Open main menu
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for User:Nosebagbear:



Contents

Questions about copyrighted workEdit

Hello Nosebagbear, thank you for taking the time to review and leave comments on my talk page for my submission. I leave the comments posted by you here so it's easier for you to see;

This is regarding: Oppa Teach Korean submission

- Start

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.facebook.com/pg/oppateachkorean/about. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

- End

I have 2 questions to ask you;

1) The reason why I linked it to https://www.facebook.com/pg/oppateachkorean/about , is because another link which has more creditability is from a video source on a news company website. The video + what was mention in the facebook about page is the same. Should i just link the video sources?

2) I can't seem to find the submission anymore, it must have been deleted. Are you able to help me rollback or something so that I can relink the references?

Thanks for taking the time to read and help. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. LearnKoreanToday (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


[Update] I realised that i could ask for permission to use the content and the page could be re-added back. I have already contacted the copyright owner, and send the email to the submission team on wiki. I do not have any further questions, but just informing you that it's okay now. Thank you! LearnKoreanToday (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Nosebagbear! You created a thread called Archiving Talk Page with blacklisted links at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Your misunderstanding of copyrights and the law of public domainEdit

Hello,

There is no copyright on works of government entities in the US and they are automatically in the public domain. This applies to your gracious but mistaken efforts of my work at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ives_-_Henry_murders

I hope you will correct your mistakes.

Leidseplein (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution should be stated in-article, usually beneath the references. However only documentations created by the federal government are automatically in that category - states vary in set-up.
A look at the primary source's copyright log states "All portions of this Site and its Materials, including entries, site design, logo, title, graphics, software, text and functionality of the search, and browse and linking methods, are copyright and trademark protected under U.S. and International law and may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, or otherwise used for any commercial purpose." "No image or any part of this Site by its appearance here should be construed as within the public domain.".
As such the copyright investigation state it is in now is probably most appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Genius, I mean Nosebagbear, if I put on my website that "Nothing here may be used without my permission and is copyrighted" this does not mean that nothing may be used without my permission and is copyrighted. The words on a website are not correctly used as evidence to prove that what the words claim is true. The law on copyright controls. Not what is written on a website. You can cite the relevant portions of copyright law but merely repeating here what another misinformed person wrote only perpetuates your errors and worse, prohibits the world from free access to uncopyrighted material ---- all because your point here is, apparently, to vandalise and exert teenage power. Please correct your vandalsim. Leidseplein (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions about my article ( Previously denied due to copyright )Edit

Hello,

Previously I sent an update but you have archive my message so i have to create a new topic. For my Submission, I was denied because of copyright issue which was not done correctly on my side. I have already submitted permission request approved from the owner and the copyright owner have included " CC BY-SA 3.0 " in the page itself to mark that he has accepted it.

However it has been more than 1 week since my permission email to wiki team but they have not replied and i can see that all trace of my page was removed. Therefore, I have recreated it.

However it seems like my article is not considered a draft anymore. Can you help me to add the line to resubmit it to approval?

LearnKoreanToday (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@LearnKoreanToday: - hi there, unfortuantely your draft seems to have, again, been deleted - this time for a promotional issue. There is both a templated and a personal response from the admin on your talk page.
Sorry to see this nuisance - it's great to see you go to such efforts and requesting a license change and actually carrying it out. Like the admin, I'm unfortunately unable to do a notability sweep in Korean to see if I could recommend any superior sources than facebook. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Crows in the rainEdit

Hi - thanks for your note at this article. I'm going through the 'NPP School' training program at the moment, and had raised a couple of points with my trainer about how to deal with the COPYVIO stuff - agree though that it's CSD-worthy, have done so. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

HeyEdit

You're welcome, glad I could help. --Bad Graphics Ghost (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Nosebagbear! You created a thread called AE - 1932 American Politics at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


On another wiki ...Edit

I replied to your post here. I don't know if you've ever found a way to get notifications from there, but I know I haven't – hence this note! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Ascentium CapitalEdit

Hi, thank you for reviewing my draft article and providing suggestions on the Help Desk page. I’m not sure if this was intentional, but my help request on the Help desk page seems to have been removed. I’d like to clear up that I don’t consider myself a paid contributor. I often reference Wikipedia for all sorts of information and that is why I am interested in creating a page for the company that I work at, as I strongly believe it meets notability. I agree with you that being connected to Ascentium Capital can make possible for me to miss coverage on what is important and not, in terms of neutrality. I put a lot of effort into this article, and it would be much appreciated if I can get someone’s help on making this article more neutral. Would you know of a page where I can list the draft article for help on meeting neutrality, similar to the Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit? IrfanAli512 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Buni draftEdit

Hello nosebagbear, thank you for your helpful input (and empathy) i really want to recognize the comic and the author since this isn't a random obscure comic so I am really hoping i can get it published. I have left a comment the user that rejected the article and hoping to hear back Sportsfan018 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyright material on Draft:Richmond County Country Club (New York)Edit

Thank you for your feedback. I doubt that the golf hole descriptions noted by the New York Tribune in 1901 originated with the paper but came from the golf club, RCCC, itself and were printed by the paper. For instance club membership names holes and the golf course architect or the head golf professional documents a description of a golf hole before construction begins. I am new to Wikipedia and for personal reasons I try to avoid using copyright material. Thanks for your help and I appreciate all comments and corrections. Cusack301 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Three Kings (Dead Meadow album)) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Three Kings (Dead Meadow album).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for your new article on the album "Three Kings" by Dead Meadow.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

About the article Draft:DagilėlisEdit

Dear Nosebagbear,

Thank you for your comment which you have left on reviewing article "Dagilėlis" (00:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dagil%C4%97lis

I have reorganised the article and based it on your comment: deleted less significant achievements and wroted more choral history.

Sincerely, Romas Bieliauskas

DYK for Space climateEdit

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Pall Mall Barbers (Richard Marshall)Edit

Submitted for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers


Thedavidshow (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

EthicsEdit

Hi Nosebagbear, and thanks for your comment on the help desk thread re ethics. I am aware that some work can be pre-cleared in some institutions. Hopefully the work being discussed fits that category. I have seen cases where work should have been to a HREC and wasn't and that led to major problems with publication / degrees, so I wanted to make sure that the editor in this case has checked out and followed all appropriate procedures. I don't see anything obviously problematic in what is described, but I have seen cases where I thought the issues were obvious but the researchers involved did not, so I now take a cautious line on these sorts of questions. Cheers! :) EdChem (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: - indeed, I can't definitely see that knowing if your work is pre-cleared should be a fairly fundamental fact. I mean, for us, it was the second thing we were told and the conditions for it, so clearly the importance on the division is fairly major. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I know of a case (some years back) where a thesis for a Masters went for examination and an examiner added a comment in their report that the HREC clearance should be mentioned in the methods chapter and the approval letter added as an appendix. Astonishingly (as it was not a risk-free study involving humans), neither the student nor the supervisor had considered the need for clearance nor consulted the HREC. What to do when faced with a completed work that was far-from-certain to have been approved in the first place and a student's degree hinges on the decision – not an easy one, especially when the prime responsibility belongs with the supervisor. So, I agree, knowing where you stand strikes me as essential. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Scotty TEdit

Hi, just wondering why you approved unsourced birth details on the Scotty T article? I previously removed these as they were cited to Genes Reunited, which is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, the edit you approved didn't offer a source at all. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nzd: - sorry, my fault. You're welcome to remove them, or I can do it preferred.
Nosebagbear (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
No prob, already done. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Chocolatine VS pain au chocolatEdit

I made an edit which was apparently not legitimate in your perception. The fact is that a chocolatine and a pain au chocolat (chocolate bread) are two very different baked goods and the terms are not interchangeable. Chocolate bread is literally bread with chocolate in it. It is the product of a baker, the dough used is bread dough and the cooking method used is for bread. Then you have a Chocolatine which is a croissant with chocolate. The dough recipe is different from the one used to make bread and the cooking method is completely different than the one used to make bread. I suggest you quickly research the difference between bread and pastries.

Can you say bread meat instead of meat pie ? Of course not, well this is the same exact issue. A mere lack of knowledge on the subject of pastry and bakery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepastrymasta (talkcontribs) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thepastrymasta: - the edit was made because you were asserting that in an article titled "pain au chocolat", all the subsidary information should refer to them as chocolatine - which would contradict your statement, however supportive a reference you might use. It also was breaking the picture (and not putting in a new one), and some other formatting issues.
The article could well be wrong on the issue (it's hardly my specialist subject), but the logical thing would be either to create a separate paragraph explaining the difference. It might even require a separate article. Additionally, a quick look round at a few more reliable sources indicate that though your separation might be the case in France, other countries have fairly firmly adopted them as being synonymous. Wikipedia generally goes with the majority opinion on naming issues.
This type of complicated, interesting, issue has a logical first place - the article's talk page.
Cheers - Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa (Artist)Edit

Hii Nosebagbear, It is mainly connected to important points of the singer's (Criteria for musicians and ensembles) 2,4,5,10,11,12, and the singer has played the role of singer in many Bollywood films of India, which is the main form It is clear that you are requested to carefully look at all the points and publish the draft. Respect & Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamsgnr123 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teamsgnr123: - You haven't stated (and critically, supported with reliable references) details in the draft that support points: 2, 4, 5, 11 & 12. Point 10, as noted in MUSICBIO, is a secondary criteria that doesn't necessarily warrant more than a mention in the film's articles. This is particularly true here, as Sanjay is only listed as a secondary singer of one song in each film.
In any case, if you were going to rely on point 10, then you need to provide reliable sourcing for his performances in them. The reviewers and I have previously set out that ImDB and Wikipedia are not reliable.Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: - Hii,It is mainly connected to important points 2,4 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, and the singer has made national music tours, which clearly shows in the reference point number 2,3, well-known in point number 2 The music company (Sony Music) is an invitation to the national tour and it has been published in the main newspaper in point 3. You see again and publish it

Discussion at User talk:DannyS712 test/remind me.jsEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:DannyS712 test/remind me.js. DannyS712 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!Edit

  Credits where it is due. Thanks a lot for relisting AfDs with vote stuffed Keep comments and thereby maintaining the sanctity of AfD. Cheers from a fellow AfD contributor. DBigXray 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

...and in case you are wondering, I was referring to this excellent relist. --DBigXray 11:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

maidsrunner.comEdit

This was not a promotion but an attempt to have some recent content for the Akihabara site. The external links are out of date. They work, but they don't provide updated information. Please add this back as maidsrunner.com is updated daily and provides a source for visitors who are interested in going to one of the more than 100 maid cafe's or girls bars in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.108.1.11 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@140.108.1.11: - it is advertorial and only (or at least, primarily) provides information about the set of businesses. That there is interest in these businesses is irrelevant - we might as well add a site about all the McDonalds in the area to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa (Artist)Edit

Hii ,Draft has been resubmit with reference again but it has not been published by reviewing the draft.It is mainly connected to important points 2,4 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, and the singer has made national music tours and worked with international music company (sony entertainment pvt. Ltd.). You see again and publish it. Respect and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamsgnr123 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teamsgnr123: - just resubmitting it doesn't mean it will be instantly reviewed. It will get reviewed as if you'd submitted a new draft.
Point 2 refers to national charting. Point 4 refers to an international or national music tour. You need to include this into the draft content, or no reviewer will know to judge it off that Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa (Artist)Edit

Hii In the draft as mentioned by you, the singer's live show and details of the facts have been described, thank you very much for this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamsgnr123 (talkcontribs) 11:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Teamsgnr123: - you will need to specifically reference that point, since it's the only possibility to demonstrate notability that I've seen. It will also need to be a proper national tour, rather than just a couple in different locations.
Once you've done that, it will be reviewed in the proper style - I've participated sufficiently that I couldn't neutrally review it. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa (Artist)Edit

I have mentioned all the points written in it, some of the lines written by you have not been understood in the rest, in the rest, I will try to add context / information to the singer, I want to know, can you publish it by considering it. Respect 🙏🙏🙏

Draft: Pall Mall BarbersEdit

Created an article for Pall Mall Barbers like you suggested. It got declined... but that was before the People Magazine Article and the visit from Prince William today. Tons of sources now. I urge you to take a look at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers Thedavidshow (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

JhundEdit

My film article on jhund had lots of data in it.But now in wikipedia already same title article is being released with less data.But wikipedia accepted that..So is it a justice to my work... Mamtapawar512 (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mamtapawar512: - the article hasn't actually been patrolled yet, which would usually be viewed as the accepted stage - it won't yet appear on search engines. Anyone who feels it violates notability and has sufficient time for a WP:BEFORE sweep is free to nominate it for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: - Thank you for your comment

Please comment on Talk:Mass shootings in the United StatesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass shootings in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Hello Nosebagbear,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on Draft:We Love MMAEdit

Hello,

sorry for addressing you directly. My article draft got rejected and I could not comprehend the rejector's reasoning behind it. They suggested I ask for a second opinion, but my requests are always going unanswered, with all the others around being answered. I saw you answering another request nearby, so maybe you could have a look?

This is the link to the request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:13:18,_19_March_2019_review_of_submission_by_Zeno_Gantner

Your input would be very much appreciated.

--zeno (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Matt_Farley declinationEdit

Howdy Nosebagbear, my Draft for Matt Farley was declined a few days ago and you mentioned you might be able to help. "@TownesVP: - the reviewer may be right that the individual doesn't pass standard musician notability, however there's an interesting case to be made that his prolific work or spotify work might qualify him under the general notability guideline for his newsworthiness. I'm currently very busy, but I'm interested to see other reviewers' thoughts. I'll be free from Thursday onwards and if no-one else has, I'll take a look then (feel free to poke me on Friday - just hit the talk in my username!). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)"

I followed up with the editor that originally declined it, and his reply was as follows:

"TownesVP, if you can provide the best WP:THREE articles that show his individual notability and not that of the bands, then the reviewers can focus on that to see if he passes notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC) TownesVP, it still has a huge number of non-notable tracks and album contributions. That list needs to be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)"

I was hoping you could help me assess what press articles would be best to use to prove Matt Farley's individual notability.

His press page lists a ton of things here: https://www.moternmedia.com/press/

I originally used the following references:

"This Genius Lunatic Has Recorded 16,000 Songs About Everything from Poop to Ellen Degeneres". noisey.vice.com.
"Spotify: how a busy songwriter you've never heard of makes it work for him". theguardian.com.
"An Inside Look at Matt Farley, The 19,000 Song Guy". considertheconsumer.com.
"Matt Farley's IMDB Bio". IMDb.com.
"This guy wrote 88 terribly awesome songs about N.J. towns. Have a listen". nj.com.
"Matt Farley continues to exist: How one man is bringing quantity and quality to Spotify". substreammagazine.com.
"Moes Haven, seriously". hippopress.com.
"A glimpse inside the mind of the world's most prolific musician". statepress.com.
"THE MUSICIAN WHO'S GAMING SEARCH ENGINES TO ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY". wired.com.
"The Best Music of Matt Farley (In Five Albums)". filmtrap.com.
"Approved: Motern Media Songs Of 2015". completemusicupdate.com.
"Social Media Detox:The Album". medium.com.
"THE BIG HEIST STEALS OUR HEARTS, MINDS AND SOULS WITH DEBUT MO75". aftermoviediner.com.
"IN MY EARS: MATT FARLEY". prospectornow.com.

I know The Guardian is listed under acceptable notability, but I'm not sure what else to use. Any help is very much appreciated!

Thanks for your consideration. TownesVP (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@TownesVP: - hi there. I did of course ask you to ping me on Friday - I was somewhat distracted on my "day off" by walking 12km house-hunting (unsuccessfully), but I'll attempt to give a brief look now.
First up is a review of whether the sources are generally reliable (as opposed to your specific articles)
Wired, Medium, noisey can all be reasonable sources - it depends on who's written it. Some have staff editors, which makes it very clear, others are harder to detect. They're confusing sources (in general that is) because not all of their articles have editorial review.
I can't make a judgement on substream - it looks fairly professional, so it wouldn't be shocking for it to be a good source.
nj.com looks promising as a general source, as a newspaper
The others probably are not so good.
Next up is how to judge a specific source
Rule out everything where there aren't at least three paragraphs that are not quotes or indirect quotes "He said this" etc.
That should give a general filtering of sources and get you on your way. WP:THREE is a good method, but I'd suggest 4 best sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your response and sorry to hear about your unsuccessful house-hunt!

In response to your suggestion, I have a few things that I think meet the criteria. Would you mind checking them out and letting me know your take?


https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2014/jan/29/spotify-how-a-busy-songwriter-youve-never-heard-of-makes-it-work-for-him

https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/64j5w6/this-genius-lunatic-has-recorded-16000-songs-about-everything-from-poop-to-ellen-degeneres-57a20695e161b8df3e7c0dae

https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/streaming-music-cheat-codes.html

https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/work-from-home-spotify-itunes-amazon-music-alexa.html

http://hollywoodinvestigator.com/2011/motern.html

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/08/26/casey-toomey-songs-papa-razzi/

https://www.wshu.org/post/digital-savvy-earns-money-new-england-musician#stream/

I'm finding some difficulty meeting the exact requirements, mainly because Matt Farley is so open to interviews that whenever people contact him he's willing to respond for articles. I hope that at least three of these are acceptable! Thank you again for your help. TownesVP (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Hey nosebagbear, I was wondering if you saw this update? Thanks again! TownesVP (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@TownesVP: - hi, I did - the last few days my talk page has had several big things I need to look at crop up, and I've not felt in a position to tackle them. I don't have much to do over the weekend, so hopefully will get a chance then Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, no rush! I really appreciate your help. TownesVP (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft for Pall Mall Barbers Waiting for Review: 4 monthsEdit

What happened to you? You reviewed my draft for "Richard Marshall"... suggested I do an article on the business instead of the individual (which I did)... but then just nothing in spite of multiple attempts to reach out to you regarding the article. I believe that... at this point... with sources that include direct references in People Magazine, GQ, the Daily Mail, and The Telegraph... as well as a visit from Price William of England... the article more than surpasses the "Notability" guideline... but I can't get anyone to look at it. All I got was a kneejerk rejection of my first draft. (Which I still think was questionable given the fact that this is a retail chain and you can't really treat it as if it's the house that Lincoln was born in.... You kind of have to judge it by the standards of other retailers that have also passed the Notability guideline. Even then... my article is better sourced.) Now all the sources and the writing have improved. Would you please have a look at it? Thedavidshow (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thedavidshow: - hello, I've just approved it. It is still at risk on a notability basis - in terms of articles actually talking about the barbers themselves there's a whole lot of reliable sources that are marginal on Sig Cov - a similar issue to coverage on Marshall: the writing is split between owner, business, products etc.
I felt the sourcing was deep enough to warrant letting the page patrollers and community take a look at it - it's a really good article, so it would be a shame to lose it. I guess we shall see what the thoughts are.
Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SO much! Thedavidshow (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Checking on Measures for Justice article creationEdit

I see that on January 30 2019 you removed a Requested Article idea in the Business and economics/Organizations section under M, with the note "Removal of idea - selected for work." Am I right in thinking this was the suggestion for an article on Measures for Justice? And if so, do you know when this article might be posted? Thank you so much for taking up the suggestion.

Egallo25 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Egallo25: - hi there. It's tricky for me to say - my biggest article I did in 3 days when I had nothing to do, others took a fair while. If you want to work on it then go ahead, I can always feed in any content I've made - just let me know if you move it into mainspace (article space). It can also be put back in the requested articles if you want, though if you spot someone else take it, let me know. I'll take it off if I get close to finishing my version. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thank you for the update. Since I work for the organization as a freelancer, I think I'm not supposed to create the article and that it instead should be written by an established Wikipedia editor. We're just eagerly awaiting it. If it went back into requested articles I'd worry that it would take a while for someone else to notice it, so I think it's best in your hands. Thank you!

Please comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primariesEdit

Artist pageEdit

So you are saying artists from a third world country has no chance of having wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamir.te (talkcontribs) 10:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tamir.te: - that clearly isn't what I said at all - the rules have got tougher across the board, and there are plenty of artists from 3rd world countries with articles. Wikipedia doesn't exist to demonstrate the next big thing artists - we summarise those who have already received coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black as Pitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronicles of Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Decora (Musician) Article DraftEdit

Hi,

I'm new to wikipedia. Just trying to create an article for a musician friend. This is my first one. He's an independent artist (under no music label). Currently releasing all albums through CD-Baby distribution.

You noted the article needed "A brief look-over I did 2 days ago suggested that your draft was on the brink of musical notability - if you can find that source that I asked for, that'd be great!"

I'm not sure where to grab this source you're mentioning. The closest thing is news articles mentioning the various albums he's released / worked on. There isn't much out there about his tour dates, etc.

Please assist. I'd like to get as much in order as possible for this article to launch seamlessly.

Thanks! -Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob-ALVB (talkcontribs) 15:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Rob-ALVB: - there may not be a secondary source about his international tour dates. I suggested it because I felt the current sources about his actual music weren't sufficient to demonstrate notability (just). However, an international tour is also enough to prove notability - and it only needs one secondary source to prove it's actually happening for that to be enough - but if it doesn't exist then obviously that advice isn't much use, it's just that usually an international tour picks up an independent source sooner or later. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish Hunger Strike pageEdit

Hi, you questioned the title of the Kurdish Hunger Strike page.

Could the page be called 'Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - 2019' instead?

RossPepier (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@RossPepier: that would probably make more sense Nosebagbear (talk)

Thanks. Have changed the name/moved the page. Maybe it can be approved now?? Thanks. RossPepier (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@RossPepier: - I can't speak as to when I (or another reviewer) will get a chance to review it next - as the yellow box says, we're rather snowed under atm. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: pingEdit

Re: this, replying here because I want the DRV to focus on the article and often excessive comments from the deleting admin can be distracting: I’ll explain more what I mean. We routinely work under the assumption that BLPs have no clue how Wikipedia works. This is because for most of them it is true. To what degree this matters depends on the case. If it’s a subject of a contentious article giving out their phone number on a talk page, we suppress the content on the assumption that if they knew how Wikipedia worked, they wouldn’t want it out. If there’s a DJ who wants his article up because he thinks it will bring in more business, but he’s borderline notable and it’s likely that the article is going to attract libel concerns for the next decade because he allegedly committed a crime, we assume that he doesn’t realize he’s basically inviting libel to be the first result on google, and we take the future BLP implications seriously despite the subject saying they don’t care. This case isn’t drastic as those, but it is still a concern we should keep in mind: most people don’t realize how search engines or WP work, so there is a danger in assuming they do.

That being said, the fact that the subject apparently doesn’t mind and it’s not a hugely significant issue, the concerns are much less then they would have been if we had no indication either way. It doesn’t mean that we don’t still consider them, but they are lessoned to a great extent when weighing all the factors. I hope that clarifies my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration CaseEdit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a partyEdit

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: - no problem, I was somewhat flapping about wandering what evidence I needed to put together in relation to any role I had in it! Thanks for letting me know Nosebagbear (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Navath RamakrishnanEdit

Hello,

You reviewed my article under Articles for creation banners (AFCH) and suggested some changes. Could you help me as to what exactly i need to do to get this article published. I am sorry if i am troubling you but this being my first article i am lost here.

Regards,

Krishna

Draft:Viktor YelisseyevEdit

Hi! Can you review my article and move it to the mainspace? «This page contains a translation of ru:Елисеев, Виктор Васильевич from ru.wikipedia.». Concerning notability: his books received significant critical attention in the oldest specialized newspaper - Literaturnaya Gazeta (1) and other journals: Izvestia (2), Zinziver (3), Snob ([1]) + 5, 6 and etc. Thanks! Manager1kz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Manager1kz: - I generally work my way roughly down the backlog order, and specifically don't take review requests except where I've committed to one. Most reviewers are of a similar mindset - with the backlog, we're trying to at least cover those who have been waiting more than 8 weeks.
If you absolutely need to try to get it reviewed quicker, then perhaps the Russia wikiproject's talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia might have a reviewer in its number who would be best equipped to appreciate your sourcing as well. Good luck with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pay & Allowances ...Edit

Hi, thanks for the helpful & precise suggestions.

Thereafter, I had a live-chat online, and also browsed through the talk pages of certain Editors; I found that the approach of Wikipedia is quite the opposite of what we (the Editors of International Research Journals) insist upon -- we focus on 'primary' research, precision, accuracy, Citation Index/ Impact Factor, etc; and we look up Dictionaries for the correct meaning of words & phrases, and trust Encyclopaedias as reliable sources for the accurate description of a subject/ object/ phenomenon etc. But Wikipedia follows the sole norm of multiplicity of references (whether written by Experts or not) so long as the same are independent of the subject-matter. And one Editor candidly admitted that Wikipedia is "not a reliable source".

So, I have extensively revised the above Draft-Article. Plz review the same, and do the needful. Thanks! Philhorn (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Philhorn: We actually have an explanatory supplement on how we aren't a reliable source!
"sole norm of multiplicity of references [...] so long as the same are independent of the subject-matter" is not an accurate statement - independence is only one criterion sources demonstrating notability must have.
We don't require expert sources (excepting all medical and some scientific articles), however vast numbers of sources are excluded on reliability grounds - of which not trusting the competence of the writer or the editorial review is a common basis. This aspect is somewhat irrelevant to your draft atm.
The thing that's killing your draft at this point is that all your sources are now primary (you've actually got rid of the livelaw one that wasn't primary). That needs fixing before any review could succeed.
As a side note, don't have things like "currently" "above/below" etc - wikipedia articles last years, they also can have paragraphs moved around or deleted. This means "pointer" sentences must be freestanding (e.g. say "As of May 2019") Nosebagbear (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Hi, Thanks for the Link, plz!
I came across at least one Editor who has not passed even High School -- because of Wikipedia’s Policy to appoint & promote Editors/Admins etc on the basis of number of ‘edits’ made by them, and not because he/she is a Subject-Expert or knows what ‘Research’ for a PhD-degree is.
When we rely upon primary data (e.g. original research or documents) we are referring to Facts and not Opinions; hence, 'neutrality' is automatically ensured. Moreso, we are not expressing an opinion that the subject-matter is good or bad. This Article refers to and cites primary documents, viz. Government & Court-records (with first hand Links provided to these sources). Secondly, it is the importance of the subject-matter (e.g. when a statute or court lays down a new Law or interpretation that creates a watershed between the new and the old legal thought & systems) then the change is noteworthy, i.e. 'notable'; the mere 'numbers' do not make it notable, e.g. the number of times it has been applauded or criticised by people who are not recognised Subject-Experts.
On legal subjects we always refer to proven Facts, applicable Statutory provisions and Judgments delivered by Courts -- "as is". And my Article adheres to that essential norm, plz. BTW, my Articles on Law are published on Editorial pages of leading National Dailies (English), and are read by the Legal Fraternity -- including Judges; some of the principles enunciated by me have also been incorporated in Judgments & Statutes. Best Wishes, Philhorn (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Philhorn: - while the "editcountitis" bit of admin-picking is already there, conduct is the usual killer for legitimate admin candidates. Additionally, admins (and other user-rights) almost all are either technical or behavioural oriented (rollback to aid dealing with vandal posts etc). Being a subject-matter expert would be irrelevant for all of these because it's more about ensuring guide functionality rather than creating content (which is something all users have the right to - being an admin would be irrelevant).
In response to your second paragraph, as has been said before and is clearly stated on your WP:NOTABILITY page, it's not the dictionary usage, we use it as a word to talk about sufficient coverage - in almost all cases secondary coverage. You can't dictate that your content is or is not notable by Wikipedia standards.
I have no doubt that you are a subject-matter expert, but I am endeavouring to explain the way Wikipedia looks at these things. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: - Thanks! I was trying to explore & understand the overall and in-depth working of Wikipedia -- not merely about the publication of one particular Article on its website -- because I had sensed certain systemic errors in its workings; my discussions with you and other Editors confirm that some of these Issues are already known to the Editors, Admins etc -- but they implicitly accept the system without questioning its rationality. BTW, I have added more "secondary" sources to my Article; a similar Article is already live on the website of one of the Co-Founders of Wikipedia. Best Wishes! Philhorn (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard HaineEdit

Would you please look at the talk page of that article and see if you have suggestions on my formatting question? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 19:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen - no immediate thoughts, I don't use the short form referencing style, so I don't have any experience with it Nosebagbear (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I was able to fix it. One of the books had a second author. Phew!   Thank you Thanks for thinking on it. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 20:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MS-13Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MS-13. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Nosebagbear,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Please helpEdit

Hello Nosebagbear;

I am responding to clarify that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I am submitting this article a fan/friend of the directors work and contributions. Also, I am sorry for the multiple edits as I have had some difficulty correcting this submission to properly submit it. Can you please help me do what is necessary to approve this. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroxuf (talkcontribs)

WESEdit

Good to meet at the WES LSE event. Andrew D. (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: - and you! Had a look at your userpage post-event and realised I missed a chance to talk about article creation. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In the last week, I've created: Beach cleaning; Davies White; Elizabeth Georgeson; Harold George Jerrard; Mordaunt Cohen; Political Achievements of the Earl of Dalkeith. I now realise that that's not quite one a day so I should increase my pace to match the prodigious Jess Wade. So, while I'm in this mood, it's still a good time to discuss article creation. What's on your mind? Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration CaseEdit

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

you havent seen anythingEdit

unless you have seen {{welcome-menu}} JarrahTree 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: - I feel that I'm missing a joke (unless this is just a very specific wiki-advertising piece), but can't remember what it was in reference for - apologies for any humour foiled. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- the sheer volume of links via that template outdoes any concern about links -(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UniKoln&oldid=898561534) -I dont think many people take much notice of guidelines anymore never apologise - see my user page on that - we all are terribly serious here... JarrahTree 00:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more questions about the future RTAEdit

Hello Nose. I want to thank you for giving good advice at the optional poll. That was incredibly helpful. I just want to ask you some things: Was my conduct with Cassianto harassment? I was just trying to give friendly advice about his civility. And: other than AFD, what should I do to better increase my chances in the future. I feel like the poll just stated the obvious: You don't have a chance, it said. I said that I didn't on my request. And if any talk page stalkers happen to come by, I don't plan to apply for adminship right now. The absolute minimum time I will try and apply is two years from now. Your help will be very greatly appreciated. Thanks! The Duke 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Duke of Nonsense: - Giving "friendly advice" is like writing a rude sign that says "polite notice" - you can't just say it is. Instead, if you must give advice, do so in a form that makes its readers think it's friendly.
Your way of doing so was poor, at best, for several reasons. One big one is that you commented multiple times, doing so multiple times is at best "not friendly" and is easily POINTy. Additionally, chastising another user when you only recently came off a block for a major rules violation is inherently dubious. At a bare minimum, when asked to leave someone's talk page alone, do so.
AfD is some general advice I gave just because Cassianto had already pointed out the killer ones - given a need to demonstrate good behaviour for so long, your priority is "be nice and polite" - there's no point targeting holes in your experience at this stage, better to focus on what you enjoy and can be a productive contributor towards.
Thanks for the response. Looking back at it, my conduct was quite poor. Though Cassianto telling me to "piss off" didn't help either, but that doesn't excuse my conduct. So @Cassianto: (Last ping I promise) I apologise for my frequent ventures to your talk page. I should of just left you alone. A man in a glass house shouldn't throw stones, as they say. I hope all is forgiven. I will now over these next two years and above, improving my conduct, writing good articles. And finally writing that featured list and good article I've been meaning of doing. I hope you both have a good day, Cass, and Nose. Thanks for the comments. It made me realise that my conduct wasn't right. Thanks once again. The Duke 19:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for this so I'll make this my only comment: I told you to "piss off" as you were openly warring with me on my own talk page. I think you got off pretty lightly. CassiantoTalk 20:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rotimi SegunEdit

 

Hello, Nosebagbear. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rotimi Segun".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ping failedEdit

I'm sure AGK is watching that page, but heads up - your ping here failed because you didn't sign your message. SQLQuery me! 22:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: - much obliged - not a great page to forget on! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

VadéEdit

Hello! Thank you for your comment regarding my article. The TV competition the band won has its own Wiki page: Sing: Ultimate A Cappella In light of this, I would have thought that the winners of the competition would be deemed as notable enough to also have their own page. As someone who followed the show closely, I would be happy to expand on the current stub making mention of competition winners, Vadé. Acappella queen (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Heal (Sacred Reich album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chronicles of Chaos
Still Ignorant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chronicles of Chaos

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft: EmsisoftEdit

Hi Nosebagbear! I created an article for Emsisoft, but it was declined. You included the note, "I should note to future reviewers that I specifically opted to decline rather delete, despite its multiple prior deletions, due to the reduction in promotional nature."

Full disclosure that I work as the Marketing Manager for Emsisoft, but beyond just marketing work, I believe the company meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines -- Emsisoft has been around for 15 years, partners with international organizations such as No More Ransom, regularly discovers and releases free decryption tools used the world over and even recently got acknowledged by Europol EC3. Our CTO was recently profiled by the BBC.

I'm more than happy to follow any recommendations to improve the objectivity and non-promotional tone of the article. Would appreciate your feedback to help us improve. Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emsisoft --Kitohree (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black Hebrew IsraelitesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nosebagbear".