User talk:Bmusician/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Liu Shikun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (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) 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL LMAO thanks again DPL bot. I am sure more idiotic than you think, right? --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The information on how many hits an article has received.

Bryce, What you had posted for the number of times that Ben Breedlove's article had been viewed...Is that "tallied" every day? I went to it today and January 4 was not counted yet. Is it counted after Midnight? thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't a clue, but it's now at 373,267 views --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...that's about 20,000 more than yesterday...amazing Petersontinam (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And a lot of sources regarding the news. This article should be kept. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Econ sidebar

Nice cleanup there. BW, B.W. Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Review

Thank you for reviewing the Livingston International page BrettTremblay (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, because every helpful contribution means something to the project. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Juliett Simms

Sorry, had to challenge you strange decision on a still running discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just tell you that I have challenged a decision that does not reflect the discussion. If you do not like to see your decisions challenged, you are free to replu at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll decide what to do, so please stop bothering me so I don't have to be bothered by new messages while i'm making a decision. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from restoring user talk discussions that I've removed, it is disruptive. Please review WP:OWNTALK. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversing yourself on an XfD closure

You could, and other admins have. But I would notify all the participants that you have reconsidered, and give them leave to go to DRV if they're uncomfortable with that change of heart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

An Edit to Ben's article is in my sandbox

Bryce, I could not figure out how to reference correctly. I ended up only using a link. Also, I'm afraid that my quote description of the HEARTs act is so long that it is considered "cutting and pasting"? Please see my sandbox and help?Petersontinam (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Use the code <ref>Link or book here</ref> and then place {{reflist}} at the bottom of the page. Such as

--Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! You spelled it out very clearly. I think I need to see about getting adopted.Petersontinam (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're always welcome. Don't feel bad about the AfD discussion about Ben Breedlove. It was not supposed to be made in the first page, and I disagree with the majority of the "delete" votes in which arguments are invalid. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bmusician. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Petersontinam (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble accessing my email at this time but will read as soon as I can. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, the petition was vandalised by someone signing it only to leave a "reason for Signing" ...they cited wikipedia policies that they felt argued for deletion. I removed it because the petition was intended to be signed only by people who agree with the position.Petersontinam (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, I saw my email, and I suggest you read WP:PROD, also known as "proposed deletion", and these deletions are proposed and are deleted seven days after, unless they are removed (contested). --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks-haven't found a way to just "search" for policies...I seem to be only able to get lucky to find them. Also, still having a terrible time with references added into an article. Will keep trying.Petersontinam (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I am here to help :-) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Chess

Shouldn't it be "Chess everyone?". :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bmusician. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gleniffer High school

The reversion of all my edits to Gleniffer High is completely without justification

All of the changes were fully references, more accurate than the prior versions, and were in NO WAY non-neitral.

Rather, the page has been put back to how it was WITHOUT being properly checked.

This is unfair on the editor, the readers of the article who now have a misleading and bias version, written in a MORE informal and more bias style and manner.

Please put the article back to how I had it; it contains more accuracy and less bias. It gives the readers a more accurate insigh to the subject AND IT IS NEUTRAL. THERE IS NOTHING BIAS OR ONE-SIDED IN IT. IT IS ALL FACTUAL, AND CAREFULLY REFERENCED.

If there was some bias (which I tried very hard to avoid) then where is it? Why not eliminate the bias rather than ALL the improvements.

The readers of wiki now have an utterly inferior and less accurate article; which is a joke.

I did, my reversion was a totally mistake. Now, please turn your caps lock off and calm down. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim1138 talkback

Hi Bryce, I wanted to ask someone about that. Seems to be comparing his school with another and putting that one down. Did not seem very encyclopedic and I did not have anything else to refer to. What should I have done? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

hmm, tell the IP about that (xe has SERIOUS problems with assuming good faith). If you think it is warranted, please remove the content that was not adhering or on the verge of not adhering, to NPOV. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I need to turn off my caps lock too. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Godsized (band)

Dear Bryce,

You declined this page for procedural reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Godsized(band)

Can you please help me? This band is way above the bar for notability since they have feature coverage in national music magazines Kerrang and Metal Hammer (meeting criteria 1); received live reviews of national tours with Black Label Society and playing Download Festival (criteria 4); and were spun on BBC's Friday Rock Show, a national radio show (meeting criteria 11). The same reviewer has declined it twice but not explained why (either in his edits or on his talk page). I don't understand why - can you assist?

213.105.1.168 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority of your references are Myspace references, which are not reliable. Please cite reliable, third-party sources. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bryce, thanks for the response, but I have to tell you that you're incorrect. The only self-reference is (1) where I've cited the band's influences. The others are (2) a still from the BBC radio website confirming their national airplay, (3) an article about them in the print version of Kerrang! magazine (one of the UK's top selling music magazines, it has a circulation of 43k), (4) an article from the print version of Metal Hammer magazine (which outsells Kerrang!) and (5) a repository of on- and offline press coverage about them (which I thought too tedious to list in an encyclopaedia article). This band has national press coverage, they're obviously notable. 213.105.1.168 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be willing to take a look. In the meantime, please add sources that do not contravene WP:RS. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks very much for taking the time. As I said, I think the sources are fine - they're scans of the original magazine articles that qualify them for notability. 213.105.1.168 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisting

According to WP:RELIST: "Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice."

If there's been no participation after two rounds of discussion, the standard procedure is to let an admin close it. Of course, AfD is getting less and less participation these days, so there may be a case for third-round relistings, but there probably ought to be a discussion about that. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your reminder. I'll be sure to keep that in mind. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I would rather cry in a BMW

Per this the reasoning is a bit strange: "Notability established"? The article still contains no references that discuss the phrase. But that's less important than it seems an inappropriate article for non-admin closure which requires a discussion "absent any contentious debate among participants", which there was.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to work

So I'm back to work, won't be editing in a while. Cissy15 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope to see you back on Wikipedia soon! Good luck, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bmusician. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bmusician. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I already put your talk page on my watchlist, so you don't have to send me talkbacks :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2707 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Wow, what a backlog... I'll be helping. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Die Laughing (Band) page refusal

Hello Mr ,

I just wanted to clarify the reasons why the page wasn't accepted please :)

Die Laughing had many contemporaries in the gothic scene of the 1990s and many of these other acts already have entries on Wikipedia with a lot less references and information than I have offered. F

Die Laughing already appear in at least two places already on Wikipedia amongst other bands which have pages:

This page for example which is linked in my article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Rock_Volume_2:_80%27s_into_90%27s

On DISC Two track 8 there is a Die Laughing link which actually links incorrectly to an album by a comedy artist. Surely it would be better to have a correct link to bring it into line with the other entries which all seem to appear on Wikipedia. You can see many of the band's contemporaries on this compilation which have all been justified pages.

There is also a dead link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitby_Gothic_Weekend

I have added as many references and evidence as I can to back up the page and hope to add more in the near future but as you will realise the internet wasn't at its peak during the 90s so I am having to doing a lot of scanning and paperwork to be able to provide proper links.

I realise my first admission shouldn't have been sent as it was very much a work in progress but I think the most recent one is up to scratch.

Thank you for your help,

Simon Whibley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dielaughingofficial (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It was declined due to no indicate of the importance...and also because of the article's lack of reliable, third-party sources. Please provide links to reliable sources and establish this band's notability. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Carolyn Jarvis

User talk:Cjarvis12 (via email) asked me to delete a section in Talk:Carolyn Jarvis about waxing. It is WP:UNSOURCED. Should it be removed? Should I remove the entire entry by 154.5.32.113? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best not to delete talk page comments unless they're totally WP:UNCIVIL. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for help for creation of page on 99nicu

I am trying to write an article on the web forum for neonatologists

I have submitted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/99nicu

However it is getting denied

I am trying my best to make it accepted

I have seen a lot of good work done at this forum to help patients, thats the reason I thought of submitting an article about it.

If you could guide me of how to make it accepted, I would be thankful.

I have done an exhaustive google search for 99nicu.org and included any external reference I could find. BTW, I am a doctor who knows about the work going on in this forum. I feel it is a world first in neonatology - a international forum of doctors trying to help each other out for the sake of patients without asking for money. Schmorl (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cite more third-party, reliable sources --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re: new page Drew Reisinger

In reference to the new page I submitted re: Drew Reisinger I was told that I needed better sources. I used articles from our local newspaper as well as the official county government's website. Any suggestions as to what other types of sources I can add to improve the page's credibility? Cm57108 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)cm57108

Replied on your talk. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re: re: new page Drew Reisinger

Thanks, I've read about sources and have several cited in my page. Is the problem with the credibility of the sources or the way they are referenced? I just updated the citations

When you submitted the article I didn't see any references. I'll be taking a look soon. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bmusician. You have new messages at MikeLynch's talk page.
Message added 08:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lynch7 08:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Tavernor

Hi Bryce

I've been editing the page above for a while now, and have studied the criteria for notable academics carefully. It seems very stange to me that I keep getting the page rejected. RT really is an important academic, and really has made a massive contribution to the field of architectural history and urban design. He really has published very notable works, the evidence for which (publishers and critics) I have tried to include. AND, with regard to the criteria for listing again, he has held an important named Chair (in Edinbrugh). So what more can I reasonably do to this article....you seem not to be applying your own criteria, which seems a little, dare I say, irrational! Dare I say, you are not an architectural historiam, are you, so how can you tell! Ive spent time on this, and followed the criteria. Please Help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.5.64.141 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of third-party, reliable sources, I couldn't quite establish notability. I'll be willing to take another look after you have cited sources to them. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude.

Was that really necessary? 28bytes (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well is that prohibited? --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Prohibited, no, but c'mon. You're just going to unnecessarily stress out the candidate and irritate the opposers. Save the funnin' for something other than Hell Week. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well okay. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, at my RfA I caught an enormous amount of shit because of some good-natured humor a supporter offered; I'm sure you don't want for the same thing to happen to Mike. It's best to be extremely cautious about offering humor at RfA, because there will always be folks who don't take it in the spirit that it's intended. 28bytes (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. :) Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic School, Irbid

Hi. Not doubting your enthusiam or your wanting to err on the side of caution, but that's twice you've relisted this although there was the same clear consensus (in my opinon) both . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think there's no consensus to take an action, in my opinion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Made you look! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for Poet Tree

Hi, I saw your non-admin closure of this AfD. With 2 delete !votes and only 1 comment, I think a "no consensus" closure needs some explanation (and closing this as such as "non admin" may not be a wise move). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There was only one delete !vote, and after it was made, the debate had to be relisted twice. Since no clear consensus was reached, and due to the fact in general debates should be relisted no more than twice, I closed it as no consensus. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen debates with this many votes closed as delete and the closure therefore does not seem to be uncontroversial. Hence it would have been better to leave this up to an admin. You can't say no consensus was reached, as all who !voted (even if it's just 2 editors) went for delete. That doesn't mean this cannot be closed as no consensus, but it does mean that a non-admin closure is inappropriate. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• PS: please read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure again. Non-admins should only close debates that are a clear "keep", which this absolutely was not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• To tell you the truth, I've seen exceedingly many debates that are closed as "merge", "redirect", "no consensus" and et cetera by non-admins. Those closures did not hurt anything - but I'll remind myself to only close debates that are a clear "keep". --Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Occupational Knowledge International

Could you give me more specific information about what parts of the article you thought were not neutral? The previous reviewer made the same comment, but when I asked him for specifics, he told me that the organization was not notable since he only got two hits when he googled it. It turns out he was googling the wrong name for the organization and he admitted to that and retracted is comment about notability, but never provided more detail on his comment about NPOV. He told me to resubmit and see what another reviewer thought. I removed some statements that were perhaps not neutral and resubmitted. Your comment is the same. I would like to continue to work on the article as I think that Occupational Knowledge International is an organization worthy of an article on Wikipedia, but if I have no specific input regarding which part/s of the article need to be changed, this will be a long anad arduous process. Can you help me out? --Kdurand (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV; your article contravenes both. Rewrite the article from a neutral point of view, and not like an advertisement. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary

It all the html notes on your userpage really necessary... after all it is semi protected. Best, --Kangaroopowah 05:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Necessary or not, the comments will stay. Best regards, Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I would like to know the reeasoning behind it. If you feel that I am annoying you, please tell me and I won't trouble any more on the subject. --Kangaroopowah 16:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher-e-Lahore (2001 film)

Did you see, that the second relisting was just today? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you decide no votes = no consensus? These types of discussions are normally treated as expired prods. Please overturn your close. Yoenit (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that; overturned. I didn't see that the second relisting was just today; I'll remember not to blindly close debates. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

British Raj

Why the haste? The vast majority of the article belongs in Indian independence not in the British Raj, I would prefer it was deleted and written from scratch.Twobells (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If so, propose merging on the article's talk page. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ages ago and received no response, no worries the article'll have to be seriously cleaned up.Twobells (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Afd closure : Common chemicals

I don't think a non-admin Speedy Keep closure was appropriate here, as it doesn't seem to fit the criteria (ie: closed by the nominator, or blatant vandalism). However, I think an admin closing it would have probably gone for "Keep" as a consensus. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Holden (writer) may be considered a snow keep but clearly not a speedy keep. Goodvac (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which bit of that policy do you consider appropriate in this case? Actually, I think the Amanda Holden nomination was worthy of a speedy keep, as the original nomination was little more than "not notable", with no weight in argument, whereas Common Chemicals did at least have some substance to why it should have been deleted. Anyway, it's been kept so it doesn't matter. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep is justified when 1) nominator withdraws or "fails to advance an argument for deletion" 2) nomination was made in bad faith 3) nominator is a banned user. None of these criteria apply. "Non-notable" is a valid argument for deletion, even though it is unsubstantiated. Goodvac (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed result to just a plain keep - I'll be sure to read the policies again. Thanks --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aimi Kobayashi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Japanese

Qi Xu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chinese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again DPL bot, all fixed now :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Im so so sorry bryce for my behavier on MarioWiki and here forgive me :( --AwesomeSponge (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior was exceptionally childish, immature, and rude to users who actually work for admin rights. Future admins are split up into two categories - hard-working editors, and wannabes. To tell you the truth, this was absolutely enough for me to decide you are a "wannabe", don't work hard, disrespect those who do, and show a complete lack of maturity. Then you use the Super Mario Wiki for socializing, but when I told you about a billion times to stop, you continued. And then you asked User:Walkazo to "please let me be an admin and buracrat!!!" And so when I issue a final warning to stop this noted behavior, you announce retiring. Retiring is fine, but it was not my intention to let you retire, it was my intention to allow you to behave. Apologizing for all this with all your heart would be very difficult - of course, it's easy to say sorry, it's a lot harder to mean it.

So now, I'd advise you to put your previous behavior and editing patterns behind you, act mature, and work hard. Who knows, you'll be an admin as soon before you know it. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

i know i failed and i dont want to be a wannabe i said il will stop the let me be an admin thingie and how did you know i was being rude to admins i will stop that and im sorry about my RFA here i dont edit alot --AwesomeSponge (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Join the PEG please

That's good - you previous behaved as if you were a wannabe, you probably necessarily weren't a wannabe, but acted like one. I'm glad to hear that you'll put your previous actions behind you. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'll see if I can join the PEG. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Tavernor

Re: Robert Tavernor

I have followed your advice and added many third party references, justifying his status as a notable academic. Please will you take another look, as you promised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Tavernor

Thanks Bryce

Vaughan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absvh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Please continue to work on the article - thanks for your work to Wikipedia! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

trout

feel trouted! Don't decline any submission as you did here because of WP:MOS - either move them and tag them with wikify, fix the issue or decline because of a real issue. mabdul 13:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, I see "you personally don't like the citation style or formatting. The use of <ref> tags is not required in any article. Editors may choose any form of inline citation, not just the most popular one." is NOT a valid reason for declining a submission - tnx for that. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You might also watch and follow WT:AFC, there is an ongoing discussion about if we should add some new decline reasons (some likely, others will fail!) mabdul 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'll have a look. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bmusician. You have new messages at Talk:Emily Bear#NPOV.
Message added 22:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Goodvac (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your email request

Hello, Bryce. I have done what you asked me to in your email. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, as always :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello. First of all, thanks for all the great work that you do at AfDs. As to your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Resource Center, I wonder if it is possible to request that you take a second look. There were two delete !votes (my nom and a second one), and a comment by an editor that was not policy based (and which was challenged for that reason). I would think that either it should have been closed a delete, or re-listed. Would it be possible for you to give that a think? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, if I could, I would have relisted it, but according to WP:RELIST debates should not be relisted more than twice. There was two delete !votes (including your nomination statement) and one keep !vote (which you appeared to have challenged). I closed it according to WP:NPASR, so please re-nominate now if you'd like to. (If you really feel think I need to undo my close, please tell me, that's an ok option). Thanks for your compliment! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears to have been closed as delete by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs). I'll ensure that I'll not close any AfD's that are likely to be controversial. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Bryce. As I said before (and I meant it), I very much appreciate all the good work you do at the AfDs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph Waldo Tyler (1860-1921)

Mr. Bryce ,

I think my latest revisions on my Ralph Waldo Tyler article may satisfy your request for intext citations. If not please let me know what else is needed to make this article acceptable for wikipedia publication. Thank you, Karen Taborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenfaye56 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited, wikified, and added some further reading links to the article. Bmusician, I think it's ready for mainspace. Goodvac (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Accepted - thank you for helping Wikipedia! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Page on Personal Resource Planning

Hello Bryce

Thanks for your suggestion to create a new page on Personal Resource Planning. Actually , I was trying as how I can create a page and after creating I tried my level hard to delete but remain unsuccessful. So I left with a message. Thanks for deleting it. I am not computer expert. I shall try using your sandbox and shall also take help of my friend,if required, who is computer expert.

I shall visit again after I complete my lierary work and make practice on your sandBox.

Sorry for Inconvenience caused.

Regards Ajai Kumar Agrawal - Microsec 08:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaijsps (talk • contribs)

In order for articles to be kept without risk of speedy deletion, you'll need to help yourself with a userspace draft, and move it it article space when it is ready. And you can experiment using Wikipedia's sandbox, but not mine. I hope you will continue to contribute, and you don't need to apologize for the inconvenience - it doesn't take one day to create a successful article. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/"Big Dick Bitch" / TS Madison

Okay Im not understanding what was wrong with my submission I dont understand why it was denied like what needs to be fixed i provided all of the information about this individual . Like What is MISSING that would make the submission valid? What do you need ? This individual is a pioneer in her community.

Then I'm doubting that you have read User:Bmusician/Why was my AfC submission declined? Your submission didn't have even one reliable secondary source, not even written from a neutral point of view, and so many other things, and you are like "I dont understand why it was denied like WHAT (my emphasis) needs to be fixed.. ?" The decline reason has clearly stated what was wrong with the submission. Your submission has been blanked, credits to User:Goodvac for doing something I forgot. I have now modified the rationale for decline, and I hope it was helpful. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick note: I've reverted the blanking, as the user practically spammed links into IRC. I've talked them through adding citations and to some extent reliable sources, and he may have enough for notability.

I will, however; decline on a WP:NOTE standing, as the article isn't ready to go live. Thanks, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Matthewrbowker. I hope this editor can address all of the issues stated in his AfC and fix his article so it can be accepted. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Goha.ru

Hey!

I added some more references, tried to resubmit for review, but the page doesn't actually reflect this. Not sure why... Is there anything else that I should add?

Thank you,

~Tata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tataxfn (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I declined the page previously due to lack of inline citations, which the page still lacks. Also, your references need to be secondary and reliable. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Noms

I think you've done a few GA reviews before (forgive me if I'm wrong), so ould you please check this. I asked Ironholds on IRC and he said to add some more references which I did. If possible could you review it or tell me what needs improvement and how the plot is. Thanks, --Kangaroopowah 04:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kangaroopower. I must apologize for saying that I did not review a single GA before. Presently I feel the article needs more reliable sources (which Blogspot and YouTube are not) and needs some typo fixing (I'll try to fix a few). Again, although I know how to review an article for GA I haven't even reviewed a single one - you could consider contacting User:Sp33dyphil. All the best and good luck, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bryce. I'll definetly add more sources but as for blogspot and youtube- well those are official, posted by riordan himself, so does that make a difference. Thanks for pointing me to Sp33dy. Best, --Kangaroopowah 16:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: edit request

Hi. I added a response to your question on my edit request from earlier today. Let me know if it passes the mustard. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Goha.ru

Hey ,

You mentioned that there's not enough inline citations. Exactly what kind of citations were you looking for? As a forum, and a russian one at that, there's almost no references to the website in the English web. References to the awards and such are cited to other websites, who confirm this. What else should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tataxfn (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ILC and WP:RS. If there's "almost no references to the website in English web", there is no way we can establish notability, unless you can add reliable sources in the forum's language. Thanks and keep contributing, Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Christie

Thanks for the prompt review and the suggested changes to improve the article. Regards, Tony Sharpe P.S. I've made a number of changes as directed to address the issues you pointed out. Thanks again, Tony Tony Sharpe (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sharpe (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)