Jump to content

User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

GOCE June 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to WP:AFC/HD

Hey there! I see you helping out on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, and I'm wondering what you think of the changes that have been made to the page. I see you've changed a few of the new style page headers to the old style headers. The one that struck me in particular was the one for User:Flowervr/sandbox which is apparently now a redirect to a Draft: page. You can change the parameter for the pagename in the {{Lafc}} template I created (it should be unnamed parameter "1" or named parameter "declined" and should be on a line of its own in the middle of the template call. The different parameter names is a mechanism I'm developing to get some usage data for how many people start a section from the declined template vs. how many people navigate to the help desk and start a request there. I'm interested if you know of any other templates that send people there (I'll eventually dig them all up). Also, what do you think of the new navigation box in the lower left corner? Useful? In the way? Wish there were more links in it? Wish it was collapsible? Any feed back is welcome, and if you could put your feedback in the section I started for the discussion so everyone else can see it as well, maybe it will get some more feedback from others as well. The main discussion can be found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Help desk changes. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, This is the first time I've seen {{Lafc}}. I manually changed the section header to the old style as I was notifying posters about the reply using Template:AFCHD/u. There are many links and templates that send people to the helpdesk (including pagenotices) and there is probably a lot of inconsistency between them all due to the introduction of the draft namespace and advances in the helper script and disperate AFC templates. Some consistency would be good but I'm afraid I don't have any insight on where to start with it at the moment. I had not noticed the navigation box until you mentioned it, but I think its a good idea. Perhaps it could be more prominent (using colours), with the option to collapse for these who dislike prominence. I'm afraid I've been lazy and responded here. but feel free to cross-post this if you think it will help. Bellerophon talk to me 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. I can definitely expand the navigation box. What kinds of color changes did you have in mind? I tried to make it flow with the page as much as I could, don't want it to alarm anyone. Making it collapsible should be easy as well. As far as {{subst:AFCHD/u}} goes, it will actually take two parameters if you're not overly lazy about it :p First parameter is the location of the draft and the second parameter is the header of the discussion on the AFC/HD page. I could probably make a link that you could click to notify the user with that template that would preload most of the information for you if you think that would be useful. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Some sort of easily clickable link to notify the poster would be a massive boon. Personally, I feel that if we're going to reply to people at the help desk then we should strive to write replies that will be useful to the posters (as opposed to replying for the sake of replying); and, that there is no point in taking the time to compose such a reply if the original poster does not know it's there. So I always like to notify them. Currently, I use Twinkle for this. Bellerophon talk to me 20:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as colours go, I'm not sure. You're right to try and maintain the flow and consistency of the page. Maybe colours arn't the answer, maybe I just need to notice stuff more :) Bellerophon talk to me 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Native Son (American Band) article

Thank you so very much for your input, I truly appreciate it...I don't think they worked very long together, I do know a couple of years ago they were in demand...but each artist...started to work with other well known artist touring...

You may be right...it may serve better if I do an article on Bobby Watson, who is the ONLY person who does not yet have a wiki piece that is of the group...

Cheers and I wish you well... Jess

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekneegurl (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaroslav Balcar

Hello Bellerophon,

I noticed that you recently accepted an AfC submission, which I had declined. I understand if it is not in fact necessary to have sources other than databases, but I also declined it for inline citations. Since he's still alive, should we not first remove citation needed flags and add inline ciations before creating? Please could you clarify this for me, and advise on what course of action I ought to have taken. As a new AfC participant I'm still not clear on the finer points of the rulebook. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi BethNaught, no problem at all, I'm happy to explain. Where submissions/drafts (whatever you wish to call them) are about a living person the biographies of living persons policy applies, and you are correct that facts about living people should be supported by reliable sources. Generally, we would expect to have a source that evidences someone's name(s), date of birth and place of birth, as well as any more elaborate or contentious information about them. The main reason we have a BLP policy is to mitigate Wikipedia's exposure to legal action if we publish incorrect biographical information about a living person. Ideally, we would have reliable sources for all facts about a persons life and work, but this a rarely achievable. We must balance the needs of building an encyclopedia with potential risks that go with presenting information to the world as fact. To that end, it is often necessary to make a judgement call about how risky it is to include a piece of biographical information in an article. My assessment is that including unverified name(s) and dates of birth is potentially very risky, whereas failing to provide sources/citations for all aspects of a person's career, especially where that information is seemingly uncontentious, is low risk. There is nothing wrong with accepting a draft/submission that includes citation needed tags, provided that the information that needs verifying can be assessed as low risk. When considering when to add a 'citation needed' tag, bear in mind this essay. Deciding weather to accept a draft/submission is a matter of good judgement on the part of the reviewer. There are cases where one almost certainly should not accept, and cases where one almost certainly should accept, and there are borderline cases. The ability to discern between the three will come with experience. My advice is:
  1. Submissions do not have to be perfect to be accepted, but make sure they are: about a notable subject, broadly verified and presentable.
  2. Consider all relevant policies and guidelines when reviewing, but consider the spirit of the policy ahead of the letter of the policy.
  3. Be concious, that as reviewers, we are here to add new articles to Wikipedia and facilitate new editors to have a positive experience when contributing. However, also bear in mind that some people come to Wikipedia with a single purpose (usually promoting themselves or their products) and some subjects just don't belong on Wikipedia. You seem to be doing a great job and I hope you keep up the good work at AfC. I hope that is helpful to you? Bellerophon talk to me 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That is very helpful, thank you, and I will keep it in mind. BethNaught (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks a lot to put me on a trajectory of article enhancement. I am now keen to improve the article further and remove the inconsistent citation styles and external references. There's a lot to say about the subject matter to make it more informative but I have still not been able to figure out the best way to position citations and references. Do I need to rearrange the existing references and external links to make them consistent.

warm regards Sucheta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucheta Raikar (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the good sources, that discuss him in detail, are currently presented as external links. You could turn them into inline citations, and place them at relevant junctures in the body text, to fix the problem. Bellerophon talk to me 07:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have turned some of the external sources into footnotes. Hope it makes a difference to the article's readability now. I had one more questions about the link http://www.indiainfoline.com/LifeStyle/Smart-Gadgets/Lights-Camera-Audition/4191803 This article describes Mukesh Chhabra's credence and conviction at length but there are two issues with it: One, it has been written by my husband who's a consultant for India Infoline (www.indiainfoline.com), a leading news and business portal from India. Although the article is cent per cent neutral and in fact a studied third-party analysis of Chhabra's craft, I was hesitant to let it remain there lest it smacks of personal preference. Hence I have removed it.

The second issue with the article is that there's no text in the main body that could be linked to this piece unless I write a few lines about Chhabra's expertise and link the piece to it.

Please help. I am thankful to you for the specific and action-oriented guidance, most beneficial for novice users like me. Regards Sucheta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucheta Raikar (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1) The citations are much clearer now, I will remove the warning templates. 2) I would advise you to leave it out of the article for the reasons you mention. Also, I would point out, once again, that Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view that is taken quite literally. With that in mind please avoid using words like: powerful, ground-breaking, milestones, pivotal etc. in the future. You can find more information at WP:PEACOCK. Thank you for your efforts and understanding. Bellerophon talk to me 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks so much for the help. I will in future avoid all adjectives unless they are backed by concrete verifiable evidence. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucheta Raikar (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to avoid all adjectives, you need to avoid words like the ones I've shown above; even if they are backed by concrete verifiable evidence, because they still not neutral. Bellerophon talk to me 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Bellerophon-Thank you for your guidance for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikas_Joshi. I appreciate your help. RM (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Bellerophon talk to me 09:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Bellerophon talk to me 09:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:DANZ BASE

Hi, the article I'm writing is an arcade game and it's only available in China and Southeast Asia. The reliable sources list you gave me is basically for video games and Japan/US/EU only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloosteak (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Adoption request

Hi I was wondering if you could adopt me? --Oxygen720 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oxygen720, I'm a little busy in real life to put you through my adoption school; however, if you just wanted some informal mentoring I'd be happy to act as your mentor. What is it you want to achieve on Wikipedia? Also, you appear to have inadvertently revealed your IP address on your user talk page. If this bothers you, please read WP:Requesting oversight for instructions on how to email the oversight team. Bellerophon talk to me 21:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I was just testing things but I'll use my Sandbox next time. Is there a rule against it, I can remove it. --Oxygen720 (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Haven't heard back from you on my request for clarification in 5 days... So, just a little reminder. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Hi T13, sorry about that. Been away for a few days. I was asking if the preload could be included in the new message header, rather that the message box. But I can see now that this is not possible. Feel free to disregard. I approve of the addition of a TB link btw, good work. Bellerophon talk to me 08:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Yun Mu Kwan (karate)

It's just bare bones facts now. Nothing that's not common knowledge, readily available to anyone searching for info. about "Yun Mu Kwan." If you think THAT'S partisanship I don't know what to say. Yes I stripped out all links but the 1st which seemed pertinent, though it's probably NOT the best source for the material. Note: I have NO affiliation with THAT source or its authors. It was just my laziness in not dropping that one, too, figuring it was inoffensive, given wiki rules. Guess I was wrong! Bottom line, the article as now written contains no new information and nothing that could be controversial from a scholarly standpoint, though I suppose there could be ( probably are) SOME taekwondo adherents who would want to deny the connection of that sport with its Japanese antecedents. I can easily source that claim with any number of published articles. I just didn't have the time when I did the revision. If I get time in future, I'll address, unless your reference to "partisanship" reflects something else,in which case, I don't know what the problem is.

S. W. Mirsky 10:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you understood nothing anyone has said to you about this draft and how Wikipedia works? You have been repeatedly pointed towards Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (WP:V). It is not enough for you to simply proclaim 'this is all fact and can easily be searched for'; you must demonstrate it in the article. The way you demonstrate it is by citing reliable references in your article, not just one, but several, to adequately verify the assertions made in the article. The references you use must be reliable. Exactly what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is complex and often dependent on the subject. However, commonly, references like published books, widely circulated magazines, national newspapers and journals are a good place to start. Unreliable references are, perennially, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, many webzines, any source written by the subject or someone (including organisations) closely connected with the subject. I say again, one source is not enough. Many unreliable sources are useless. We are looking for a small number of reliable sources. Bellerophon talk to me 11:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's just say I think the "partisanship" characterization silly. I have no interest in either side's view of any of this, only in offering a plain, fact based account of what this is. What I wrote in this last iteration surely demonstrates that at least. As I said in my accompanying explanation (with the submission), I planned to put in source links down the road, when I have more time and can cull through what's available. My thinking was to put a bare bones piece up and let other interested parties contribute as well. If that's not enough at this point then I suppose this will have to wait until I have the time needed or someone else wants to have a go at setting up an article on this subject. Thanks. 108.14.63.215 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please adopt me

Hi, l am a user who joined Wikipedia a few days back. So far, l have created about 4 articles in which ALL of them have beed selected for Speedy deletion. l follow everything that the Help article sites and still, nothing. Please kindly help me if you are not swamped. Regards Ladiepre (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you appear to be blocked for undisclosed paid editing and terms of use violations. I do not support paid editing in any form and therefore cannot adopt you. Bellerophon talk to me 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Articles for creation

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at David Condrey's talk page.
Message added 07:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at AfC Nili Brosh was accepted

Nili Brosh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bellerophon talk to me 06:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for assisting. I will continue to improve the article, and improve neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.92.74 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Meticulous RfC closes

Hi Bellerophon. Thank you for your detailed RfC closes at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members#another RfC (permanent link, ANRFC request) and Talk:5:2 diet#RfC: What should the opening line be? (permanent link, ANRFC request).

A note: If an editor ever reverts one of your closes, and you cannot come to an agreement with that editor, I recommend that you start a closure review at WP:AN. See a list of previous closure reviews at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive. I hope you continue your quality work at WP:ANRFC helping editors resolve disputes. Your meticulous closes are very appreciated. Thank you again! Cunard (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, thanks for your kind words. It's pleasing to see someone actually reads them. I will try to show my hand at requests for closure whenever time allows me. Thanks also for the info about closure review. :) Bellerophon talk to me 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) I read every WP:ANRFC close (but not the associated discussions). Thank you again for your excellent ANRFC work today! Best, Cunard (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cunard: (talk page stalker) So I'm not the only one... Good to know. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice to hear that you read everything at ANRFC too. ;) Thank you for your devoted work closing discussions and clerking ANRFC, Armbrust! Cunard (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Article ISC

Hi,

I am the author of the article about the Indonesian Surfing Championships, which you proposed to delete, who can I send an email to prove that I have the right to use this information? Thanks,

Best regards,

--Théo Fleismaher (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Théo Fleismaher--Théo Fleismaher (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Théo Fleismaher (talk • contribs)

Replied at User talk:Théo Fleismaher. Bellerophon talk to me 13:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Pushpinder Joshi

Thanks, another admin beat me to it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

All's well that ends well :) Bellerophon talk to me 08:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Informal note

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teso College Aloet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preparatory school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Working on TCA edits

Hello there! I am still working on edits. When I am completed I will submit a request for review. Please give me time to edit the documents to the recommended updates needed.

I would appreciate if you could let me improve the article.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josire12 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Josire12, You cannot submit the article for review, it has already been accepted. It is live. The changes you are making are appearing live in Wikipedia every time you save the page. How does the fact you are trying to make improvements prevent you from leaving an edit summary, or explain why you are undoing the constructive changes I have made? Far from improving the article, you are failing to address the fundamental issue — which is that you are treating this article as advertising space for the school. Bellerophon talk to me 16:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We have no intentions to advertise the school, we are working on editing the advertorial language as was indicated to us. Please respectfully allow us to make the edits which were recommended.

Thanks ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josire12 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But you're making edits in the opposite fashion, you have restored "advertorial" text that I removed. Bellerophon talk to me 17:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

I was wondering if I am still adopted by you, even though both you and I have been somewhat inactive for a time. If so, I'd like to finish my education with you and earn my degree. I believe my current assignment is ready to be graded. Roborule (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roborule, I'm afraid I've had to close my adoption school for the time being as I just don't have the time anymore. So, I'm afraid we can't go any further with the course. However, I'd be happy to help you out and offer advice/answer questions any time you need. Bellerophon talk to me 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Nabi Su article was suddenly deleted - what happened?

The Nabi Su article was being discussed as an article for deletion. The discussion was on-going, and I was working on improving the article. Today, the article was suddenly deleted by someone who hadn't been in the deletion conversation. What happened? What should I do next? Mary Vaccaro (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mary Vaccaro. When an article is deleted via a deletion discussion, the discussion normally runs for seven days. In this case the discussion was relisted after the initial 7 day period because the balance of opinion sat at the 'weak delete' level. Relisting a discussion allows some extra time for further opinion to be expressed -- up to an additional 7 days, but in reality only so long as is needed for consensus to become clear. In this case, the last edits to the discussion was my reply to you some days ago. The discussion should normally be closed by an uninvolved administrator; in this case, it was closed by Scottywong who is an administrator and did not participate in the discussion, and therefore uninvolved. This helps to ensure that administrators do not act with bias when closing deletion discussions. I'm sorry that this has not turned out the way you would have liked, but now a consensus has been formed to delete the article you may not recreate it. The crux of the reasoning for the article's deletion was the subject was not notable enough; while you were making constructive edits to the article, no amount of editing can make a non-notable subject notable. You may ask for a review of the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you will need to have a policy based argument to show why the decision to delete was wrong. Other than that, there is nothing more you can do, except ask for a copy of the article source code to be emailed to you so that you post it online, somewhere other than Wikipedia. Bellerophon talk to me 21:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I am requesting the source code. Can you please send me the source code?Mary Vaccaro (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
{{admin help}} Could an admin please email the source code for Nabi Su to Mary Vaccaro, as discussed above. It appears that she has email user enabled. Thanks in advance. Bellerophon talk to me 15:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Template talk:Afc decline.
Message added 14:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 14:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you be my mentor please

Please. I have done so many violations on it that I need help fixing my mistakes. People are kinda worried because I'm not suppose to create categories. Maybe you could speak on my behalf. I'm wondering if you what categories are suitable to create and not suitable to create. I'm not banned yet you see; I just can't create categories I do have some mental health issues. Please Venustar84 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your user talk page, it seems quite a few other editors have offered to be your mentor. I'm sure my services are no longer required. Bellerophon talk to me 21:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category request: Category:FIA World championship winning cars

Hi there - the intention was for this to be a parent category so that we can have "F1 championship winning cars", and others for WTC, WRC, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.100 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Returning

Hello, remember me? I haven't been on here for almost two years. I was near the end of my training with you and would like a refresher and a finish up when you can. Let me know. Thanks. Selene Scott (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Selene ScottSelene Scott (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Selene! Of course I remember you :) Unfortunately, I've had to close my adoption school due to time constraints. However, if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask on my talk page anytime. I will always try to help. Anything in particular you would like refreshing/advice on? Bellerophon talk to me 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, everything really! I should be able to go back and reread the work we did together I think as a refresher course. If I have any pressing problems with creation or editing I'll put them to you . Thanks for that. Great to hear from you again! Selene Scott (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
Great to hear from you also Selene, drop me a line any time. Bellerophon talk to me 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about page move from Belmond Ltd. to Belmond (company)

Hello, I wanted to check with you about the move of Belmond Ltd. page to Belmond (Company). I believe that the page move was not needed. Having read the WP:NCCORP guidelines, I see that they state: "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate". The page gives several examples of companies who use their legal status for disambiguation. Based on this, I think that the page was following guidelines as Belmond Ltd. Since this is the legal name for this business, it seems more appropriate than Belmond (Company). Please do you have any further comment as to why you deemed this page move necessary? Otherwise I would like to undo that edit and move the page back Laurashaikh (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)laurashaikh

Generally, a lot of experienced Wikipedians plump for (company) as it's generic and neutral. Some editors don't always feel using the legal status of a company is a neutral way of representing it. Also, policy dictates that Wikipedia use the company's preferred style of legal status (e.g. Inc. vs Incorporated) since this is not always known, many editors prefer to default to (company). In a nut-shell, the historical precedent is that often pages that include the legal status of a company can be less stable page titles subject to frequent discussion about preferred stylistics. I moved the page because I thought, and still think, it's the better title. However, if you really want to move it back, I won't kick up a fuss. Bear in mind that other editors may disagree with you. Please also ensure you move the page and associated talk page back correctly over the redirects. Simply clicking 'undo' in the article history won't work. Bellerophon talk to me 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Stylistic issues

Hi Bellopheron

l am sorry for the confusion about submission. I did not know three versions were submitted for review and l do not know how from here l can get the right one to you. If you are able to access it will be the latest version- written after taking advice from an initial rejection.

My problem is that l simply do not understand what the reasons for rejection and if the views expressed are consistent with in-house policy l will simply give up.

What l tried to write is an objective and informed piece as possible on the subject yet the reviewer says it is too essay-like and is not objective. It is hard to know how a piece cannot be essay-like because that is what an encyclopaedia entry is- an essay. It does not contain original research as the reviewer states and it draws upon a wide variety of reputable sources which are fully referenced. The reviewer implies this is not the case and this l find baffling. The entry does not seek to promote the interests of any individual or organisation but inform the reader about what is meant by the term used, how the practices described came into being, what those practices are, where it is practised and so on. In other words all l have tried to do is the who, what, why, where and so on. Nothing more. You might be interested to know that the reason l wrote it is because despite having it in my own university for nearly twenty years others not directly involved do not understand it. So l thought there is a job to be done.

I work closely with others in the field and the comments l received are that it is as comprehensive, fair and accurate a picture as it is possible to paint. Since it is possible the reviewer saw an earlier version l will re-submit again

Best wishes

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon talbot56 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello John, I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what draft/submission you are referring to... In response to one of your points though: an encyclopaedia differs from a essay through the absence of opinions/conclusions and the absence of novel synthesis. Both are features of essay writing, whereas an encyclopaedia article aims to reference all verifiable claims about a subject without learning in favour if any one view; unless of course the view is axiomatic. Additionally, an encyclopaedia article does not conclude by telling the reader what their opinion should be. It just presents the information. Bellerophon talk to me 13:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit mistake?

Hey there, I just made an edit to the Josh Hartnet page. I removed a repeated statement. But after it was done there was a strange outlined box with some partial info in it not related to what I removed. I don't know what it is but it looks bad!! (Selene Scott (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC))

Also could you take a look at a paragraph I included in the Argon page. Its lacking any highlighted links and probably needed its own heading in the index but I didn't know how to make it. Thanks (Selene Scott (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC))
jeez where's my head tonight- the paragraph is in the misc. heading and is about the use of Argon gas in High Frequency machines.(Selene Scott (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC))
Hello Selene, sorry about the late response I've not checked in for several days. Am I correct in thinking you have resolved your problem? Bellerophon talk to me 13:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Still don't know what happened or how to fix on Hartnet,and the Argon page needs references which I have no idea how to do. "Selene Scott (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)"
@Selene Scott: The Harnett page has now been fixed. The reason the box appeared is because you inserted a blank space between the left margin and the first character of text. Vey common problem. If you want to add references to the Argon page, I recommend the referencing tutorial. Which you can find at WP:INTREF. I hope that helps? Bellerophon talk to me 09:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that does help. I'll go check out the link. I considered using references from the page on high frequency modalities. "Selene Scott (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)"
Can I do that? Use the references off another page? I checked them and they are to the same article that I modified to write my paragraph on the Argon page."Selene Scott (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)"

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Altiport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

please look at my page and let me know if it's "ready"

I am a college administrator for UC Berkeley making a page for alumni Jeremy Bamidele. Can you please look at the page and let me know what you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orujah123 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback templates

Hi. I see you are still using talkback templates. FYI... notifications now make the talkback template unnecessary. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jen Selter

I've been away from the editing side of 'Wikipedia' for some time, so please excuse my new-found ignorance. There used to be places on each page (in editing mode) where we could discuss relevant contents. That's what "Talk" used to mean. For all I know, such places still exist on this Web site but I can't find them and I don't know who else to ask.

Anyway, my question is in regard to 'Jen Selter': What is germane about her religious affiliation? Is it mandatory that a person's religious affiliation be included in 'Wikipedia' profiles? If so, would you please direct me to the relevant policy?

Thank you. I appreciate you help in this matter.

MisterCat (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello MisterCat.
Talk pages still exist, when viewing an article you will find a tab towards the top-left of the page called talk or discussion. You will see the talk tab whether you are in edit mode or not. A person's religious affiliation is rarely unambiguously germane to them, nor is it always unambiguously irrelevant. It depends on the circumstances. I'm sure WP:BLP and perhaps some section of WP:MOS has things to say about writing about a person's religious affiliation. In the case of the Jen Selter article, I didn't add her religion to the article, someone else did. Bellerophon talk to me 22:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gunalogo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gunalogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I've re-added the logo to the article. Some IP removed the whole info box without explanation. Bellerophon talk to me 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bellerophon/Archive_13&oldid=1131349345"