User talk:78.26/archive2014-1

G12:Unambiguous copyright infringement question

Hi Jni,

Thank you for taking the time to review my SAFELipo page. The note on the rejection cause referenced copyright infringement G12. I looked over the Wikipedia guidelines for this and was unclear about what specifically created this infringement in the article. I would like to improve the citation if necessary, but need clarification on what triggered the G12 notification.

The footer of the site referenced for the violation reads this, "The content of every article is copyrighted to LipoAdvisor.com, all rights reserved. Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form (email, website, or another downloadable content) is permitted as long as you link back to our site Please link to the URL http://www.lipoadvisor.com in case you use our content" Does this fall under the creative commons license?

I would appreciate any help to create a better article, thanks. Etna-research (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Etna-research,

Thank you for taking the time to write. Copyright is of course a bit murky in this instance, and I do not claim to be a copyright expert, but in general Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted text to appear on it. In this instance Wikipedia may have permission if a link is provided, but many sites mirror and copy from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia of course can not control this. Also, Wikipedia uses nofollow links, which may not suffice in regards to the source's requirements. In general, unless a direct quote is needed for historical purposes, it is always a good idea to use your own words, and not those of the source. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Help:Referencing for beginners. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline (Photron) as advertising

Hello, The article I wrote (Photron), was declined by 78.26. I wrote this article not as an advertisement but as an informative article, exactly like the one under Vision Research Phantom concerning high speed cameras. When I say exactly, I mean I used the Vision Research Phantom wiki-page as a guideline/template. It surprises me that my article is consider advertising when the Vision Research Phantom article has the same type of content. I have tried again to make neutral, rewriting and removing all that I could possibly see that could be construed at advertising. This article is on Photron as a company, just like hundreds that are on Wikipedia. I want to make sure it complies but I don't understand what is considered advertising in the article. Please have a look at the Vision Research Phantom article since I built the information about Photron using the same format which had gone through revision and declines but now has been accepted. I have read the articles you referenced about advertising yet, I fail to see where this article (Photron) is written as an advertisement. I could use some help on what needs to be changed. Any help would be appreciated. Best, HighSpeedWizzard — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighSpeedWizzard (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello HighSpeedWizard. Frankly, I can not tell the difference between the tone of this prose and what would appear on the company's own website. I didn't say it isn't factual, but the whole tone of the article is to promote the product, it is not written in an encyclopedic manner. 90% of the article is about the company's product, and not about the company, which is a big red flag. Here are some phrases which are not neutral phrasing: "milestones in performance have been achieved" (as measured against what, and whom, and by whom?); "cameras can be accurate to each image being exposed at the same instances" (very cool, but obviously meant to promote a product, and not neutral information about a company); "are small and extremely rugged" (again a value judgement, this is blatantly promotional); "There are hundreds of papers published on various subjects, research and applications on the Photron FASTCAM Digital High-Speed Cameras" (would definitely need a citation, otherwise the sentence is implying "look how great our cameras are and how much deserved attention they get!") If you want a second opinion, I cordially invite you to visit the teahouse, where there are several editors who would be willing to give you a second opinion if you think mine is too harsh. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your input on specifics. I can amend these suggestions. However, please look at this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Research_Phantom). I used this page as a template. What I submitted is absolutely no different yet it has been accepted. I am writing about the company and writing about cameras it makes just like Nikon or Canon's pages. These pages all talk about their products because people use their products and want to know more about them. The references & cited articles I listed are publications by independent researchers on applications with high speed cameras. I have well known, independent (neutral) publications talking about not only Photron cameras but Vision Research, IDT and others. Looking at Nikon's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon) there are over 40 cameras talked about and referenced. I will re-edit but I feel you are applying harsh editing when compared to very similar articles which have been accepted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Research_Phantom). Thank you again for giving me some guidance. I will do a re-write. Best, HighSpeedWizzard HighSpeedWizzard (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, it is not my job to review every article on Wikipedia. There are lots of things written here that I view as promotional and not belonging on an encyclopedia, and there are undoubtedly things I have written/contributed here that other editors wouldn't agree with. I am trying to help new editors write articles that will not be nominated for Deletion, or if they are, other editors will vote to keep them. This involves giving my opinion and making judgment calls, so here it is: There are fundamental differences between the Nikon and Canon articles and your article. First, your article talks very little about the company, it is almost entirely about it's product. That makes the article appear promotional no matter how factual and well-sourced the article is. Canon's article has almost 'no information about its products aside from historical development (a paragraph about historical cameras appears much less like advertising) There is also an entirely separate article about Canon's cameras, more about that later. Nikon has more information about the company, as well as a *listing* of some of its cameras, both historical and current. But notice that these cameras are in-and-of-themselves deemed notable, worthy of an encyclopedia article. In fact, based on the sources may better support an article about individual camera's produced by Photron, rather than an article on Photron itself. Again, I hope that helps you. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks very much for your insight. I can add more information about the company and contributions. Almost every manufactured item has at one point been analyzed with high speed video, from Golf clubs to weapon systems. Photron has received many awards including an Emmy & Technical Oscar. Myth Busters started using Photron cameras and then later used Vision Research cameras. Time Warp used Photron cameras to demonstrate many high speed events in slow motion. Major movies have used Photron cameras for special effects. The list goes on and on. While the high speed video industry is not as large as consumer imaging (Nikon/Canon), the contribution remains. I am also writing an article on a historical high speed video which covers from the beginning to current technology. Thank you for your help. I resubmitted the article last night. Should I wait for another review or do an edit now on add much more about the company & the contributions? Best, HighsSpeedWizzard

Hello, I have researched more information about Photron as a company and less about cameras they make. I added a timeline of significant milestones in their history. If you have a chance to look at the page, please let me know if I still do not have a good balance about the company as compared to cameras used by high-speed end users. Best, HighSpeedWizzard HighSpeedWizzard (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I finally get around to this (it's complicated!) and your article has been promoted. Contratulations, and good work. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing article "Dani Wilde"

Thanks for taking time to review my submission "Dani Wilde", and thanks for noting about the copyright information. To explain, I have written the article originally and sent it to the artist, who subsequently used it for one of her reviews online. It therefore explained why the wording have appeared the same. I have edited it accordingly for further review. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leec001 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kansas City religion section promotes certain religions/churches

The KC religion section promotes very specific religions and churches. I propose only showing stats that represent all religions. Other city sites don't have such proselytizing hiding as 'information'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.192 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that your edits was completely unsourced. It would be impossible to show stats that represent *all* religions. You are correct, some city articles don't have a religion section, but many, if not the majority, do. It is not a reason to remove sourced material. The information was sourced, and I did not see any POV material, mostly citing locations of organizational headquarters and membership percentages of some of the largest affiliations by percentage, and their significance to the area. Please take your explanation to the talk page of the article, so others can review and comment. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NIAMA-REISSER Technology Rejection

Hello there:

I am responding to your rejection of my article "NIAMA-REISSER Technology". I cannot follow you based upon your comment:

"""Comment: more product portfolio than encyclopedia article 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)""

The article in question is by far not a PRODUCT PORTFOLIO. It is similar to the NSU Motorenwerke Page --German-- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU_Motorenwerke

Furthermore, I explicitly state the function of the engine, car and ceramic products / technologies. For instance, I go into great detail on how the CHB-Evo. engine functions. There is no sales pitch or any other info. in that portion and the article as a whole.

This is entirely similar to the US wiki page from EcoMotors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors

In addition to the German Wiki Page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmotor

Since I am new, I might have made the mistake and falsely listed all my REFERENCES along with the EXTERNAL LINKS. EcoMotors did that better, but that can be corrected asap. The reference are: Columbus Dispatch --biggest Newspaper in OHIO-, Diesel Power Magazine, Ansys, Inc. --Fortune 500 Magazine- NIAMA-REISSER, LLC Design Competition Winner, Quest for the 200 MPG Car, 81st International Geneva Auto Show ... the list goes on. They are all in my external links. That surely has to be corrected.

Other than that, I believe that you have not even read the article to its entirety, or else you would have noted the above. I am new to Wikipedia and I have invested more than a weeks research in this article. It is notable and the company has more than 35 patents internationally: USA, Germany, India, China, Japan, Korea, etc.

I hereby kindly request that the article is allowed and put mainstream. I have followed Wikis guidelines and my article is 100% similar to the above listed URL wiki articles. Should my article be rejected furthermore, I will kindly request that the above listed articles be deleted asap, for they too then violate wiki rules and regulations.

I am looking forward to your speedy attention in this matter.

Thanks, Alreim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreim (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter what else is on German Wikipedia, or English Wikipedia either for that matter. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that really aren't encyclopedia articles. Note: I am not saying your article isn't factual. What I am pointing out is that the article, as written, looks more like an advertisements (advertisements can be factual) for it's products than an encyclopedia article. Phrases such as "The engine has a significantly reduced frictional coefficient for that matter" belong in an advertisement brochure much more than an encyclopedia article. Please see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response

How is this article advertisement? All portions of the article explain the function of the technology. I had already added neutral sentences like: "the company claims" , "according to the company" ... So please drop the accusation and argument that this article is advertisement! You have only mentioned one sentence as a recommendation to change.

Once I go over the article again, and find time to resubmit it, I don't want admins that don't read he entire article and its Citations/references delete it in 5 seconds. This is ridiculous!

I would like your take on that! It almost seems like Niama-Reisser is being singled out, if compared To the articles to my previous post. Looking fwd. to your reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreim (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not responding as user:DESiegel makes a very patient, detailed explanation on user's talk page. Article subsequently created that is not advertisement. Should note I am not an administrator, and I took a lot longer than 5 seconds to review the article. I would cordially invite user to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My "take on that" is that the goal at Articles for Creation is to help editors create articles that won't be deleted. If the creating editor does not wish to listen, or wishes to be abrasive towards those attempting to assist, well, there are better ways I can spend my time. I am glad you listened to DESiegel. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla

Respected Administrator 78.26, can I create Ayaan Chawla article? I have created an article myself with good references & metirial. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PradeepChowdhury/sandbox. Checksoon and reply :) WR PradeepChowdhury (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Respected Administrator 78.26, I have added some new good references - Microsoft, Intel, College Website & etc. and I have added facebook, linkedin, and company websites because I wanted to add photos proofs as reference so that was available only on these websites kindly review again visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PradeepChowdhury/sandbox. WR :) PradeepChowdhury (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

First, I'm not an administrator. I am just a normal editor here at Wikipedia. Second, please don't delete the decline notices. You deleted both Aggie80's decline, and mine. It makes it harder for future reviewers to see what you have improved on the article since the previous decline, and it also appears you are not being forthright. Third, please read Wikipedia's policy on notability. Particularly notice that Notability is not inherited. Your mentions of Microsoft and similar sites do not show your topic is notable, because you do not need to be a notable person to do business with these companies. These are directory mentions, and in no way confer notability. I hope that is useful to you. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK 78.26, I thought you are a Administrator no problem. First, I don't understand if I want to raise article for review then I should delete other stuff from page I am right? Second, I am reading Wikipedia since last 7 years and I read many articles on companies, people & other and saw these type of links as references. WR :) PradeepChowdhury (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of Nagle Jackson biography draft because of lack of notability

Hello 78.26,

Everyone of the references cites Nagle Jackson by name within the article.

1. Berenice Butterfly

Reference n° 12 mentions "Berenice Butterfly", a play written by Nagle, see:

a. http://books.google.fr/books/about/Bernice_butterfly.html?id=usFWMoQi5RwC&redir_esc=y

b. http://www.amazon.fr/Bernice-Butterfly-A-Two-part-Invention/dp/082222240X

If you click on Nagle's name on the Amazon page, you go to his "author" page:

http://www.amazon.fr/Nagle-Jackson/e/B001KI5QWI/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

which lists five of his plays.

2. Google search

If you do a Google search on Nagle's name, there are nine full pages with references to him. These references coincide with the biography.

3. Google photos

If you click on Nagle's images after having done a search on his name, you'll only see four photos of him. All the other photos are scenes from his plays. Clicking on most of them will link to an on-line version of an article in which he is mentioned.

Is this explanation sufficient?

If not, do I need to send you scans of the articles referenced? If so, how can I do so?

Best wishes,

Basil 86.69.32.132 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Basil. Thanks for writing. May I suggest you pay special attention to Wikipedia:Referencing for Beginners? If you are able to link your inline citations (good job responding to previous declining reviewer!) with referencing links to the available online newspaper articles, it would really help your article. Regarding the references themselves, I think you may be missing the point. I have no doubt your subject appeared in all these plays, or have any cause to doubt the accuracy of what is presented. But it appears that these articles are about plays and productions, and not about Nagle himself. However, I believe Nagle is probably notable because he is the playwright of "Morrissey Hall", but the current referencing really doesn't demonstrate that, in my opinion. One thing that needs immediate attention: The "Personal" section is completely unreferenced. As a living person, the standards of Biographies of Living Persons must be met. Are there any sources about Nagle the person? Then you can keep these details, otherwise they would be deleted if the article were promoted to the mainspace. I hope that is useful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks for AFC WSM

thanks much for the help to create the article on William Sharp McKechnie! :) 66.225.160.9 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, it is a good topic. I hope you also thanked @user:Ironholds, he did more than I did! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, I did thank Ironholds. Cheers! 66.225.160.9 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on content

You just removed some info that I wrote on Palette Records. I'm not exactly sure how anything I would write would not be considered advertising. I can talk more about the concept of the record label which is "a record label created by artists for the artists" and how that compares to another similar situation from United Artists. This is from our website: In 1919, four leading figures of early Hollywood – Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and D. W. Griffith were pioneers of this idea and joined together to form the film studio, United Artists – this was specifically done with the intention of controlling their own interests and creativity as artists, rather than depending upon the powerful commercial studios.

In the same way, every one of the artists on Palette Records are individually “modern pioneers,” proactive & forward thinking – forging paths in a musical climate where the ‘indie’ musician is able to make as powerful a mark as a major label and control their destiny. By uniting as artists in the form of a co-operative – we collectively understand the benefits of working together to create a synergy, of sharing ideas and collaborating in every possible way. This enables us to help each other find new and better avenues to bring our creations to the world.

We are managing our “art” within a new, constantly changing and shifting marketplace while at the same time, making the absolute best, un-compromised “Art in Music.”

Would that be something that you would consider worthy? If so, can I include a link to Palette Records' website? There is also a vast history of Jeff Silverman, one of the founders who is a former Motown songwriter and a producer with many credits to his name.

Any suggestions you have would be most appreciated - thank you!

Paletteinfo (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is advertising as it is the company's opinion of itself. Please review the core Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. The paragraph you created was very much *for* the company much more than it was *about* the company. Given your company is un-related to the Belgian company the current article is about, I would recommend creating a separate article, but before doing so take a moment to make sure that the following are true. Has your company been discussed, in depth, by several (i.e. at least two) reliable sources that are completely independent of your company? If so, I would be willing to help you create such an article. If not, wait until these circumstances are met to create the article, otherwise it will probably be deleted, which is frustrating for a content creator and wastes your time. I hope that is helpful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph C. Smith

Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping out with the Articles for Creation. Newbies may find it difficult to say thank you, so I am sending this wiki kitten on their behalf. Cheers!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Paolo Isnardi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello 78.26! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 125 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 10:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

DYK for Ace Spectrum

The DYK project (nominate) 21:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello 78.26:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

List of bass guitarists

There I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.250.134 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is getting complicated, I've replied on your talk page going over the details, I hope you find it useful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Jhrastafari/Diabetes.co.uk

Hi there - you said that "References that are independent of the subject do not discuss the subject in detail, or not at all. 78.26"

Could you tell me which ones are not correct and I'll edit them. It's my first attempt - I thought I did OK but obviously not! :)

Jen x

Jen x (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

reply

Not bad for a first attempt. I haven't really discussed this, but the article also reads as promotion, as if it were *for* the subject, rather than *about* the subject. Have you spent some time reading the notability guidelines? I'll go over the first three references, for examples as types, and if you have further questions or questions about other references, I am happy to discuss.

1. The first is not at all independent of the subject, so does not help establish notability
2. The second is a likely good source, although I'm not sure how entries are nominated, it might not be completely independent.
3. Is a trivial mention, which doesn't help establish notability (much).

Of further note, Google Play and Amazon are not reliable sources, as information is user-contributed by sellers. Most of the other sources are self-references like #1, and numbers 13 and 14 are excellent sources, but do not mention the article subject at all.

I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

wrong count

Hi @Excirial:, AFC Buddy is giving me undeserved extra credit. I reviewed Jay A. Levy, M.D., but forgot to check for copyvio. Realizing my mistake, I undid my review and then failed for the copyvio. Problem is AFCBuddy is counting it as two reviews, not one as it should. I'm not sure the best way to fix this, but thought I should bring it to your attention. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that AFCBuddy is currently working as intended and by design. In order to calculate the amount of reviews you made AFCBuddy scans a users contributions for summaries that are left by the AFCH script (These always have the same format). Since you reviewed the article twice AFCBuddy will detect that you made two reviews for that page, and award score as such. Reviewing a page twice by itself is not unusual; if an editor resubmitted a declined page the reviewer should receive a point for the review even if they alo checked it an hour/day/week earlier. Any mechanisms that prevent this would be a waste of processing time at best and shoddy at worst. For example: Scanning an editors edits to determine if they reverted their own edits is both shoddy and wastefull in terms of resources used. After all, what is a revert? Does it leave a default rollback summary? What if an editor just removed the template manually? To detect that we would have to parse the full text of each revision that every user made which requires substantial extra resources.

To be frank i doubt that the extra point is really an issue - i don't think anyone will complain that it is there. If you really wish to correct the score you could either opt to review a page manually (AFCBuddy cannot detect this and thus will not award you a point for it), or you could add two failed re-reviews to your own review for failing to notice the copyvio. That would cause the usual -3 points adjustment penalty on that edit, which would more then level the score. But honestly: I would say: Honest mistake, waste of time to try and correct it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I revised an article to meet your objections but I'm not sure I succeeded in officially resubmitting it

I revised my article on the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, which you rejected on the grounds that sources did not appear to be independent of the subject. Having completed my revisions per your request, I saved it but then could no longer see the "resubmit" button, so I'm wondering whether I succeeded in resubmtting my article, or if I accidentally deleted something that enabled the button. Please advise - thanks! Moonandback (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(user accidentally removed AfC template, replied on talkpage) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Aunt Mary (radio soap opera)

Thank you for your interest in this article and your comment, "I believe this was improperly declined. Please resubmit, and I will promote if you let me know." I resubmitted the article a few minutes ago, and I will appreciate any help you can give. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. -- I am cleaning up the repeated citations in footnotes. At the time I submitted the article, I did not know the procedure for avoiding repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teblick (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for writing these articles, I hope you keep it up. By the way, you're an autoconfirmed editor now, so you can create articles directly, if you don't want to go through the "Articles for Creation" process. But if you like submitting articles that way, with extra eyes reviewing before it goes "live on the air" you're welcome to continue, of course. I'm an OTR fan, and have hundreds of 16" radio transcriptions in my collection. I imagine the other reviewer is probably not aware of these old shows, and is unfamiliar with Billboard, Broadcasting, and the like. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to meet another OTR fan on Wikipedia. I have read OTR articles by some, but you are the first one I have communicated with. Your collection of transcriptions sounds impressive! I have never had any of those. I used to collect OTR shows on tape, but eventually my reel-to-reel recorders died. Now I download episodes from the Internet and burn them on CDs. My wife and I enjoy listening to them when we travel in our car.

I'm not familiar with the "autoconfirmed editor" status. Creating articles directly would certainly avoid the time lag for publication, so I might give that a try. Since you are an OTR fan, I would appreciate your looking over anything in that area that I write and providing feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline of a submission

Just so you are aware, the South Dakota Wing Civil Air Patrol is notable, as there were a lot sources, plus there was a template at the bottom of the page for all of its sister organizations. I'm not faulting you, but I just wanted to let you know just in case you saw it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the topic is notable, are you referring to the shape the submission was in at the time I declined it? At the time I reviewed it there were four self-references, a reference that didn't mention the South Dakota chapter at all, and Wikipedia reference. I'm glad to see the article has vastly improved, and you were correct to promote it in the condition it is in. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's probably true, as I generally just assume good faith in incidents like that. Oh well, at least it's live! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding SM Entertainment Controversies Section

Hello,

I'm, again, not sure if I have reached the right place to share this post.. But someone responded to my post about this topic on the "Talk:S.M. Entertainment" talk page and I wanted to talk with that person.

Thank you for giving me information about Wikipedia pages and policies. I did read into them and I wanted to point a few things to state my case. One was the 'inclusion' test mentioned. The first factor to take into account was if this information is already widely known. If this was a Korean Wikipedia page, I don't think it would be a problem. But when trying to search for articles related to these issues, the only 'sources' that came up were usually from Korean blogger sites it seems, or sites I've never heard of. The reason for my skepticism of these sites is because I'm a Korean-American and follow with the news but only with accredited websites such as Naver or Daum (For example: it's like trusting Yahoo or Google news over TMZ, for obvious reasons). Also, I don't recall encyclopedias posting negative things in general? In terms of the price rigging scheme section, it's noted that SM wasn't even fined or tried for their actions. And again, when I try to Google these, I don't get any reliable resources; basically what I read from Tabloids are things that I find on this page, which the Avoiding Harm's page mentioned that Wikipedia is not.

My main point for these reasons is the people who look at these pages are probably people who don't know much about the company to begin with. If informing the audience about the company is really the goal, I don't see why this section is necessary at all. Since SM is part of the 'big 3' with YG and JYP, when comparing the three companies, an objective viewer will likely not have a neutral point of view about these companies after reading the three companies, which contradicts the point about providing a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:AC20:717D:18DA:7254:8DB9 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello 2602... I agree, if the section were sourced by blogs, it should be removed. However, the section is sourced by Korea Times and KBS World, which I think are reliable resources. Do you have reason to believe these sources are not reliable? As you did in the past, I would continue that discussion on the talk page of the article, as more eyes will see it there than on my talk page. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Gene Autry's Melody Ranch (radio program)

I wonder if you might have a chance to look at an article I submitted about Gene Autry's Melody Ranch -- the radio program, as contrasted with the movie and physical ranch by the same name. (See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Autry's Melody Ranch (radio program).) I submitted it February 15 and haven't received any feedback. The radio show is mentioned briefly in the articles Gene Autry and The Gene Autry Show, but I think it deserves its own entry.

Thanks for your time. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eddie. I have promoted the page. Thanks! Note I changed the article title, as the disambiguation "(radio program)" really isn't necessary. AfC always has a long backlog, so actually waiting a month is not uncommon at all (another reason for you to directly create articles now). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for promoting the page. I appreciate your help. I understand about the backlog and have posted one article directly -- Club Fifteen. I have one other article (Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Four Star Playhouse (radio program)) that was "in the pipeline" before I learned from you that I could post directly. If you have a chance to look at it, I would appreciate that. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Again, thanks for the work, these are interesting, valuable articles. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your action on the Four Star program and your encouragement. The more OTR-related research I do, the more topics I find that I would like to write on. I'm currently compiling resources about announcer Del Sharbutt. As I find new sources about him, I sometimes find new aspects of his life that I didn't know about before. He will probably be the subject of my next article. Thanks again. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's my favorite part about writing articles - how much you learn. Looking forward to seeing the Sharbutt article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting

Hello, okay? Thanks for your help in that discussion in "WikiProject Scouting". Hallel (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Yes, this is a strange episode. There are other projects that should have been notified, as these organizations are usually of interest to the various religion's Projects as well. I appreciate your input as well. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Tim Gosling , Designer

Hello 78.26 .

Having trouble getting this article on to Wikepedia. I am independant to the subject, I have many independent references in Newspapers articles , Tv and video references and West End stage productions ? The subject is a published author in three published books and one of the most important furniture designers working today. The subject is seriously important in the world of furniture design and I am lost as to what I can do as this article is referenced, supported and verrified with clear independent citations. Please can you offer some help as I have been trying for a while now to do this.... Custardpieboy (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what most of the previous reviewers have said. Pay particular attention to what Dodger67 said. You would be much better off to considerably trim this article down. Only include sources that contain in-depth coverage of the subject. Stop trying so hard to demonstrate how wonderful and important this person is. Please take the time to read WP:NOTABILITY. If a source truly helps establish notability, leave it in. If it is only a trivial mention, leave it out. Also, the article if full of weasel words, please review this as well. An example is "highly respected bespoke Furniture". Respected by whom? It is a very subjective term, and is not encyclopedic. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello 78.26

PLease can you re look at the Tim Gosling Designer page again as I have made the corrections and it has been rejected by someone for now not having enough ....this is maddening . Custardpieboy (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am that someone, and I am going to respond to this on my talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that, after another editor effected many of the suggestions by myself and other reviewers, the article has been promoted. Congratulations! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DW Jones

In your comments for declining the article, you stated: "This article needs more sources that are independent of the subject. His employers webpage and his own published works to not count towards establishing notability.”

Please note that I have added further references to the article to support Dr Jones's international recognition. Also note that all of the national and international awards bestowed upon Dr Jones for his work are awarded independently and objectively and not by his own submission. Dr Jones is not a self-proclaimed expert as defined in the submission guidelines, but rather a distinguished international scientist with over 40 years of work in the specialized field of dental biomaterials science.

I thank you in advance for your reconsideration of this article.

R. Dorrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.240.12 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. I think this person is almost undoubtedly notable, however the links which you provide to establish this no longer work. Please check the references, and update them to working URLs if you can. If he has been cited in a medical journal, please provide the edition date and article name, as it is the format is too generic to verify if the site modifies the URL. Please see Wikipedia's page on referencing for beginners. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply - just to clarify, do you mean that articles that cite his work should be referenced, not just work that he has authored? - R. Dorrington100.42.240.12 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Yes!! Absolutely. Fair or not, it is not one's own work that makes a person notable, but that other people have taken notice of the output. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to the "Big Band Bossa Nova" article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaneOlds/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneOlds (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AFCH review

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grilled Cheese Truck DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I think it is notable, but I'm glad you brought this up for deletion as it improved the article significantly. I'll admit I don't look for perfect articles at AfC, merely ones I think will survive. It didn't meet WP:TNT to me, so I gave the passer a pass. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

addendum: I also want to specifically thank you for being the most transparent of editors, going out of your way to notify others, even those only peripherally involved. It is truly appreciated. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not one of those who thinks an article must be perfect--as I understand it, the expected rationale for accepting is a >50% chance of passing AfD. It's therefore reasonable that borderline articles that are accepted will be often challenged, and sometimes pass AfD and sometimes not. The decision when to use TNT is in most cases a matter of judgment, and different people and different AfDs will judge differently. AfD can be quite inconsistent, but it's still the best of all our processes for making decisions. I rely on it both for trying to influence the community-- and then for staying approximately in step with whatever the community decides is the standard. A problem with AfC is the dependence on a single person's judgment, and therefore the processes of AfC review might be very helpful in trying to achieve some degree of uniformity, and I'm starting to work there. In other words, expect more challenges, but I'm sure you realize that it's meant not to assign blame, but to improve the process,. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Del Sharbutt

In a recent message, you mentioned an interest in my research on Del Sharbutt. I wanted to let you know that I posted the article a few minutes ago. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Very nice! I marked the article as "patrolled" and removed the outdated template at the top. I enjoyed reading that, thank you! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you very much! Eddie Blick (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My purpose of the template

The purpose of the template for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Template:Billy_Talent_discography is that I want to get rid of the infoboxes so that way they could be excluded from the prints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browniebear13 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The infobox is a template. I don't see how substituting one template for another will help you out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is that I want to make a template that I can exclude from prints. Will you be able to help me out? --Browniebear13 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean removing from printing a page, this method will not work. Are you just trying to print the page, but without the picture? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All I just want to do is remove a picture and certain text from print. Browniebear13 — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Because the infobox is at the very beginning of the page, you can easily select the text without highlighting the unwanted infobox. Then all you have to do is "print selection" in your browser. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I use the "exclude in print" category as well? --Browniebear13 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing. I do know that creating your proposed template won't solve the problem. You are asking technical questions that might best answered at the Wikipedia:Help desk. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Is "Golden Easter Egg" fixed up?

You rejected my new topic which I have now fixed up (I think!!). Rvoight (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you recheck please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvoight (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rvoight! This is indeed much better. The biggest problem right now is that there are two versions on the page. Please delete the redundancy so the reviewing editor is not confused as to which is intended as the correct one. Given that it is established as the richest greyhound race, has it been noted as such outside of Australia? This would really be a significant addition to the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, deleted and resubmitted. Many thanks Rvoight

OK, deleted and resubmitted. Many thanks Rvoight (talk) 01:41, 02 April 2014 (UTC)

Junior Writers Awards

Hi User talk:78.26, thank you for your review. The Submission was declined. It said the submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. We would like to know why you think this submission / submission's references is not notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? You can find that there are many news about the Junior Writers Awards and the Winners in South China Morning Post. South China Morning Post is a very well-known English News Paper in Hong Kong, they also have a website which special for this event [1]. And also have a website for announce the top 100 winners result [2]. Since this competition is for Hong Kong and Macau Students, Macao Daily News the top news paper in Macao. Also have news about the Junior Writers Awards. In addition, you can read the news in South China Morning Post news [3]. Junior Writers Awards organization invited Mrs. Cherry Tse Ling Kit-Ching, JP to join the ceremony. She is the Permanent Secretary for Education in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Also, you can read the awards details in South China Morning Post website [4], you can found that they have a benefactor Ms. Angela Leong. She is the Vice Chairman of the Board, Po Leung Kuk and is a List of members of the Legislative Assembly of Macau. Therefore, all the submissions referencing are verifiable, clear evidence of why the subject is notable, all are from reliable sources, all are independent of the subject and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thanks for review again and let me know your comment? Also, any advise for pass the review? (121.202.70.110 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

The #1 problem, as the article is currently written, is that none of the sources seem to talk about the Awards themselves. For instance, most of the articles discuss the books what received the award, and mention the award in passing, but are not about the awards. Many of the sources are not news articles, but are press releases (see: yp.scmp.com/juniorwritersawards). Which of the sources talk in-depth about the awards themselves, and not the books. Honestly, an award program founded this year probably doesn't have established notability yet. As per the other reviewers, this is probably WP:TOOSOON. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation - Rejection

Please see the entry for the ADDF's sister foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, for similar citations. Their page refers to a listing on CharityWatch to legitimize their entry and I feel a referring to a listing by GuideStar also legitimizes the ADDF entry. Please note that the BCRF entry is almost entirely self-referenced. I have provided verifiable links to every fact listed for the ADDF entry.

Please reconsider your decision on this matter.

Thank you.

Ajcarman1977 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Ajcarman1977

Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation - Resubmission

I have resubmitted with the entry with more reliable sources, including peer-reviewed scientific publications. I left the GuideStar reference because it legitimizes ADDF as a charitable non-profit organization (just as the CharityWatch reference in the Wiki entry for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation legitimizes it as a charity).

Thank you.

Ajcarman1977 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Ajcarman1977

Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, Leonard Lauder reference

Also, please see the Wikipedia entry for Leonard Lauder and the currently unlinked reference to Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation under the section "Social Causes" which lists Leonard Lauder as co-founder and chairman of ADDF.

Thank you.

Ajcarman1977 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Ajcarman1977

Hello Ajcarman1977. First, please carefully read the following guidelines and explanations: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:REFB, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTINHERITED. If I were to review the Breast Cancer Research Foundation article, I would not promote it to the mainspace. As it is, the article could wind up at Articles for Deletion and if it is not improved, I would predict the article would be deleted. My job is not to judge everything that is currently on Wikipedia, at 4 million+ articles that would be impossible. My job (mind you, this is all completely volunteer work because I'm an information junkie) is to help you write an article that won't be deleted. As I mentioned in my comments (I hope you read them) when declining, you're article is getting close. If you had just *one* more source similar to the Chicago Business reference, I would have passed the article. The nih.gov reference would help, but I can't duplicate that claim made. It just places you on a main page. Is there a way to expand the URL to include search criteria? I hope that is helpful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Debenu Quick PDF Library Review

Hi 78.26, Thanks for really quick response to my article resubmission. I was trying to write the article in similar style as other PDF library related articles and tried to keep it simple and informative for people who are searching for this kind of library as i was for few weeks. Since there are not much articles around the web i figured wikipedia would be a good way to help other people in my position. Please can you give some tips on how to correct the article and still keep it information wise rich? Thanks again -FP

It needs to read much more like an encyclopedia article, and less like an advertising brochure. It needs to be *about* the company/product/topic, not *for* it. Please see WP:NOTABILITY and while I know the following is a tough read, WP:MOS. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation - Resubmission pt2

Thank you for your help, I appreciate it.

In my current resubmission, I added a reference to another news article (Palm Beach Daily News) as well as a link to an MSNBC interview by Andrea Mitchell with the Director of ADDF, Dr. Howard Fillit. Additionally, I changed the link for the NINDS reference and I added references to peer-reviewed scientific publications from the ADDF as well as a reference to a recent biomedical non-profit report from FasterCures.

I hope this is satisfactory for acceptance.

I look forward to your response.

Ajcarman1977 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Ajcarman1977

OK, I went through the article, converted most of the bare URLs to to citation templates, removed the guidestar sentence (seems promotional), made a few manual of style changes, and promoted the article to the mainspace. The Palm Beach article is what did it for me, as it provided substantial, independent coverage of the organization itself. In its current state, it still appears marginally notable, so I can't guarantee the article won't get dragged to WP:AfD at some point, but I think it stands a good chance of surviving. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Ajcarman1977 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Ajcarman1977

Rejected submission of article on APS Technology

At this point of time, I am somewhat confused with the feedback provided and very uncertain as to how to make the page better. Can you please provide guidance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/APS_Technology

Also very confused as to why the page on Gyrodata is "published" while Gyrodata is of less significance than APS in the MWD world and the page has significantly less external references.

I understand that something needs to be added. Not sure what.

Pherve (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pherve. The addition of the Hartford Courant article is really helpful. Please take the time to thoroughly read Wikipedia's notability policy so you can understand why I stated in my comments that the previously added references don't help establish notability, but this one does. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you for your questions and for your thorough, thoughtful answer. Looking forward to future collaboration. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I am sorry it did not succeed, because I disagree with the premise you must be a content creator to be an effective administrator here. Nonetheless, you should try creating/writing an article, your writing ability has been demonstrated in your rfa, and in your communications with others. It's fun, and you end up learning a lot. I look forward to supporting your next run. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Joker's Closet

Hello,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joker%27s_Closet

I'm trying to understand what changes need to be made to change the tone of this article. To me it appears to be neutral. Is there a specific sentence or two that stands out reading more like an advertisement? Please let me know your thoughts and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.26.99 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the second paragraph describe the positive attributes of the product, and why it is possibly to a customer's advantage to use the company's product. This type of material doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, but in such a short article, makes the promotion stand out all the more. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great please see the changes I've now made. I hope this is satisfactory to your requirements. Please advise if you feel this will work. Thank you very much for your assistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joker%27s_Closet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.26.99 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure, it still seems promotional to me. However, you've re-submitted it for consideration, and another pair of eyes looking at it might see it differently. Aside from notability/promotion, the sentence "Users are giving" should be "Users are given", no? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony Marvin

I have just posted an article about Tony Marvin. Considering your interest in old-time radio, I thought you might like to take a look. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. Keep 'em coming! I did create a "lede" as that is the generally accepted per WP:LAYOUT. Let me know what you think. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'm still learning about Wikipedia style and protocol. I appreciate your help.Eddie Blick (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding a source to Luan Parle. I was almost considering nominating it for deletion. M. Caecilius (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha! That was my first thought also. But first I thought I'd look for sources. Come to find out she's very notable! There's quite a few more sources, the sad thing is how long this article has existed for such a notable topic, and no sources, none, have ever been added to it. The big question now is to what degree COI in involved in several of the most recent edit history. I'll let someone else with knowledge of the topic tackle that issue. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about formatting

Can you tell me how to format part of an article to have five consecutive lines inset? I tried using blockquote on each line, but that puts a blank line between each pair of lines of type.

I'm working on an article about The Colgate Sports Newsreel, and I would like to include the lyrics of the opening theme. I can't figure how to format them, though. It would be like quoting a stanza of a poem, but I haven't seen any of those that I can inspect for formatting guidelines.Eddie Blick (talk)

You're probably asking the wrong person, there are a log of people with better ideas about formatting than myself. Have you tried the poem markup? It's used effectively in The Raven. If that doesn't work, I'd try the Wikipedia Helpdesk, someone there will have better ideas than I do.

Completely off the topic, do you do requests? I've been thinking of creating an article on the "Gleason-Armstrong Program", also known as the "Knights of the Road" for some time, as I was able to acquire a number of the original transcriptions for this early 30's show. There's a lot of great information at [5], but I was wondering if you had additional information in your resources. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I had not seen the poem markup section before, but it looks like just what I need. I appreciate your help.

I am not familiar with the program that you mentioned, but I'll see if I can find anything about it. I'll let you know. Eddie Blick (talk)

"Gleason-Armstrong Program"

I have searched thoroughly for information about the "Gleason-Armstrong Program." Unfortunately, I found little. Neither of the two OTR reference books in my personal library mentions the program, and I found only one source of substance on the Web other than the one you cited from The Digital Deli Too. The only other sites related to the radio program had a log of episodes broadcast and mp3 recordings of a number of episodes. I also found some material about a movie ("Oh Yeah!") that featured Gleason and Armstrong. I'm putting links to the various sources below so that you can look at any of them that might interest you.

Article in The Old Radio Times

• http://www.otrr.org/FILES/Times_Archive_pdf/2011_03_04MarApr.pdf

Recordings in MP3 Format

• http://www.radioechoes.com/gleason-and-armstrong
• http://otrrlibrary.org/OTRRLib/Library%20Files/G%20Series/Gleason%20And%20Armstrong/

Log of Episodes

• http://radiogoldindex.com/cgi-local/p2.cgi?ProgramName=Gleason+and+Armstrong

Information about Movie

• http://archive.org/stream/motionpicturenew40moti#page/n509/mode/2up (2-page ad from Motion Picture News)
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19291118&id=REcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VuEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5575,4058941 (ad from Reading Eagle)
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19291118&id=REcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VuEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5575,4058941 (short article from The Milwaukee Sentinel -- "Gleason, Armstrong Buddies in New Film")
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19291102&id=F601AAAAIBAJ&sjid=uWcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,3005850 (Look below the picture of Janet Gaynor. Reference to "Oh, Yeah!" starts in the fifth paragraph below the photo.

Eddie Blick (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing 175 or more submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing 25 or more user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CBSRadioDallas.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:ChapelLPlogo3.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:CliftonTexasAvenueDWest1.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Re;Larry Wagner

Let me get to work looking for one! ;) We hope (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Super! He was an arranger for Paul Whiteman and then the Casa Loma Orchestra, worked as a bandleader in the mid-1950s, but perhaps only as a studio unit, not sure if there was a touring "Larry Wagner Orchestra". I'm still researching. Then he wrote musicals for high school performance. (perhaps I could insert an absurd Disney pun in the article. Or I could think better of it.) As always, I truly value your help and input. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, I haven't even been able to find a photo of the 1954 album. :(Plenty of sheet music with his name on them as composer, but the photos are of Frankie Carle and the like. Billboard has some mentions of his work if you check it out as just "Larry Wagner" that will probably give you a hand with the article. Right now, it looks like we'll need to get a non-free one if we can find it. Maybe if a photo of the album can be found, there's a photo of him front or back. Have been looking for one for Dick Manning for years. Frustrating because he was very active in New York Yiddish radio under his birth name of Sam Medoff. National Endowment for the Humanities did a special segment on Yiddish Swing some time ago and he was mentioned all over the place. There were photos of many of the other performers such as The Barry Sisters (United States) and others, but nothing for Medoff/Manning. Hope we don't have to wait as long for a Larry Wagner photo as I have been for Dick Manning! :) We hope (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Confession time: I backed into the obit.:) When I need to search for someone with such a common name, I try adding something about them so I don't have tons of hits for people I'm not looking for. In this case, I searched for "Larry Wagner ASCAP", and the obituary came up. It looks great and the information you found at U Oregon is great too! Think I've also found a Sam Medoff/Dick Manning non-free photo! :) We hope (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, there's another way besides backing into it? Again, thanks for the help, and congratulations on the Sam Medoff find! One would think his photo would show up somewhere in advertising for his vocal coach work (unless he only did this in-house somewhere), but of course stranger things have happened. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Respect is earned by respect

That user IS a troll and a stalker. They are not respected and are close to being banned. Did you bother to read the inflammatory garbage that they write on wikipedia? Or are you just part of a troll posse? Presidentbalut (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You had better provide some specific examples of trolling, or I will move to block your account for continued personal attacks. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen, you owe a profuse apology to Summer, who is bending over backwards to be patient and polite with you. [6] 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Larry Wagner

The DYK project (nominate) 10:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 11:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong edit attribution

At 15:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC), I received a message from you, noting that my recent edit to the Greece national basketball team appears to have added incorrect information, so you removed it for now. However I have never edited this page. Can you please point out the exact edit you are referring to? Fhaskjfhewi (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidently not. I have never left a message on your talk page. There has been only three messages to your talk page, and I am not one of them. Do you have an alternate account? Did you see this message before you logged in? All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• 13:30, December 24, 2012 User:5.54.26.20 added Micheal Jordan to the Greece national basketball team.
• 15:44, December 24, 2012 User:78.26 reverted that as a factual error.
• 15:46, December 24, 2012‎ User:78.26 warned the IP that, geeze, we'd kinda need a source for something that unlikely.
• 14:52, May 11, 2014‎ User:SummerPhD outed herself as a talk page stalker.

- SummerPhD (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Summer! Fhaskjfhewi, someone else, a year and a half ago, made an edit from either the same computer system, or a computer that used the same IP address as you, before you logged in. This is irrelevant to you, you may safely ignore it. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello 78.26:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoffmann

In the context, but not actually part of the nom: I like the ALT and started working on the aria, - it's no more. The other is a 5 movement cantata. I like your choice of BWV 53, though, because it's sung by one of my favourite singers, - I took the lead image ;) - more to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and no hurry. Like you, I've got other wiki to-dos that I can work on. Let me know what, if anything, I can do to help you out. So glad you're helping on this. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will do today what I can do, - not much, but enough to make the hook more interesting than "some compositions" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Base 9 (record label)

Hello, 78. Here's another old label submission to check out. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

2nd time -- but making progress

Hi 78.26 -

Is it because a different entry was submitted, under the same entry name? How can this be avoided if there is no or little flexibility on the entry name? Thanks for any guidance possible.

Cvl neuro (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cvl neuro. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Can you point to the other entry? Is it about the same topic? If different, you could name your article "The Center for Vital Longevity (Dallas)". Let me know, I want to help you out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the swift response. Yes, the same exact topic. It was here, but seems gone now: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center for Vital Longevity. If amending the entry name might do it, can do -- although the revised draft, which was meticulously constructed, seems to have disappeared from the tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvl neuro (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other one. Articles for Creation is moving articles from the "Wikipedia Talk" namespace to the "Draft" namespace. Are you saying you were working on the "Wikipedia Talk" area, and had made significant modification, but it got deleted and what you find is the "Draft" version, which doesn't include your changes? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(more) Looking at your talk page, it would appear the "Wikipedia Talk" submission came first, and then you submitted the "Draft" version later. Is this correct? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion -- I found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Center_for_Vital_Longevity&direction=next&oldid=607688246 -- has all the changes, definitely in the draft space. I can't seem to go back, however, to change the actual entry name, which might be better at "The Center for Vital Longevity."

Cvl neuro (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I have moved the page, you can now find it at: Draft:The Center for Vital Longevity. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that -- it's a pleasure to be working with you. The guidance is very clear, and doable. Will set about substantiating in the manner specified, and with suitable sources that pass muster. So helpful. Thank you.

Cvl neuro (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

New sources to supplant problematic ones, done. Requesting feedback when you get a chance.

Cvl neuro (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I see steps both forwards and backwards here. Your first source doesn't support the claim. It merely says that UTD exists, without saying anything about CVL. I would think this would be easy to substantiate, and this claim would not require an independent source. Not all souces must be independent of the subject, but there must be "multiple" independent, reliable sources to establish notability. I would use a better source than what you've got for #3. Plus the source does not substantiate some of the claims in the sentence, namely where Drs. Park and Rugg were formerly professors. Nothing wrong with a KERA source, but this isn't a story, it looks more like a directory of sponsors. I'll bet you can find better. The PsychCentral and NPR sources are great sources, but unfortunately neither one even mentions CVL. So you're still stuck with only one source giving independent, reliable, substantial coverage of the subject. I recommend the following, in what I deem order of importance:

1. Find another in-depth, reliable source giving information about CVL
2. Make sure the statements are directly tied to the source. For instance, placing your KERA source (but more about that below) after both director names would make it clear you are supporting they are directors of CVS, but that it doesn't support where their former professorships were
3. Find a better source to replace sources #1 and 3. Sourcing directly to the CVL website would be better than these two directory listings. the CVL website can be deemed reliable, it just isn't independent. Therefore, it doesn't help establish notability, but once notability is otherwise established it it fine to use the CVL website as a source (just don't use it as the majority source for things, because of neutral-point-of-view and copyright issues).
4. WP:Wikify the article.

On another note, I would recommend you take a couple of actions regarding your wikipedia account, because it appears you have a direct tie to The Center for Vital Longevity. First, I think you should request a username change. This is because it may be interpreted as attempting to represent an organization, which is not allowed. Wikipedia has a "one account, one person" rule (although the reverse is not true, but that gets complicated and is to be generally avoided so that one is not accused of sockpuppetry, not your issue at all, but since Wikipedia is full of arcane policies, and I mentioned it, I thought I'd better explain it). Please do see the relevant policy, WP:ISU, though. Because you seem to have a tie to CVL, I would fully disclose your conflict of interest on your user:page (which you haven't created). You do not need to give your full identity, just something like: "Disclosure: I am a third-research assistant at CVL" or "I am on the Board of Directors at CVL" would suffice. Please also do read the conflict-of-interest guidelines and follow the protocol after this article is promoted to the mainspace, which I am confident it will be. Also, please let me emphasize that you have done nothing wrong. I am only strongly recommending these actions to avoid possible problems in the future. I hope you find Wikipedia an enjoyable place to be, and that you continue to contribute here during and after this article is finished to your satisfaction. We really need more people with medical and medical-industry expertise here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots to digest here, and to take into account on the third try. Won't try that until it's 100 percent. Just wanted to say THANKS right away.

Cvl neuro (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Came back to the entry today, and here's to the third time being the charm: ALL articles directly highlight the subject, and there is piping to one of the co-directors who is already on Wikipedia. First citation also directs to the Center's website. The Dallas Morning News article should be considered an independent source. That is new on here, as is the KERA/NPR affiliate post, which mentions the Center by name, unlike the previous link. None of the sources is a paid directory listing.

Cvl neuro (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note, can you double-check the KERA link? It's not working for me. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with the following corrected link, http://breakthroughs.kera.org/pick-up-a-new-hobby-to-prevent-memory-loss/ -- which works on this end. Thanks for your patience. Hoping it works within the entry and on your end.

Cvl neuro (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that worked. It's a "trivial" mention, it does not cover the subject indepth. (by the way, it looks like you could easily write an article on Dr. Denise Park). The Texas Govenor page has more than a trivial mention, which brings the article to borderline proof of notability in my opinion. I found the following, if you add information/reference from this, I think you're good:

• [7]
• [8] (last paragraph is golden)
• [9] similar to above]

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it, and on it!

Cvl neuro (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fingers crossed, could not have done without guidance. Feels like it's in great shape, but leaving that for your judgement. Ready for you to look when you are ready.

Cvl neuro (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it's a "start," and so interesting to see how the entry has already been integrated into the larger Wikipedia ecosystem, with larger older, entries now linked to this entry. Will keep polishing and maybe take on an editing project if able to get to that level. There's a lesson here in the importance of giving back. Very thankful for your time and advice. Go 78.26, you're no IP.

Cvl neuro (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobby Byrne (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Simon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bobby Bynre

Thanks for the nice word about the Skelton article ! :) While I'm looking for a photo, you might want to take a look at this Google book as there's quite a bit on Byrne in there. I was trying to eventually get to Billboard hits for him to see if there were any ads with him in it. He may also be pictured in some radio-TV annuals--will see. Did not know he was edged out of The Tonight Show orchestra for Skitch Henderson (and that changed when Carson wanted Doc Severinsen instead.) :) Let's see whether there's anything "out there"; since he's deceased, using a photo from an album cover, etc. in your collection shouldn't be a problem if we find no PD photo. We hope (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this, the family name originally was O'Byrn, which his father, Clarence shortened to Byrn and Bobby added the "e" to make it Byrne. Nice account of how his Dad introduced him to the Dorseys as a kid. We hope (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is my last source to use, aside from a discography site, but I sure appreciate you made sure I knew about it! I saved that one for last, because it has the most information, and I didn't want to build the article heavily dependent on a single source. I had used the Dorsey book already, but missed that part about the paternal introduction, very glad you showed me that! I don't have any albums by Byrne, just 78rpm singles, so I don't have a picture of him. I do plan on adding a label scan in the "discography" section similar to what I have done for Maurice Rocco. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK--I have one and will get it uploaded in a minute. We hope (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Down Beat to the rescue. :) We hope (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Joy! You are fantastic. Figured out why I missed the Dorsey introduction... when I found it, that page was hidden. When I click on your link, the part about how he replaced Tommy in Jimmy's band is hidden. Go figure. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think they change what's hidden so people can't read the whole book without buying it in some way. :) Know that when I've needed to read the same book at Google and at Amazon, different pages are shown and hidden by the sites. When Paul was working on Jo Stafford, we discovered that while I could view pages when logged in, he couldn't. They may have locked him out of their US site because he's in the UK--we never did find out why. This is a 1940 magazine article on him. We hope (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, I know that happens, and sometimes I'll go to a different computer in the house so I can see a page I know I'm missing. But sometimes you don't realize it's there. Regarding the RTM article, my, how you find stuff! I thought I was nearly done. Not now... 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it's confession time. I check what's at University of Wisconsin's Lantern landing for media publications. These are actually online at Internet Archive, but sometimes you can search and find something through Lantern a lot easier. Many of the old Radio & TV Annuals are included in this. I went to see if Bobby Byrne was listed in any of them and if, by chance, he took an ad with a photo in any year. He didn't, but search brought up the RTM issue with the story on him while I was looking. :) We hope (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I hardly care how you find it, I'm just grateful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bobby Byrne (musician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A post-editing question

After I began writing my own articles, I haven't done much editing of those of others. Last night, however, I found an article about producer-director Norman Macdonnell and beefed it up a bit. It had no reference citations when I began, so I added some material and some references.

Now to my question. The article has a banner at the top that says, "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)" Now that I have added citations, is there some automatic process in which the article will be reviewed to consider removing the banner?

Thanks in advance for your help.Eddie Blick (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No automatic process that I know of. Only the orphan (and maybe the wikify) tag is added and removed by bots, that I know of. Since you did us the service of adding the sources, you have every right to remove the banner. Thank you! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, and I have removed the banner. Thsnks!Eddie Blick (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Adventures of Ellery Queen (radio program)

Knowing your interest in old-time radio, I thought you might like to see my latest article, The Adventures of Ellery Queen (radio program). Eddie Blick (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! I made a couple of minor edits for layout. I'm really impressed by your work. Unless you object, I'm going to nominate this for main page appearance in "Did You Know..." 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and the edits; I appreciate both. The nomination is fine with me; I will appreciate that, also.Eddie Blick (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to thank you for the valuable work you do reviewing and improving submissions to Articles for Creation. You rock! MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, @MelanieN:, for the very kind words! Very much appreciated. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 02:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Nuclear Beauty Parlor, references

Hello, My article on The Nuclear Beauty Parlor was categorized as Start Class and I'm unsure of which citations you think are unreliable. Would it improve the article to remove some references? There are 33 total. What else can I do? This era of art in San Francisco in the 1980s is not well documented, in fact my article is an attempt to add documentation to the era. Thank you for suggestions to improve. Voice of Vicki June 11, 2014Voice of Vicki (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Voice of Vicki. The references have imporved since I promoted the article to mainspace, and there is only one reference I consider unreliable, discogs, which is a wonderful site but is user-edited like Wikipedia. Don't remove sources in general, sources are what makes a good article! Regarding further improving the article, what has been the group's cultural impact? Has there been discussion of such by reliable sources? The first sentence seems to indicate the group is still active "is a group of women artists" but the balance of the article seems to indicate the group ceased activities in 1986. Can you make that a bit more clear. I enjoyed this article, and I am very glad you created it. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Adventures of Ellery Queen (radio program)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for nominating this item.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another OTR announcer added

I have added Dick Joy to the rolls of old-time radio announcers on Wikipedia. I posted an article about him a few minutes ago. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! Want to do it again? (put it on the main page). First, can you get rid of Internet Movie Database as a source? It isn't considered reliable. Good to put in the "external links" section, though. Can the claims you source to imdb be found somewhere else? Thanks! 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can rework the article to eliminate the IMDB citations. IMDB had been the only source I had for his date of birth, but just as I was writing this reply, I remembered the old Variety Radio Directories on archive.org. I found his birth information (and much more) in the first one of them that I checked. As for the TV shows credited to IMDB, I can either find another source or, if not, eliminate them. I'll work on that. What do you think would be a good hook to use for a "Did You Know ..." nomination? I'm thinking maybe the fact that he was the youngest staff announcer at CBS radio. Thanks for your suggestions.Eddie Blick (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you found another source for birthdate. If you're interested, because so many editors use imdb as a source, they have a special section for it at the Reliable Sources policy page WP:RS/IMDB. Your hook suggestion is excellent. I think a good hook would be "...that Dick Joy was the youngest staff announcer in CBS radio's history?" What do you think? 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice about IMDB. I had not been aware that it was considered unreliable; I'll save it for "External link" use in the future. I like your DYN wording. If you don't mind, I'll it for the nomination. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. Let me know if you have any questions about the nomination process, it takes a little getting used to, but it's not horribly difficult. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 20:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the Dick Joy article for DYK. We'll see what happens. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonaventure Senior Living

Thank you for your review of Draft: Bonaventure Senior Living. My intention is not to advertise; I removed the advert wording from "Memory Care." I appreciate your guidance as I learn good article writing. CMS.LLC (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the entire "Service Levels" section needs to be eliminated, it is essentially an offer of services. Also, you'll need to add better sources, only one of the independent sources, Heilman, gives any kind of in-depth coverage to the topic, the rest are directory listings, or do not mention the topic at all. I hope that helps. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Melchior Hoffmann (composer)

Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy the bells ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As aways, @Gerda Arendt:, your assistace is incalculably precious. I won't ask, though... 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Saint (radio program)

I thought you might like to know that I have posted an article about The Saint (radio program). Eddie Blick (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, and thank you for letting me know. Is there anything more in your sources about charachterization? I think that would add interest for the average reader. I'm glad you created this, I was surprised this didn't already have an article! Regarding Dick Joy, I would review your DYK nomination except that I helped create the hook. I don't foresee any difficulties with it, although the process usually takes longer than your last (er... first) one did. I think you should also nominate this article. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thus far I haven't found any additional information about the characters. Everything I found was pretty much a bare-bones listing. If I find more, I'll be glad to add it, to flesh them out, so to speak. The absence of an article surprised me, too; I was glad to fill the vacancy. Thanks for your support regarding DYK nominations. Perhaps the fact that Vincent Price had the longest tenure in the title role would be a good hook. What do you think? Thanks for your edit. The article looks better with the sectioned structure.Eddie Blick (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I love that "frightfully dull" line. Perhaps you could use that. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll work up a nomination featuring that review.Eddie Blick (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Puritan Image

Thanks for the gold Puritan label that you added!Pinikadia 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Harold Peary Show

A few minutes ago I posted an article about The Harold Peary Show. I thought you might like to know.Eddie Blick (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Software Records

Hello again, 78. Do you think this one is worth keeping? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it is marginal. Several notable bands appear on the label, but there is no established history (only 2 years old). For my thougts on record labels see a current AfD discussion, and although I haven't participated yet, a request for comment to make some record labels inherently notable via N:MUSIC. I still have all those G13s you sent on my sandbox page to check, my apologies about how slow I am proceeding on that. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, 78. It will be deleted unless someone edits it soon. There's no rush about the others; don't forget that pages deleted under G13 can be easily refunded, so if some of those go stale and are deleted, and then later you come across some information that could be used to improve them, you can always get them back with no hassle. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference clarifications

Thank you for your comments and kind assistance.

Reference your comments: The first is self-referential, obviously. The second and fourth do not seem like a reliable source (please check against the criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), and it also seems to have close connections to the subject. The third and fifth are original research, it would be incredibly difficult for the average reader to access those sources to verify the claims. The sixth "source" needs a source in-and-of itself. 78.26

Regarding #1 I agree. Would it be better to change the reference to: “Specialty Publishing and Printing Co., Quitman, MS ISBN 978-0-615-53061-1. OCLC 829855315” or is #1 necessary?

Regarding #2 & 4. Would it increase the reliability by changing From, One Voice is a newspaper published by the Diocese of Birmingham, Alabama, to: “’One Voice’ published by Birmingham Catholic Press, Inc., the official newspaper of the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama; Baker, Robert J., Bishop, S.T.D., Publisher, USPS 86-280.” (This newspaper published by the Roman Catholic church in the Diocese of Birmingham, Alabama and 2 and 4 refer to publically available articles printed in the official newspaper.)

Regarding #3 & #5 Would it increase the reliability to add to both 3 & 5 this? “The documents (letters) are publically available, and are located in the archives of St. Mary of the Visitation Church, located at 222 Jefferson St., Huntsville, Alabama”

Regarding #6 Is this change acceptable? “The book is archived, and may be accessed by visiting the archives departments of the following institutions:” (as listed)

Wikisjt3 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

#1 is ok to include as information, but it is not a reference. I'm not sure that calling "One Voice" a newspaper helps, although it might. Is it published by the same folks who published the book? If so, it isn't independent of the subject. No, #s 3 and 5 should not be used as references, and can not be used to support claims in the article. An average reader could not be expected to travel to Huntsville to inspect them, and they are not available via inter-library loan. Your change to #6 is the right idea, making it part of the article, and not a source. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 25, 2014 response. Thanks again for your helpful comments.

The One Voice is in fact a newspaper and the reference does not refer to the same folks who published the book, accordingly they are independent. The local church produced the book, published it, then notified the Diocese of Birmingham. I think this should be a valid reference. Do you agree?

Regarding 3 & 5 Thanks for your information. I will have copies of the letters delivered to the archives department of our public library in Huntsville to make them available via inter-library loan. This will take a few days. Is this acceptable? Either way, I will proceed - they are significant documents for the Huntsville archives. The copies will be redacted to prevent the public display of the personal names shown the letters, of course, except for the Pope's signature. I will communicate to you when this is done. [done as of 2 July 2014] Wikisjt3 (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your comments and kind assistance. ---

3 July 2014 Dear 78.26, I have made adjustments to the references and have lodged the three letters in question in our Huntsville public library in the archives department. These were accepted by Ms. Susanna Leberman, Archivist, Huntsville Madison County Public Library (HMCPL) The letter references are for notes 3 and 5.

Could you kindly review my "sandbox" draft before I resubmit it?

Thanks for your continued support.

Wikisjt3 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) 7 July 2014 Sorry, I didn't find recent comments as indicated in Wiki; could you kindly check and advise? Wikisjt3 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply, I have been very busy in real life, and my volunteer time at wikipedia has been nearly non-existent. For a dedicated group of individuals willing to help editors such as yourself, I would follow the Teahouse invitation that was placed on your user page earlier. For myself, I want to encourage your editing as Wikipedia as much as possible, but I don't want to give you false hope, either. I frankly don't think your topic, a self-published book with no professional reviews, meets Wikipedia's notability standards. I'm not entirely sure that "One Voice" would be considered a reliable source, perhaps the good people at the Teahouse can do a better job of looking into it. Having written documents at a library really does not make them reliable, or help establish notability. It is still original research. Regarding #6, that statement reads as promotional to me, or an attempt to inherit notability. Please carefully read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines. After doing so, and you think my analysis of your sources is in error, you should find another editor to review your submission. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

15 July 2014 I could not find a link to Teahouse you mentioned. Is Teahouse an alternative to Wikipedia? I will do and internet search for it and seek their assistance as you recommend.

After I had not received your response and, after I made the adjustments according to our recent correspondence, I hit the “submit” button and got the message it was in the review queue. I’m very disappointed you don’t seem pleased with the adjustments. I’m sorry, I adamantly continue to believe the book to be of significant value and intend to continue to pursue the project.

Thanks for your assistance. Wikisjt3 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound recording and reproduction talk page discussion

Hi, 78 (excuse the familiarity of addressing you by your first name if it is too bold).

Pardon me for rocking your world without proper notice. I have been meaning to wage war on that particular aggravating bit of false conventional wisdom for years. Having due respect for your WP moniker, I planned to consult with you first, but I found my procrastinating self moved by the spirit while reviewing that page and decided to strike while my iron was hot.

Please accept my very belated thanks for a couple of "thanks" and a barnstar. I find that I am at least as negligent in attending to the social graces here in Wikipedialand as I am in the real world. AVarchaeologist (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for writing, AV (your first name, I presume.) It is fine you did not consult me first, and I would not have been of any help. I agree, it is usually best to make a needed edit when the motivation strikes. I am certainly most interested in this topic, but my most rabid interest tends towards small record companies that produced 78rpm records and some discographic work, not the minute technical details. In fact, your explanation caused me to change my user page to remove the "aggrivating bit" I had copied directly from that article. You are most welcome for the thanks and the barnstar, you deserve them and more accolades, whenever I see you've made an edit to a sound-recording article on my watchlist, I look forward to seeing what the change is because I know it will be a vast improvement. Regarding social graces, as I am demonstrating with this reply, correspondence timeliness is not an easy achievement. All the best, 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 20:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If obscure 78 labels are your specialty, here is some grist for your discographical mill. I hope you won't be offended by it. Back somewhere in the late '70s I was record-hunting at the flea market and came across an album of ten 10" 78s all on the "Poon Tang" label. They were evidently not party records but small-group jazz or blues recordings, because the labels listed the personnel, none of whom were familiar to me. The labels were white with red printing and the logo was in a sort of scripty late streamline moderne font that suggested a circa 1950 date. Naturally, I wanted to add one to my collection, for novelty value if nothing else, but the fellow would only sell the whole album of ten and the price was high enough to put me off. One of those "ones that got away" that can leave a lifetime legacy of regret. Later, it seemed that no one had ever heard of the label and anyone I asked usually thought I was making a childish rude joke. Nothing in the books I had access to and after the online era dawned a couple of heavy search sessions could find no trace. No sightings in Nauck's lists, so evidently much rarer than minty Caruso Blue Zonophones and Black Pattis. A few years ago an online mention finally turned up. Some early sides by Howlin' Wolf were first issued on that label. Ever hear of it before? Now there's a new WP article that could be quite a challenge to shepherd past the Speedy Deletion patrol. AVarchaeologist (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I may have my blues singers mixed up. Was it actually Screamin' Jay Hawkins? The web gleaning mentioned above is currently a prisoner in a crashed computer, so I can't readily double-check. AVarchaeologist (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. Probably right the first time—Howlin' Wolf—but as I tried to remember the details of the now-inaccessible item I realized that "I Put a Spell on You" was playing in my mental jukebox and it gave me doubts. As I recall, the upshot of the item was that some very early tracks ultimately released on Chess (licensed Sam Phillips-Sun Studio recordings?) had in fact previously but perhaps very briefly seen the light of day on the label in question. I piqued my own curiosity and tried to track down the item anew, but no luck this time and nothing else turned up in the course of searching. AVarchaeologist (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked David Diehl's Blue Pages, where I would have figured to find some information but... nothin'. Anyway, I've certainly never been so fortunate as to have seen one! Whichever artist it was, it would certainly be an interesting addition to their pages if the information can be verified. Verifiability remains more important than truth on Wikipedia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If the label were listed in any of the standard references it would surely have been scooped up into someone's massive online compilation of label names by now. The only record label of that name that turns up online is on vinyl from decades later and obviously unrelated. The discs were definitely NOT lacquers, not marked as test or sample pressings, and not, as best I can recall, made of lightweight or otherwise unusual material. They were not all copies of the same record, although I couldn't swear there were no duplications. I seem to vaguely remember seeing an LA or Hollywood business location stated at the bottom of the label, but don't quote me on that very uncertain detail. All in splendid condition, presumably file copies and the former property of someone associated with the label in some way. The price was $20 for the album of ten -- about $100 in today's money, which would still make me balk if nothing more than minor curiosity value seemed to be involved. The price of my unwillingness to splurge that week's discretionary income has been three-plus decades of head-scratching and an increasing awareness that I must have let ten fabulous rarities slip through my fingers. The seller evidently valued them and seems unlikely to have dumped them if they didn't sell, so SOMEONE must have them. The flea market in question, a routine pit stop for local shellac junkies, was in Alameda, CA, so they were probably grabbed by a San Francisco Bay area collector. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In the matter of Verifiability vs. Truth and returning to the subject that started this exchange, the last time I looked, the relevant Wikipedia guidance page refreshingly included a quote from Jimmy Wales to the effect that "NO information is better than WRONG information". With those righteous words of The Founder ringing in my ears, I am sorely tempted to simply DELETE the false gospel of gear tooth ratios wherever it appears, but realistically I'm just not prepared to deal with the flak I'd probably get as a result. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawyer.com Submission

Hi there,

You recently reviewed and denied the page for Lawyer.com, a legal directory / website. See the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawyer.com

I am currently in the process of doing more research to add more citations which help the company's notability.

If you have a chance, I wanted to see if you had any other suggestions to add for Wiki users to find this page informative. Would it help to fill out the Infobox on the right, add more categories, or speak more about the site as it stands?

Any feedback you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks for reviewing it so quickly as well!

Cheers.

- Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply, I have been very busy and not able to spend much volunteer time at Wikipedia. The best comments I can give have allready been explicitly stated on the draft page. Please carefully read WP:NOTABILITY and make sure there are multiple sources demonstrating your topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

Yesterday you reviewed Draft:ScoresPro which was afterwards edited to comply totally with guidelines and your suggestions as well. It was waiting for your next review but it seems that it is now deleted probably due to the initially markup for Speedy deletion. Can you please restore and have your final review? Pepelux71 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not place the speedy delete tage on the page, and I am not an administrator at Wikipedia, so I did not delete the page nor am I able to undelete it. To do so, you will need to contact the deleting administrator @Jimfbleak:. Since it has been deleted, I can not see the revisions you made so as to comment on them and whether they removed all promotional language. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 13:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Pepelux71 (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)