Netherlands report: New Years Reception; 550 years States General; Content donation University Museum; Wikipedians in Residence; OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Data exchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OWL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
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 deadline to submit a completed proposal to be considered for funding in this round is 31 March 2014. When you have completed all parts of your proposal, please submit it for review by updating the wikimarkup in your page from status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED.
Need help finishing your proposal? You can ask us anything in the IEG Questions forum! We're also hosting several IEG Proposal Hangouts this month - the last one is on Saturday, 29 March 2014 at 1700 UTC - please join us to get help in real time!
This message was delivered automatically using global message delivery. Only Wikipedians with IEGs in 'draft' status received this message.
Thanks for the message regarding "Drafts". We're trying to get stubs started that students will develop. Any tips on making this process smoother would be appreciated. Baynard (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking an interest in this new article. What are your concerns with regard to the External Links section? I've looked at Wikipedia:External links and no policy there strikes me as being violated. The plantation website link and NRHP links are redundant to the references, but both are important pages, especially the first, which would stay under policy. The auction site link gives rather recondite but relevant information. The YouTube video doesn't quite duplicate the time-indexed reference, is something worthy of being watched from the beginning, and doesn't violate copyright, as it's obviously produced by the channel owner (unless clearing it with him is a pre-requisite). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dhtwiki. Thanks for following up! If it had been more clear-cut, I would have just removed those links from Bocage Plantation, so I was mainly marking it for somebody else to take a look. Personally, I didn't get anything out of the auction site except the date of the auction, who it was benefitting, and who the auctioneers were. If that's relevant, I'd rather see it as a reference than an external link. There's no blanket ban on YouTube, but this is a self-published video which spends the first several seconds lingering on the sign for the B&B that currently occupies the place. Having it as an external link more or less promotes it to everyone reading this page on Wikipedia, which doesn't seem particularly beneficial here. But keep it if you think it makes sense. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've made some changes to External Links, to address some of your concerns. I dropped the National Park Service link, as it is too redundant, being in References. I thought about dropping the auction site, until I found that the furnishings of the last, 1941, remodeling, and perhaps a large part of this one, depending on how much was purchased by the present owner, were itemized and illustrated at pages accessed through the drop down menus, which makes the link of more general interest. For the YouTube video, I've given the length of the longish video, and I've noted that it's "somewhat promotional". However, once you get past the opening shot of the sign encouraging people to book Bocage for events and the generally gushing tone, which may or may not be from a disinterested party, I think there's plenty of good information you're not going to find elsewhere. BTW, I'd like to be able to reference this discussion on the articles talk page, if that's all right with you.Dhtwiki (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Land (1739 - 1818), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tiverton and Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello! Thank you so much for moving my article over! However, I realized afterwards that I got the guy's name wrong. It's not LoCasio, it's LoCascio, see the Huffington post article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-locascio/ How do I change that? ConcreteFancy
So Fast! Thank you!!! I'm going to look for more notable people to add... I might just wait until after the submission process is a little less bogged down. ConcreteFancy (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding them. I think they should be ordered alphabetically. I consider to add almost all Gujarati writers in them as we do not have many articles about them now. If it is cluttered in futute, we may remove as needed. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Kilburn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CACM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Jodi.a.schneider/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
As there's a general issue involved that I've been thinking about, I sent it to afd for opinions. If nobody supports my view, I'll withdraw it. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, DGG. The trouble is this is a second-order problem, about "coverage", and specifically balancing the topics we write about. (To first order it passes GNG, and perhaps other litmus tests.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review 30 (Summer 1977): 255.</ref> Currently it is in the [[Whitney Museum of American Art]]<ref>[http://whitney.org/Collection/MorrisLouis/659 Tet 1958, Morris Louis, [[Whitney Museum of American
Charter bole, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Hate to bug you, but I'm a bit knew at AfC. I went to the following article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gender Responsive Corrections, and noticed your note that it read like an essay, dated today. Earlier, I had declined an article for the very same reason (since it's on the list in the automatic program as one of the reasons for deletion). Should I not have? Should I simply have left a note? Thanks in advance for your help. Onel5969 (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969. You're right, that's a valid reason to decline an article. I didn't decline that one straightaway because I don't know enough about the subject. It struck me as a neologism but it had references that looked reasonable -- so I was hoping that somebody else would look at it & edit it into a better form. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your comment and feedback on the hipages entry, any other info or insights you can give me to help me improve the entry would be great. I noticed you are a member of the article rescue squadron – so your experienced eye would be most helpful for any direction or edits you may have.
Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hipages_Group
Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallkelly00 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico report: Edit-a-thon of Museo Soumaya; simulthaneous edit-a-thon in Argentina, Mexico and Spain about Spanish Exile; new cultural partner of Wikimedia México
Netherlands report: Music edit-a-thon; Library workshops; Videos, maps and Japanese art donations; Wiki Loves Earth
Sweden report: Wiki Loves Monuments is being prepared for Sweden
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Durand Stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No, Piotrus, we didn't look at that. Thanks can happen through the Special:Notifications, and my impression is that Teahouse and the AfC Helpdesk more often get complaints. My only point was that it's not only experienced WPians who complain. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug, References are used for different purposes. Here's what you need to include an organization in Wikipedia. The Commercial Observer reference is not a good example; it does in fact look like it's derived from a press release.
Hi Jodi, I'm writing the page about songwriter/producer Fredrik Thomander, which you've declined.
I'm referencing discographies from allmusic.com and Discogs.
Would it help to add sales numbers of artists, platinum awards and such, or do you need more personal info?
Dragonflyerz (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC) DF
Dragonflyerz (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz:, Sorry if my revert annoyed you. One of the current discussions in the AfC community is how to sort drafts in order to ensure that they get attention from other editors interested in/familiar with a given topic. Categories are an important part of this, and the WP:AfC reviewing tool manages categories named by [[:name of category]]. I would encourage you, therefore, to use : prepending, in the future. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jodi Schneider,
I've just recognized that you were a reviewer of my written article about Cantata++ and that you noted that the article is not ready for mainspace yet.
May you tell me please why it is not ready yet, so that I can improve it. Because when I was working on it I consulted two other Wiki Admins "to be on the safety side" and they thought the article might have a good chance to get published...
I'm looking forward to get a feedback from you! Best regards and thank you very much, QARon (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @QARon:, I've taken another look at Draft:Cantata++ and trimmed some of the excess. Can you find sources for the Industrial Use section? It seems that that's where you could establish Wikipedia:Notability. Ping me when you add some sources, academic papers by the team are not going to help and I haven't looked at the current sources (which don't appear to have passed muster in the deletion reviews). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @Jodi.a.schneider:. Thank you for having a look on my article again! I've seen that you trimmed a lot, but probably it was really necessary. I was also asking somebody in the teahouse and they told me the same - the article is to long and i should trimm it. And actually yes a very important point of Cantata++ is the industrial use. But as I was really working about a few weeks on the article before it was declined, there is no more relevant sources... I exploited everything I had to mention it in the article, so to find other sources about the industrial use might be very difficult. Do you have any other idea how to get "notable" ? Because I noticed during my researches about the subject, that there are many other Software Testing Tools which are mentioned in Wikipedia and they also could work on their notability and proof by sources... I am a little asking myself why after all the time, why Cantata should not be notable when other testing tools are ? Might the problem be the long history of deletion proposition ? I am very open to get a lot of advices from you, because it would be so disappointing after all the time to fail at least ! Looking forward to hear from you. Best regards and thank you very much!
Hi Amandeep Singh (Ping: @Amanjosan2008:), the problem is that the page is in two places now, the main encyclopedia and the draft space. I took a look at Visvesvaraya Industrial and Technological Museum (the article in the encyclopedia). The main thing that that is missing is citations -- maybe you can add some? (For instance, has the museum been discussed in newspapers or by other credible groups outside this particular museum? Since you know MediaWiki, the easiest thing would be to give a diff to look at (which you can get from the history page) -- if you send me a link I can take a look. If you want to do that on the draft first, it's ok -- or on the main article (you can preview your changes if that helps). Let me know if that makes sense & look forward to hearing from you again! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jodi, Thank you for the update. I have not made any changes in the Text of the article. So I cannot provide citations. I visited the Museum recently so just wanted to add more images to the article. The images were taken by me only so no issues for the licensing. I will delete the draft page & instead upload the images only in the article if Wikipedia permits it to be done. — Amandeep Singh(talk)14:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if there aren't text changes, surely there are other people who write about the museum? I took a quick look but didn't find anything immediately -- but you might know better places to look. When you upload the images you'll need to specify that you took them. I'm not an expert on images, but you can find more info here: Wikipedia:Images. Good luck @Amanjosan2008:.& if you have more questions get in touch! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me?
Also it seems a lot of my citations have been deleted? i have no idea why, there were several that are now gone in this edit??
cheers,
"You have also made the understandable error of using his own work as a citation. If he assembled vacuum cleaners, you would see that the vacuum cleaner was his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a citation for him. So it is with academic papers. I suggest strongly that you remove those as references, for they are nothing of the kind. INstead, place them in a small section of his work. However, if he has published in a prolific manner, refer to his multitude of papers and cite an index (or more than one index) to his published work. Fiddle Faddle 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)"
"If he is known for groundbreaking research, you need to cite both that it is groundbreaking and that he is known for it. ,,, Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)"
Unfortunately, academic papers written by Dr. O'Sullivan are not useful for establishing the most important question: Does Wikipedia policy (in this case the policy about which academics get pages) permit a page to be written on him? For that, you need to have references about the MAN. Of course these might touch on his work -- but they will be written by other people. Does that make sense? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense but there are thousands of unsourced and vague Wiki pages - I feel this one is very clear and well sourced. Whether he is worthy for Wikipedia is an objective question in a way - do you feel his work is worthy of inclusion in an online encyclopedia? I feel his work is worthy and research of value to the wider scientific community. How do i prove value then? Just a few more sources?
I have a question - why was the paragraph regarding Anorexia deleted/not relevant for the article?
Also, there may be a lot more articles written but may be offline - how do i source these?
thanks
Kelmoo (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelmoo:: Which of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria are met? That is the objective question. There's no sense in doing any further work till you can answer that. And answering that will help you make a clear case for a page.
Regarding the anorexia paragraph -- was this written about in another biography of his life? The WP:OR policy says that we summarize other sources, mainly tertiary ones (sometimes secondary ones, and rarely primary sources). It struck me as too detailed (and supported by just two primary sources though those were written by other people). What you are looking for is *secondary* sources that state e.g. "His research helped change the general perception that eating disorders only occur in people that can see their own bodies and shows that these types of disorders often arise from other psychological stress or trauma." Could you please point to the quote from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740144514000345 (I see the citations of Touyz et al 1994 & 1988 but nothing that strikes me there) or http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/erv.394/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false (I can't get at references or full-text) that shows that? These are primary sources written by other authors -- getting closer, but still unlikely to be enough.
1) he is a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (as per his website online)
7) he has made substantial impact outside the academic community - as pursuing/supporting AUSLAN and opening the first regional Psychiatric service for the deaf.
and possibly other criteria,
Fellowship for the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists appears to be the standard accreditation. So I think that shows he's professional, not that his research has made significant impact. Anyway, meeting one criterion would be enough so that doesn't matter.
you recently reviewed my article for submission:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elektronika
I've since edited the entry to include sources (I knew this was required, but when I first made the page I wasn't sure if/how I could save it for later without submitting it for review and didn't want to lose my work). I based the article on various other software articles, so the promotional slant you noted is likey influenced by the content and presentation of those; however I'd like to make it clear that I'm not affiliated with Aestesis. With regard to the notability, I'd like to point out that:
1) there are actually not many other applications of this sort (the Live Video Software section on Wikipedia exists but is empty, though I'd like to add this entry to it)
2) there are even fewer which are free and open source; these factors make this particular software an affordable way into the VJing profession for many users
the original Aestesis application which Elektronika is based on (and still contains) is mentioned in the article on VJing. The author claims on his site that the application is "The first ever VJ application - VJing history", though as I cant find any objective verification of this, I haven't included in the article. However, it can objectively be established that the application was developed over the course of at least 10 years (I provided a source for the post in which the release of Elektronika v1.01 was announced, in 2002, and it can be seen from the Github source that the last edit was in 2012); the "About" dialog within the application states Aestesis was founded in 1991.
I look forward to hearing back from you on this, and I'd welcome any further suggestions you have with regard to improving the content of the article; I am working on getting a screenshot for the article, pending some discussion over at wikimedia commons/input from the author of the software.
P.S. I edited the entry above mine of the Articles For Creation page I linked above, though I'm not sure I did it right (was just trying to be helpful!) could you let me know if that was ok? I wasn't sure if that page is only for admins or something.
Hi @AlphaTangoVideo: -- I made some edits to the article here. Mainly this reduces the level of detail. I found 3 places where there were 2-word mentions of the program (just its name). We need to do better than that. Unfortunately blogs do not contribute to establishing that something can have an article. This makes it very difficult for online content to meet Wikipedia's bar for inclusion. Can you think of any newspaper articles/magazine articles? Major blogs (not by individuals as the ones currently listed in the article appear to be) covering it? Reviews by major video/performance? Mention by major performers in an interview by a major source? One problem for sourcing is to find 3rd party sources (rather than those on the 'about' page). It seems plausible that this kind of sourcing could be found but it's difficult. Perhaps you can come up with more leads? Until there are better sources in the article, resubmitting the article for review is not going to help. If you find some sources and want feedback let me know -- or if I can help in some other way. Good luck in the meantime! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guillermo Valencia (Columbian footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iona College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you, Jodi. You are the first editor to give constructive feedback - it is most appreciated. No problem - will reference different sources as well. Also, since the previous submissions were denied, would building on this stub article be the best way to add cited content?
Hi @AlexPMA:, yes it's best to work in the same place on Draft:Capital Insurance Group "denied" is a kind of artifact of the process, it's just an indication that something's not ready yet and needs more work from the submitter or others. There an overwhelming amount of new material coming in -- just curious (since I'm a researcher) -- what did you think of the messages in pink at the top of the article, that link to policies, etc? Any ideas for making those more helpful? Good luck and let me know if you need feedback on a new draft. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Jodi.a.schneider:. Changed the links and resubmitted, please let me know if these are more on track. I do think the messages in pink are great guidelines (have watched the videos as well) but I must not be grasping them fully as it appears to me that they are not universally applied. Built the original submission based on existing entries in the same category which is why I was a bit surprised to see the earlier blanket rejections (which is also why this was whittled down to just a stub and why I am appreciative of your constructive feedback). Taking a look at other articles in the same category for this submission, content should not be "promotional" - yet entries have sections devoted to advertising campaigns. Content should not be a "soap box", yet organizations have listed/cited awards. Not complaining, just trying to understand the appropriate uses and proper process to build slowly. Happy Friday!
AlexPMA (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AlexPMA:, pages grow over time, it's usually best to start small. Awards are ok to list, but they should be major awards. The topic should be balanced (for instance literally the only info I can find for Draft:Capital Insurance Group off-hand is about a class action suit) with negative and positive both. Advertising campaigns are not off-limits (SuperBowl ads or something taken notice of by the press would be relevant) -- but the article should not be an advertisement itself. I've made some edits and left a comment pointing out what's going on with the references. There are several problems at the moment: - much content would be better at an article on the parent company (e.g. class action suit); - there is very little in the references about the company; - references written by interested parties (e.g. employees) could be useful for some purposes, but not the most important thing, which is to establish that an article can be written according to the notability policy. If you want an explanation about some *other* article's contents, let me know. (Wikipedia is a work in progress so sometimes there *are* things that need to be changed). Meanwhile, is there anything else written about the company, anywhere, bad or good? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Again @Jodi.a.schneider:. Found a number of articles that seem pretty similar to the previous submissions (i.e. references or resources from smoke-free nonprofits) but wanted to run this one past you [1]. This was written independently by a news outlet that is even located far outside Capital Insurance Groups operations = no promotional or advertising worth. Would that meet the criteria? Thanks! AlexPMA (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @AlexPMA:, thanks for the alert. The origin is better than many of the pieces I looked at -- but it's not substantial coverage ("At least one insurance company, Capital Insurance Group, offers a discount on premiums to landlords who operate smoke-free buildings."). So it doesn't contribute much to establishing notability. That's a larger problem. I haven't seen coverage of Draft:Capital Insurance Group outside this topic of discounts for smoke-free buildings. Take another look at WP:ORG, do you see what I mean? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jodi, thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it. I will endeavour to make the rights changes. Can I just ask, what are the 'external links' that need to be removed? Also, in terms of notability, as a co-writer alone (as a 'COMPOSER') I think the subject might qualify under the 'Criteria for composers and lyricists': "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". The subject co-wrote the song 'Better' which has its own Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_(Tom_Baxter_song)) and which has been covered by a lot of artists most recently this year by Englebert Humperdink. Other songs he has co-writien (including 'Better') have charted in several different countries and have received heavy A-list radio rotation. Any help or guidance would be gratefully received. Many thanks HKatharine (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Stark - Bio Page
Hello, I want to thank you for helping to get the page organized. I have been having a real challenge using the Wikipedia site from a content contributor's perspective. The site doesn't conform to web accessibility guidelines which would allow me as a blind person to easily work in the site. So your help is really really appreciated. I am having a bit of trouble figuring out what is missing from the page that rejects it for publishing. Once again I thank you for any help or advice you could provide on the subject. If you are willing, my gmail is jeff.in.Kanata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticjeff (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jodi - I'm struggling a bit with what to do next. The Book I referenced does exist, I have a copy on my shelf in my bookcase at home, but there's no online reference. With the content cribbed from the rhadc website, well sure it's similar, I wrote most of it and comes directly from the Club archives. I have to admit, I'm at a loss of what to do next. the bit about flags is somewhat relevant, Royal yacht clubs are often steeped in faux naval tradition where etiquette is followed. I don't know what to do at this stage.
Regards Neil
NeilRedburn (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NeilRedburn:, I took another look at Draft:The Royal Hamilton Amateur Dinghy Club. The main problem is to find sources that talk primarily about the club without being BY the club or its members. (The book being out-of-print is inconvenient for other fact-checkers but not a problem in and of itself. Rather, the problem is that the book publisher is listed as "Royal Hamilton Amateur Dinghy Club", and the book was written by a club member.)
There is nothing wrong with any of these sources in themselves, depending on the purpose for which they're used. References to the royal charter/decree would probably help, since the importance of the club rests on that. Or work that other people have written about the club. For instance, Jack Arnell (author of the book in question) would seem to be this prominent person; is there a biography of his life that spends a page on the club?
What's needed is to establish the WP:Notability of the club -- with sources that are independent. I hope that helps and I'm sorry there's so much work, it does seem like a reasonable topic for an article if some more discussion of the club can be found. If you find more sources and want my feedback, feel free to write again, and good luck in the meantime! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oeuesi:, sorry to be cryptic! There are two translation templates you might want:
{{translated page|de|Helmuth Prieß}} -- if the de:Helmuth Prieß page was translated
{{Expand German|Helmuth Prieß|date=November 2014}} -- if the de:Helmuth Prieß page has more content that could be used to expand this page. If you have any other questions, feel free to write me again! And do send me a note when you add more sources so we can publish the page to the main English Wikipedia. You also might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany. Best! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You asked which criteria we have met from WP:Music.
Number 5 should be noted: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
We are on three different independent labels: Slovenly, Windian, and RaveUp. A google of the following addresses should show you just how notable these labels are and how they meet the above criteria for independent labels.
www.slovenly.com and specifically the following pages:
Hi Spike (@SpikePen:) -- Sorry for the delay. I'm not an expert in record labels (especially for punk) but after researching a bit more I've found coverage (e.g. LA Times) that satisfies me that WPMusic is met. There are still some urgent problems:
Would you be willing to give me some more feedback? I am planning on adding Discography section, as he was on the last album that just release on a major label and production credit on another album that is released on a major label. I also have additional notes on another national endorsement and a magazine article. Would that be helpful?
Hi @Maysunset1: Have you checked the guidelines at WP:Music? The biggest problem so far is that it's not clear how Draft:Scott_wilson_Musician meets them. Discography will help if he is a major artist (not just a session musician) on 2 albums on major labels (or otherwise meets the guidelines).
Some more feedback:
- Don't use Facebook as a reference. Provide direct links to the interview for #1, and #4-#6. How can we check these if they're not there? (For web references it's especially important.
Hello Jodi.a.schneider/Archives. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
Hello Jodi, thanks for your advice regarding the draft article of Chris Gunness. You said I needed to reference Chris's life more as opposed to the work he does. Can you please explain further and give some more specific examples of what you mean? I saw that you referred to a Guardian article about his work but I was unsure of what you meant to exemplify with this example. Finally, I apologise if I have posted my questions incorrectly on your talks page. DesperateMamma (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DesperateMamma:, This is a great place to reach me, thanks for the question. The policy about biographies is here -- it's a bit complex but the main ideas are that everything contentious or personal should be referenced. It's not that we don't need more references about the work that he does -- rather, it's that the info on his personal life can't be included unless it is backed up by citations/references. Does that make sense? The other issue is that if he is ONLY known for 1 or 2 events (rather than as a public figure), it might not make sense to have an article about him, but rather on the event; for more on that see this section. I don't *think* that's the case here, but more references are needed to make it clear. Let me know if that makes sense, and feel free to write again with more questions or if you want me to look at a new version of the page!Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20:26:36, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Genspeak
Hi Jodi, I wondered if you could take a look a the re-written draft article that you declined on 6th October, as it's now in its eighth week without a subsequent review. The article has been re-drafted (more appropriately I feel in light of your comments) to conform to Wiki's 'notability' guidelines by framing the article to present Andy McMaster as a songwriter, as opposed to a band musician. Your comments or an actual review, if possible, would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Genspeak (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are still a problem here--I left some notes on the page the other day. The discography sites cited are not strong sources -- and it's not ok to write something like this "Andrew (“Andy”) McMaster is a songwriter best known for writing the words and music of hit songs" unless it's supported by references (currently not). I suggest that you get help from editors at WP:WikiProject Pop music; you could also leave a note on Talk:The Motors asking for help.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium report: Workshops for collection holders across Europe; Founding event of Wikimedia Belgium; Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium & Luxembourg; Plantin-Moretus Museum; Edit-a-thon at faculty library in Ghent University; Image donation UGentMemorie; Upcoming activities
France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; mass upload; Musée de Bretagne
