User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 1

12:09:28, 10 September 2014 review of submission by Swherton

• Swherton (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tim Hailes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Swherton (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce, thank you for your comments regarding the article for Tim Hailes. This is my first article and I need some help on how I can improve my submission. Tim has been interviewed for lots of financial articles, has commissioned a book on the history of the ward he serves as Alderman. If I expanded on any of this would that help get the submission approved.

Kind regards Sally

@Swherton: Welcome to Wikipedia. Given what you've revealed about yourself, I strongly urge you to reflect on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

If you're determined to go ahead with Hailes' biography, then if you haven't already, familiarize yourself with:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies

Interviews can be useful sources, but can be problematic for proving notability. If they're just the subject talking about themselves in their own words in response to softball questions, then they're primary sources. If they incorporate other people's views of the person being interviewed, if they're more hard-hitting, then they’re probably independent secondary sources. Note that if the subject of the interview is not Hailes, but some financial topic on which Hailes is quoted, then it is unlikely to establish the notability of Hailes. I don't know if Wikipedia has guidance on this, but I don't think quoting someone authorized to speak on behalf of an organization makes that someone notable. On the other hand quoting a journalist or an academic can show that their body of work is widely cited and that they are therefore notable.

I don't see how commissioning a book on the history of the ward would satisfy any notability criteria for Hailes. However, if it is scholarly it would be a welcome source for expansion of the Bassishaw article. Speaking of which, it would be appropriate for the Politics section of that article to include a sentence about Hailes' election. See Bread Street, Cheap (ward), Farringdon Without, and Lime Street (ward) for examples of how this has been done before. It's best to use enduring phrasing like, "In the 2013 local elections," instead of, "Currently," or "As of September 2014," which become out of date. To avoid the appearance of giving Hailes undue weight, it would be best to improve all the ward articles that don't already mention the results of the most recent election.

A different reviewer might regard being elected to local office in London as sufficient evidence of notability. My sense from reading the draft is that it's his most likely path to notability, but that he may need to be in office longer to accomplish something notable there. You may decide, upon reviewing available sources, that he's most notable for something else, perhaps as an author or as a member of the LGBT community. Whatever you decide, make the claim to notability explicit in the first sentence or two of the lead. Don't bury it under a mouthful like "Managing Director & Associate General Counsel in the Investment Banking Division of JPMorgan Chase & Co." Then back up the claim in the body with inline citations of reliable, independent, secondary sources.

Worldbruce (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub Contest award

		The Stub Barnstar
		To Worldbruce, thanks for getting involved in the Stub Contest and having a go. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Battered Soles draft

Dear Worldbruce: Could you take one more pass at the Battered Soles draft? I have added a link to the info about the Stephen Leacock Medal nomination -- I think it made just the long-list -- but I've clearly not done it properly. I really appreciate your help! GraceOdin (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@GraceOdin: The Leacock citation just needed the "url=" property and a closing </ref> tag. The draft is now as good as I can make it. A better writer than I am would integrate material from the Winnipeg Free Press and Nimble Spirit reviews into the reception section, thereby transforming those citations from further reading into references.

I'm hesitant about the Literary Tourist entry. From its wording and date, I suspect it was copied from Wikipedia's Paul Nicholas Mason article, where it was first inserted on 27 October 2008. If so, citing it would be circular sourcing. I've made a mental note to flag it as citation needed in the author's article. What is really needed is a reference to wherever it first appeared, perhaps the local newspaper or church newsletter.

It's possible that the draft will still be declined on the grounds that the book is not notable enough to have a standalone article. If that happens you may want to consider other options, such as merging the material into the article about the author.Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Worldbruce! GraceOdin (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Worldbruce, I have tried to update the link that you found to an archived review of Battered Soles in Nimble Spirit on the author's Paul Nicholas Mason page, but I messed it up somehow. Could you possibly take a look? ...I have been adding a lot of stuff to pages about other Canadian writers -- Helen Humphreys, Diane Schoemperlen, Miriam Toews -- and I want to create several new author articles, but I'm still having trouble with some of the fundamentals.  :-( GraceOdin (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@GraceOdin: It's taken care of. There are a lot of fiddly bits when formatting references. Don't worry if you don't nail them right away. The real fundamental is to always always record your source for anything you write. Another editor can always tidy up the formatting later.Worldbruce (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SO much! GraceOdin (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate the support you gave to Battered Soles, WB. Feeling a bit discouraged at the moment as there are a number of other books I'd like to create articles for... I think I'm going to step away for awhile and maybe try again in a few weeks. GraceOdin (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft of QUAY-FM

Your comments are EXTREMELY helpful. When I get time, I will go through them. I really appreciate your help. I must admit I thought the references were fairly solid so I was surprised at the rejection. You are spot on with the legislative changes comment -- I need to get some references, since this is exactly what did happen.

Perhaps it was a mistake to put the article under AfC, but the reason I did it this way is because of my own Conflict of Interest (I'm involved with QUAY-FM as a presenter). Maybe we can work on this together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelroberts (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nigelroberts: Hi Nigel, I'll help as able, but can't offer close cooperation. I have too many irons in the fire, and the things you may need help with at this point don't align with my strengths.

As you have discovered, AfC is a slow and often frustrating process. One author had to submit his draft on a Belgian manufacturing company fourteen times over a period of several years before a reviewer finally accepted it. Nevertheless AfC is a sensible choice when you want to write the article but have a conflict of interest. Otherwise you would probably soon become familiar with the Articles for Deletion process. If you haven't already been pointed to it, be sure to review WP:BFAQ#COMPANY.

I recommend that you do your own research to find additional material in reliable sources. As an insider, you know what to look for, you know the jargon, you know the places to search, and you may have access to local print sources out of reach of most Wikipedians.

When you think you can convincingly prove notability, then you can decide whether to a) continue editing and submitting the draft yourself, or b) solicit neutral writing help through Wikipedia:Requested articles and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations and turn your draft and research materials over to them (I don't have any experience with them, they may be as broken as AfC).

If you want to read radio station articles that the community have judged to be good (fewer than 1 in 2,500 are), check out WKEY (AM), WCLG (AM), and WCSP-FM. The QUAY-FM article doesn't have to be up to that standard to get created, but the closer you can come to that level, the better. Worldbruce (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with citations for Draft:Coho Data

Hi Worldbruce, as you know it's been a challenge getting my article Draft: Coho Data published for lack of reliable, un-biased third-party sources. I am wondering if you could help me identify the sources that are not properly supporting the content so I can make sure to omit them and get a better idea of what to look for as replacement sources. Thank you! Cdunnhartman (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdunnhartman (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cdunnhartman: My conclusion, after studying the draft and hunting for additional sources, was that the draft is beyond help. No amount of tinkering with it is likely to get it approved because the subject simply isn't notable. You may have difficulty seeing that if you have a conflict of interest. My advice is to set the draft aside for a few years; give the subject a chance to become notable. At present, like most companies, Coho Data should not have an article in Wikipedia.

You may find it useful to examine some of Wikipedia's finest company articles, BAE Systems and Oliver Typewriter Company, or the not excellent, but still good: Monster (company), TouchWave, and Yelp. Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Okay thanks for hunting around. I understand how you came to that conclusion, however I am reluctant to give up just yet because I am seeing various articles published for companies that were at similar stages as Coho Data is currently, if not younger. For example: Tintri, Pure Storage, and PernixData. Do you have some insight on how these companies were able to get their articles published?

As a part-time intern for Coho Data, rather than a full-time employee, my conflict of interest is relatively weak, so I am hoping that I can carry out this assignment regardless of my affiliation. Thanks for your help! Cdunnhartman (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cdunnhartman: I implore you to formally disclose your conflict of interest, however weak you may think it is. Mentioning it on my talk page is not sufficient. A statement on your user page like, "I am a part-time marketing intern at Coho Data" would be adequate, although you may wish to say more about your editing in Wikipedia.

If your internship is paid, you are required by Wikipedia's terms of service to make a disclosure along these lines. Even if your internship is unpaid, you are still receiving compensation in the form of services - training and work experience, so disclosure might be judged to be required. Failing to disclose your conflict of interest gives the (hopefully false) impression that you have something to hide, and carries consequences not only within Wikipedia, but risks running afoul of U.S. Federal and California State laws regarding unfair or deceptive business practices or acts.

With regard to competing companies' Wikipedia articles, let me refer you to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Worldbruce (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks so much for your help, I'll add disclosure of my position right away to my user page and take a look at those articles. I understand my case may be lost for the time being. Cdunnhartman (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

05:01:33, 8 April 2015 review of submission by Itscamilla

• Itscamilla (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Richard A. Kimball, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the page I'm creating. I added two published journals and properly cited them in the draft. Let me know what else can be improved.

Thank you!

@Itscamilla: You've added more things written by Kimball, which gets you nowhere notability-wise. You need sources written about Kimball by people completely independent of Kimball. I presume you've read the guidelines that reviewers have pointed you towards, and read my comments when I declined the draft. Since that doesn't seem to have helped you, try looking at examples of the best articles Wikipedia has about executives:

• Finn M. W. Caspersen
• Stanley Marcus
• Richard M. Scrushy
• Paul S. Walsh

Cast your eye over the references. Notice all the newspaper and magazine articles (and in some cases books) written about the person? That's the type of source you need to demonstrate Kimball's notability. Worldbruce (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

09:00:52, 16 April 2015 review of submission by Daniellecart1

• Daniellecart1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:St Edward the Confessor Primary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added more external referencing as requested. In QLD as a catholic organisation the church as an integral part of catholic schools history and were built and used as an part of the religious life of the school. This heritage building was also used within the school from 1963- 2010 as a building..until new facilities built as stated. It has been a big part of the school's history. I have updated the points requested with more external references.

Daniellecart1 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Daniellecart1: Quality of sources is far more important than quantity.

• The chronology adds some key points about St. Declan's.
• Queensland Places doesn't add any useful content, but does mention another source which might yield something: Anderson, Judith (1995). Cultural heritage study of Daisy Hill State Forest Park: a report for the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage. Brisbane.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• The "Consistency of Teacher Judgement" study is of dubious value to the draft. The new paragraph it supports is gobbledygook.

These three new sources only have a sentence here and there about the school/church building, they are not in at least as much depth as the one page Jolliffe article, so they get the draft little or no further towards notability. Better sources are needed.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and may not be used as a reference. Instead, you may use internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Conversely, external links may not appear in the body of the article. They can only be used as references or in the external links section.

The sources about religious figures contribute absolutely nothing towards the notability of the school/church building. I recommend deleting them and the information they support. For example, change: "Red House is called Nagle. Nano Nagle loved one another and spent herself to the poor.[14]" to "Red House is called Nagle, after Nano Nagle." Rely on internal links to give readers any additional information. (Nano Nagle is not linked internally in this example because she is linked earlier in the draft, and should only be linked the first time her name appears).

Don't hold your breath waiting for the draft to be approved. (By the way, when I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths.) Very very few primary schools are notable. You may never be able to prove notability. Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it so? (WP:BDPLACE)

Isn't the convention about creating an uniform naming system for different levels of geographic entities? Making it disambiguation dependent would definitely stand in the way of uniformity. Anyways, can you take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:BDPLACE/Log? I want others to participate as well. That way even if I am doing a mistake, the pilot will have a learning. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I've posed my original question at Wikipedia_talk:BDPLACE/Log as you asked. To elaborate in response to your reply:

To quote WP:BDPLACE, "Whenever possible, articles on places in Bangladesh go under [[placename]]." In other words, the article about Tanore Upazila should be titled Tanore Upazila unless that name is ambiguous.

A small number of upazilas in different districts have the same name. For example, there is a Shibganj Upazila in Bogra District and another in Chapai Nawabganj District. The convention says, "When disambiguation is needed, ... For places and territories within districts, but not in a city: [[placename, district]]. Here, district name would drop the part District from name for sake of brevity." So we get Shibganj Upazila, Bogra and Shibganj Upazila, Chapai Nawabganj.

The convention is about uniformity in the sense that all articles should follow the same naming rules, but the rules are not simplistic, there are a number of ifs ands and buts. 95% of articles already follow the convention, because the convention is just the formalization and clarification of defacto naming rules that have been used for years. Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for taking the time to help me become a better editor; you made some great points, and I will definitely read the article you suggested. The only thing you mentioned that I take issue with is that "author" shouldn't be mentioned; while it is true that a columnist is an author, my intent was to specify that Issam Naaman has written books in addition to columns. Also, although I am aware of its (mis)use in regional (Lebanese) English, in standard Western English "lawyer" is a colloquial laymen's term - the scholarly term is "attorney" (though I left your (re)edit). Oh, and while the succession box is indeed a great tool, it did not contain any external links, therefore, by definition, does not belong in the external links section. I'll leave it to you to determine how to remedy that. Again, thank you for your help! WikiEditorial101 (talk)

@WikiEditorial101: I understand your point about Naaman's books, and have changed the lead and infobox to describe him as an author instead of as a columnist. I don't think both terms should be used there because the Manual of Style/Lead Section, Manual of Style/Biographies, and Writing better articles all emphasize that the lead should be concise, accessible, and stress what is most important about a subject.

You're welcome to change lawyer to attorney if you think that would be an improvement. Although Wikipedia prefers scholarly sources, it tends to prefer the most widely used term when it comes to language. The article about the profession, for example, is titled Lawyer rather than Attorney. My main concern in this area is only that we not create a "sea of blue" by linking common occupations, something the Manual of Style cautions against.

The succession box is not actually in the external links section, it is below it, where it belongs according to the Manual of Style/Layout. What can be confusing is that because of the way the editing tool works, if one clicks [Edit] next to the External links section header, everything from there to the end of the page comes up in the editor. This includes many other things that also aren't external links, like meta-data, categories, stub templates, etc. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you for teaching this beginner. You are clearly right in everything you've said, and I see that now. I'm sorry for swaggering into your territory and screwing things up! Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. You convinced me that lawyer is the right word to use in this context/medium. And I'm removing the UN delegate occupation that I added because you're right that I made the lead too wordy and also did not provide a proper source for him being a member of KRC's delegation to the UN Human Rights Counsel.

Another note:

I distinctly remember not being offered an image of a plate of assumably fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies as a welcome to Wikipedia. I am officially jealous. Good day, sir. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 2:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101: Although I disagreed with a few specific edits, much of your work on Naaman made a definite improvement and is sincerely appreciated. The article is on my watchlist because I made a substantial contribution to it and intend to expand it further when I have time to dig up and summarize good sources, but I make no pretence of owning the topic.

Wikipedia always needs more editors; I hope you enjoy it here and stick around. There are many different welcome templates, so you can choose another if you like. I've kept my cookies for sentimental reasons, but the style of welcome you received is more functional. A colleague commented recently that contributing effectively to Wikipedia involves a lot more reading than writing, and I agree. Exploring the links in the welcome templates will yield rich rewards. Happy editing! Worldbruce (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

LST UT Austin Law School

Removed data inserted by law school transparency advocacy group, which is an unreliable source. Suggested replacement with more accurate data from the American Bar Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern: Are the extensive edits you're making the result of consensus in some discussion? The first paragraph in this edit removed text that references the ABA Employment Summary on the law school's official website. That is not an unreliable blog, as the edit summary suggests. You write "inserted by ... advocacy group." Is there evidence that the origin of the paragraph was an edit by LST as opposed to one that cited LST as a source, and if so, does that matter if the source cited now is not LST? Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@ As discussed on the reliable sources notice board, citations to ABA data should not use employment categories created by LST. Citations to the underlying ABA data are fine to include, just not emphasis on specific employment categories.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) @ Wordbruce The categories are non-standard categories created by LST, which is an unreliable source, and violate Neutral Point of View policy. The citation should first be to total employment, and only then provide more specific categories. Excluding some categories and including others has no justification--it's just something LST made up, and is therefore not reliable. Inclusion of all categories without comment would also be acceptable. See the reliable source noticeboard for discussion of LST's unreliability.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Retaliation by Epeefleche and Stesmo

Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725 This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sour_grapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 1Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Unemployed Northeastern:I don't know why you posted this on my talk page, but there is as yet no consensus on whether LST is a reliable source. In any case, please train yourself to put new sections at the bottom of a talk page where they belong, indent your replies, and sign your posts. Wikipedia is a collaborative medium; being an effective contributor involves following guidelines large and small, remaining on-topic, respecting other people's work and opinions, and not alienating other editors. Worldbruce (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Brailsford & Dunlavey page

Hi Worldbruce,

I saw that the Brailsford & Dunlavey page has been deleted. Obviously, the Wikipedia community knows best. But what happened with the draft article? About a dozen hours were invested in producing it. Want to make sure there's a starting point if the company becomes more notable in the future.

Sincerely,

Bjrudell (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bjrudell: Yeah, I saw that too. Our process didn't serve you well in this case. If an inexperienced reviewer (who was subsequently removed from Articles for Creation for not having a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy and guidelines) hadn't approved your draft, it would still be under improvement in the draft space and wouldn't have gone through Articles for Deletion.

To ordinary wikimortals like you and me, when it's gone it's gone. The best you can do without assistance is salvage the raw text, sans formatting, by Googling "Brailsford & Dunlavey deletion" and then, instead of following the link to the now non-existent Wikipedia article, click the green down arrow at the end of the link to access Google's cached version of the page. You can't edit the cached version, but you can select the text and copy and paste it somewhere safe. Don't count on Google keeping a cached version for very long.

The only way to rescue the entire article, wikimarkup and all, is with the help of an administrator - a volunteer like the rest of us, but a powerful and very busy one. Joe Decker, who closed the deletion discussion is a stalwart of the community and I've always found him a standup guy. Explain to him that you'd like a copy to build from in the event that Brailsford & Dunlavey becomes notable in the future. I don't know what policies may apply to your situation, but if anyone can help you, Joe can.

I hope the experience doesn't put you off Wikipedia. The encyclopedia may not be ready for an article on B&D, but we can use all the editors we can get. Cheers, Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks for your thoughtful note and helpful advice. Google Cache . . . of course! I use that all the time and didn't think to in this case. Just grabbed it so I'll have a record of it in case circumstances change down the road.

I am not at all put off by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is my vote for 8th Wonder of the World; it almost defies logic that a peer-reviewed website could, in only a few years, become the benchmark for storing accurate, current, and notable content about the entire known universe. You and a few other editors have been extraordinarily helpful during this process. This is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Good luck 'til next time. Bjrudell (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

List of museums in Los Angeles

Hi Worldbruce -

Thank you for contacting me regarding the change to my update for the List of museums in Los Angeles. I am a bit confused as to why another contributor would remove the website link for the Hollywood Wax Museum. The stated reason was "Removed websites for existing Wikipedia articles - external links should be in the actual articles". As multiple other listings on the page have website links, I can not understand why this particular one has been removed. Was it a formatting issue? If you could provide some insight or input that would be great. I look forward to your response (Momwriter (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

@Momwriter:I left you that note because you had reintroduced an external link that had just been removed by another editor, and it was likely that they would remove it again. I suspected that as a relatively new contributor you might find that frustrating, and I wanted to head off any edit warring. The best practice is to be BOLD about editing, but if reverted, stop and discuss the edit rather than simply making it again.

I can't speak for Jllm06; if you decide to pursue the edit, you'll want to discuss it with them on the article's talk page. But I'm confident the external link was not removed because of a formatting problem. Until quite recently, Wikipedia's guideline regarding external links said:

Stand-alone lists ... should not be composed mainly of external links. These lists are primarily intended as internal navigational aids, not a directory of sites on the web. This does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria. [emphasis mine]

There is currently a discussion about whether the first sentence should use the stronger phrasing "should not list external links". Either way, that is probably why Jllm06 removed the external link you added.

You noted that some other entries in the list include external links. Most of those are cases where the museum doesn't have a Wikipedia article. The external links in those cases are serving as citations to prove that the entry is a museum and is in Los Angeles, and thus belongs on the list. (They really ought to be enclosed in <ref></ref> tags. In fact, all list entries are supposed to cite a reference to prove that the entry satisfies the list inclusion criteria. The best way to do so would be to reference a guidebook to the museums of LA.)

There may be a few entries in the list with external links that are not acting as references. It is natural to learn by and argue from example, but it's safer to reason from official policies and guidelines. The essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists may help make it clear why that is so. Wikipedia is forever a work-in-progress that contains both high-quality and low-quality content. If you use an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has: Portal:Featured content or Wikipedia:Good articles. Hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce - Thank you for your input. I do see that most of the entries that have website links do not have Wikipedia articles. Given that, and the stated policy that might become more specific, I will let things stand. Not a big deal and I appreciate you stepping in to clarify. Thanks (Momwriter (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC))

Draft:List of Buddhist Suttas

Your rejection of my list was both inappropriate and completely outside of the norm for Wikipedia. The immensity of this list makes sourcing each item excessively time-consuming, page intensive and overly burdensome. Furthermore, do a cursory search for lists on Wikipedia and most do not cite sources for each item on the list, and many cite no sources at all, especially when the subject matter is easily verifiable by anyone with the notion to do a simple Google search.

I have decided to add Reliable Sources for all 490 items on the list, to satisfy your demands. If you view the list, you'll see I have compiled over 60 citations for the letter "A". As most are scholarly journals, text books, or encyclopedic references, I trust they'll satisfy your criteria?

Ormr2014 | Talk  18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ormr2014:

Examples vs. policy

It is natural to learn from and reason by example. You are correct, there are lists in Wikipedia that cite few or no sources. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress; it contains high quality and low quality content. Using the existence of poorly sourced content as an excuse for creating additional poorly sourced content is an argument that will cut little ice with experienced editors. See the essays Other stuff exists and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for further explanation.

Verifiability and No original research are two of Wikipedia's three core content policies. All individual items on a list must follow these policies, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. There is an exception for "obviously appropriate material", which the guideline illustrates with the example that including "apple" in a "list of fruits" does not require a reference. I don't think it's obvious to the man-in-the-street that Akankha is a Buddhist Sutta or that Asvalayana Grihya is not.

AfC

If a draft I have declined is resubmitted, I do not review it again in AfC. I follow this practice so that submitters get the benefit of a fresh look from a reviewer who may judge the same material differently. So you don't need to satisfy me, you need to satisfy the community.

Reliable sources

Since you asked, I will observe that the number of sources is far less important than the quality of sources, and that requiring references does not mean that inline citations are necessarily required (although they do have advantages). Two general references could suffice, if they were reliable sources. The two sources cited by the original draft are not reliable and should not be used, for the reasons explained in my review.

There are some excellent sources in the most recent draft, such as:

• Norman, K. R. (1983). Pāli Literature: Including the Canonical Literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the Hīnayāna Schools of Buddhism. History of Indian literature. Vol. 7. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. ISBN 344702285X.
• Pande, Govind Chandra (1995). Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 8120810163.
• Nanamoli, Bhikkhu; Bodhi, Bhikkhu (1995). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha a New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. Teachings of the Buddha. Boston: Wisdom Publications. ISBN 0861719824.
• Kalupahana, David (2001). Buddhist Thought and Ritual. Buddhist Traditions. Vol. 13. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 8120817737.

However, the latest draft also cites many sources that do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable. By including them you may be shooting yourself in the foot. It would be a mistake to assume that the more sources the better. Reviewers may be reluctant to evaluate a draft that cites a huge number of sources. If they do review it, and see some unreliable sources, they may (incorrectly) assume that all of the referencing is unreliable. They may regard it as an example of citation overkill or bombardment and (again incorrectly) assume that the submitter has something to hide.

If an article can be NPOV and be verified by a handful of excellent sources, do not cite over 100 sources of widely variable quality. I encourage you to source as much as you can from the four references above. If they don't cover everything, throw in a few more, such as:

• Zhang, Zhenji (1983). A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sutras: Selections from the Maharatnakuta Sutra. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271003413.
• Gethin, Rupert (2008). Sayings of the Buddha a Selection of Suttas from the Pali Nikaayas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-283925-1.
• Saddhatissa, H (2013). The Sutta-Nipata: A New Translation from the Pali Canon. Hoboken, NJ: Routledge. ISBN 1136772936.

Fill in any gaps with an encyclopedia or two. You could use the inline citation style that you've been using, or use shortened footnotes to reduce clutter, either manually such as <ref>Norman 1983, p. 123.</ref>, or with a fancier shortened footnote mechanism like {{sfn}}.

Appropriate lists

In closing, let me draw your attention to the Manual of Style for Stand-alone Lists. This list doesn't fit the first selection criteria because some individual suttas are non-notable, so one cannot expect that someday every sutta on the list will have its own article. It doesn't fit the second criteria because some suttas are notable, although only about one in ten has its own article so far. The list has hundreds of entries, and you've abandoned the claim that it's a complete list, so it doesn't fit the third selection criteria either. Be prepared for someone to challenge the appropriateness of the list in the main namespace on the grounds that it is indiscriminate. Its value as an informational list is open to question because of the very limited amount of information it presents about each sutta - just its name in alphabetical order. Its value as a navigational aid is debatable because such a small percentage of links lead to more information. That leaves its usefulness as a development list, one that might be useful to editors such as yourself or to WikiProject Buddhism, but that is of unclear value to readers. These are some of the reasons that Wikipedia no longer has a list like this, and instead has various more narrowly focused lists that together cover the same ground. Worldbruce (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, only a fraction of the points of your argument have any merit here. It is true that I have abandoned the "complete list" assertion because in finding sources, I have come across other suttas not on this list. Furthermore, more than a few of the suttas originally on this list have been removed for lack of notability, so yes, there were non-notable suttas on this list, but no, there won't be when finished.

As for the "reliability" of the sources cited, I think you're over-reaching here because each of the sources used in this list meet enough of the criteria to make them valid. The first two are the only sources you've really focused on, but even this is based on your opinion that it "might be copied from elsewhere".

The size of the reference list is necessary because the list itself is quite large and the notability of each item on the list must be established... Some of the cited references, such as the ones you mentioned above, could be used to substantiate the notability of about 95% of these suttas; unfortunately because there is a growing trend among many editors here to discard the work of others if validity cannot be established with ease (in other words, were I to simply use a handful of "reliable" sources for the entire list, even if the references were 100% valid and did indeed establish notability, if reading the entire book were required to ascertain said notability, the list would simply be nominated for deletion because most editors simply don't want to have to do any actual work themselves), I have no choice but to establish notability item by item. Ormr2014 | Talk  12:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Disregard my previous arguments. I have nominated the list for speedy deletion on the grounds of redundancy. You were correct in saying there are numerous other articles that cover the content on my list, so perhaps it would simply be best to add on to those rather than invest any more time on a redundant list... Ormr2014 | Talk  16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Up for a challenge? Yes!

Hi Worldbruce,

Yes, I'd be interested in improving the article about the luthier Brian Lisus. I do need help getting hold of the sources. I've already searched and there isn't much. Please send me what you have. I'm not sure how to use sources that you have to subscribe to read. I avoided them when I wrote the Schenkman article.

My husband used to work for a violin maker and I'll ask him if he has any ideas for this project.

RoseSong — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseSong (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For mailing me the pdf. Thank you so much. Bosstopher (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your edits at Equipment of the Bangladeshi Army. Great to see some better sources coming through. Will leave to your discretion the future procurement section for the moment. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your continuous work on wiki this barnstar for you. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help. Jonhuwmac (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Eq of the Bd military

No worries. You know more - you have the lead; I'll conform to your movements. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bari High School,Bari

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I've redirected the page to the relevant article. I guess it's okay now? Cheers VS6507 (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@VS6507: Padua Town is at least in the right country and state, but at 18.22°N 82.42°E / 18.22; 82.42, is still 550 km away from Bari High School,Bari (21.1563°N 86.6304°E / 21.1563; 86.6304). Why redirect it at all? I'm not a fan of one sentence high school articles, but if it went to WP:AfD it would be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, not redirected. I've no doubt someone familiar with sourcing schools in India could choose a reliable source out of the many search engine hits for it. Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

About Edit In Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University

You removed History from the page of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University. Sorry to say I have added all of the Information you removed. The website of the university is under construction so it cannot open for all. I am not the copyright holder of the information but I gave the Reference of the given information. Everything is Added from a publication by BSMRAU in March 2008 named Handbook For Undergraduate Students. The infrastructure is added by myself. I am studying in this university. I edit this page to available informations to all. I think I am not avoiding or violating Wikipedia's Copyright Laws. If I violate then I can't understand how. You told me to write in my own words. I just give the information which I found in the book. I can't understand how to write in my own words. If you can please edit the copyright protected writings and help the page. I am a new user. May be I have some fault at first. You should not warn me first time to block from editing.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmhshuvobd (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mmhshuvobd, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your interest in contributing, there are certain things you must understand about using information from copyrighted sources to avoid violating Wikipedia policies.

• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights.
• The text on http://bsmrau.edu.bd/ is published by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University with "All Rights reserved by BSMRAU © 2015." That means that no one may copy it, even if their intentions are good, and even if they cite the source from which they copied it.
• You may use the university website and/or handbook as a source of information, but not of content, such as sentences. Suppose a source says, "Brilliant Student University (BSU) is a government-financed university of Bangladesh and the third agricultural university in the country." Then you may not write that in Wikipedia. You may rephrase and reorganize the information and express it using your own words, for example: "Brilliant Student University (BSU) is a public agricultural university in Bangladesh, established in 1998."
• You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words or structure too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue. Many universities, perhaps including yours, have policies banning plagiarism. Violating them can have real-world consequences, such as expulsion.) Even when using your own words, you are still expected to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. Worldbruce (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Worldbruce, I can understand. Thank u for your response. I'll edit the informations very soon as you said on the basis of Wikipedia's law and regulations.

Draft:TodayTix

Hi WorldBruce, thanks for your comment on Draft:TodayTix. I have made a bunch of edits (well, technically, mostly one big complex edit, because I don't care about pumping up my edits-made stats) to the draft. Specifically:

• Moved the two founders from the "Key people" infobox field to the "Founder" field, leaving four people listed as "key". I'm perfectly willing to pare this further; those names were entered by the draft's creator, TodayTix, for whatever that's worth.
• Removed entirely from the "Executive team" section anyone who had not been written about in sources I could easily find online, and rewrote the remaining people's paragraphs to be entirely sourced (except as noted below).
• Found sources to substantiate the claims of "partnership" and "first-ever", and use of the term "mobile lottery"; these are now cited where the terms appear in the text. I also added some clarifying language as appropriate.
• The Lovitz / HuffPo source is now cited solely as a source for the founders describing themselves as "passionate theater fans", which I think is uncontroversial enough, but if you disagree I can remove that source entirely.
• Added a number of new sources, all I believe notable news providers.
• Changed the "Criticism" section to "Drawbacks and criticism" and added individually sourced drawbacks. I felt list format would be more readable for the drawbacks, but I'm willing to put them in paragraph format instead.
• Removed the anonymous producers' "training" comment as I could not find any other source saying anything similar to what was in the Forbes blog post. Found an alternate piece of criticism via a reliable source. When possible I do like to include relevant criticism on articles about companies that were clearly started by a member of the company.
• Added an assortment of new content from sources I found while looking for sources to address the issues you raised.
• Improved phrasing here and there.

I appreciate the opportunity to improve the draft further without getting a formal review-and-rejection. I hope I've now addressed all the issues you had with it.

The one part of the pre-existing draft I wasn't able to adequately address was the clause "where he developed and launched marketing and ticketing initiatives still in use" referring to Brian Fenty's work for the Yankees. If you have access to the WSJ, I would appreciate it if you could check whether the above quote is supported by the WSJ source given; I feel it should be removed from the article if not supported, as I could find no other source discussing his work for the Yankees, but I didn't want to just delete it in case there was support in the source that's right there.

Thanks again, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: The changes you describe sound promising. I'm taking a wikibreak from Articles for creation, but one of the other reviewers should be along to review the draft within the next 10 days or so. I don't have ready access to The Wall Street Journal, but there's a project for that. If you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, the helpful folks there will do their best to locate any source you need and email you a pdf. Worldbruce (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 18:23:22, 11 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ArtemisVader

• ArtemisVader (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Clayton Conlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your review of my draft Clayton Conlan. I added eight references from seven independent sources, to address the notability issue.

ArtemisVader (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)ArtemisVader

ArtemisVader (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisVader: Glad to hear that you're continuing to improve it. When I've declined a draft, I don't review it again in AfC if it's resubmitted. This policy gives authors the benefit of a fresh look by a reviewer who may have different strengths. One of the other reviewers should get to it within the next couple of weeks. Worldbruce (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

One more article on interwar Austria

Sorry to bother again but while using this article you kindly sent I realized there is another one that may be useful for the July revolt: this one. Do you think it would be possible to get me a copy of that one as well? Plenty of interwar Austria to work on but making progress thanks to these sources... Thank you in advance!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rowanwindwhistler: I will try to get that for you. Unfortunately I don't have remote access to Cambridge. When I travel to a place that has a good university library I do research there for articles I'm working on and knock off a few resource requests at the same time. My next opportunity for that won't be for about ten days. You may get an earlier result from another volunteer by either amending your original resource request or opening a fresh one. Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, no problem then, I will try asking for it at the resource page. Thank you!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just realized The DollfuΒ Ministry: The Demise of the Nationalrat was not among the articles you kindly sent me (I thought I had checked them all but it seems I overlooked this one). I have asked for it in the resource page along with others I have found in the meantime but just in case you happen to get access to the Cambridge website again, it would be great if you could get me that article as well (no hurry, I have some other sources to check too). Thank you!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, between when I downloaded them and when I attached them to an email to you, someone else sent them your way, so I guess you now have two copies. Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Many many thanks all the same, better to have two copies than none!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail about Ascoli 2009

Hello, Worldbruce. 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.— BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce, thank you for undertaking to fulfill my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive16#Chapter from Psychiatrist and traditional healers – via Wiley Online Library DOI. This is the first time I have used Special:EmailUser and I am not sure if I did it right. Did my message get to you? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoBoMisiu, I haven't received any actual email from you, just the notice printed above and an email from Wikipedia saying that I had the above message, but not showing your return address. Perhaps "Enable email from other users" was not checked in your preferences at the time. When I went to your user page I noticed the address "info@robert-kobylinski.com" in the infobox, so that's where I sent the pdf on 23 October. I can send it again and/or to a different address if you didn't receive it there. Worldbruce (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I just changed that email in infobox and sent another Special:EmailUser to user Worldbruce. I hope that works. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! Got it and the attachment opens too. TYVM. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bugwah, Bangladesh

This is an old post office location, found in P.D. Allen's list, at http://worldpostmarks.net/HTML Countries/IndiaandStates.htm

Rajshahi division may have been superceded; on maps it appears to be almost due east of Rangpur.

http://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-3770753&fid=548&c=bangladesh Latitude in decimal degrees : 25.716667 Longitude in decimal degrees : 89.716667

"The information regarding Bugwah in Bangladesh on this page is published from the data supplied by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a member of the Intelligence community of the United States of America, and a Department of Defense (DoD) Combat Support Agency."

They then print this disclaimer: "No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Bugwah information contained here."Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fconaway: Thanks! With that additional information I found that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency records "Bugwah" as a variant of "Bagua, Anantapur", which is a village in Hatia Union, Ulipur Upazila, Kurigram District, Rangpur Division, Bangladesh, very close to the coordinates in the article. Anantapur appears on the upazila maps, and appears on Google maps as Onantapur.

Bagua, Anantapur is quite small, so I'm not sure that it is the same as the early Indian post office using killer cancel 158. There are at least five other Baguas in what is now Bangladesh, some of which seem more likely candidates for a match. Our local philatelic library has a copy of Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations, so I'll check that as soon as I get a chance. Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Good progress! Jal Cooper's Early Indian Cancellations may not have what you are looking for. The latest word on this is Denis R. Martin, Numbers in Early Indian Cancellations, 1855-1884. I would look it up, but my copy is in storage. I hope your library has it. Remember, it must be specifically the B/158 in the Bengal Octagon, or "Bengal spiderweb": that is Renouf's Type [7], which would also be Cooper's Type 7. Renouf, the pioneer, listed this as Bugwah.Fconaway (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a scan of a letter cancelled B/158, dated 29 September 1869. It was back-stamped "Traveling P. O. Bengal"; it may have been carried by a river steamer. This appeared in a Feldman auction lot in Sept 2013.Fconaway (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fconaway: Intriguing. I don't actually see a scan ... am I missing a link?

Thanks for emailing me the journal article on Ukraine

Much appreciated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits in the article of Matiur Rahman

Hello, I am User:Amfmaads. I agree with your opinion that wikipedia should be neutral as possible. Now, coming to the article Matiur Rahman (military pilot), you must see the article of his counterpart in the death incident, Rashid Minhas. If I have to agree that Martyrdom is a term of point of view, then his article should not also contain it. Amfmaads (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amfmaads, I'm glad we agree on what is Wikipedia policy. How should it be applied in this instance? Reliable sources (The Nation, BBC News) describe Rahman as a hijacker, a traitor, and someone with "evil designs". Other reliable sources (The Daily Star, BBC News) describe Rahman as a hero, a defector, and martyred. There are different points of view.

When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that we describe the competing views without endorsing any in particular or giving any view undue weight. Of the reliable, easily accessible sources, only The Daily Star uses the term martyr (or shaheed). Chosing to prominently title the section on his death "Maryrdom" gives undue weight to that point of view. "Death", on the other hand, is neutral. All sources agree that he died. The paragraph then correctly goes on to explain both points of view. Readers can form their own opinions.

Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The argument that "other articles exist" (that are bad) is not a sound reason to make Matiur Rahman (military pilot) worse. Does Rashid Minhas need improvement? So fix it! But be sure there are reliable sources expressing different points of view. If all the available sources agree that he was a martyr, then that's a perfectly reasonable way to describe him in the article about him, whatever your personal feelings may be. Worldbruce (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dhaka Derby

Hey! I am very glad to you for your contribution in The Dhaka Derby. But you know I am new in Wikipedia. Why don't you help me by adding some more information and reference about the Dhaka Derby. Hopefully you will. Bye take care. NayemRahman (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@NayemRahman: I'm already working on improving several thousand other articles, so I probably won't have time to help you with Dhaka Derby. You can try asking for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. Wikipedia welcomes new editors, but unreferenced or poorly referenced articles are often deleted; creating them wastes your time and that of other editors. It's best to do the initial work on a subject in your sandbox or using the Article wizard. Move a topic into article space only when you're sure the subject is notable and the referencing is solid.

In List of highest grossing Bangladeshi films you mention that there is no official tracking and publishers of box office figures are often pressured to inflate estimates. In my experience there is no reliable source for box office date on Bangladeshi films. Although you describe boxofficebangladesh.com as a "reputable" source, it is a blog, and doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. If you are unsure, you can ask at the reliable source noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. When no independent, reliable sources exist on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, so the list should be deleted. Worldbruce (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to add my company

Dear, I want to add/create a page for my company. I have some reference link. Can you help me? Sohelranaxyz (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sohelranaxyz: Most companies don't have and shouldn't have an article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. It is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations.

A notability guideline is used to determine whether a company may qualify to be included. Your company most likely is not notable, or someone already would have written an article about it.

If, after studying the guidelines, you are convinced that your company is one of the very few that is notable, then present your proof (in the form of books written about your company, articles about it in scholarly journals, mainstream newspapers, magazines, etc.) at Requested Articles/Companies. Keep in mind that information must be from reliable arms-length sources. Nothing that originates from your company (no press releases, no interviews with the CEO, nothing from its website) is of any value at this stage. A volunteer will evaluate your request and write an article about your company if it's possible.

Before you begin, be sure to review WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. If there's any negative information out there now or in the future, it will make its way into any article about your company. Worldbruce (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and Seasons Greetings

I received the information and it was of great help. I hope the holiday season brings great joy and happiness to you and your family!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Literacy rate of Barisal

Please review the Census report of 2011. I think, this is so much acceptable than your source. thanks! Ssoebmizan (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ssoebmizan: I'm sure you're right, but in order to list the new figure, a citation to the 2011 census has to be added to the Barisal District article. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to add one. You can also look at an example of an article that cites the 2011 census, Kabirhat Upazila, although I think the webserver has changed recently to http://www.bbs.gov.bd/, and there may be other changes to the url. If you can't figure out how to add the citation, leave me a note here and I'll get to it eventually, but there are 600+ other district, upazila, union, municipality, etc. articles that also need updating. Worldbruce (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)