Jump to content

User talk:Bri/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Re:User talk:98.163.109.101: Difference between revisions

Hi Brianhe. The reason I made those edits to the MS Dynamics and Sage pages was because their pages had far too many listings on the ERP Software category page and it didn't appear very vendor neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 98.163.109.101 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 February 2013‎

So you're saying WP:UNDUE should apply to category inclusion? That's absurd. Create a vendor-specific subcategory if needed. — Brianhe (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Wifione Message 20:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Motorcycle oil

Hi. Why did you revert my edit to the "Motorcycle oil" article? The text is somewhat misguiding and confusing. For instance, there is no such thing as a "weight" oil, the "W" in the SAE designation stands for "winter" and refers to the properties of the oil when cold. The description of the syntethic oil looks as if its for a single grade oil with properties that are described like the exact definition of a multi grade oil.

--83.178.226.202 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Weight" and "grade" are described as interchangeable at Motor oil#Grades. If this is not so, please provide a source. — Brianhe (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If so, why did you bother changing it, especially when it also contains a better description of the alternative of using multi grade oils?

I am aware that the SAE viscosity numbers are sometimes referred to as "oil weights" but the numbers are in fact based upon flow rate at cold(W) and hot temperatures and have nothing whatsoever to do with weight. My idea of this is that the "W" designation on the oil bottles caused a so called "common misconception" when it occured in the early 50's. It is in any case misguiding as the numbers have nothing to do with weight, so I choose not to use it.

I tried to post a link here, but the page won't save even if I write in the CAPTCHA correctly. Please google "sae motor oil standards" and you will find. Ideas4ag-ed dot com has an excellent article.

--83.178.226.166 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account and make your changes to Motorcycle oil, with citations? Then discuss on the article's talk page. As you know from the prior revert, there are many other people who would like to collaborate on this. Also it's difficult to communicate with someone whose identity (your IP address) changes constantly. — Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way there is an answer to your question about your user name here: User talk:83.178.226.205. - Brianhe (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a strong feeling on merging the articles, but am coming around to your point of view on this. Are there any cars with shared transmission-engine lubrication? If not, this is probably the only unique element of the MC specific article, and it would be fine to have a subsection to cover it. — Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of any recent examples, but the BMC Mini and early Lamborghini Miuras come to mind. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Curtiss V-8 motorcycle

Allen3 talk 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Tower category renames

India was correct Saudi Arabia was a typo that I fixed on the page. These were listed correctly on the CfD page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think there was a cut & paste error on several of the nominations. For example the Saudi entry says: subst:cfr2|Television towers in Saudi Arabia|header=Category:Television towers in Japan|Communication towers in Saudi Arabia|... Brianhe (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

motorcycles
Thank you for quality articles for project Motorcycling, such as Curtiss V-8 motorcycle, for dedicated reviewing, and for winning an award such as "Most understandable online friend", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Messerschmitt KR175

An article that you have been involved in editing, Messerschmitt KR175, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

FAM1885

I'm sorry I never responded, my English is not very good. I'm Italian. I hope I have made ​​mistakes but I tried to correct and align some information between versions of wikipedia Italian and English. There is no problem if you want to correct some things. hello and see you soon.Ciao!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.2.185 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are being modest; it's surely better than my Italian. Looking forward to collaborating some more. — Brianhe (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. Are registered in Italy as FAM1885 wikipedia, I do not know if you can also register on the UK charts with the same initials. Ciao!!!! FAM1885 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.2.185 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is hosted in the USA, where I also happen to be (not the UK). As for the user account, I believe you created FAM1885 at some point, as that account shows activity: Special:Contributions/FAM1885. you might also be interested in Unified login. — Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. What should I do to have a single account? If this is the best solution for better functioning of the database and not create problems for other users will. Also because so far the changes I made and maybe continue to do will focus on rumors regarding Italy. I've noticed that sometimes there are discrepancies and errors in some cases between the Italian voices and their voices translated into English. I hope it is considered a useful work from the community. FAM1885

I followed the unified login instructions in English and it worked perfectly. I think this is the same instructions in Italian. — Brianhe (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to apologize for something that i did, moved by the enthusiasm without thinking i put the draft of the Moto Guzzi Stelvio page without thinking that it was a translation work done by another. Is my personal motorcycle. Sorry again!!!!!!!FAM1885

looks like it got sorted out. You might want to read WP:COPYWITHIN, if you haven't already. Brianhe (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

VFR1200

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your work wordsmithing the VFR1200 article. Sometimes it's hard to get perspective on things like tense when you read it yourself. It is probably still pretty far from GA but fortunately it is an article that can be covered thoroughly without having to be super long. If you have any suggestions for it maybe it could set style standards for other motorcycle articles to follow. I've mostly followed the conventions from automobile articles.

GarrettTALK 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey no problem, I don't see this as "my" article at all (even though I did start it). Glad to pitch in. I haven't really looked at it as a gestalt for a while, I'll do so today and provide feedback on the article's talk page. -- Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Opened discussion at Talk:Honda VFR1200F#Improving this article. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. -- Brianhe (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Velocette MAC (WD)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Velocette MAC (WD) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-review Common Bonds?

I did a lot of cleanup at Common Bonds, so I didn't know if you wanted to take another look to see if it passes WP:NFILM. I'm sort of hesitant because other than the Chicago Tribune link, the coverage is entirely local. It did screen at Sundance, but it didn't really get much attention there and it didn't win anything. I'm going to ask Schmidt to take a look at it, but I don't know that it passes notability guidelines even with the salvage attempt. It's kind of the "thin line" thing here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Knot articles and WP:NOTHOWTO

Hello Brianhe! I noticed you've flagged several knot articles with WP:NOTHOWTO... Inarguably, most of the knot articles do in fact contain some howto information. There have been several discussions regarding this topic in various articles. The consensus in the past has been to apply WP:Ignore all rules in the case of knotting articles. The primary argument that has been used to establish previous consensus is that a complete article on a knot must include at least one tying method, preferably the simplest or most well-known, in order to properly cover the subject of the article. After an early discussion of this topic I help to write some guidelines regarding the inclusion of howto material in knotting articles. I do not intend to remove your NOTHOWTO tags myself, but please take a look at the above links and consider whether you agree WP:IAR can be applied.

Also, as covered in the WP:KNOTS project guidelines, any howto content in a knotting article should be kept as descriptive as possible. Inappropriate tone does often creep into the tying and usage sections. If you have specific concerns about particular passages let me know or (of course :) try to improve it yourself. Best regards, --Dfred (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Has there been an effort to put the guides onto Wikibooks and link that from the articles? — Brianhe (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There appears to have been some non-trivial activity, as part of a larger work, at wikibooks:Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Recreation/Knot Tying. But personally I have focused my efforts on WP knot articles and Commons stuff. There seems to have been consensus for a while that at least one basic tying method belongs in a complete WP knot article. I certainly agree that Wikibooks would be the appropriate place for inclusion of additional methods/techniques/etc. --Dfred (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to give this some consideration. Rolling hitch#Tying is a good example of what's wrong -- this really looks like a HOWTO guide, there's no encyclopedic context or content in the section that would prompt me to accept WP:Ignore all rules in this case, and this section with its illustrations of several variants totally dominates the article. I mean really as it stands it's not about the knot but how to make the knot including how to dress the ends afterwards. Stipulating your suggestion that encyclopedic coverage requires an illustration of forming the knot, other articles I tagged like Buntline hitch#Slipped variation even tell how to untie the knot, or adjusting a knot, how is this justified? We've been down this road in technical topics covered by WP:WikiProject Motorcycling (e.g. tons of cleanup on Motorcycle oil e.g. [1], the article was a cruft-magnet and eventually it was deleted/merged) and my gut is to similarly leave the HOWTOs out of knot articles as per policy. — Brianhe (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly how-to advice. When it comes to knots, can you describe them without instructions on how to tie them? I would allow that a list of tying steps is necessary, and one series of illustrations, but no more. Three sets of tying instructions, with three sets of illustrations, is beyond what is needed to describe and identify the knot. The excess should be removed. Somebody who want to use this material for a future Wikibooks page can find it in the edit history. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Been busy, but will try to respond this weekend. Thanks. --Dfred (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While it is not necessarily the strongest justification for inclusion of howto material specifically, I challenge you to find more complete and well-researched freely available standalone knot articles than those listed here. Since expanding and properly referencing these articles they have been remarkably stable and not subject to excessive additions of material that I believe NOTHOWTO is meant to curb. Perhaps I am biased, but I have to think that when a user types "constrictor knot" or "taut-line hitch" into Google and clicks on the Wikipedia link that comes up at the top they will be pleased with what they find all in one place. No app to buy, no barrage of ads, just the information they are very likely seeking. Knots are functional constructs and our readers are without doubt interested in their function. I guess I just ask you to consider whether an article would truly be improved by the removal of information rather than attempts to refactor.
Regarding the specific comments on the rolling hitch and the "three sets of illustrations", that article represents a particularly troublesome case. The rolling hitch article, along with the related taut-line hitch, is actually used as an example in the knot project guidelines regarding combining of very closely related knots into single articles. Due to the historical vagaries surrounding the naming of these related knots (detailed in the articles) it is not feasible to reasonably decide which of the underlying knot variations belong under which names. Thus the reason for there being three tying methods shown in each of these articles is due to each of the articles actually covering three distinct knots. Before these changes there was confusion and several disagreements as to which was the "right" knot. By including the three common variants and appropriate references the articles were stabilized.
And as a final general comment... I find it quite interesting, given the very ancient origins of the subject, the study of practical knots and their use remains a strangely unformalized field. The discourse of everyday knots, setting aside the actual physics of knots (also in quite a primitive state), seems to fall somewhere between that of bushcraft and semiotics. I have endeavored to keep original research out of the knot articles, which is actually difficult because much of the current progress being made in practical knotting is happening online in forums, blogs, etc. In cases of original research and/or people trying to promote "vanity knots", you will see I have removed content and proposed that articles be deleted.
Thanks for your time pondering these knotty questions... --Dfred (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a conundrum and I will leave it to the project folks to sort out. The guidelines look reasonable though could be tightened up as Dennis suggested. I've done some minor tone cleanup on the two examples pointed out in my May 29 reply. — Brianhe (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles G. Smith

Hi Brianhe. Thank you for your work on the "Charles G. Smith" and "Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions" articles and your related work. I feel that the best way to get the sockpuppeteer to leave Wikipedia is to get both articles deleted. I left a note at Talk:Charles G. Smith. I've been busy lately and don't really want to do the work required to AfD the article, but if you like, feel free to do it.  :) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny you mention that. I was actually adding the AfD tag to PICS when I noticed yours had just appeared in the edit box! I think I'll leave the bio article alone for a bit to see what happens, but as-is, it stands as an unremarkable businessperson who also happens to be an amateur weightlifter. Maybe leaving it that way is a more fitting deterrent than deleting it. — Brianhe (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData

Hey Brianhe

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

1074 -> 1048

Your ranking userbox is out of date, you moved up a few notches. Feel free to delete this post after you update.

Danke - Brianhe (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You made a kitten proud

This kitten is running around telling all its friends what an impressive Wikipedian you are. Look at that happy kitten. You did this. Congrat. Zeebowbop (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Wikidata issues

Firstly, I do not have access (where I work) to wikidata, secondly, the manual system is still accepted because robots do the hit later. If you want to continue reversing, feel free, I'm linking article that I create in PT to EN. graciously. Onjack (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I got confused as I was working on two wikidata issues at the same time and didn't understand you were creating the PT article. No harm no foul, I hope. Cheers -- Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, can you insert this articles: pt:Combined braking system, pt:Leão de chácara, pt:Anexo:Lista de tipos de motocicletas on WD? Rather than just reverse? Onjack (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There will come a day that will edit from home, and that problems will end. Thanks for the help, good contributions. Onjack (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Tx, all links you gave me have been added. -- Brianhe (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bimota HB1 page?

Hi, I don't know if there is a way to cite the HB1 CB400F information. I can give you my personal information, but the HB1 stuff is so rare that I'm not sure if there is much of a way to really cite specific stuff. I know the bike exists, because I own it. I inherited it from my dad, we were planning on building it but he unexpectedly passed away in February 2009. Have you ever seen pictures of an HB1 kit unbuilt? Did it look like this: http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb103/moostrength/motorcycles/1OurMotorcycles/Bimota/HPIM0934.jpg

IF so, I took that picture at my parents house about 10 years ago, it was one of many bikes my father owned.

I know that my father went to Milan for a motorcycle show in 2008, and apparently when he met up with the people at Bimota's booth, they brought some of the senior executives over, and were using translators for my dad since he didn't speak Italian and their English was broken.

I'm not super familiar with the Wikipedia protocol per se, but I would like to cite the information if possible, I'm just not sure if there's a way to do so. Short of putting up what I have on the HB1 itself on my own website (which seems kind of circular to me) I don't think there really is anything out there on it. Also I've tried to stay on topic here, I read wikipedia's comments about protocol, but is there a way we can chat outside of wikipedia? I have some background information on this bike as well as others that might help too, but it is not specific to this particular issue so I didn't want to go into great detail. Moo Strength (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you, Moo, because self-published sources like your own web site aren't accepted references for Wikipedia. It's all about reliable, published sources, not first-hand information, even if it is true. One thing you could do is add your sources and info to the Bimota talk page and see if other editors want to pick it up to incorporate into the article. — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, I suppose it's worth mentioning that I've talked with a producer of Cafe Racer, the TV show on Velocity channel about the bike. I know the HB1 is extremely rare, even though the CB400F doesn't carry probably the monetary value at least of what an HB1 750F would run. Their producer told me if they do a 5th season (they're in season 3 now) then they would very likely do an episode on the bike since it's probably the last CB400F HB1 in existence that's unbuilt. I don't think there's another HB1 CB400F in America, I know there used to be one up in Canada, and there's one in Japan, I've got correspondence from the guy from when my father was still alive, and I've seen the same 35mm pictures I have on the web elsewhere. If I can find the cite that posted the CB400F version could I use that as a cite (and any others) or does it have to be a bonafide website like something from cycle guide, motorcyclist, etc? It's pretty obvious looking at a CB400F picture versus a CB750F picture and telling the difference, the engine size for one is significantly different, and I know I've seen that Japanese version on the web before. Just out of curiosity, do you have an HB1 and/or a Bimota?Moo Strength (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm on a device without a keyboard just now, so must be brief. Nope I've never been a Bimota owner, just Honda for a few years and currently a Ducati superbike rider. I hope that the Cafe Racer piece comes together, it sounds like it would make an interesting episode. Using a magazine's website as a source for Wikipedia is fine. Just not fan pages that are considered self-published. the exception to this is someone who's considered an expert in his own right, say, Kevin Ash. Brianhe (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad edits to Boutique Investment Bank

I am not comfortable editing here, but you were the last one to edit Boutique Investment Bank. There were some bad edits to it yesterday, your time. The deletions of bank names that are well known, and addition of what looks to be a name that is self-serving, and well as other questionable edits.HKbrit (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I see what is going on. The firm added to Boutique Investment Bank was CSG and the editor was User:Finwriter. When you go to the CSG Partners page, it looks like Finwriter is connected to CSG Partners HKbrit (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

diffs collapsed

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 

   17:37, 27 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Boutique investment bank ‎
   17:35, 27 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+244)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   17:17, 12 January 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   17:15, 12 January 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+500)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   16:52, 16 March 2011 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   16:50, 16 March 2011 (diff | hist) . . (-35)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   13:06, 24 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-70)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (Undid revision 378949503 by Bearcat (talk))
   15:40, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (→‎Work)
   15:37, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Boutique investment bank ‎
   15:35, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+19)‎ . . Employee stock ownership plan ‎ (→‎See also)
   15:33, 16 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . List of investment banks ‎
   19:34, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   19:34, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   19:32, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   19:30, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-21)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   18:37, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m CSG Partners ‎ (moved User:Finwriter to CSG Partners)
   18:37, 13 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . N User:Finwriter ‎ (moved User:Finwriter to CSG Partners) (current)
   15:49, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-99)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:27, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:26, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+82)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:23, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-43)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:21, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:19, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-6)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:16, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:15, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:14, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+72)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   15:13, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-75)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (→‎References)
   15:12, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+64)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   14:57, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+48)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   14:56, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   14:34, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   14:30, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+105)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (→‎History)
   03:11, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   03:04, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-52)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   02:54, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   02:52, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   02:38, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   02:37, 6 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . N File:CSG Partners Logo.jpg ‎
   21:42, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:40, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-40)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:40, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+65)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:37, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:33, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:30, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:28, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-394)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   21:18, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+768)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   19:31, 5 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎
   18:39, 2 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (→‎Work)
   18:37, 2 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-45)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎ (→‎Work)
   18:24, 2 July 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+35)‎ . . CSG Partners ‎

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Here is another one with basically one person creating an advertisement GSO_Capital_Partners

Wow. I searched "Capital Partners" and there is an amazing absense of good sourcing. One doesn't have any sources, Butler_Capital_PartnersHKbrit (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It'll be a few days before I can devote the time required to dig into this. Meantime it sounds like you should tag Capital Partners with {{primary sources}}. — Brianhe (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) The best place for discussing such incidents is WP:COIN, the COI Noticeboard. There, you will find editors willing to jump on the issue. IMHO, you should feel quite comfortable verifying that cited sources are being respected (rather than hijacked, misquoted or deleted). If not, feel free to follow WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss), and just revert the article back to before the COI editor's changes, then start the discussion on the article's Talk page. For more about this, read our COI guidelines at WP:COI. Good catch, and good hunting. --Lexein (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Evercore_Partners was added to Boutique Investment Bank. All of its references but one are self-reported. Greenhill & Co. has one reference HKbrit (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up Evercore Partners somewhat, and restored Boutique investment bank to reflect cited list of large firms. — Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Purchase Order Finance

Purchase_order is quite short of references. I don't see that it is necessarily wrong, but perhaps could be expanded on and supported better. There is a lot of material out there. HKbrit (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mike Tempesta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Tempesta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Tempesta until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

Greetings! I am a student at the University of Puget Sound, and our library (the Collins Memorial Library) is considering hosting a Wikipedia Loves Libraries event! The only problem is, we're not really sure where to start. I have been busy doing some research (on Wikipedia) about the events other libraries have held across that nation, and I managed to stumble across your username when it had the word "Seattle" near it. I was hoping perhaps you could share some suggestions on the "dos" and "do nots" of Wikipedia meetups. I'm not a Wikipedian myself, so any information would be helpful. Also, if you know anyone in the area (Tacoma, Seattle, etc) who might be interested in the event, their coordination would be appreciated. Thank you! MattinaMorgan (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hell and Back Again

Hi there, good job with the translation of the article. Thank you! --Manjel (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I find translation a good way to keep my German skills alive (though I do rely on machine translation for a first pass). — Brianhe (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Seven hills of Seattle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seven hills of Seattle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven hills of Seattle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ibadibam (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

New seattle article

A. W. Piper. I think this dude is kind of cool. I need to wrest copyright for an 1878 image from MOHAI. Nobody knew his middle name until I discovered it! Might be some more good stuff in the offline city archives. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll check him out. Copyright expired long, long ago on an 1878 image, but I'm sure they will give their blessing as they did for me at Horace Chapin Henry. Brianhe (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A. W. Piper may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *{{Citation |title= Piper Oral History Meeting – February 20, 1985 and 1984 Seattle Times Article |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kanichi Fujiwara

Hello! Your submission of Kanichi Fujiwara 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A. W. Piper

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kanichi Fujiwara

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Great Western Iron and Steel Company

Harrias talk 12:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bri/Archive_8&oldid=1139803002"