User talk:JO Bieson/Archive1

JO Bieson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JO Bieson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Kumbasaram (2015) - Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kumbasaram (2015) - Poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amar Akbar Anthony (2015 film)

The article Amar Akbar Anthony (2015 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Amar Akbar Anthony (2015 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SineBot JØ 09:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

JØ Talk 14:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick Edit Summery

/*________*/ Done ! JØ 14:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drishyam

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Drishyam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drishyam

The article Drishyam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Drishyam for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drishyam

The article Drishyam you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Drishyam for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	A barnstar for you!
	For your GA success with Drishyam which, I can say, was no fluke. Do contribute heavily to articles before nominating them in the future. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Kailash29792. JØ +TALK 04:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For bringing Drishyam to GA status. When i brought its Telugu remake Drushyam to GA, Drishyam was very poorly written. Now, i am happy to see it as a GA. All the best to your future endeavors, and make sure that you nominate the articles you mainly contributed to. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pavanjandhyala. JØ +TALK 04:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bangalore Days

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bangalore Days you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bangalore Days

The article Bangalore Days you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bangalore Days for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

GA nominations

Even after both me and User:Pavanjandhyala told you, you still appear persistently to nominate random articles for GA regardless of how well they are developed; you don't even contribute heavily to them. Jo, please nominate only those articles that are significantly developed by you. I know you have great potential to become like us, but you may read Wikipedia:Good article criteria for more info. As for Bangalore Days, I'm sorry it doesn't look GA worthy at the moment; I think it can be further expanded and have its prose cleaned by the GOCE. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So, what i have to do now remove Bangalore Days for GA?JØ TALK 13:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah, let Jaguar decide. To answer your question, can i nominate articles which is developed but not contributed by me ?, the answer is no. Whoever developed the article significantly should be the one to nominate it. However, if the main contributor does not wish to nominate the article or has retired/been blocked, any other editor may do so, but must have made some good edits to the article before nominating it. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash for the replay. As i am new here i am learning wikipedia. JØ + TALK 13:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Hi there, in these edits, you removed 2014 Kerala State Film Awards from the top of the Accolades section on the basis that the link 404s. Two things: If a link doesn't resolve, please either mark it as dead by slapping a dead link template before the closing ref tag like <ref>http://foo.bar {{dead link}}</ref> or, if you're feeling particularly helpful, check at archive.org for an archived copy, and then add the |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl=yes as I have done here.

It's also worth noting that by removing the wikilink and reference, you accidentally left the list of honors, without any indication of what the award organization was. In the future, please double-check by clicking "Show preview" before committing your changes to the page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh i am sorry for that mistake made by me Cyphoidbomb, I mostly edit with Visual editor as i am new here i am not familiar with those source edit/wiki code. So i think when i edited that by a mistake the ref code was deleted. JØ + TALK 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Some useful tools

If you want to develop an article using Indian sources, this will come in handy, so will this. You can also edit sources using the gadget ProveIt. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Loham

Hi, JO Bieson - I actually didn't mean to revert your edit, just to correct the syntax. Also wanted to thank you for the translation of what that jpg was all about. Happy editing! Atsme^📞📧 22:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Drishyam

Happy to see the GA status of Drishyam. But you should only nominate the articles you have contributed. The Drishyam you see now is the hardwork of User:Josephjames.me for attaining a GA. You should have talked to him before nominating it. As far as I know, he was not done with that article, hence, he did not nominated it. The other case is, you are frequently nominating articles that don't even satisfy the B-class status. Making a good article is not about bringing that green icon on the top, it should be well written, fairly complete, and helpful to the readers. There are a number of criteria that a GA article should possess. Anyway best wishes for your future works. --Charles Turing (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hey there, I know you were trying to do a good thing when you dug up a reference for Bangalore Days. If it's going to have a chance to be promoted to Good Article, all the references in the article have to be tip-top. (Actually, even if it's not going to make it to GA, all the references have to be tip-top.) Wikipedia, especially Indian cinema articles, are polluted with problematic references, oftentimes on purpose because people want to spam traffic to their websites. We can't use faceless cookie-cutter blogs, because anyone can set up an account and ramble about a movie. The reason why we don't use IMDb as a reference is because it is full of user-generated content. I can go to IMDb, add a movie, add cast, add production notes, etc. They don't do any vetting of the information. Similarly, if anyone can create a blog, there's no indication that there are any journalists involved, or that anyone's done any fact-checking. We just can't afford to have problematic references like that in articles. So, a good rule of thumb is to only consider reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking, and a clear editorial policy. That means mainstream newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. that have been around for years and that have established themselves as bona fide sources. IBT, Bangalore Mirror, The Hindu, stuff like that. Hope that helps. Sorry for the rambling note. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bangalore Days

The article Bangalore Days you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bangalore Days for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bangalore Days is very weak. Try to build it well, and i'm sure you can do that. There are very less enthusiastic editors who try to build this encyclopaedia, and i hope you are one of them. Try to learn, utilise your skills well. Good luck, Mr. Bieson! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Bangalore Days. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Diffs: [1] As noted in my extraordinarily detailed, friendly note from yesterday, faceless cookie-cutter blogs are insufficient as references and should never be used for the reasons I have already explained. Please stop submitting these problematic references, and please stick to mainstream published sources with established reputations for fact checking and a clear editorial policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)