User talk:78.26/archive2013-1

thank you #1

Hi Thank you for reviewing the Cloudmachine page. I will follow your tips and resubmit in a few days. Hopefully it will work then. Thank you. William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkum (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

AFCBuddy

78.26

Thanks for creating this script! A couple of questions. First, shouldn't anyone appearing in the "Running Total" list below the leaderboard automatically be included? Also, the script seems to have a bug. I haven't counted anyone else's, but I've reviewed 31 articles, not 21. The script changed the number on the leaderboard. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Darn it, i didn't expect people to find my tampering with the scoring in my favor so quickly! ;). It seems i forgot to tell the script that capital letters don't matter (AFCH != afch unless you explicitly state it is.). The reviews it missed are now correctly being counted.

On the other hand, it is now assuming you have 40 reviews since it counts both the actual article and the redirect page that was created by moving the page. I'll iron that issue out in a bit. Hopefully the script will be quite stable in a couple of days. Oh, and thanks for mentioning the issue - much appreciated! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

SpeedReader

Yes, Why am I not on the leader board? at the time that the script ran, I had 40 reviews. Thanks, Jakob 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for relieving me with the script! Before, I was the one who had to manually update the leaderboard

It seems that you aren't using the AFC helper script to review pages. AFCBuddy detects pages by the default summary's it places when accepting or moving a page. There are a few possible solutions i can think off:

• If you could review pages using the AFC helper script it would detect edits as normal (Any reason why you are not using it?). Since updating the review list is manual copy-n-paste work i could leave any old reviews there. Equally i could adjust the review count of your username in the tool, so that it would offset the reviews it cannot detect itself.
• If you cannot or don't want to use the AFC Helper script for reviewing i can simply use your review list as a basis for the scoreboard (A simple count of the diffs on that page). A side effect would be that you would need to keep updating that page manually, since AFCBuddy wouldn't be able to detect any reviews from you :/ Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Your" AfC

I have no idea why that notice went to you instead of the article creator (National Technological University (United States)). I see you made a couple of edits, but the AfC helperbot sent that to you instead. Since I am bot-clueless, would you take a look? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That was because i was technically the editor who placed it in the queue, and afterwards forgot to change the parameter in the template to point to the actual user. I remember i placed it in the queue for some reason, but i cannot seem to recall the specifics anymore... Ah well, in the end it worked out just fine anyway. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good info, thanks much. I've run across one situation where that might have happened to me. Now I'll know to look out for it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (United States) (AfC)

Thanks for reviewing the article titled National Technological University (United States). I'm a bit confused about the outcome, however. On the first submission, I was asked to go back and provide independent references, which I did (including articles from the New York Times, Stanford University, etc.). But, the new submission had a lot of format problems, which I readily admit I corrected those and resubmitted the copy that you then reviewed. Your input back to me was "it reads like an advertisement." Most of the references are from independent sources, NTU was a fully-accredcited university, and had more than 50 leading engineering schools as partners. I pretty much wrote it up as it actually was. Very much the leader in the early years of distance education, not only in the U.S. but abroad. What are your specific objections? I am more than willing to edit it, because I really believe it belongs in Wikipedia. But, I can't quite figure out where we are in conflict on the facts and/or on the references. Please talk to me.Dmy55 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and question. First, I think you're article is almost there. It has the sources, it has the facts. The biggest problem is that the article reads like a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend taking a look at Baltimore_City_College for an article on an institute of higher learning that you could pattern after. Like I said, I think your article is almost there. I'm glad you asked, and if I can do anything to help you out, please let me know, and I'll do what I can to get this article published. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (U.S.)

Thank you for your response.

I have followed your advice and removed what might be considered promotional language. It was a bit painful for me to do, but I've done it. Please review the revised text to see if you agree that the article is now ready to be posted.Dmy55 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Much better! The short answer is yes. The long answer is I'd like to see the formatting improve. Again, I'd look to the Baltimore City College for a frame of reference. Notice how the section headers aren't IN ALL CAPS, and how the narrative is layed out in a logical manner. Here are a few pointers (my opinions, take them or leave them). The first section (called the lead) should be a summary of what this organization is, and what role it plays (from a neutral perspective). All statements in this first paragraph should be re-iterated in more detail in the article body (the following sections). The next paragraph can be called "History" and in it you can talk about the founding, and about the growth in participating students and univsersities, and the section currently called "New Developments in Distance Education" (combine these sections). Then the next section can talk about the "Organizational Structure". Next I'd recommend you have a section called "Curriculum" and here you could combine the sections currently called "Accredidation and Degree" and "Non Credit Short Courses. Do keep the list of participating Universities, this is significant. Again, I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

With your help, I think we're there. What do you think?Dmy55 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple more things. If it were promoted now, I would judge it a "Start" class article. There are a few things that can be done to make it a "C" or even possibly a "B" class article. First, the lead paragraph still needs work. Was it a private university? Did it primarily offer online courses? More context needed to define what the article is about. It is not clear that this organization no longer exists, but has been merged/folded into Walden. That definately belongs in the lead paragraph. Just a short sentence. I have made a few edits that will help the structure. If the first sentence were to read "National Technological University (NTU), Fort Collins, Colorado, was an instutue of higher learning founded in 1984 as a non-profit organization in order to offer graduate courses leading to a Master of Science (M.S.) degree", would that be accurate? Anyway, good work! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I have revised the lead paragraph as you suggested (i.e., delivery via satellite and sale to Sylvan Learning). Are we there now?Dmy55 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am still confused about exactly what this was. Was this an accredited University/College? I don't want this to be declined again because of "no context". 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

I believe you recently declined the article located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT, and instead, on the premise that the subject of the article already exists. A redirect now sends folks seeking information about "McClatchy-Tribune Information Services" to The McClatchy Company.

The problem is that although McClatchy is one of MCT's parent companies, the McClatchy Wikipedia article makes no mention of MCT (McClatchy-Tribune Information Services).

Another editor suggested I post my draft article at requested articles, so that someone else can pick up the article can "build [the] article into one that will be ready to 'go live,' 'per se.'"

How do you feel about this suggestion?

--MCT Susan (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is such a backlog at WP:RA that I am afraid your article might never be developed, and I'd hate to see all your hard work scrapped. I actually don't know how to post a draft article at Requested Articles anyway, this is a place for completely un-written articles. I would suggest you just create the article yourself, but your user name suggests a conflict of interest with the article subject, so Articles for Creation (AfC) is the way to go. Having not actually used the AfC process myself to create articles (I've always done it directly), I don't know if the creator (in this case, you) can add comments. If so, you will want to point out that your article subject is currently a re-direct, and you want to create an article that eliminates the need for this redirect. Before you re-submit this, you need further references, in my opinion. You have good references regarding "Los Angeles Times and Washington Post Break Up News Service" and information about the parent company (The News-Tribune article) but none of the sources are a substantial source about the Information Services branch. I think if you were to re-submit, it might get declined on an "insufficient, independent sources" basis. I hope that is helpful, and please feel free to ask further questions. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Really helpful comments! Thank you very much. I tried the help desk chat line, and they recommend I create links on the McClatchy page and the Tribune page, that will direct to the MCT page. That gets around the "subject already exists" issue.

I agree that AfC is the way to go. Do you think it's possible that one of the (numerous) editors that have been so helpful to me in figuring out how to post this article will pick up the cause/article in AfC and post it??

p.s. I hear your concern about the "insufficient independent sources" possibility, too. need to keep working on/chewing that one over. haven't been able to find more sources online so far...

--MCT Susan (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 78.26! I went on the help desk live chat and received a lot of advice. One editor suggested I add some information on MCT to the McClatchy and Tribune articles, then link to my proposed article, once it's live. I made those additions.

Another editor suggested I convert the timeline format in my history section (article is here-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MCT) to a narrative format, more similar to McClatchy and Tribune articles. So I did that. Can you please take a look at the article and the edits in the McClatchy and Tribune articles and let me know what I should do next?

--Media Maven (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(for own reference, page has moved to User:Media Maven/McClatchy-Tribune Information Services) Really good improvements. As presented, I would have passed it. I would like to see the last header changed from "An important content addition and new technology" to something more specific. Explain in the section why this was important, but I would title something like "Expanded local service" or some such. Good job! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (U.S.)

NTU was fully accredited by the standard accreditation organization in 1986, You have absolutely no worry about its legitimacy.Dmy55 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Source this! Put it in the article! Then the subject is inherently notable, by the way. Can you specify which accreditation organization? There are actually several for colleges. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (United States)

The accreditation information is already in the section titled Curriculum but I will also include it in the lead paragraph later today.Dmy55 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (United States)

Okay, I think we should be there, and I hope you agree. I have identified an independent source for the accreditation information and have cited it in the lead paragraph, along with the title of the accrediting organization. Do you see any other potential issues that need to be addressed? Dmy55 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to review it, I would pass it. I can't speak for any other editors, but in my opinion it is notable, verifiable, and now passes WP:MOS. Go for it! And congratulations for all your hard work. Good job. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

National Technological University (United States)

How do I now submit it?Dmy55 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How did you submit it the first time? There is no re-submit button for you? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you, as the submitter, would do it, but I figured it out by doing it the hard way. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review of Uski Roti

Thanks for your review of the article on Uski Roti. I agree that it needs more references. However, I couldn't understand your comments about the two existing references. One is a quote from an article by a film critic writing for a well-known daily newspaper. That seems to be quite typical in Wikipedia articles on films. The other is from a website which has already been cited in the Wikipedia article on Mani Kaul, and thus presumably can be considered reliable. Although the piece on the website is about the film maker, it has a whole paragraph devoted to this film. Could you please clarify? Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amuk! Thanks for writing back. I hope I can help you. The second reference, from the Times of India, is excellent, and goes a long way toward establishing notability. One more reference like this and I would have passed the article. Regarding the first reference, upperstall.com, there is nothing wrong with the reference itself. The problem with this refernce is that it is not about the article subject, namely the film Uski Roti. This reference is about the director Mani Kaul. By all means leave this reference in the article, but find at least one more reference that is primarily about the film. Let me know if you have any other questions! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your inputs. I have re-submitted the article. The new improved version has five references. I can see where it can be further improved, but I believe it's now ready to be accepted. :) Please take a look. Thanks again! Amuk (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I still think it needs another reference that is primarily about the film. Again, the new references are good, but they are about the director, not about the film itself, which subject of the article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Alexrexpvt felt differently! Congratulations on getting your article created. I know this was a lot of work, and I hope you find your future Wikipedia endeavors as successful, and that you have fun doing it! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like your feedback on the Uski Roti article as it stands now. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize I was not able to reply in a timely manner. I am glad to see the article was promoted to the mainspace, it deserved it. Good work! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuk (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Your barnstar came at a terrific time in my Wikilife. Much appreciated. Andrew³²⁷ 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Trademark of Quality TMOQ have " has multiple issues." ???

Flyspes (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)== Trademark of Quality TMOQ have " has multiple issues." ??? ==

Hello

It took me some time&thinking to find out that 78.26 is in fact a Wikipedia user and not an automatic process. I am responsible for updating 99% of the TMOQ article with information and release serial numbers.I am a bit puzzled by the remark put on the article that is...quote "has multiple issues" and "needs attention from an expert in Albums, Rock music"..unquote...

I have specialized in collecting these -70ths bootleg label and started to do so in 1970 and have 99% of all LPs in my private collection.In addition to using information from my collection have I verified most of the facts and serial numbers from other experts and also from KEN (who was KEN Douglas and DUB Taylor who runned the label)...There is also a link to the well know book about this,the "The Great White Wonders" by Clinton Heylin.

So could you please specify which containt in the article you dispute or find untrue ? I am of cource interested to follow all guidelines of Wikipedia.I find this article the best there is on this subject so I am a bit confused about this warning when I saw..

have a great weekend

^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyspes (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Flyspes (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry,I got a problem with my PC while posting the subject about TMOQ to you and when I went back online and wanted to edit my posting then I accidentaly mixed it up into previous post by another user..

193.212.163.70 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Flyspes! Thanks for writing. Yes, I am a real person, a record collector who specializes in 78rpm recordings (78.26 is the exact rpm of most electrical 78s in the USA). I can tell you are an expert in the subject. Note, I did not put the article up for deletion in any way. I did tag the article with several issues, because I think the label is important, and I am trying to draw attention to it so that other knowledgeable editors will improve it. Nor did I say that there was anything in the article that was untrue. Here is a point-by-point list of why I tagged this article.

• Neutrality is disputed. Many of the phrases portray the company in a positive way. For intance "They were quality-conscious perfectionists who pressed all their...." and "The most lovely ones are probably Jeff Beck's "Beckfast" album with..." These are opinions. Any opinions should be put into context as from a notable individual, such as "Bob Roberts of Rolling Pebble has noted the high quality vinyl used" and then best to use inline citations. In fact, using inline citations to source each claim is one of the best things you can do to improve the article.
• Insufficient context. Why is it notable, or important, that these performances were released? What type of bootleg? Did they have a specialty? I think some of these issues could be solved by reorganizing the article a little bit.
• Needs attention from... This is just to draw attention to the article by those who are knowledgeable of it. Nothing more, nothing less.
• Tone not encyclopedic. It is not written like an encyclopedia article. It is written conversationally, like someone who wants to share their knowledge. Better than no article at all, but take a look at some of the better articles written about other record labels, and see if you can't copy some of the style.
• Needs additional citations. There is nothing wrong with the single citation you give. It is an excellent source. As mentioned before, it would help if you had inline citations, so the reader can tell which assertions are supported by the source. The other problem is that there is only one. An article should have at least two independent, verifiable sources with substantial information about the article subject. (This tag has been on the article since 2007, I didn't add it)

I hope that helps! Please feel free to ask further questions, or let me know if I can help in any way. This is not my area of expertise, but it is an interesting subject. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello 78.26 ( I really like that wikipedia "alias")....

thanks for constructive remarks.I got a bit "carried away" as this label is THE label which started it all..I will review the wikipedia article once more and try to use some of your remarks to change it into a better one...Flyspes (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

regards

Rune

Glad it was helpful. Feel free to have me look it over, and also to ask questions. There are other editors with a lot better advice than I have, but I like to try to help anyway. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

I have started to update by adding 2 more books.There are not many books printed about this subject and the "Hot Wacks" books is the best one.

I have today sent an email to artist mr William Stout who designed a lot of the LP covers and asked if he would agree to be quoted on some of the opinions in the article. I have also asked for his comments and suggestions for improvement.I will change the article a bit after I get a reply from him.

I also found 2 interviews with Mr William Stout on the web.It seems to be an American news paper but when I tried to put the links into this article to show you, then I got a warning from Wikipedia that this link was on a black list. However,if I find some interviews or articles about this subject in for instance a newspaper, can I link that into the article ? Is that a valid source ?

regards

Flyspes (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First, direct quotes would be seen as original research WP:OR and would probably be reverted. Good find with the books. Before you add more to the article, I would recommend switching to Inline Citation style. See WP:IC. It would really help improve the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

I notice that another Wikipedia editor ( John of Reading ) have cleaned up the article and it now looks to me to be more in the lines of what Wikipedia requier. Do you agree and would this be enough to remove the warnings that the article have several issues ? In the fairness of the article I think it can now be on Wikipedia without this remark..I dont know the process which is needed to remove, does it need a voting on this or ?

Flyspes (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey_Evans_(Entrepreneur)

(ZeldaChick (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jeffrey_Evans_(Entrepreneur)

Thank you for your advise on Jeffrey Evans page. I followed your advice and added some more reliable references and a few more references that talk about him individually. Also, I wanted to clarify that he doesn't own the Huffington Post he is a author for the blog. Thanks and anymore advise would be much appreciate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeldaChick (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This still probably won't pass. I don't see anything specifically about Mr. Evans except the Huffington Post bio. I know he doesn't own Huffington, but the reason the bio does not establish notability is that the only reason a bio at Huffington is there is because Mr. Evans is an occasional contributor. If he weren't a contributor, the bio wouldn't be there. Therefore, notability is not established by the existence of this biography on Huffington post. The article is still too biased. Take the statement "Evans is known for his merger and business development ability". Who knows him? How do we know this? Also, external links such as what you have to Andra Day are viewed as promotional in nature. Andra Day is not notable (no wikipedia article), so this does not help Jeffrey Evans case for notability. Unless there is significant coverage about this, I would remove this section. It would seem Mr. Evans' case for notability rests on his work with TigerText. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Lanzhou Railway Station

When looking at Wikipedia, I noticed that it had an article on the smaller Lanzhou West Railway Station but not the main central Lanzhou Railway Station. That is why I decided to submit this article, because Lanzhou is a major provincial capital and it is this station that the majority of trains pass through from China's east to west along the former Silk Road route and into Tibet. Very few trains stop at Lanzhou West Station by comparison, however it has been placed on Wikipedia because it is stop on the Baoji-Lanzhou High Speed Railway, bypassing the main station via a tunnel.

I do intend to expand the article on Lanzhou West Railway Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireshock (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you created the article. Aside from what I thought was a duplication, I was ready to approve it anyway. I think the article would be improved if you were to spell out the differences between the stations as you did on my talk page. Happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lou Brutus

Thank you for reviewing the Lou Brutus article. We have made numerous changes and improvements based on your comments including additional quotes and reference links in regard to both programming style and interview style. Also note many of the references in the Special X section make mention of the rather free-wheeling programming style of the subject. Please take a look when you have some time. We hope this will better the feel of the article's neutrality. More feedback very welcome. Thanks again! MusicMediaMatters (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been more modifications to neutralize the tone of the article. Also, the Music Career portion has been expanded. Please review when you have a moment, with a special eye towards the neutral tone of the article. Thanks. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AfC Buddy Counts

Hi Excirial, I am trying to figure out why AfC Buddy is counting differently than my list. Am I making a mistake somewhere? If I review an article more than once (because it has been re-submitted) am I to only count that once? Not a big deal, but am curious, as I am the only one who seems to be inflating his review count. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there seveneightdottwosix,

All reviews are counted (Or should be), including deleted and double reviews (actually all AFCBuddy does is download all edits made by an editor in a certain timeframe, and check for AFCH tags). Even so it is quite likely it can and will be off by a review or two for any editor - The editor may have missed a review, listed a review that didn't use the AFCH script or AFCBuddy might simply not detect a review correctly at times due to some form of special condition. Initially i tried to debug these missing contributions, but due to the mistake ratio being less then a percent i eventually stopped doing this since it was quite time consuming to run trough 200 edits to figure the contributer missed a review.

The reason you are the only one who's currently off isn't exactly because it only misses a review on your contributions - most of the editors are on the request list for AFCBuddy's diff generating feature by now. Since AFCBuddy is now generating that list for them it is actually comparing the contribution list against itself (And i would really be worried if that count was off!). The other 5 editors who generate their diff list manually only did a handful of reviews, so statistically taken it is unlikely AFCBuddy would miss one for them. Since you did a whole lot more you're chance of running into a miscount is simply quite a bit higher. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Elena Langer

Many thanks for reviewing this. I see there's still a note on the selected works bit - how can I improve this? - and any comments on improving the rest of the article would be welcome too. Clontibret (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graebel Companies, Inc.

Hello;

I followed your advice to add new notable references for the article that I submitted but can't seem to find the area to re-submit. I have submitted a few different times, so am wondering if there is a limit? If not, will you please review again and let me know if I am more on track?

Your help is much appreciated.

65.126.191.168 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)TJ

Take a look at the "Submission declined on 17 January 2013 by 78.26" box. If you look under the box-in-a-box where the reasons for declination are specified, you'll see wording that says "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here. I believe that will take you where you want to go. Happy editing, and thank you for taking the time to improve the article. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gozuyilmaz Marine Industries Ltd.

Dear Madam/Sir

Thanks for your time and feedback. I will add more references and send the article again.

Best

Ozgur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelkencioz (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

burning music productions

Hi 78.26,

Can you fill me in on why the Burning Music Productions page has been declined.

I have been told that it is lack of reliable secondary sources. I provided several from secondary sources to back up the claims made by the business owners.

I was also told the label wasn't notable - it has won 2 Grammys and been nominated for 12 more - surely that makes it notable by the standards of the recording industry.

I was told that the label exists only to serve and distribute Burning Spear music - and that isn't notable in itself. There is a listing for a Tuff Gong records - which only distributes Bob Marley - and that is deemed notable. (I agree, but Marley didnt' win any Grammys if we want to be ridiculous about our criteria - of course he deserves to be there)

I understand that a cottage record label operated by two elderly Jamaicans maybe doesn't make the cut for you, but this company has shown so many other artists how to run a label, described the advantages.

They were profiled by the AIM at the AIM conference - surely that honour (being honored at the American Independent Music conference) is notable within the industry.

I ask you to reconsider given the importance of this group and the modest claims and scope of the article.

best,

writeousWriteous (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You #2

Hi 78.26, Thank you for reviewing the Nair & Co. page. I made the changes, added more references, deleted few stuff and resubmitting. Please check and respond. I am back to wiki after a long time, would be glad to receive more suggestion and guideince. Hopefully the page should be good to go. Please let me know if there are any suggestion or other articles I can help with. Thanks so much. --rvs 06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravindr (talk • contribs)

Sorry for such late reply, while not on wikibreak exactly, I've been busy enough in real life I haven't done any editing that takes time, as your question deserves. I think the biggest issue with the article is that it makes no claim of notability. Why does it stand out? Why is it worth an encyclopedia article. Please see WP:NOT and particularly WP:NOTDIR. Although the article isn't the worst offender on promotion by any means, it still looks to be promoting services. Read the other reviewer's comments, they are very valuable. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Enrico Delves

Hi There I have cited the Wiki page,

please have a look at this and let me know if it is ok. His currenty on campiagn. Within the next two weeks, there is going to be more heavy online and physical press.

Do you have an emaail address

rudymukendi.music@gmail.com

Regards

Rudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrico Delves (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! First, my apologies for responding in an untimely manner. While not exactly on wikibreak, I've been too busy to spend the quality time your correspondence deserves. A few comments:

1. Please consider changing your user name. Either this is a serious conflict of interest or else your user name could cause you to be accused as representing yourself to be someone who you are not.
2. Many of your references are inherently invalid. Youtube and photobucket are not reliable references at all. The Music Remedy site is a reliable reference, but it doesn't help establish notability as it is not independent of the article subject. The popblimp just seems to be a video posting, and like youtube would not be a reliable source.
3. the MOBO and RWD sources may be good. I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they are respected news sources, or if they are mostly press-releases. I would defer to another editor more familiar with this scene than I am.
4. Please clean up your article. It is in triplicate. I would do this myself, but there are variations between the versions, and I wouldn't want to delete what you consider the "best" version.

I hope that is helpful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Further Improvements to Lou Brutus Article

Thank you for reviewing the Lou Brutus article. We have made numerous changes and improvements based on your comments including additional quotes and reference links in regard to both programming style and interview style. Also note many of the references in the Special X section make mention of the rather free-wheeling programming style of the subject. Please take a look when you have some time. We hope this will better the feel of the article's neutrality. More feedback very welcome. Thanks again! MusicMediaMatters (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been more modifications to neutralize the tone of the article. Also, the Music Career portion has been expanded. Please review when you have a moment, with a special eye towards the neutral tone of the article. Thanks. MusicMediaMatters (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC) MusicMediaMatters (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. Thanks for your hard work. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. Going to add a bit more polish and then tackle some other subjects! MusicMediaMatters (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, 78.26! You're receiving The AFC Barnstar because you reviewed 166 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

.

Col WP Preston

Hey there, apologies aforethought for being a pest...can you provide a time frame for second review? Not a push, just need to manage expectations on my end. Thanks for the review, comments, et al! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackinacNick (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't give a time-frame for the second review, sorry. I'd prefer another editor other than myself give a second review. The first thing I notice that can improve the article is the addition of an infobox. Take a look at a good biographical article about a soldier-statesman, and look for the box in the upper-right corner. You could place a lot of the information from the first paragraph (birth/death/burial) in there, and it would make it look like a wikipedia article. Also, the "Public Service" section is not written like an encyclopedia article, but like an essay. The "Private Life" section is much better. I hope that helps some. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Evans (Entrepreneur) pt2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jeffrey_Evans_(Entrepreneur) (ZeldaChick (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)) I found a journal written about his career. Does this make him notable?

Thanks for continuing to improve the article. I don't know if it makes him notable or not. What is the journal you found? I'd be happy to take a look at it to see if it would be considered an independent and reliable source. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(ZeldaChick (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC))Sure thing. Here is the article: http://sfvbj.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2007/jan/22/business-groups-look-for-next-generations-leaders/ I have pictures of the actual article though. I can email it to you or can I upload it in some way for you to view? How'd you like me to do this? Thanks so much for your help. I've always wanted to make a Wiki and I think he's a great addition to the page.

Wow, bit of a tough spot! I don't link my email and wikipedia accounts in any way for privacy reasons. You can't post the text here, or part of it, for copyright reasons. How much of this article is specifically about Mr. Evans? Looks like a really good reliable, independent source. The only question is if it contains "significant" coverage on him. I'd recommend you post a question on the AfC helpdesk page, perhaps there's someone there willing to communicate by email, who would be willing to look it over. Also, sorry for delayed reply, I've been away on a business trip, and my wiki-editing has been sporadic at best. All the best! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(ZeldaChick (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)) Thank you :)

Toledo district category reversion

Re: recent revert at Category:Toledo District it looks like you deleted a lede. The cat has no text otherwise? I don't think user was trying to add the article to the cat if that's what your comment is trying to say? -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I mistook this as an attempt at article inclusion, when in fact it is a lede. Thanks for the heads-up. I have self-reverted. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

World Muaythai Council

Hi there, you stated that a WMC page already exists and therefore rejected my submission but I do not think this is the case, I believe one does not already exist. If one does exist can you direct me to it, please? MuaythaiAmateur (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)MuaythaiAmateur

World Boxing Council Muaythai, this links to the same homepage you list. By the way, I mention this in the comments below the decline reason. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They link to different pages, the WMC is a different organisation to the WBCM. The WMC links to http://www.wmcmuaythai.org/ whereas WBMC links to http://www.wbcmuaythai.com/ - different websites. Could you re-review, please? MuaythaiAmateur (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, my mistake is that I did not notice the offical URLs of the two organizations are only on letter difference, and both claims to relationship to the Sports Authority of Thailand. Is there any way you can make this more clear to readers such as myself who are unfamiliar with this sport and the various regulating entities? It was my mistake, so I'll do what I can to have your article re-reviewed by another editor in a timely manner. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will attempt to make it clearer. Thank you for your help!MuaythaiAmateur (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gigantt

You asked why Gigantt was "worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia". You can help me answer this question better, if you explain, why dozens of other project management programs were worthy of inclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software As for "more independent, reliable references are needed", what should these references confirm? I've started a new article, because it is so much harder than editing an existing one and now other users can contribute content and references. Why is this a problem?

Thank you for your response. First, I can't tell you why dozens of others are listed. I haven't reviewed those articles, but it's not as if a project management program automatically shouldn't be listed. When I asked what made Gigantt worthy of inclusion, I am asking why it stands out from all the thousands of project management programs. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't list everything! Your first reference seems to be excellent, and I think if you found one or two more like this, (some editors have more stringent standards), your article stands a good chance of being promoted to the main article space. Regarding "independent, reliable references, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, although in my opinion the source your used fits the criteria well. If you started an article, and it is not deleted through AfD, then that is fantastic, and it isn't a problem at all. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! What is AfD? I am new at this. I didn't know there were thousands of project management programs and I still don't know what criteria those listed on Wikipedia had to meet. I tried some of them and they all seemed very similar. This one uses a less bureaucratic approach to project management, more intuitive. I can even say it's fun to use. I will find a couple more articles, but the program hasn't been around for that long. Do they all have to be in English for this article? Martin.vrecko (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, I can't believe I forgot to expand what AfD means. It stands for "Articles for Deletion", and is one method method by which articles are removed from Wikipedia. (The other is called Proposed Deletion, but your article wouldn't qualify, as this is for spam, attack pages, nonsense, etc.) The AfD discussion can be found here. And many great articles use foreign sources, if you are proficient in another language by all means use them if it helps establish your subject's notability. Happy editing, and let me know if I can help further. Now that I've been here awhile, I wouldn't recommend starting your Wiki "career" by trying to start an article, but that is precisely what I did when I started, so I feel your pain. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So, how do you like the amended version? Martin.vrecko (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments. The article is concise, which is good, but comes across as promotional (i.e. for the subject, rather than just about the subject). Particularly problemmatical statements include " makes it stand out among the many project management solutions". A statement such as this needs a direct source by a notable reviewer, otherwise it comes across as pure WP:POV. A statement such as "Whenever you go into a task (e.g. double-click on it) you'll notice the browser address changes" reads like an instruction manual, see WP:NOTGUIDE. I am not sure what MySQL AB has to do with either of the two references you provide. As these inline citations are one of wikipedia's more difficult concepts, let me know if you'd like some help reformatting these. Lastly, most of the applications found at Comparison_of_project_management_software aren't written very well. I'd look at Doolphy for something that comes across as neutral, and the formatting is easy for me to understand. I think if your article were tweaked to present the information in this format, it would help with the POV issues. Sorry it took me awhile to respond, but I wanted to give your efforts the in-depth attention they deserve, and I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked why Gigantt was "worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia", so I wrote why it stands out among the crowd. If it sounds too promotional, I can leave it out, no problem. I've rewritten the second paragraph in Features, but the previous text was a direct quote from that source. Although Doolphy article is perfectly neutral, I don't understand from the article, why it was "worthy of inclusion". It seems to me there is some trade-off between the two issues. So, how do you like the latest version? Martin.vrecko (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey mate, it's been a month! Martin.vrecko (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-submit. The language appears neutral to me. I can't guarantee it will be promoted, or if it is that it will survive someone's AfD nomination (not that I particularly think it will be nominated). Has this software made any best-selling lists, or won any awards? That would be the best thing you could do to establish notability beyond any doubt. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Plea for help for this Articles for Creation submission

Hi 78.26,

I wasn't sure where to post my reply to you, so I hope this will do. Sorry. I find the Wikipedia help section extremely confusing.

You wrote: "I saw your plea for help for this Articles for Creation submission. I'm not sure what help you are asking for, but I'll do my best. First, it appears to me you have fixed the promotional tone the original reviewer objected to. I think the biggest problem now is that you have not re-submitted the article for review. In your January 8 edit (which fixed the POV problems), you also eliminated the AfC template. If you want I can restore this for you, and there's an area in this template you can click on, which re-submits the article for review. Apologies if I have missed the point of your questions in your edit summary. All the best,"

I had no idea that I had not re-submitted the article. What a dope. Sorry about that. I WOULD like for you to restore the AfC template... but I'm not sure where I'm to find this template or what I'm supposed to click on once I find it. You'll tell me, I assume? :)

Thank you!

Richard

HockeyRG (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! I've restored the AfC template, so you can now go to the page and click where it says "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." This if found about in the middle of the pink box on top. Essentially, when you spent all that time editing your article per reviewer's suggestion, you removed the material found in at the top surrounded by "{{blah blah blah}}". I've added it back in. If perchance the article isn't accepted by the next reviewer, don't remove these templates, leave them at the top, then you'll be able to re-submit. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi,

I clicked "resubmit" and hope that it clears this time.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Richard

Done! I've restored the AfC template, so you can now go to the page and click where it says "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." This if found about in the middle of the pink box on top. Essentially, when you spent all that time editing your article per reviewer's suggestion, you removed the material found in at the top surrounded by "{{blah blah blah}}". I've added it back in. If perchance the article isn't accepted by the next reviewer, don't remove these templates, leave them at the top, then you'll be able to re-submit. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

HockeyRG (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure why I was notified of this message, as it doesn't appear to be related to my submission on Dennis Arthur Murphy.

But can you tell me when that submission might clear?

Thanks!

Richard Graham

HockeyRG (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Template:Psychology sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, glad for the opportunity to do it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you! In fact, I had a lovely Easter. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message:

Thanks for your introductory message to me. I am trying to move along WikiProject Record Labels. There are currently some record labels that are improperly subjected that I would like to move along and request an official page move for in order to properly subject them. Sometimes in the past, I have noticed that accurate good faith edits or page moves get blocked for absolutely no good reason or due to overzealous administrators wanting a long-term "consensus" that never comes. I feel this ruins the experience for all those that come to Wikipedia for accurate and up-to-date information. It is the reason why I feel this WikiProject for record labels has moved along so slowly, because accurate edits are getting held up or prevented by "Wikipedia red tape administrators or editors" that seem to have their own agendas at times. I feel that we are losing enthusiasm and smart editors for this reason as it pertains to WikiProject Record Labels. What is the best way to avoid this and not have accurate edits/page moves held up so that the project can actually gain some real traction? Zachtron (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yvonne Jones

No mistake, Yvonne Jones resigned her seat so she is no longer a current member of the House of Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.11.162 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that you removed Yvonne Jones, the problem was that you blanked the entire template, it was gone!. Your other edits look good (Template:Newfoundland and Labrador provincial political parties, for instance), so I am presuming this was just a mistake. If you think this template needs to be deleted (and I'm no expert on Newfoundland politics!) then you should nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But the template only refers to current members of the House of Assembly, which Jones no longer is. Why would the template remain on her page if it is no longer applicable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.11.162 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Remove the template from her page, that makes sense, but don't blank the template! It is still valid for other people's pages. Now I see the mis-understanding. I'll remove the template from her page. Then, take a look at the edit history ("diff") and you'll see what I did. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Please sign your name when discussing on talk pages by typing "~~~~" I would also recommend you create an account. There are a few reasons not to, I suppose, but I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. You don't have to, of course, but in the past someone has vandalized using your IP address. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, 78.26! You're receiving a Brownie because you reviewed 31 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Avid Novice

Thanks for the Welcome message. I keep a long list of topics to which I can bring personal expertise, and I've started into them this week. For example, I was at the graduation ceremony where Benny Goodman received an honorary doctorate -- happy to add a bit of background (and a reference, of course).

I've written several books and many articles -- I'm pretty demanding about editorial excellence.

And I know exactly what "78.26" is -- looking forward to comparing notes (a pun) and collections! I've done the online ancestry work for the Gershwin, Tatum "(e.g., Art Tatum's 2nd wife)"., and Rachmaninoff families.

Lots more coming -- looking forward to your feedback. ResearcherQ (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Two probably simple topics for which I could use a good pointer to "here's a great example of best practices"...

1. classical and jazz discographies, with all the potential complexities of dates, pieces, composers, collaborators, ...
2. I have things that are Publications and separately things that are References (using the ref and /ref tags). How can I have a Publication also be a reference (that is, there's a footnote tag referring to the publication, without replicating it as a reference. Probably obvious, but I haven't seen an example.) Thanks, ResearcherQ (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for some of your uploads

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

• File:NorrieParamorJustWeTwo.jpg
• File:TerryGibbsReza.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In case you didn't already notice: see what I did to these files' description pages. Of course it looks silly to claim that the WP image is a source for the WP image, but I'm hoping that the bot will believe it and stop pestering you. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

	Pierogi Award
	Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Boone

Hi! Thanks for removing the uncited content that was recently added to the Sarah Boone article. She's frequently vandalized, so much I think I might page protect her for longer than I usually do. Anyway, I did want to mention one thing - you cited your reason for removing the additions for "BLP violations." Sarah Boone died circa 1900, so alas, it's not a BLP violation, but, anything that isn't cited and challengeable can be removed. So it's good you removed it :) Thanks for keeping an eye out! SarahStierch (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes, I felt like an idiot as soon as I actually read the article. Unfortunately there's no way to redact edit summaries, no matter how stupid. The same IP had been vandalizing a number of biographies, mostly pop-culture related, I'm not sure why they chose to vandalize this one, it was out-of-pattern. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Article for creation: Satyandra K. Gupta

Hi User 78.26,

Thank you for reviewing the article for creation: "Satyandra K. Gupta"

I have a minor clarification. In your review, you said there is only one independent citation source. But, actually there are two sources independent of the subject:

1) 2001 PECASE Awardee Link: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0093142&HistoricalAwards=false

2) Kos Ishii-Toshiba Award Link: http://www.asmeconferences.org/IDETC2011/pdfs/IDETC2011FinalProgram.pdf

Please let me know what I'm missing.

Thanks for your time.

Kaipakrishna (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Kaipakrishna

The NSF award is relevant, but it does not supply significant coverage about Mr. Gupta. It is only good for establishing that he recieved an award, and what field he has researched in. We need another substantial, independent source that where the topic is "Satyandra K. Gupta" proper. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Hi there - I hope you are well. Thank you for your comments but could you kindly let me know whether removing all the Wikipedia Japan reference will help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.241.26 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It will help, but if the Japanese Wikipedia is sourced, use those sources for the article instead. Also there are a couple of references to English Wikipedia, such as Japan Business Federation. These should be an internal wiki link, which I've done in this particular instance. If http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/石川六郎 is the Japanese version of this article, it should be an interwiki link, not an external link. I hope that helps! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - thank you very much for your advice. I have amended the article and re-submitted it. Please feel free to let me know whether it is fine this time. Thank you!

There are still two references to Japanese wikipedia. A couple more questions: What does "elite family" mean? This may have meanings not apparant to the average English reader. Also, why are his high-school classmates mentioned? The article does not show any further relationship beyond this, so it looks like meaningless trivia. There are still WP:MOS issues, but they won't keep the article from being promoted. You've put a lot of work into it. I added the Japanese interwiki link. It doesn't display correctly right now, but it will when promoted. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments - I really appreciate it. They are all amended so hopefully it is going to get promoted! Regarding the term "elite", I have put a wikilink so it should explain what it means. I indeed put a lot of work into it since it is my first article. Thanks a lot :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.117.219 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. The term "elite" is not confusing, but what does "elite family" as a concept mean in Japanese society? I will probably not be re-reviewing this, as I think it is best practices for another editor to review this. By the way, I cordially invite you to create a user name, unless you are certain you are the only person to use these IP addresses, and that no one else will edit using them. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yup - I have a username, which I created awhile ago but have not been using it. I have changed it to "influential" from "elite" to avoid any confusion. I would appreciate if you could have another look - you have been very helpful!!! Could you kindly let me know what happens from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeispowerinthisworld (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Glad I was able to help. I really like "influential". I think the article is ready for approval. Now we just wait for someone to approve it. Also, please sign your name in messages by typing "~~~~" at the end. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Knowledgeispowerinthisworld (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

John A. Noble (Artist) - Article

Hi User 78.26,

Thank you for reviewing my article about the artist John A. Noble. I would wish to further discuss why it was not accepted. You say that copyright infringement was the issue. If the picture was the problem, the picture can easily be removed. If the problem was content, I am unsure why. To the best of my knowledge, everything was properly cited. I am unable to link the article here because it has been completely removed, but I would still very much appreciate your further input on the submission of this article.

Thank you so much for your time.

NobleJohn (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the picture (I don't know the copyright status on it), the problem was that the article had entire sentences from the sources, copied word for word. The ideas presented need to be in the editor's own words, not copied from the source's authors. It is only appropriate to directly copy word for word where a brief quotation is appropriate, or unless the source is unabiguously in the public domain. I hope that helps! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pioneer recording artists

Hi! I've noticed you've added some names to Category:Pioneer recording artists, and I've added one or two more. I'm lucky enough to have recently acquired Joel Whitburn's Pop Memories 1890-1954, which has a great deal of information from which I hope to be able to write a few more articles. My question is, what criteria do you use for judging whether someone should be added to that category? Is there a standard definition (it's not an area in which I have particular specialist knowledge), or do you just include those who recorded before a certain date - say, 1910? We may as well try to use the same criteria! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! (PS, who did you add?) I created the category, as this is an area of particular interest to me. My rule of thumb, currently, is those artists who recorded before the jazz era (approximantely 1918), in a time where in general it was the song that sold the record, not the artist recording it. There are glaring exceptions, of course: operatic artists, well-known comics such as Cal Stewart, Harry Lauder, and famous bands such as Sousa and Pryor. Most recordings in this era were made by journeymen who were paid a few dollars per recording, and hopped from studio to studio, and made a good living doing it. Things started to change by the early 1920s, when the "pop-music" buying public started buying records because of the artist, and not just because of the song. Also after WW1 the major labels' pantents were running out, and a whole new slew of companies formed. The phonograph recording industry changed drastically and matured.

The term seems to have been coined by Jim Walsh in Hobbies magazine in the 1950s, and it has been in general use by phonograph and 78rpm collectors since, although I don't know if there's ever been an official definition. You might look at Allan Sutton's excellent site mainspringpress.com, as he has several articles under "Pioneer Recording Artists". Also Tim Gracyk wrote a book entitled "Popular American Recording Pioneers: 1895 - 1925" which obviously expands the date a bit further than I do, to the introduction of the microphone in the recording process.

These are just a few of my thoughts, if you have ideas about setting a definition, it would be most welcome. I've seen your edits around articles related to the 78rpm era, and I've been very impressed. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The new articles that I've written and added to the category are Billy Golden, Harry Tally, Reinald Werrenrath and Edna White, I think - I also added Al Bernard, which I started a long time ago (2007!) and should probably go back to. I've started an article on Jim Walsh as well, and I've certainly become aware of both Sutton and Gracyk as good sources. I'll work my way through the Whitburn book (backwards, at the moment!), and add articles that appeal to me. "Ragtime" Bob Roberts should be next, I hope. I don't have a strong view on whether we use 1918 or 1925 as a cut-off date, but we should probably add a brief explanation of one or the other to the beginning of the Category page. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! An article on Bob Roberts is long overdue (it's been on my todo list for a long time.) By the way on the Billy Golden article you use discogs as a source. It is a fantastic site I often visit, but is it a reliable source? Anyone can edit it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, I know the drawbacks of using Discogs. I know that, in fact, it's much more reliable on many matters than Allmusic, for example, but I do try and ensure that anything I get from there is confirmed by other (supposedly) better sources. Equally, we could simply argue that the Sutton and Gracyk sites are both self-published blogs, and forget about sourcing anything from there as well! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, both Sutton and Gracyk are acknowledged experts in the field, (having won awards from the Association for Recorded Sound Collections, not to mention general respect from the community), so their sites should be acceptable per third paragraph of WP:USERG. If you are going to write about this type of subject, websites such as these are essential, as you undoubtedly know! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm always amenable to finding better sources for any of the articles I start, but don't like having to exclude information which is both uncontentious and accurate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I know also that my Whitburn book has its critics! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, previous to a certain date (about 1937?) the chart positions are made-up and should be taken with a grain of salt, but the information about the artists is accurate, and the recordings listed therein should be deemed notable, in my opinion. My biggest gripe with the book is that for the "pioneer era" we are discussing, Whitburn singles out a particular issue, when in fact the same song was often recorded by the same artist on several different labels, and issued nearly simultaneously. Also, particularly for wax cylinders, often when the masters would wear out they would reissue the record with a different artist, but keep the same catalog number. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Tim Brooks is another expert whose site should be deemed reliable per third paragraph of WP:USERG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, thanks. I haven't used any of Whitburn's pre-war "chart positions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I know, and by no means think I am trying to give instructions on how you should approach it. Quite the opposite, as I really like the way you have referenced it as "a successful recording", which style I planned to make note of and copy for my own additions. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

IP reverting all edits by User:Trivialist

I've popped something on the noticeboard. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

which I see was then handled appropriately. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

You beat me to a revert today and I saw you don't have rollback yet. You have it now. :) If you don't want it (since you also use Twinkle I believe), no problem of course and I will remove it. Garion96 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, getting this has been a low-priority item on my to-do list for some time. I'll check it out, and see how it works. Thanks much, all the best, and happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edmond Bacon page

Aye there '78.26',

Just wanted to say thanks for your appreciation and the barnstar. Sources that deal with Edmond Bacon specifically are difficult to come by, and I'm always keeping any eye out, so if you should come across any in your travels give me a hollar. Once again, many thanks!
See you around. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I gave the barnstar because sources must be very difficult to come by, and certainly not because I have any knowledge of the subject (but now I do, since I read the article). I ran across the page on new article patrol, and I like to recognize those pages that impress me as being particularly useful. Again, thanks for your work! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Leonhardt

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

How'd that happen? My cursor wasn't anywhere near those votes so I only previewed the TOC. Oh well - thanks for fixing it. Kilopi (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Vestal (J215).
Message added 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I expanded the page... Matty.007 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Costanzo Antegnati

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Lock-N-Stitch

I think we both marked this as reviewed at the same time so we caused the 'pedia to panic and t proceeded to unreview the article. (how's that for confusing?) I've re-marked the article as reviewed. Just keeping you in the loop! --TKK ^{bark !} 20:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I think after taggin it with issues, I marked it unreviewed, and caused the problem myself. Thanks for the notice! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just assumed since I've done that to people by mistake. But you know what they say about assuming... --TKK ^{bark !} 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Abbey Tavern Singers

Hello! Your submission of Abbey Tavern Singers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)