more than a total number of attendees, unless individual editors consent to reveal that they attended.
 * Copy the announcement of the previous meetup to the red link for the next library meetup (updating the date and reseting the sign up list). This should be done before the Wiknic so that you can point people to where to sign up for the next event. You may notice some commented out sections at the bottom. From my 'vast' experience (two events), edit-a-thons are usually more structured than last Saturday's. This is born out by How to run an edit-a-thon. Something to discuss at the wiknic.
 * Add line items to Meetup/San Diego for any firmly scheduled events between now and WikiConference USA, and create the subpages as above. There's no need to do this before the wiknic.
 * Backfill information for the February 27 and April 23 events. This is not urgent, but it will make things look better organized and more reliable.
 * --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You rock! How can San Diego wikipedians have functioned without you? We have been looking for someone like you since forever. Thank you for performing these vital tasks Swedam (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)SwedamSwedam (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I received the automated email notification that ygm generates, but no actual email from you. I believe there's a known bug with wikimail from yahoo addresses, so if you used one, try sending using a different provider. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, just sent again, although I don't have a yahoo address. If you haven't received, it might be something on your end.--Pharos (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did receive it this time, so don't know what the glitch was. I can't give you a quick and simple reply, but I'll mull over your request and get back to you soon. Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

23:46:46, 27 June 2016 review of submission by BioWriter818
Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. I do have a question for you: as you suggest that Maralou's career in television and film isn't notable enough to justify a Wikipedia presence based on the guidelines, as you can see she did have several articles in the Los Angeles Times and Successful Meetings magazine, referencing her special events career and business, working with notable high-profile individuals. If I removed a significant portion of the TV/Film content and focused more on her later career, and just added in the references that highlight her more extensively, would you reconsider the submission? While she did have some interesting moments working as an actress and singer, I believe her later career in special events was more notable, considering the many high profile people she worked with. I do have photos to submit to substantiate this. Her entity, the National Special Event Locations (NSEL) was an original business of its kind, handling large privately owned estate locations around the country. Her event clients represented a who's who of the film and corporate worlds. Thank you! BioWriter818 (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)biowriter818


 * The draft's description of her early career routinely goes beyond what the sources say, but that can be fixed by editing.


 * The 1985 and 1988 Los Angeles Times pieces contain very little biographical information about Gray. She is quoted briefly, but Wikipedia is interested mainly in what people say about Gray, not so much in what she says. Who Gray worked with, be it the Pope, President, or Prince, is immaterial. Notability is not inherited from them. Successful Meetings Magazine sounds like a trade journal. Trade journals don't necessarily count towards notability, because they often have a limited audience, little editorial oversight, and a too-cozy relationship with the companies in the industry they cover. The fact that their website features "supplied content" is a bad sign.


 * If you nontheless feel that there are reliable sources with really substantive coverage specifically about her, you're welcome to resubmit. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again at AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

San Diego Wiknic: Mass Message
Hey Bruce! DrMel pointed me towards you as the go-to for on-wiki support of the 2016 San Diego Wiknic. I wanted to check and see if a mass message is planned to invite Southern Californians to the Wiknic? ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Affirmative. I've requested one here. Good luck with your Great Buckeye Wiknic. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks! And good luck with yours! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

San Diego Wiknic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for San Diego-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You've got mail!
~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How the heck create an event page
Worldbruce, Of course I can copy and paste and update information on an event page. But where do I click to start an event page? I am comfortable with Wordpress and Blogspot, but Wikipedia is an absolute nightmare. Swedam (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Swedam


 * Thanks for moving the Wiknic from the "Upcoming" section to the "Earlier" section. The entry you added for the July 23 edit-a-thon duplicates a placeholder entry I had already put there for you, so I've commented out your addition for the moment. Below I'm going to answer your question in the context of my placeholder entry, after which I think you'll see you that the line you added earlier today can be removed.


 * A simple way to create a new page is to follow a red link. On Meetup/San Diego, for example, I had already created a list entry for the July 23 event, but the link on that line is red, indicating that the page doesn't exist yet. When you click that red link, it will take you to a page headed "Creating Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/9".
 * Paste there a copy of the content from Meetup/San Diego/8.
 * Update the date.
 * Clear the sign up list.
 * Click "Save page".
 * Presto, you've created the new event page.


 * For ordinary meetups and edit-a-thons, I've adopted sequential numbering as the naming convention, so the July 23 event is page 9. Events that are part of a Wikipedia-wide event, such as the annual Wiknic or Art+Feminism, instead use an "event name and year" page naming convention. These conventions may seem arbitrary, but they are best practices among local chapters.


 * To create event pages for August and September, start by adding bulleted list entries for them:
 * Edit Meetup/San Diego.
 * Copy
 * Paste it twice between the July event and the WikiConference.
 * Update the dates to August 27 and September 24, and update the page names in the link to 10 and 11 respectively.
 * Click "Save page".
 * I advise keeping the list entries as short as possible, and saving all details for the event pages. The more information you put on the main San Diego meetup page, the less the key points stand out. When you save the page you'll see two new red links, which you can use as above to create the detailed event pages.


 * Give it a try and let me know if anything doesn't make sense. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Brian Rolapp
The content that I have posted, a biography for Brian Rolapp, is being investigated for copyright. The page gives credit the National Football League for giving the biography on the website. How can this problem be solved? This is Brian's official biography and credit has been given — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.128.141 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're focusing on solving the wrong problem. Wikipedia does not republish official biographies. So even if the copyright problem were resolved (by licensing, for example), the material still couldn't be used verbatim - it isn't suitable here.


 * No action will be taken on the copyright investigation for five days. At some point after that, an administrator or copyright clerk will evaluate the case and decide what to do. They have a considerable backlog, their oldest case is from February 2016, so don't expect a quick resolution.


 * Meanwhile, the copyright notice on the draft and the notices left on your talk page contain a plethora of useful links. Which path you go down is up to you, but I strongly recommend that you write a new article using reliable, arms-length, third-party sources (i.e. not his employer), of which there seem to be no shortage. Whatever you do, don't copy or closely paraphrase any source.


 * P.S. Familiarizing yourself with Help:Using talk pages will help you collaborate more effectively with other editors. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh Army
@WB, Bangladesh Army has no reserve troops. Please carefully see the references given on that article where it is not written that the force has reserve soldiers.  Senthoora poove ( talk ) 11:01 AM, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Boston Network Users Group
Thank you Worldbruce for your explanation of the situation with my (yes, I'm the author) article on Boston Network Users Group. I'm not sure what will happen with the article, as I have to see how the author feels about rewriting it (I talk to myself sometimes) (is there a Wikipedia article on holding a conference with oneself, I wonder?) but your explanation is a big help! -steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenInMA (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Titles & Emoluments book
Hi Worldbruce,

Regarding my old request, for some odd reason the search function within the "Look Inside" tool itself doesn't seem to work anymore for me. Tried everything; cleaning the caches, switching browser, etc. That being said, I can't therefore specifically name which pages I need from the book, but perhaps if I'd name the keywords/titles of the subsection, we could perhaps work it out. I need the pages regarding the governors of Derbent/Darband (city in Dagestan), those of [the cities/towns] Dagestan/Daghestan as a whole, and Yerevan/Iravan. Oh, yeah, I wonder whether you could find the page regarding the governor(s) with the surname Daghestani, as well as those with the surname Cherkes. Shouldn't be too many pages I think. I hope you can help me out with this, if it ain't too much effort. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be 2-3 weeks before I'm next at a library that has Titles & emoluments in Safavid Iran, but when I am I'll try to find and scan the relevant pages. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. Really appreciate it. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw,, before I forget; you're able to send it to my email that's linked to Wikipedia, right? Just in case. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I got the book last week, but it took some figuring to determine which pages to scan. I've just sent them to you. Let me know if they satisfy your request. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

19:00:59, 14 August 2016 review of submission by 2604:2000:E016:A700:932:355B:6CE5:67F8
The reviewer said it didnt meet wikis inline citation requirements.

The reviewer gave a link to the requirements.

The requirements say "Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Direct quotations

Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with [citation needed], or any similar tag)

Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.

Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons"

It then says "Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards."

But this doesnt require inline citations according the the requirements that the reviewer linked to. I dont understand.

But anyway, a very nice person made it all look much better. Even though the inline citations requirements that you linked to say that inline citations are not needed at all here. So I am still confused why you pointed to those requirements.

It is all ok now and in there. But I still dont understand why you pointed me to those requirements. The article met them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:932:355B:6CE5:67F8 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I can't speak for reviewer Gbawden, but one of the criteria for requiring inline citations is "any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged." You may look at an article and feel that no statement is likely to be challenged, but someone else could look at the same article and feel that some statement is likely to be challenged. How one assesses the question will depend on one's personal experience. Whether inline citations are required or not, they are generally regarded as a very good thing, and knowing how to do them will be an invaluable skill if you plan to contribute further to Wikipedia.


 * With respect to the draft, understand that while it was going through the review-revise-resubmit cycle, someone else created an article on the same topic, Lubna Al-Omair. Therefore, the draft now will never be accepted. Instead, improve the existing article by copying to it any additional information from the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I understand I think. The reviewer didnt say what you said. And I think he may not understand what the rule says. For it to mean anything, he cannot just say that every statement is likely to be challenged. That would make the rule a non-rule. From what he said I think maybe theres a chance he does not understand that. And just thinks the rule requires something that the rule does not require. Otherwise "Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material" does not mean anything at all. Thanks for your help. It was great. I followed your advice. There is another Saudi in the Olympics who needs an article. Maybe somebody will beat me to this one also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:932:355B:6CE5:67F8 (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible Promotional Material
Hi there, I noticed you have written off certain articles as "promotional" -- I was wondering if you could take a good hard look at the page David Packouz and see if it is too overly promotional. Many thanks! Asenathson (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You may have the wrong person. Proper second opinions can take 4-12 hours of work, so I don't normally offer them "on demand" unless it's in a topic area I regularly work in, or personal request from an editor I know. Nor does "writing-off" an article as promotional sound like me. Being promotional is something that can almost always be fixed by editing. Only rarely is the problem so bad that it is better to start over from scratch. From a very quick glance, I'd say the subject is notable, which is good. I've heard about their arms dealing before, although I'd forgotten the name. If that's mainly what they're notable for, then that part of their life should dominate their biography, including the lead, where it's currently lost way down at the bottom. I also see mention of an arrest, which will require extremely careful handling to comply with WP:BLP. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

About editing International Turkish Hope School
Hi, I work in International Turkish Hope School as IT Manager. My management was disturbed with the information you posted on our school's page about one of alumni. We do not find logical and appropriate sharing an information about one of our ex-students' mistake on our page.In this sense, I have deleted the links you posted and started to arrange our page to be fully protected as per my management's request.Please be advised that International Turkish Hope School is one of the remarkable schools in Bangladesh which is known by its International Success in exams and project Olympiads. We do not like our school's name to be tarnished with such unfortunate actions done by a person left the school many years ago. REgards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatihmolla (talk • contribs) 06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC
I take advice from my  peers when it's appropriate. However, if you are seriously  more concerned with  the improving  the quality of AfC reviewing than sparring with  the people  who  are actively  trying  to  do  something,please  say  so. I think it would cause less misunderstanding, and thus potentially convince more readers, if instead of taking users' comments out of context in  order to  defend one's  own inaccuracies and unresearched  generalisations, more ositive support  were available. Such coomenting could set back the efforts of others - ofr. even cause them to give up. I'm sure that's not  what  you want. Some highly experienced editrs and admins have already  given up  with  AfC for such  reasons and that's why it's getting measurably worse instead of better. Do please take a moment  to  read the entire threads and those you  are being  linked to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Change User Name
Hi Worldbruce, Thank you for your helpful informations. Now my question to you: How can I change my user name? Is there any way? I try to change it many times but failed. Please help me about this. Currently, my user name is "Robiaid". I wanted to use it as a "Robiul Hasan"

Thanks Robiul Hasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robiaid (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing username is fairly simple, see Changing username. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Titles and emomulents
Bruce,

My most sincerest "thanks" I'd like to give to you for your effort once again. Just read your mail. Regarding your remark about Iravan/Yerevan not being found -- I actually just found out what the problem is. It seems the author is using the name "Erevan" here (quite odd actually, some kind of rare Russo-Persian mixture of the name), instead of Iravan and Yerevan or even Erivan. So yeah, I was wrong there initially asking you about "Iravan/Yeravan". Having "solved that", everything about Erevan can be apparantly, according the index, be found on the pages 86, 171, 181 -- three pages that I unfortunately can't view with the Amazon look-inside function. By any chance, would you be able to send me these three pages as well? Thanks much once again, and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * sent. As explained more fully in my email, page 181 is just a pointer to the section that contains page 171. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks much again Bruce. Received it, and it was exactly what I needed. Btw, just in case you wondered, "Chokhur Saad" was the name of the province that contained all of Armenia, and thus Erevan as well.
 * - I wonder about the governors of "Azerbaijan" btw, if you still have the book. Amazon doesn't let me view how many pages the Azerbaijan province governors-section contains, but it would be great to have the information regarding the governors/tenures of this province as well, given that it was one of the most important provinces of the realm. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * sent the three pages of governors for Azerbaijan. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi WorldBruce, thank you so much for you feedback on this page. It was extremely helpful

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

I've made a few more changes are you advised - would you be able to look at it again? I'd love to get it resubmitted asap! :)

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lamarre (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The draft is much improved.
 * The disconnect in the second sentence between the number of centers and the source hasn't been addressed.
 * The two big red error messages in the references should be fixed. Access date is the last date the url was checked and found to be pointing to a source that supports the statement. Those two references are offline, so they don't have urls (don't put in the homepage of the newspaper, url is only for the full text of the article). Perhaps you meant to write date instead of accessdate. If so, 1996, although better than nothing, is rather vague, making it difficult to verify.
 * There's still a quote without an identified source in the second paragraph of the charity section. The quotation marks are also unbalanced, so it isn't clear what the quote is, exactly.
 * Fix those things, and I think you can be cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the next review. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Land governance
Dear Worldbruce,

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments (on 8 September) on my draft Land Governance page. I'm working on them and will get back to you in the near future.

Kind regards,

Jur Schuurman (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
... for adding to GLAM/Balboa Park/Wiki Culture Crawl. I can't wait to see what other articles editors suggest and create. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm working up San Diego-related suggestions in many other categories (geography, law, medicine, politics, sports, transport, etc.) One example is a list of artists, photographers, and architects.
 * What do you think of broadening the "Sculpture" collapse to "Art, architecture, and archaeology" with a subsection "Art, architecture, and archaeology biographies" at the bottom of it (à la WP:FA)? I think it's important to categorize the "Articles to create and improve", but I neither want to disrupt your working method, nor create a massive stack of collapses when some hierarchy could keep the number manageable. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to organize the article as you see fit. I am totally open and just wanted to get the ball rolling... Nice to see some additional input and collaboration here. I hope this page become very active as we approach the event. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that for now, and also moved the reflists into the topical sections. By the beginning of next week I hope to double the number of sections and entries, which should give us a better feeling for how functional this structure is. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue where a work group is also proposed has been created for combined discussion about the future of NPP & AfC  See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sara Davenport page
Hi Worldbruce,

I've still not seen any progress with my page making it through the moderators... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sara_Davenport

I've made all the changes you pointed out (although there might be a few technical issues that I don't know how to address). Please can you advise on how I can make this page live as soon as possible?

Thanks again for all your help - you've been wonderful!

Best wishes,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lamarre (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fully occupied with another project until the middle of next week, but will take a look at it then. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While I was occupied elsewhere, I see that another reviewer accepted the draft. The system generally works, even if it's slow and painful. Thanks for improving the encyclopedia. I hope you continue to contribute (there are many different ways to do so). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Embassy of Switzerland in New Zealand
Hi Worldbruce A couple of months ago, I was working on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Embassy_of_Switzerland_in_New_Zealand. The submissions, however, have always been declined with different reasons. Furthermore, there was a discussion among experienced wikipedia users about the article. I would like to work on the entry again and provide a good article. Could you please let me know what I need to do/improve such that the article will finally be accepted? Thank you very much for your appreciated help. Thanks, SnowMountainPeak (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The clear consensus of the earlier discussion is that the topic is not notable. In other words it should not have an article in Wikipedia. No amount of editing can fix that. An article on the subject will never be accepted, and if moved to article space, will be deleted. If you're here to build an encyclopedia rather than to advance an agenda, then I can show you millions of constructive ways to help. Creating an article about the embassy is not one of them. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Worldbruce, thank you for your clear reply. My intention was to provide a good article with some background information since I saw that many embassies have an article on wikipedia. What is the difference between them and the article I am working on? Was there a change in the policy? Thank you very much for your time. Regards, SnowMountainPeak (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia's early days, when there was a rush to create a critical mass of articles, policies were much looser. They were also less well-defined. Guidelines on notability weren't formalized until four or five years into the project, although concepts such as notoriety and importance had been widely discussed by then. Policies and guidelines continue to evolve, but there haven't been any meaningful changes related to embassies in the past few years.


 * Some embassies have been written about extensively in reliable third-party sources, are therefore notable, and thus belong in Wikipedia. Most often the building (if it's historic) or its construction is what has drawn significant coverage, but the embassy also may be written about in depth if it's the target of a bombing, the subject of a hostage crisis, the sanctuary for a notable fugitive, and so forth. Wikipedia's best article about a diplomatic mission is Rhodesian mission in Lisbon, which cites two dozen books as well as ten articles from academic journals and newspapers.


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. At any point in time it contains good content and bad content. Articles like Embassy of Peru, London, which cites a single directory listing, clearly don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. They should be improved or deleted. The existence of bad content is not a sound argument for creating more bad content. Always reason and argue from the policies and guidelines, not random example articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ronald J. Ross
Hi Worldbruce-you helped edit my article on "Ronald J. Ross"-thank you. This article has been saddled with a COI disclaimer which I don't feel should remain. I met the subject briefly decades ago and chose this person's accomplishments as a subject to write about. The article itself is very dry with supported facts. I am not related to the subject and I was not paid to do the article. I'm not sure how I can otherwise have this removed other than to make these points. Please advise-Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffyross (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of a predicament. I sympathize. One approach would be to forget about it. Walk away from the article and assume that everything will work out in the end. It usually does. If you want to do something more proactive, this is what I suggest:


 * Put your declaration where it will be seen. You've made some strong declarations:
 * User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 11
 * User talk:Raffyross
 * WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 June 25
 * and in this posting
 * But they haven't had the desired result. In part that's a matter of mastering how to use Wikipedia's clunky talk interface effectively. (A few tips for the future: keep the thread of a discussion in one place, use some kind of notification template (like ping) if you're replying to someone somewhere other than their talk page, put your reply immediately below the posting you're replying to and indent it by beginning with one more colon  than the previous posting, and always remember to sign your postings with four tildes  .)


 * Start a new section on Talk:Ronald J. Ross. Use a simple and direct subject like "No conflict of interest". For context, state that you're the original author of the article and then explain, in words similar to those you've used before, why you have no conflict of interest with the subject. The similarities between your choice of username and the name of the one person you've chosen to write about have probably generated suspicion, so it would be good if you could address that directly. Don't muddy the waters by giving your opinion of the article, and don't ask that any tags be removed. There will be time enough for that later. If you wish, you may compose a draft here and I'll review it before you put it on the article's talk page.


 * After your statement is in place, I'll discuss with other involved editors what should be done tag-wise. In the short term it may result only in the replacement of one tag with another or the replacement of the article level tag with one or two less conspicuous in-line tags. Many tags last for years, particularly on little-read articles, but eventually they are resolved one way or another.


 * You may also wish to consider writing something on your user page about who you are and, most importantly, why you're here. You can't be forced to do so, I myself edit under a pseudonym and disclose almost no personal information on my user page. I do, however, indicate some of the areas of the project I'm active in, and people can analyze my extensive history of contributions. In theory, everyone should assume good faith when you say you have no conflict of interest. I can understand how you might be fed up with Wikipedia, but you could make it easier for skeptical editors to believe you if you contributed more widely. Community portal lists some ways to help out. 99% of Wikipedia articles are assessed as lower than "good", so there are millions of ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dhaka Derby for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dhaka Derby 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/Dhaka Derby 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. Spiderone 09:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Daisygrinders Page
Hi Worldbruce. I hope I am in the right forum to ask you a brief question. You reviewed my article on The Daisygrinders and advised that it did not meet the terms of notoriety. I amended that article and included web and text references as per the Wikipedia guidelines for citing notoriety. I thought that i had resubmitted the article for further consideration, but I am yet to receive any advice about whether it now meets the stringent requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Could you possibly spare me a moment to let me know whether I can resubmit my article based on the new information I have provided? Will it meet the criteria or is there something else I am missing to publish my article. Many thanks. Drew Drewzab (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't review Draft:The Daisygrinders now for a couple reasons. First, there's a six-week backlog of drafts awaiting review at Articles for Creation, and asking at a reviewer's talk page isn't a shortcut around that. The only way to know for sure whether your revisions are sufficient is to resubmit it using the blue button in the big pink box at the top of it, and wait for a reviewer to get to it. Second, when I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths.


 * At a glance, I can see that the draft doesn't cite sources that are obviously reliable. Obviously reliable sources would be things like a book from Oxford University Press, or features in The New York Times and Rolling Stone. There are also some red flags. Discogs is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source. Blogs are usually self-published, so are not reliable sources. YouTube is often problematic either because the material does not constitute a reliable source or because it's a copyright violation of a reliable source.


 * Reviewers also will be vexed by the draft's formatting problems. They aren't supposed to turn a draft down for that reason alone, but why risk it? Dalton and one other reference are more-or-less correctly formatted within ref tags. One, http://www.stanleyrecords.com.au/adam-young/, is a bare URL in the text. Eight more are partly formatted, and within ref tags, but instead of being placed immediately after the text they support, they're all down at the bottom of the editor. There are also bare Wikipedia URLs scattered throughout the text that need to be turned into internal links. The formatting of sections and of the discography list are incorrect.


 * What to do? I've left a belated welcome note on your talk page that contains many links you'll find useful if you want to edit Wikipedia. Some highly relevant to this specific draft are:
 * WP:BAND - Study this carefully. If the band meets one of the criterion, then in the first sentence or two of the draft make it crystal clear which one, and support the claim by citing a reliable source. If they meet none of the criteria, there isn't much hope for the draft.
 * Help:Referencing for beginners
 * Writing better articles
 * Manual of Style - formatting rules galore
 * Linking - the correct way to do internal links
 * Manual of Style/Lists
 * Manual of Style/Lead section
 * WP:Featured articles - Browse Wikipedia's best articles for examples of how to do things, like formatting.
 * WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music - Various WikiProjects may contain additional useful resources.
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it isn't necessarily easy. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the advice. Obviously I have a bit more homework to do. I will review your suggestions and then resubmit.  Thanks again.

Drewzab (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war
Excuse me but I am not in edit war. I think is the other that are in edit war. Normally I don´t intercourse with anything here and when I do, I explain with arguments. I excuse with wikipedia but I ma doing an edition in House of Borgia and each part of them is verified, accordin new investigations, if you have patiente, page can be correct at all in all aspects with correct references.

Thanks

--Siredejoinville (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

House of Borgia
Mr. I would thank to you review my edition in the House of Borgia page, Mr. FactStraight and Mrbdwhite or something are persons began a war against me from many time ago because Grimaldi family, Duke of Valentinois and other themes concerning to Monaco family. My edition don´t to denied or afirm something, they are based in correct references; nevertheless, for them that references are not adequate because talk true about Duke of Valentinois and its relation with House of Borgia, Grimaldi and Borja y Ceballos family. For instance, so much time i was arraging page of juan de borja y matheus, he appears in wikipedia like juan de buenaventura borja y armendia, however, his real name according real reference of order of Santiago is Borja y Matheus, then I was attacked by all these people. When I have tried to arrange page of dukedom of Valentinois and put reference just like advise tells, always all references have erased because convinience. Now when I edit house of borgia page with true reference these same people which ut most have several accounts with several names, appear and disturbe my labor, my conscience and historical labor. I am historian, I am writer, I am an investigator registered in several prestigious libraries in my country and others. Each thing I put, I put with clearnes of is a correct date or note.

For this reason, I aks you for reviewing my house of borgia edition and procede to restore same if you see is clear for you. In that edition no one is attacked nor discriminated neither suplanted, it is a simple edition with correct reference that is being referenced yet.

Tahnks for your help

--Siredejoinville (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Man i just removed a unsourced site THx