User talk:Gronk Oz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MLC School and Mrs McCoy

I see very much a WP:COI or possibly a WP:PAID editor here (in that I suspect the editor is salaried by the school, not that they are a professional PR agent because of their lack of copyright knowledge).

Your help for them will be valuable. I suggest as a minimum they are asked to understand COI, and that {{Connected contributor}} be deployed on their MLC contributions.

I arrived at them separately by reviewing their draft on the house system, and had already visited Commons where I have tagged all but one of their uploads for deletion pending correct licencing and/or OTRS use Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Timtrent, and thanks for alerting me to the deletion discussion. I am not sure what the connection to the school is, but I agree there is almost certainly one. She may simply be a volunteer who is looking after the school's archives; I don't know. Considering her lack of familiarity with Wikipedia, I decided to concentrate on the most urgent problem first: the images. Most of them should fall into Public Domain as Australian photos taken before 1966, so it should be just a matter of changing them to record the correct licence. But she has just said that she will be away for two weeks, so I'm not sure whether it will all be over when she returns. Once the photos are under control, there are plenty of other issues with the school's article - especially the excessively detailed discussions of the house system and the graduates' war records. I have place a connected contributor tag on the article, and since I have already have some communication with her, I will do my best to tackle the other issues as soon as she returns.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I corrected your CC template. It's not obvious but it's a talk page thing. I recommend filling out as many parameters as one can.

Well, if the photos are deleted they can be undeleted with rationale. Nothing is lost on Commons either. She seriously should not make untrue declarations about the copyright being her own. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops - thanks again; I am still finding my way around helping other editors to build their articles. And I fully agree with you about the licence: when I asked for suggestions at the Teahouse we even discussed whether she would be oldest living Wikipedian since she claimed to take photos from the 1880s. Joking aside, she is a new editor and I would like to help fix it if I can; who knows, and that might lay a co-operative base to fix up the rest of the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Just wanted to say merry Christmas and happy new year! ☺🎄🎁🎉🎆 And, thanks for filling in the refs on those horse articles. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, White Arabian Filly. I'm not part of the horsey world, so allow me to wish you the astronomical benediction: I hope the New Year brings you clear skies!--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, where I am it's 73° Farenhiet and we are supposed to have thunderstorms! It's an El Nino year, so weird weather is expected. Hopefully it's better where you are. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 03:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes

Christmas wishes Always :) (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Always :) - and may your festivities be filled with sunshine, laughter, and special times with special people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Merry Christmas ! I see you are an Experienced Editor, so maybe you can give me a better explanation. This 2 articles have been refused because it was not notable ! User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season and User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers. Do you think I have a better chance if I merge this 2 articles in 1 ? To be like : List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers - which is perfect notable. Or to be like : List of UEFA Cup and Europa League top scorers - also perfect notable. And I can give other examples of same kind of article which exist and is notable.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Alexiulian25. I see that these articles have already been discussed in detail at WikiProject Football, as well as individual deletion discussions (this AfD and this AfD). I don't know anything about football, so I don't think I can add anything more to what has already been said. If you have a suggestion about merging them, the best place to discuss it would be at WikiProject Football. Give the details of what you propose, and get a general agreement from the other editors there before implementing it. Like any Notability discussion, the level of detailed coverage by independent sources will be the thing that determines notability. It has nothing to do with what might be in any other Wikipedia article. So the discussion would look at what references show that "the notion of top scorers in this competition has achieved any real level of coverage as a standalone subject"(quote from Fenix down in both AfD discussions). It's all about those references: what newspaper and magazine articles discuss the top scorers through history, and so on. And please, please - avoid making personal criticisms of editors. I know this process can get frustrating, but you will find you get much better co-operation if you stick to discussing the facts about the article and its references, not attacking the other editors.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thnx a lot for that Redirect of Wardstone Chronicles now i will be able to make articles about the next books, thanks a lot!!

Thnx a lot for that Redirect of Wardstone Chronicles now i will be able to make articles about the next books, thanks a lot!!HighnessAtharva (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, HighnessAtharva. You did a nice job on Spooks Nightmare, so keep up the good work.

However, I notice that the image has just been removed from that article. That can be fixed. What you need to do is :

1. Produce a low-resolution image (not sure whether the old one was or not). "Low resolution" typically means several hundred pixels each way.
2. Upload that photo to Wikipedia (NOT to Wikimedia Commons like you did before). For some reason to do with the strangeness of copyright laws, such an image justified under "fair use" can be uploaded to Wikipedia only.
3. When uploading, choose the options that it is a "non-free" image being used under a "fair use" rationale, as the primary visual identifier of the book. Fill in the details of where you got the image from, specify which article it will be used in, etc. Even if you think it is tedious, give genuine answers each time.
4. Then once it is uploaded, you can update the article to include the newly uploaded image in the Infobox. It may take an hour or more to refresh on the servers, so don't panic if it can't be found immediately.

I hope that helps. If there are problems, I suggest going back to the Teahouse because I am about to head off on a bit of a road trip... good luck!--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I thank you again for telling me how to upload images, I have just uploaded the image to The Spooks Nightmare. Thnx a lot, nice editing here!HighnessAtharva (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! I moved that image into the Infobox so it conforms with the non-free requirements. When you get a chance, it would be good to edit the image description to say where the image came from (at the moment it just says "google.com" which may be how you found it, but isn't where it came from).--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Stadium income

They will donate stadium incomes to Orphan School.

Hello, Kgkalay. I'm sorry, I don't understand what your comment is about. Who will donate their income, to what school, and why are you telling me? Which article does this relate to?--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

looooooooong talkpage

Ever thought of auto archiving? It's set up on mine, so have a look. It's all the stuff at the top. Well, not all of it, but the relevant parts! The archive bot runs from midnight UTC onwards, probably! Fiddle Faddle 13:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent Yeah, I keep thinking of it, and every time it gets pushed down the "To do" list again. But you have inspired me; I have a few minutes until the clock strikes midnight so I will get onto it now...

I have just added comments to my own talk page in case that helps you. If you ask me I'll set to up for you. Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Minoir edit. Counter was 31. I have set yours to 1 Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow - that was quick! I was just about to let you know I had done it, and you're already fixing it up for me. It will be good to get that old monkey off my back - thanks for the help and for the push.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Now sit back and see what happens. If it needs debugging it can be debugged. You can fiddle with any parameter NOT set by the bot at any time. Play with th bot ones and I imagine it sends an assassin after you. Fiddle Faddle 14:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

btw it only archives sections where the final entry is signed. So, if I failed to sign this and sinebot didn't, then this section would never be archived. Fiddle Faddle 14:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Woo-hoo; it worked! Thanks again, Timtrent.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That is so much easier to work with now Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

with false date If you have an oooooold section that you want archived, fake the signature date by editing it. The ones you faux-signed the other day may be candidates for that Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks again for the help, Fiddle Faddle.

That barnstar anomaly at the top. Try giving it a random heading and removing your faux signature line, I suspect it may also only archive headed sections. If I'm right then we have both learned something. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added a heading, and we will see if that works. If not, I will try removing the faux signature line. I'm not too worried about that one; the page is so much better than it was. The New Year is a good time to clean out the old junk.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The way you are currently set up you will only discover the answer 60 days after the date in your signature if you leave it there, though. Entirely your call. The page is usable now, which is truly important. Tweaks are tweaks. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that worked! I think I will try the settings like this for a while, then perhaps tweak them to a shorter time once I feel comfortable with it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I got bored with it already and reduced the retention to 30 days. My talk page isn't too active, so that seems about right. The New Year is off to a good start! --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I control mine with a mixture of days and number of threads left. I like to have four or five threads at the minimum for no valid reason, and I prefer to dispose of inactive stuff of over seven days age. But I play with this, extending the number of remaining threads if I am going away. Or I forget. Or something else entirely. Fiddle Faddle 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Cosplay articles

could you please do some research on the default cosplayer pages on wikipedia and compare them , before editing one? we all assume it might greatly improve your attempt for a contribution to wikipedia. Thank you

The preceeding unsigned comment was submitted at 05:24, 6 January 2016‎ by 118.1.138.55

Hello, IP editor 118.1.138.55. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the default cosplayer pages"; what is that? There is no Wikiproject for cosplay or cosplayers, so there are no specific standards or defaults for articles about those topics. Please clarify what you mean.

And who is "we all"? Who are you talking about? Whoever they are, they have not bothered to participate in the discussions on the article's Talk page.

The only such article I can recall editing is Sairu and since that is the only article you have ever edited, I will assume that is the one you are talking about. I believe I have edited it in line with Wikipedia's policies, the guidelines for biographies of living persons and the Manual of Style. Most of my edit summaries refer to the relevant policies. These policies apply to articles about cosplay, just as much as they do to any other topic. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the policies that have been linked by various editors. I have also put details on the article's Talk page to clarify what the issues are and to give the opportunity to discuss them. Your last edit, for example, reinstated a collection of unacceptable references to FaceBook and YouTube. Please check Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and stop putting such junk there. Please explain your edits in the edit summary with reference to the particular Wikipedia policy that applies. If there is a specific edit of mine which you want to ask about, please say which one. However, note that I was not the editor who removed those particular references in the first place.

What may be in some other cosplay article is not relevant to another page; each article is held to Wikipedia's standards on its own merits. If you are suggesting that there are also problems with those other articles then please feel free to improve them, but personally I do not have any inclination to compare them all. If you have specific questions about the best way to edit that article in line with the guidelines, then I am happy to discuss them but the most constructive way would be to go to the article's Talk page where all the interested editors can get involved.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sairu#Move to draft namespace?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sairu#Move to draft namespace?. Thanks. Anarchyte 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for an article

Hi i have requested for an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies#F. Its not been picked by any editor yet. What can i do next? MelitaFernandes (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello MelitaFernandes. I don't have any personal experience with the article request process, so I have copied your question to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions in the hope that an editor there can be more help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft Feargus Hetherington

Many thanks indeed for your help. I haven't absorbed it all yet but I thoroughly cheered. I was in despair. Will communicate later if I can. I even find it difficult getting round the messaging system! One minute it's there - the next it's not. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Most grateful

The sun is shining again!

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again

	Thanks again
	The sun is still shining! Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Refs etc

A new lease of life you've given me.

I decided to create a discography section. I would be grateful if you would at it for me. I deleted a couple of links and added one new one.

I'll try to check all links this evening.

Thanks again. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Balquhidder2013. I'm not sure quite what you're asking for here. I have just done a little basic formatting to make it a bulletted list, which seems to be the common format for such discobraphies. You should also provide sources for, or remove, subjective statements like "This reflects Hetherington's interest in exploring..." or "Hetherington's interest in traditional Scottish music and Jazz has involved him in recordings of other genre". Even if they are sourced, they probably should go into the body of the article rather than in the discography; that is normally just a list of works.--Gronk Oz (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for help

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for help

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Refs etc

Thanks again for all your help. There are three refs which need 'a bit of help'!

8. ... needs to have some indication to click 'Past Concerts'. There's no specific address for this page

9. ... needs 'Concerts' which then shows 'Past Concerts'

10. ... 'Solo instruments' and 'Chamber' on 'Works' menu

I much appreciate your help. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I learn something every day ... this is the first time I have come across the situation of citing a web page which has multiple sections but keeps the same URL. I hope what I have done there is acceptable: I used the "at" parameter to describe it as "Concerts" section, etc. For number 10, that is two separate refs; one for Solo and one for Chamber. Meanwhile, I see that an "A-team" of experienced editors was also working on the article (that can happen sometimes) and in particular Theroadislong was able to link specifically to the "Past Concerts" section of Number 8. I hope this has helped.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

So grateful

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Chamber ref

Thanks for your note. I can't find a ref on the St Andrews's website for Chamber Music. He apparently teaches three quartets made up of string students who have won music scholarships. What can I do? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference you have there (number 2) says "[St Andrews Chamber Orchestra] is conducted by the University's Director of Music, Michael Downes, Tom Wilkinson and Bede Williams, with coaching from Feargus Hetherington (who also leads the orchestra)." So it is good for what is in the article currently. It seems to me that the additional information about teaching the other three quartets is probably less significant, supported by the University not mentioning it on this page. The general rule in Wikipedia - frustrating as it is - is to leave it out if it can't be verified.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow!

I can't believe it! Do you mean that's it? I'm shaking! Balquhidder2013 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what I have said or done to bring on such a response. Nothing in Wikipedia is ever "finished", and there are always improvements to be made. It will be up to the reviewer when the draft is submitted to determine whether it is ready to promote to the Article space.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I'm sure you need some after all your hard work. Many thanks again. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Life must go on. Many thanks. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Verification of Awards

I'm still trying to find these. The Caird Trust lists only those from 2005 (I need something earlier). I'm still hoping to track Creative Scotland down in their Archives (2011 and 2012). As Musicians Benevolent Fund has now changed it might not be possible to access their archives for 2010 - but I'll try. Are they best omitted for them moment? To submit do I 'move' it to 'Wikipedia'?

In trepidation Balquhidder2013 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Balquhidder2013. There are two parts to this question: firstly, how to progress the article from Draft space to Article space. This is called the "Articles for Creation" (AfC) process, and it involves the article being reviewed by ... well, by a reviewer. However, I have not been involved with that process and I could not figure it out from the instructions so I have asked the question at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#14:46:15.2C_13_January_2016_review_of_draft_by_Gronk_Oz. Hopefully, we will have an answer soon; I expect the process is pretty straightforward.

Secondly, an article does not have to be perfect to be accepted at AfC. There are some mandatory things, and I think they are all covered - but like I said I am not a reviewer. So I recommend leaving the awards in place, and leaving the "citation needed" tag in place so that you or some other editor can fill in those later. The reviewer will let you know if there are any other problems, and you will get plenty of opportunity to address them if there are. No need for trepidation, just keep on going... --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was quick Balquhidder2013. Wiae answered that question by submitting your draft for review. There is a significant backlog, so reviews can take a week or more. In the meantime, you are welcome to continue improving the article if you like.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Again - thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Awards etc

Many thanks for all that.

Re awards: Creative Scotland website confirms awards in April 2012 (12-01150) and April 2013 (13-02156) but only by entering the date which then produces a spread sheet. See http://www.creativescotland.com/funding/latest-information/awards-listings. Is there any way of dealing with that?

Musicians Benevolent Fund never give details publicly about funding but would happily produce an email of confirmation! That award was in 2011.

The Caird Trust online awards list only goes back ten years. They have confirmed to me that he won an award in 2001 and 2002 (towards studies abroad, i.e. Cleveland Institute of Music.)

Natural Record Studio. I have attempted to enter a link for them in my 'old way' (for what it's worth) as they've folded but it lists their CDs http://www.naturalstudiorecords.com/.

You'll be hoping it's accepted so that you can get rid of me! I have half-committed myself to doing a couple of others. Oh dear! They might be easier.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balquhidder2013 (talk • contribs)

Once you see your article up there in the "real world", I think you'll be surprised how quickly you want to tackle another one. And yes, it gets easier.

Creative Scotland

I have added the reference for April 2012. However, when I checked April 2013 he was not on that spreadsheet. I searched the site for "Heatherington" and the only hit was on that spreadsheet for April 2012. So I have just left it at that one.

Musicians Benevolent Fund

We can't really use their email, because it is not verifiable by a reader. So I would be inclined to leave the statement there unless somebody challenges it.

By the way, there is a Wikipedia policy covering that, at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I don't see this material as contentious, so I would leave it unless somebody disputes it.

Caird Trust

Ditto. If they expand their list later, it can be added then.

Natural Record Studio

I'm not sure what your "old way" is, but it has worked fine. Even though the company has closed down, the remaining web site still has the information to support the statements in this article. However, who knows how long that website will be around for. So I used the WebCite archive site (http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php) to archive a copy of the site as it is now, and link it to your citation. Now even if the original is lost, your article will be secure.

Meanwhile, your major focus should be to fix the close paraphrasing from his own bio page - see the note I left on your User page. That should take precedence over these.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you meant by the "old way". But another editor, David Biddulph, had jumped in and fixed the bare URLs before I saw it. This is Wikipedia at its best; editors working together to produce the best result.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WOW thanks again

Thanks again for all that. The problem with the Creative Scotland award is that his name is not spelt correctly on one of them. 2012 is 12-01150 and 2013 is 13-02156.

I'm not sure what you mean by his biog? Do you mean on his own website? I haven't seen a message. I'll check again. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No, not his blog - it is the biography that he has on his web site - I put the link on your Talk page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

OOps! I had though his biog was a good starting point. I didn't realise there was a problem. Thanks so much for that I'll work on it shortly. Oh dear! Nothing is ever easy, is it?

Thanks again.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The best

to the end ...

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Um!

Thanks for that! I've done some work on it and will look at it again tomorrow.

I have another link - a pdf - for the Kentigern. I had it in originally and then removed it. It supports the the other. What do you think? I'm still in trepidation of these links and afraid to touch any! Here it is: http://www.island-retreats.org/pdfs/summerafternoon2015.pdf. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

More help please

I've been trying to insert another link but failed abysmally. See 15.

For Heisenberg (leadership) there is a page on their website showing him leading but no mention of his name. Could it go in? http://www.heisenbergensemble.co.uk/? No matter if not. He features in both those photos.

Once again - my gratitude forever!Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013 Photos like that are rarely usable as a reference, largely due to the difficulty of establishing their origin, etc. I wouldn't worry about it at this stage.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re earlier message

See message from theroadislong! The review is visible by scrolling down. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Balquhidder2013 - I don't know what "earlier message" you're talking about. I don't have any messages from theroadislong on my talk page. I'm not sure what review you are referring to - please provide the link.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Link etc

On Draft/Revision history 'I had (cur | prev) 12:45, 14 January 2016‎ Theroadislong (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,788 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (no mention of this in the link and in any case we can't use blog posts ar) (undo | thank)'

I'm just about to see what you've managed for me. Many thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, that wasn't a review, it was just the edit summary that Theroadislong put when he added the "Failed verification" tag for the following statement: "To celebrate composer Eddie McGuire's 65th birthday and subsequently at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe he was invited to perform McGuire's Rant for solo violin." This tag was put there because while that reference talks about him performing the Rant at the Edinburgh Fringe, it does not actually say that he performed it elsewhere, nor that he was invited - for all we know he may have organized it himself. I'm not saying that he did, just that we can't tell from the reference. By the way, I changed the URL on that reference so it points to the specific section on the page, rather than the whole page. Hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You must be tired of kittens by now but Barnstar doesn't mean much to me and burgers are out. So please bear with kittens. I would prefer to insert trophies but don't know how.

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No need; you'll have me blushing. Let's resolve the Notability issue first, on Draft_talk:Feargus_Hetherington.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation

Yes, that's great thanks. 'no citation' is now indicated but it is mentioned under the title given 7 blogs down. What do you thinK? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013 I'm not sure what this is about - what's "great"? Please try to give me some context on these messages so I can follow what they are about. Looking at Draft:Feargus Hetherington, I can see one tag for "citation needed" at the end of the lead paragraph, and one "not in citation given" at the end of "Unaccompanied recitals". Were you referring to one of these? Or something else?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Creative Scotland

I meant to say that the second spreadsheet link doesn't work. Thanks. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done That was my fault - instead of getting the second URL, I just copied the first one and (I thought) changed it as needed. Serves me right for being lazy and then compounding the problem by not testing it after I put it there. Sorry for the inconvenience, Balquhidder2013. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear

I tried to respond to the Notability question (on which you had kindly spent a lot of time) but I now can't find either Theroadislong or your contribution let alone my reply! Have you received it? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Balquhidder2013, your obviously heart-felt response is there, at Draft talk:Feargus Hetherington. I think you make your case well, now it needs to be judged against the criteria for including articles on musicians in Wikipedia. I encourage you to stay engaged in the discussion, even though it may be difficult, to be sure the article gets every fair chance and is assessed on its merits. For instance, your point about being the principle classical violinist in Scotland is a good one, as long as it can be supported by a reference. If there are any other interviews or significant coverage in reliable publications, then please list them on that Talk page even if you can't weave them into the article at this time; they will help in determining notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help

First I would be grateful if you would insert the ref in first sentence for me? There are other very demoralising problems too.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What reference would you like inserted into the first sentence?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

See comments from Theroadislong. Perhaps add the link to external links for now. I think I'll have to give up for obvious reasonsBalquhidder2013 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Balquhidder2013, that's not a problem. I can see his/her point: the lede is supposed to be a short summary of what is in the body of the article. So I created a new (as yet incomplete) section on Education, and put your information to there. It still needs work; I think it would be better to move the detailed description of his degree studies into this new section and put a shortened version in the lede. However, the best use of time now is to gather evidence on the Notability question: Wikipedia articles live or die on their notability, which depends on coverage. By the way, that coverage does not necessarily have to be online; for example if The Strad article is not available online, it could still be cited if it is verified and all the details are available.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Principal Classical Violinist in Scotland? That would be Nicola Benedetti who is one of the leading violinists on the world scene. I meant probably best known and in demand freelance violinist. I've got hold of a huge drawer full of concert programmes dating back to student days. He's clearly in huge demand but how do I prove that? The other aspect is versatility. Very few violinists are trained to or can lead orchestras. He has chosen not to go down the professional orchestral road. A varied career suits him. The orchestras he leads are usually made up of professionals - some from the big, named orchestras - but doing 'extra work' and put together for a particular piece of work. But how can I prove anything with a crate full of programmes - and I don't even have them all? I suppose everything I add will be deleted. Mission impossible. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, it's obvious that you have very detailed knowledge of Feargus' background and accomplishments, but Wikipedia insists that articles are built on independently verifiable information, most of which should come from secondary sources. The versatility to lead orchestras and perform solo may well be exceptional, but the article need to cite where a respected newspaper or journal or some independent source has written about that. Being in demand is great, but where has that been written about, or shown by CD sales . I think the best approach is to look through the notability criteria for musicians at WP:NMUSIC then focus on providing whatever independent information you can find to build a case for those criteria. There is the flexibility of having some time to do that now.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Begging Bowl again

I've added quite a bit. Perhaps you would let me know what you think. I've also added a few links but my hands begin to shake as soon as I try to complete them. I would be grateful for your help again.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been busy, Balquhidder2013. Mostly, I like the addition of dates to the education section; maybe it's just me, but that detail helps to knit the story together. Now it needs references; I'm not sure how I can help there because I don't know what the references are. If you read this information somewhere, then say where.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I'm a bit slow sometimes - I found the refs you put in, and filled them out. I particularly like the "Sherlock Holmes" one; it is both nicely written and well referenced.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also ...

I also meant to ask if you could remove the McAllister advert from top of Scotsman review?Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is on McAllister's own website, so he controls what is there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Many thanks once again. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I think of it!

Apologies but I expect I'll need a lot more help. Could you replace the Scotsman article on a Matthew McAllister page with the same on original page http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/classical-review-maelasta-1-782419 - that misses out the promotional bit (it's toward the end of collaborations). Many thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Balquhidder2013 - it was just a matter of replacing the address after the "URL=". I notice that you also added a bunch of other bare URLs so I converted those as well. You can do that yourself; there is nice, short demonstration on YouTube here. I also did a bit of Wiki-standard formatting.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Refs & Thanks

I'm so grateful. Yes, I should try to do the links but I get nervous and my hand shakes having had such a reaction to my early attempts! I have very shaky hands at the best of times but when nervous they make some things difficult (condition = 'essential tremors' made worse by nerve damage from two broken wrists from falling on ice a few years ago). But sorry for putting you to the bother. When I checked this morning the new Scotsman link didn't work so a reversion to http://www.matthewmcallister.com/blog/maelasta_review_the_scotsman_/ might be necessary. However, the new one works when I insert it in my browser: http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/classical-review-maelasta-1-782419

I'm off to a concert soon (but not given by the subject) and I'm meant to go to another tonight but I'll decide later. So you might have some peace today!

Ever gratefulBalquhidder2013 (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I don't know how I did that; I put an extra underscore onto the end of the URL. Fixed now. I never realized you were being literal about your hands shaking; I thought it was just a way of saying you were nervious - sorry to hear about that problem. You might find it helps to work in your sandbox (see the link near top right of the screen). That way you can experiment with it and have a few attempts until you're happy with the result, then copy it across to the live article. So now ... enjoy the concert!--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thanks so much again. Yes, I must not take advantage of your kindness and try harder. The concert was great thanks. An interesting combination of instruments - Flute, viola and harp.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

More queries

I presume you can see David Biddulph's comments on some of my refs. I deleted what I think are 'unsupported' links but I've left Ref 8 and 29 as they are web pages from the relevant ensembles. Is that OK? There is also a 'not in citation given' note re Eddie McGuire still in place. Is it safe for me to delete that? You must be truly fed-up with me. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

More trouble!

Something has gone awry with my Draft at the end with references. I don't mean the incomplete references which I will try to tackle later.

I notice that all references to radio have been deleted? Do you think this was intentional? Never ending, eh? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help again

So sorry to bother you but I'm getting into a total pickle. I've been trying to insert a ref under Isle of Cumbrae but I've now got entangled with the Gavin Brady one which I was trying to remove. I think i've been at it for a couple of hours. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Feargus Hetherington

Hello again, Balquhidder2013. I didn't get to do anything on this yesterday (gotta have a life some time), and there have been so many edits since then that I'm not sure which of your issues are still current. I notice that a couple of other helpers have been pitching in too; perhaps they were watching the discussion here or just monitoring the page. In any case, between you and them it looks like many of the problems you mentioned have been sorted. The article is continuing to improve. Just a couple of minor comments:

1. Don't panic. There is no problem with having a couple of "maintenance tags" (as they are called) in the article. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and these tags are used to identify areas to work on. They are not a criticism of the article, nor the editor, nor the subject - they are just a "to do list". So there might be the occasional {{citation needed}} or similar, and they can be addressed over time.
2. Similarly, the other editor's "comments" are not criticisms; in the main, they are just describing what they're changing when they make an edit. Edit summaries are not required, but it is a very good habit to get into, especially when multiple people are working on an article. So for example in this edit, which David Biddulph commented with "POV, unsourced, looks like PROMOTION", that is explaining why he removed the text that said "whose music career is wide-ranging and diverse" from the end of the first sentence. And I agree with him; we want to avoid giving an opinion about whether it is wide-ranging or diverse. That is not for Wikipedia to comment on. The nearest we can come is if we quote what a reviewer says, and then we need to make a clear distinction that this is the reviewer's opinion, not Wikipedia's.
3. I'm reluctant to go back through so many past versions to see what "radio" references were removed; were they important, to provide support for a significant statement? Remember, the entire history is there so we can always get something back if it turns out that it is needed.
4. I see you have added some extra material to the Education section, including prizes he won, but without any references. I have not tagged it (yet); where did that information come from?
5. I found a reference for the scholarship quartet you mentioned earlier, so I put that into the "Teaching and coaching" section. I did not actually mention the scholarship aspect, because that is nothing to do with him.
6. One overall matter - I am still concerned with notability. There are plenty of references to verify that he performed and so on - but not many that discuss what the reaction was, or how influential he has been. So keep your eyes open for anything like that. Newspaper or magazine articles that talk about him, or radio or television where they talk about him. Prizes are also good, because that is somebody independent giving their assessment of him.

So in summary, it looks good, would benefit from some references to support the statements in the Education section, and also to show notability. Of course, when it gets reviewed they may have different comments.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Draft Feargus Hetherington

Many thanks for these and for taking so much time over this. Yes, other bits and pieces have been sorted.

I'm really trying to prove notability by identifying how he's in demand from all quarters. It's very difficult to find reviews partly because Scotland has to my knowledge only three newspapers that can be bothered with classical music - The Herald, The Scotsman and The Courier (east coast only) and with these there are so many concerts every week they mainly focus on international soloists performing with major orchestras. The Tabloids don't bother. Apart from any other motive I really want it to be seen that Classical music is very vibrant in Scotland with Scottish musicians (and not just traditional musicians with whom he often plays as well). It is important that it can be seen that Scottish performers don't have to be involved in the London scene to contribute to the musical life of a country. Most orchestral players here in the main orchestras are not Scottish! I think I'll need my soapbox! Sorry about that. But back to the point. Online reviewing and websites are fairly recent and not all have saved material. How often were newspaper cutting saved? Not very often as far as I can tell.

Re 2. I've never been able to work out what text 'POV' etc referred to. Now I know. I hadn't even realised the words you mentioned had been deleted.

Re. 3. It was a list of radio stations he has appeared on but of course I can't track down the evidence at this stage years later. Ohio, Polish, BBC Scotland, BBC 3 etc)

Re. 4. Education: this was from a box of certificates and programmes I managed to get hold of. I'm aware that there are many more but I haven't managed to get my hands on them yet.

Re. 5. Thanks for the additional reference. Much appreciated as that supports 'chamber music'.

Re. 6. Education is difficult to support as the various institutions don't have records online. As for 'Notability' I feel confident it is there in small doses. He simply would not be invited to participate in these events if he wasn't 'notable'. I have heard him described as Scotland's 'best known' violinist. Not true of course (Nicola Benedetti on the world scene). But it is an opinion of some perhaps but that's impossible to prove either way. Being in demand should really count for a lot in my view.

Oh dear. I think it's a lost cause. I'll continue my search. But many thanks indeed. It's very good of you to up so much of your time. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Additions

I have received some newspaper cuttings and I've added some quotes. Many are without dates. It's a pity they can't be web links. If you have further advice it would be welcome. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent help

Many thanks for recent help. Is it sufficient to refer to 'Programme' as evidence? When Choral work is involved publicity usually names the conductor, orchestra, choir and soloists without naming the leader of the orchestra so that means giving the concert link won't be acceptable? (For example I could find the Amicus link).

Is it acceptable to put supporting information like 'Programme + date in as a footnote to keep text neater?

I'm not sure which Courier article you are referring to under Orchestra? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Balquhidder2013. I'm going to ping @Theroadislong: and @David Biddulph: on this one, because they have both been helping with this article and may have more perspective to offer. My first suggestion is that information which is only supported by a programme, such as who led the orchestra for a particular performance, is probably at a lower level of detail than normally belongs in an encyclopaedia. We don't need to know all about every time he has been on stage, and too much detail makes the article cluttered and hard to see what is pertinent. It is better to have just the highlights and enough for the reader to understand the breadth of his career. A few well-supported statements are better than a lot of poorly supported stuff. Adopt the old saying "if in doubt, leave it out."

To the question of what references are acceptable: remember that Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability are especially stringent for a biography of a living person. There is a good quote at the guideline WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." If the only source is a hard-copy program, then I struggle to see how that could be verifiable. Wikipedia does not even allow primary sources like "trial transcripts and other court records", so a program would be very questionable. At a minimum it would need to have all the normal information for the citation (title, date, publisher, etc), but I think it would probably be better to leave it out. If you think there is a really strong case for one in a particular case, let's discuss it first.

Finally, the Courier reference is currently number 35: "Fraser, Garry (12 March 2015). "(unknown title)". The Courier (Dundee, UK). , cited in "Reviews". heisenbergensemble.co.uk. Heisenberg Ensemble. 2015. Retrieved 8 January 2016."--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cuttings etc.

Thanks again. I presume you've seen the latest editorial comments. I'll probably remove some material later. As it's old I hadn't at the outset wanted to delve into that era - but then others have. I've even seen Facebook as supporting evidence and wiki links creating a non-existent orchestra, e.g. something like GlasgowPhilharmonia for Glasgow Philharmonia (an orchestra that doesn't exist). But I agree, strict rules must be adhered to. Have a good day.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dear sir what,s up?

I want to Create a article on Wikipedia can you help me or show up! How to Create a Strong article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijamahmed (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to know that you are still there for me! Why did I ever embark on this? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013 we all ask ourselves that sometimes. But it doesn't have to be an all-consuming job; part of the trick is knowing when to walk away, at least for a while. Sometimes I have astonished myself by the number of changes I have made which come back to where I started: it reminds me of the old saying attributed to Oscar Wilde "I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

I like that. And I'm a great fan of his! Hard to know what to do. Just now I'm going to walk my dog in 70 to 90 miles an hour gales! I'll think twice before embarking on other profiles. Still, I want the talent of young Scottish artists to be recognised and for folk to see that there is talent outside of London. Thanks again Balquhidder2013 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013, walking the dog is a great idea, assuming he/she/it is willing to go out in those conditions. A bit of fresh air helps to clear the head. And you're always free to take a break before you choose whether to do another article. If you do, I recommend starting the process by collecting good references before you even decide whether to write the article or not. If you can't find a stack of solid reference

s, you might wish to look for a different article...--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Choosing someone who is already world famous goes against the grain - but there is one I might consider. Why he's not already on it beats me. Just as the storm nearly has (but not the dog). And it's now sleeting. Even the geese which had taken refuge in a nearby field for days have disappeared. I've sent a help note to Classical Music Talk as recommended by Jodi but I think I should leave it and watch out for forthcoming reviews (if it's turned down as it probably will). But I'm a Dubliner like Oscar Wilde. Do I give up? Feel free to delete all this!Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Don't forget the cream! Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Get the strawberries and cream out!

Have you seen the article of the year? After all this time. It's really down to its bare bones and doesn't portray the person as I envisaged. But someone else can do that.

Many thanks for your support and your time. I'll take a break before trying another. I hope you're not in gale force winds as we are. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Aha - I see now, it has been moved to "mainspace"! Congratulations, Balquhidder2013. It is so very hard to write about somebody you know or admire, as you have seen. It's so much easier to be objective when the person is a stranger. But not as much fun... --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tell me please. Are these messages viewed by other editors? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean these messages here on my Talk page, Balquhidder2013? I don't know, but they could be. Any editor can see the messages on any other editor's Talk pages.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Would you mind looking at my view history page for today (not Jodi) especially 9.09 this morning. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniel T. Pickett III Article Rewrite and Corrections

Hello,

I have rewritten the entire Daniel T. Pickett article and everything should be corrected now. Thanks for letting me know about the issues. If you could please remove the copy/paste tag after you review it I would appreciate it. Thanks again.

Jeffreykenneth79 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffreykenneth79. You have been busy; this hardly looks like the same article. I am happy to see that you took the copyright notice seriously, and I have removed the {{copypaste}} tag from the article. There are still a few closely paraphrased passages (such as "responsible for integrating the retail delivery platforms and networks of several acquisitions over a five year period" vs "responsible for integrating the retail delivery platforms and networks of more than a dozen acquisitions over a five year period") but I don't think they are bad enough to need a tag.

Also, the tone of the article has been improved a lot - it is more neutral in place of the promotional approach it had previously.

Finally, I see that you have expanded the references a lot. I still think it leans a little bit too heavily on self-published and primary sources, and would benefit from more detailed coverage in secondary sources. The article needs to focus on what independent reliable sources say about him, not what he says about himself (for example, in the ceocfointerviews.com interview, which is referenced seven times). That's not a show-stopper, but something to keep in mind for future improvement. I have cleaned up the broken references and associated formatting. I have not checked all of them, but I came across a couple dead links (tagged) which should be fixed if possible. It would be good to check each link to be sure they work, but I don't have the time; I don't want to be late for my appointment with the dentist.

So to summarize - congratulations on the improvement you have made. The next steps are to check the references are not dead, and continue the never-ending search for good secondary sources. Good luck! --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Carolina Monroy del Mazo page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Link edit

Could you help once again. I came across a newspaper cutting of the Heisenberg review. The missing heading was on it: "Music Review by Garry Fraser". I tried to insert this but please see comment on History page. Is it possible for you to repair this. See also the 'disambiguation' note on CD recording Ness. I've put the CD name in. You had originally sorted out the link for me but it was removed. Should it go back in? It was

http://www.cmc.ie/search/results.html?cx=003672939982680987208%3A1ejedf--cms&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Feargus+Hetherington&sa=site+search&siteurl=www.cmc.ie%2Flibrary%2Fwork_detail.cfm%3FworkID%3D7382&ref=www.google.co.uk%2F&ss=4406j1280646j22

Never ending eh? Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia will never be finished, Balquhidder2013. The Heisenberg reference looks okay - I'm not sure what you want to change there. As for the disambiguation tag, it's not about the CD - it is because there are a lot of people named Gareth Williams (check that link to see the list). I checked each of the three musicians' articles and none of them mentions this recording, so you need to decide which one you mean.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's the Irish composer but Scottish based. The reason is that his website it greatly out of date. He's composed a lot since then judging by a recent programme for his hugely successful opera 'Hirda'. Should I try updating it? Trepidation. The composition 'Ness is listed on http://www.cmc.ie/shop/cd_detail.cfm?itemID=3030 and http://www.cmc.ie/press/releases/2010/apr9.html. It was a major project which led to a performance on BBC Ulster etc. If the Heisenberg link is OK why is another editor objecting to it (see History page. Ever grateful Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Balquhidder2013. Once again, I need to ask you to be more specific when you ask a question - I can't tell which edit are you talking about that relates to Heisenberg. Please be clear about which edit you mean. I looked through every single edit since it was moved into mainspace, and none of them touches that reference. The only change I can find anywhere near it is the one at 16:53, 2 February 2016‎ by Theroadislong with the comment "+‎Solo: incorrect link and is a review by The Dundee Courier adding to his notability?" Is that the one you mean? If so, it did not touch the reference, rather it fixed a problem with the name of the newspaper that was in the sentence before it. And of course, Hetherington's notability is still under question so coverage in a major national paper would be preferred - but you have to go with what you have.

I took care of the disambiguation - once you know which one is the right Gareth Williams it is just a matter of changing [[Gareth Williams]] to [[Gareth Williams (compposer)|]].--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm sorry for being such a nuisance. Yes, that was the one. Those reviews should not be in question. It has long ceased to be the Dundee Courier - it's the 'Courier' and covers the east coast - Tayside, Kinross and Fife in particular. Apart from the Herald and The Scotsman it is the only newspaper in Scotland with a Classical Reviewer whose reviews are highly regarded even by the major orchestras. He reviews Perth Concert Hall, The Younger Hall, The Byers Theatre etc to name but a few venues with classical music in the east of Scotland. Sometimes he reviews concerts in Edinburgh. I don't think it should be underestimated. And thanks also for sorting the other problem.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is cited as The Courier (Dundee, UK), which seens correct - the title of the work is The Courier and it is published in Dundee. So referring to it as "The Dundee Courier" was a bit of shorthand, but understandable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

can't find Tea House response

You apparently responded to my query about activating old talk page participants, but I can't find it in Tea House. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, TBR-qed. Teahouse discussions get archived quite frequently, and this is what happened here. That discussion can now be found at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_447#reviving_old_talk_threads. I hope it helps; I had sorta hoped that another editor might chip in with their own suggestions too but that didn't happen this time. So if you have any questions, please feel free to ask... --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jerry (the flash) Rhome

Why is this page up for deletion and what do I need to do to assure he is on this page he deserves to be noted just as much or more (fought for the USA in competition ) then anyone else listed and as a former World Champ from easley sc he not listed? Taadawl (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Taadawl. Biographical articles in Wikipedia must be supported by references, and this article has no references at all. The claims need to be documented in reliable, independent sources. You need to record where you got that information from, in a way that is verifiable for any reader of Wikipedia. Unreferenced articles get deleted, so the way to keep it from being deleted is just what it says in the note: "adding reliable sources is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article." The note also includes links to help with the process of how to document those links.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, @Taadawl:. It turns out that this entire article was copied from another site, http://scakarate.com/achieve.html. This is a breach of copyright laws, and it is absolutely not allowed. You need to rewrite it in your own words. If you're quick, you may be able to do that on the existing page before it is deleted as a copyright violation - otherwise you will need to re-create the page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your service

Thanks for your service. It's a good thing you do. BUT, disagree with removing the STUB TAG STATUS on this barely begun article. I know these days new articles started from a need for a reference elsewhere has become rare, but this kind of start is something I've done a few times riding the carousel horse in this here rodeo. I just think that part of your edit was premature. Be well! // FrankB 15:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Fabartus and NkB:, and thanks for bringing this up. Quite frankly, the classification as a stub (or otherwise) has always seemed a bit arbitrary to me. Reading the article at Wikipedia:Stub reinforces this: there is no clear threshold, just a few guidelines that people have used, be it 250 words, or 500 words, or 1500 characters. In this case, I took my lead from AWB, which was set to the default of 500 words, and the article also meets all those other guidelines (3491 characters, 536 words) - but I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. My intuition, without the benefit of guidelines, is that this article is in the grey area where opinions might differ. I have no objections if you want to replace the stub tag.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okee Doakey. In my case, I feel it barely begun, it's missing the key historical ties I conceived it for. Formulating the lede was a bit taxing. Take care! // FrankB 06:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Pest Returns!

Would you have time to check over my Joseph Swensen article to see if it's safe to re-submit? If you could I would be extremely grateful.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WOW - that article is such an enormous improvement! You have really picked up the Wikipedia way. I have asked the reviewer (Bearcat) a question, because I noticed that you had originally written that Swensen was the author of every single reference, and I am not sure whether this was what gave the impression that they were all primary references. I have fixed up all the references to show the correct authors etc, and I hope this will make a better case for his notability. I have to head out now for the afternoon and evening, so I probably won't see any developments until tomorrow.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. No, that's my misunderstanding. This time I was using the template (which I had just discovered by the way!) and thought 'second name' 'first name' meant the author! Stupid I suppose. I was puzzled by the repetition of his name. But no, the first one was rejected because my sources were primary sources! Impressive but primary. I'll have to work out what is meant by the second name, first name etc. because then (on the template) you're asked to fill in 'title'(I presume of the article)... There are so many instructions on wikipedia it's impossible to tract down what you need. I'llI'll study what you've done to try to understand. I've also entered refs on the Gareth Williams article but I've still something to sort out on some of the refs I gather. Have a good day. It's sunny here this morning for a change. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right, @Balquhidder2013: - "first" and "last" are the name of the author of the reference. And Swenson was not the author for all those articles; they were written by all different people. If you need to look up what any of the fields mean (which I still do from time to time), you can check the template documentation at {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}. I will be interested to see Bearcat's response, because most of the citations you gave are actually secondary sources. Perhaps there might be some question because some of them talk more about a performance than about Swensen - but I think that should be okay. My advice is definitely not to panic yet; let's see what Bearcat has to say.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspection of the Foreign Legion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion. 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) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Joseph Swensen article

I guess you haven't had a reply to your query concerning the article. As I explained in my last communication but perhaps I didn't make myself clear, this draft's references are different to the ones submitted in the first draft. The first one contained excellent references but were by and large primary sources, e.g. the University of Indiana on his appointment. But most were changed in the draft I sent to you and which you've sorted for me. If you haven't had a reply to your query Bearcat do you think I should click the 're submit' button?

I would also like you to take a peep at the Irish composer, Gareth Williams's article to which I added a number of references. Do you think it now deserves to have its verification paste-on removed? Many thanks Balquhidder2013 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ASNSW Article : NPOV Avoidance

@Gronk Oz: Please note that your edits for the Astronomical Society of New South Wales has been severely edited by me. Even though you have stated in a disclosure a possible conflict of interest, the article clearly and purposefully avoids WP:NPOV. If you have any issues with editing, you should discuss this on the article's Talk Page here.[1]

The Rules on this are very clear. Please kindly read WP:BFAQ closely, and please follow its precepts. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. A similar kind of problem also lies with the Sutherland Astronomical Society article that you've edited. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, if you can improve the articles, then of course that is wonderful. But I am not sure that I understand how an edit like this one is constructive, because it removed nearly the entire section of material that was all supported by external references - none of which have any association with the organization at all, and just left an un-referenced stub in its place. If you are concerned that the wording is somehow inconsistent with a NPOV, then it would be more constructive to improve it or flag it, rather than wholesale section blanking and removing references. It is not clear which aspect of WP:BFAQ you are concerned about here - it would be best to continue the conversation on the article's Talk page so others can be involved and I will also mention it at WikiProject Astronomy in case any more experienced editors would care to contribute.

To allay your concerns about a conflict of interest, I verify again that I am a member of the ASNSW but I am not, and never have been, paid or received any other remuneration for this or any other editing of Wikipedia. There is no conflict of interest in the sense used at Conflict of interest, where "the word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit."--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm equally concerned with the conflict of interest and the whole lack of neutrality, which is frankly is among some of the worst I've seen. I removed the text because I tried to look for other independent sources, but couldn't find any. From the selected independent sources, you mostly cherry picked the best bit to place the article in the best light, and not the needed NPOV. Here this one is the perfect example. The text is either "a weekend of star watching beneath one of the world's darkest skies" is biased, impossible to prove, and promotes something which is of commercial interests (I.e. Because it is charges money. I.e. As stated by the society site you linked.) As for the rest mentioning Scouts, the township of Ilford's population, Houston's old 2000 article - are all rather irrelevant, and look like a thin selection from a quite small number of available references. Together it looks like promotion, which is against Wikipedia policies, and when this is noted, all editors have to be extra careful.

As for "excuses", like getting others involved, is irrelevant, because issues exceeding the rules can be deleted by any editor at anytime. This applies specifically to text that cannot be properly verified. (I also see your edits on other astronomical societies which you've edited, which have the very same kind of NPOV issues as with this article.) In this case, some needed deconstruction was the only option.

Further saying; "If you are concerned that the wording is somehow inconsistent with a NPOV, then it would be more constructive to improve it or flag it, rather than wholesale section blanking and removing references." I have no obligation to do that at all, especially if the text cannot be verified through correct and relevant referencing.

So to save two individuals in argument, we should continue discussion on the rest on the Talk page for the ASNSW. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, I have no conflict of interest.

I am disappointed to read that you think involving other editors is some kind of "excuse", because editing by consensus is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia; it is the primary way decisions are made. Requests for comment are a normal part of this process. I did not intend any disrespect; just an attempt to engage the relevant people in the discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. You haven't shown any disrespect to anyone here. Yes consensus is important, but the problem here is citations expressed by the source supporting the statements. I think that when people see these reverted edits, they too as a majority would agree that the issue is with the sources. Internal sources usually are skewed in their POV, because the nature is to promote their own brand - human nature. It is not deliberate. But this is not balanced - as I've exampled, hence the objections. If you get past this by just showing more caution in editing on subjects you're maybe too close too. Cheers.Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apex (Ramez Naam)

Please have a look on Apex (Ramez Naam novel). --Momo Monitor (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Momo Monitor:. I took a look at that page - not sure what you would like me to do with it. I notice that the entire article is just a plot summary so the article still needs some work.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TH_Baker

Hi Gronk Oz, I'm unsure why this page is up for deletion - I tried to make it non-promotional. Do you have any tips for me to not make it promotional? As for the relevancy - it's one of the largest jewellery chains in the country. Our competitors have wikipedia pages including John Greed, Beaverbrooks etc. so unsure why we are undeserving of one? David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGSpindle (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@DavidGSpindle:As far as I can see, this page has never been proposed for deletion. However, the lack of independent references may put it at risk of deletion in future. Whether competitors have articles or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia; what matters for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term) is the extent of in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources (see the "Golden Rule".

The notes at the top of the article are called "Maintenance Tags" and they are there to guide editors in what improvements are needed for articles; they are not deletion requests. The two tags that were there, for single source and primary sources, do not seem relevant any more so I have removed them and replaced with one to improve the references. The first two references are okay, though they read more like PR releases. The third one is almost irrelevant; it only mentions the company in passing. So if you are interested in improving the article, your task begins outside of Wikipedia, with hunting down those references. Then summarize what the best references have to say, and add that to the article - this will give the best article, and the best chances that it will survive if challenged.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. You have new messages at Gronk Oz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Gronk, okay that all makes sense. Yeah those references are terribly written, I know. I'll hunt down some more references - thanks. I think I must have read an old message about the old page being up for deletion then! I didn't see it on the page either, I just got an email. Strange. Cheers anyway, I'll work on references! Dave

Georg Naumann - article is an orphan

Thank you for your entry Orphan|date=April 2016 and the working on my article. I've installed some links into other articles leading to my new article. Is that enough or will I have to do anything else? Is it possible to delete the entry now? If yes, can you do it for me, please? Or am I allowed to do that? My second question: The module "This page is a new unreviewed article..." will surely have to be examined by an editor or administrator. Can you do this? Or what else have I to do for it? What's the rule in en.wikipedia? (I couldn't find anything in Help). In de.wikipedia the work is done by an editor or adminsitrator. (I'm an editor myself in de.wikipedia.com). I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks in advance. --Klausronjaen (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Klausronjaen:. That article is coming along nicely - well done! Yes, the Orphan tag not longer applies, since it is now linked from three articles and a list:

• Athabasca oil sands
• History of Alberta
• Pelican Portage, Alberta
• List of articles about Canadian oil sands

So I have removed the Orphan tag. If you want to check about an orphan article, you can look under "Tools" on the left hand side of the page and click on "What links here"; it will show any incoming links and you can filter to show just the articles. In general, any editor (including you) is welcome to remove a "maintenance tag" like that once the problem has been fixed - see Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. Of course, it's also fine to ask for a second opinion, as you did here.

The review tag is a little different. All new articles get reviewed by an editor with Reviewer rights (which I do not have). However, there is a backlog so this may take some time. It is not a problem; it just means that the article is new.

I did a couple more quick copy-edits, especially breaking up the long blocks of text into paragraphs to make it easier to read. Note that in Wikipedia markup you need to leave a blank line when you want to create a paragraph break. If you want to improve the article further, I think the next step should be to work on references. What's there so far is good, but there are still many statements and whole paragraphs that are not supported by any references. I see that this is your first article, and you should be very proud - you have done a great job of it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gronk Oz:. Thank you very much for the editing, for the tips for improvement, for the proof corrections and also for your good words for my work. That is stimulating and important for my next articles in the en.wikipedia, which I've already planned.Klausronjaen (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Klausronjaen: - to follow up on the last remaining part of your question, I notice that the page has now been reviewed by Meatsgains, so the "Unreviewed" tag has been removed.Gronk Oz (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How can we show a real notability for a person?

Thanks for your comments. Now, I do not understand when you say "independent references that discuss the topic in depth to establish notability", I appreciate if you explain me about this requirement. Please check these links: 1. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): http://blog.chron.com/tubular/2007/11/menudo-recipe-features-sugar-land-teen-jc-gonzalez/ 2. Vanguardia Liberal, (Santander State, Colombia): http://www.vanguardia.com/entretenimiento/farandula/352459-jc-gonzalez-brilla-con-su-talento-en-estados-unidos 3. SemanaNews, Houston, Texas, USA: http://semananews.com/news/2016/feb/23/jc-gonzalez-forjador-de-su-propio-exito/ 4. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): http://blog.chron.com//tubular/2007/11/three-big-helpings-of-menudo-with-a-twist/ 5. Revista Genete de Canaveral (Bucaramanga, Colombia): http://www.gentedecanaveral.com/2013/07/jc-alterna-con-estrellas-de-hollywood/ 6. Las2orillas (National), Bogotá, Colombia: http://www.las2orillas.co/jc-gonzalez-de-actor-a-cantautor-consagrado-en-estados-unidos/ 7. Los Angeles Times (California, USA): http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-menudo-pg-photogallery.html . Full article is one page in paper. 8. Revista Carrusel Periódico El Tiempo (National), Bogotá, Colombia: 9. Houston Chronicle (Houston, Texas, USA): http://blog.chron.com//tubular/2007/11/three-big-helpings-of-menudo-with-a-twist/ 10. The Seattle Times, Washington, USA: http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/remaking-the-band-mtv-revives-menudo/ and other articles in magazines/News (not digital version) that I can send them in JPG or PDF and interviews at TV shows such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fLYbi7GBCE&feature=youtu.be. We are working to find more digital references because “Wikipedia requires significant coverage”. Sorry, we are not expertise in Wikipedia :o) Thanks a lot for your help Olivety (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

I am extremely happy to know that my article was edited by you for the silly mistakes that I have made.Thanking you once again. Ktpna (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ktpna - Wikipedia works best when it is a joint activity.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoax

You patrolled "First Order of Ailuros" in Feb - it was a thinly veiled hoax, copied from Branch Davidian. Clues were there - it was created with tags dated to 2013, the edit filter tagged as likely cut-and-paste, and there was gibberish about pandas. Fences&Windows 23:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fences and windows. I would be interested to see the details, since I have never deliberately patrolled a page. However, I have become aware that when I used Twinkle to mark a page for Speedy Deletion, for some reason the default is to automatically mark that page as patrolled. I disabled that option once I found out about it, and I wonder whether that is what happened here, or is there some other trap that I need to be aware of. But the page no longer exists, so I can't check the details... --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Patrolled may have been the wrong word; the issue is not marking pages as patrolled or not, but rather that you need to carefully check new pages, especially when you are the first across them. You were the first to edit after creation on the same day. The edit summary was "(Clean up, added orphan tag, typo(s) fixed: a Arctist → an Arctist using AWB)". See the Google Cache here for the content: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OK69Phk7NQEJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Order_of_Ailuros+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk Fences&Windows 08:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Chippendale

Hi Gronk - I noticed your kindness in completing the raw refs I placed on The Chippendale Society page and wondered if you would repeat same on the Thomas Chippendale page. I aint being lazy - its simply I've been away for a while so have lost touch with protocol, whereas you make it seem so easy.

With thanks in advance Mark^Dask 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the pointer, @Markdask:. I cheat for filling in most of the bare URLs, using a tool called Wikipedia:Refill. If you're planning to do a few then it's worth installing because it makes the process so much easier - otherwise I just use the normal editor Cite > Template > Cite Web, fill in the URL and click the magnifying glass next to that field: it will attempt to fill in whatever fields it can automagically. Or just ask ... happy to help if I can.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

/* West Adams Heritage Association */ added a link

You added some warnings on the West Adams Heritage Association page. I took out the footnote that linked to their website and added links to specific phrases such as "historic West Adams". I don't know if I need to do more.Phatblackmama (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, @Phatblackmama:. The Wikilinks you added are great, and I have removed the {{underlinked}} tag. However, the issue with {{self-published}} tag wasn't about that site being wrong - the problem was that the entire article was only supported by a single self-published source. There were no independent sources at all. In Wikipedia, independent sources are vital for two reasons: they establish how notable the subject is, and verify the individual statements made in the article. For a good, brief summary of what is expected of references, see WP:Golden rule. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. The guidelines you link to say "We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article." I then looked at another Los Angeles heritage association, the Los Angeles Conservancy, for guidance in the types of sources to use. Yet the Los Angeles Conservancy only has a link is to it's own website as a way to prove it's existence. I am not sure why that wikipedia page is acceptable and the West Adams Heritage one is not. Phatblackmama (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hello again, @Phatblackmama:. First I need to clarify what the {{self-published}} tag means - it's not about the article being "unacceptable" (if I thought that was the case then I would have proposed the article for deletion). Instead, this is a tag to highlight where an article can be improved. Many articles have similar tags on them, to guide editors' efforts. The other thing to clarify is that it's not about proving its existence. I exist, but there is no Wikipedia article about me because I am not "notable" (in Wikipedia's particular meaning of that term). Establishing notability needs in-depth coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources.

I took a look at Los Angeles Conservancy, and I found that they had actually attempted to put a reference in there. But that had two problems: it was set up as an inline external link instead of a reference, and the site it tried to link to no longer exists anyway. Fortunately, I was able to find a ten-year-old archive of that page on the Wayback Machine, so I rescued that reference. Even so, it is just one reference so I tagged that page as needing more references.

Wikipedia is all about verifiability: everything here should trace back to a reliable, independent source as much as possible. Self-published sources can be used for some basic facts but the majority of each article should be based on what other sources say about the subject, not what they say about themselves. To take a look at how some other articles have been put together, you could look at the good ones in Category:Historic preservation organizations in the United States. And a starting point to find some resources could be to look at this Google News search.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Hold your breath...I think I got it. See if the changes I made work. Phatblackmama (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well done, @Phatblackmama:! You did a great job of finding references that talk about the association rather than about the neighbourhood. I took the liberty of fleshing out the bare URLs with extra details. Oh, an do of course I removed the {{self-published}} tag. I look forward to seeing more articles from you... --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and help Gronk I will try again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabecooney (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)