User talk:Worldbruce/Archive 3

Thank you for your help!

Hello Worldbruce! I recently received your note on disclosing COIs. I am new to the practice of editing Wikipedia articles and did not realize I had to disclose COIs before editing articles. I have made the necessary changes, and I welcome any additional feedback you might have. There is certainly a chance that I may have still missed something! All the best, Auwsf1.Auwsf1 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

coming relatively soon, perhaps next month

• User:Lingzhi/sandbox.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I look forward to it. At one point I contemplated doing what you're doing, even starting collecting sources, but the massiveness of the task and the prospect of high drama put me off. It was a relief when you started requesting articles at WP:RX. Keep up the good work! --Worldbruce (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. There's maybe a week's worth of solid work left, give or take a day or two. Not sure how quickly it might go. I'm gonna take 2 or perhaps 3 week break soon, too. There's a slim chance I may finish before then, I dunno. But eventually, not too long from now I'm gonna do 3 things: 1) try to get a topnotch copy edit. I have 2 or 3 possible copy editors in mind. 2) MILHIST A-class review. 3) Look out FAC, here we come. When the public stages of all this happen, it would be nice to have as many "calm voices of reason" on hand as possible. I tend to have a (relatively) short fuse. I would be grateful if you'd keep the mainspace article on your watch list and keep an eye on it for the move from sandbox and later stages.... Thanks again.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I am going on vacation for 2 or 3 weeks. If you're interested in helping with the homestretch, I hereby give User:Worldbruce permission to add content to the lower sections of the article that are far less finished than others. You can tell which ones I mean by eyeballing them, but also I put a bullet point with the name/link of the articles I intend to use to fill out that section. The "Relief efforts" and/or "Long-term effects" might perhaps be relatively easier; the "Mortality" and "Price controls" might be considerably more challenging. And if you don't wanna do anything at all, that's OK too of course. Either way is OK, and I thank you for your kind words above again.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 00:24:28, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lynnanchio

• Lynnanchio (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Crescendo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Crescendo! - Thank you, this is a good explanation about the page!

Lynnanchio (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:26:36, 11 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rishi193

• Rishi193 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Devi (1985 Novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 'Devi' is a 'Tatsama' word derived from Sanskrit and later taken up in Bengali language. Proper pronunciation is Devi instead of Debi. I find this name correct as there are other pages in Wikipedia meaning the same.

2. I don't understand how the genre can be sourced if not declared by the author himself. The word 'psychological' is my guess, but how can I supply source? I find many other Wikipedia pages describing same without source.

3. 'traces in Ali's next novel' means 'Nisithini' is the second part of 'Devi', although not officially declared by the author. Rishi193 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Rishi193 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rishi193:

(1) It may be surprising, but Wikipedia doesn't consider a word's origin or pronunciation when choosing an article title. Instead, policy is to use the name that is most commonly used, "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Debi is used most commonly for the novel.

Debi or Devi in sources

Debi: "Bad girls and middle-class morality". Forum. The Daily Star. May 2007. "Humayun's Debi staged at Shilpakala". Holiday. 2 March 2012. "Tribute". Star Life Style. The Daily Star. 13 November 2012. "That Intoxicating fragrance". The Daily Star. 20 May 2014. "The man told us our own tales". The Daily Star. 19 July 2014. "The Essential Humayun Ahmed". The Daily Star. 24 July 2014. "Best of Humayun Ahmed". The Daily Star. 25 July 2014. "In remembrance of Humayun Ahmed". The Daily Star. 13 November 2015. "Joya to produce Humayun's 'Debi'". The Asian Age. 20 June 2016. "Debi and the Gulshan attack: Controversies continue". Dhaka Tribune. 30 August 2016. "I'm ready to apologize if it's proved that my film's story is a copy: Sekhar Das". The Times of India. 30 August 2016. "Debi's plagiarism might affect Indo-Bangla ties, fears Joya Ahsan". The Times of India. 17 September 2016. Devi: "Humayun Ahmed's 'Devi' to be filmed in government sponsor". Daily Sun. 17 June 2016. "Humayun's Novel Copied by Indian Filmmaker: Shaon to visit Kolkata to protest". New Age. 31 August 2016. "Legal notice to be sent over 'Ekti Rahassayo Galpo' controversy: Shaon". Ittefaq. 31 August 2016. "Government sponsors Humayun Ahmed's Devi". The Daily Star. 25 June 2016.

The fact that Wikipedia transliterates the Bengali word দেবী as Devi (1960 film) carries some weight, but note that it is Debi within Humayun Ahmed. I think the consensus of experienced editors would be that the article should be titled Debi (novel), with a redirect from the less common alternative spelling Devi (novel), so that whichever name readers search by, they end up at the article.

(2) Identifying reliable sources is the guideline to follow. In the case of genre, if a scholarly source is not available (for example a book from a university press or article in an academic journal, by a professor of literature), then the next best source would be an article in a reputable newspaper or magazine, written by someone with some credibility on the matter, such as the paper's book critic, theater critic, movie critic, or perhaps a respected author of fiction. Citing one source is sufficient so long as it is representative of the rest. The key is to show that the information comes from a reliable source, and is not just a wikipedian's opinion.

(3) "Considered the second part of" is much clearer than "has its traces in". The word "traces" is vague, it could mean the author explores the same themes, or sets the story in the same locale, or uses a similar meter in his dialog, or just about anything. Traces of Debi are presumably found in every other Misir Ali novel, if only because they contain a character by the same name.

"Considered the second part of" raises some questions, though. Does that mean Debi is incomplete, that it doesn't stand on its own without part two? If you mean that each is a work complete in itself, but that Nishithini continues the narrative of Debi, then use the word "sequel". More important is the question "considered by whom?" If it's obvious to anyone reading both - because they contain the same characters, the second picks up the action where the first left off, the second refers back to events that happened in the first, etc. - then drop the qualification "considered" and perhaps state what it is that makes it obvious that it is a sequel. Otherwise cite a reliable source.

Stepping back a bit, think about whether Nishithini should be mentioned in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important facts about the topic, points discussed at greater length in the body of the article. The fact that Debi is the debut novel of the character Misir Ali is important because he's one of the two characters that Humayun Ahmed is best known for, but is Nishithini that important to Debi? It isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Contrast the draft with The Mysterious Affair at Styles (not the best example, as that article is of only middling quality, but it's the first one that came to mind - browse through featured articles for better examples). It's lead mentions that it introduced the character Hercule Poirot, but it makes no mention of the second Poirot book, The Murder on the Links. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for more explanation. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

18:08:04, 18 February 2017 review of submission by Lynnanchio

• Lynnanchio (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Crescendo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

YOU DELETED OUR PAGE WITHOUT REASON OR TELLING US WHY! I was trying to create an extra page, which you thought was unnotable. BUT, you deleted our ORIGINAL PAGE which as been up there for over 15 years!!!! This is very irritating and frustrating, please put the page BACK!!! You did not notify me of why you were doing this, and your reasons are not acceptable.

I am trying to find out why a page was deleted, and your site is very very confusing.

Northamerica 1000 deleted this page, I can find no explanation as to why: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Artists_Records&oldid=765045322

How do I get it undeleted? It should not have been deleted

This is what needs to be UNDONE:

10:43, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-66)‎ . . International Artists ‎ (→‎top: -

For the classical record label, see International Artists Records.

. Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records) (current)

10:43, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . List of record labels: I–Q ‎ (- * International Artists Records. Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records) 10:42, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Draft:Crescendo! ‎ (Removing link(s) to "International Artists Records": Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records. (TW)) (current) 10:42, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Handbell ‎ (Removing link(s) to "International Artists Records": Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records. (TW)) (current) 10:42, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-68)‎ . . God Bless the Red Krayola and All Who Sail With It ‎ (Removing link(s) to "International Artists Records": Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records. (TW)) (current) 10:42, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Daniels Recital Hall ‎ (Removing link(s) to "International Artists Records": Article deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records. (TW)) (current) 10:41, 12 February 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,613)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records ‎ (Closing debate, result was delete) (current)

Lynn Andersen International Artists Records/International Artists Foundation.

Hi Lynn. Wikipedia certainly can be confusing, irritating, and frustrating. I will try to clarify.

When I read International Artists Records, I determined that the topic did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, that it could not be improved to meet those criteria, and that it could not be merged or redirected to another existing article. Consequently I nominated it for deletion on 5 February 2017.

I apologize that you were not notified. I thought you had been notified as the article creator, but it seems that although you were a very early editor, the article was actually created by user Emarka, so they were the one to receive the notification on their talk page. Such notification is a courtesy, not a requirement. Being the owner of the company does not entitle you to any notification regarding the article. Editors and companies do not own articles. Notification was also made to editors who monitor articles for deletion, and to those who monitor WikiProjects related to companies, music, and New York.

Over the subsequent week, three independent, highly experienced editors examined the nomination and all endorsed deletion. On 12 February administrator North America assessed the consensus of the discussion and deleted the article. The discussion documents these steps, with the closing summary at the top, my nomination beneath the article title, and the recommendations of the other editors in the bullet points below.

You may be unhappy with the decision, but there was a reason for the page to be deleted and their was consensus for the action. I did not perform the actual deletion and cannot restore it. I see that you have asked for undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. They will not restore it to article space, but may give you a copy to work on in your sandbox.

The following may help you better understand how Wikipedia works and what your options are:

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion - especially the section "Can I recreate an article that was deleted in the past?"
• Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion - an essay
• Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! - another essay
• Wikipedia:Notability - the core guideline for inclusion
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - the guideline specifically for companies
• WP:BFAQ#COMPANY - advice for company owners
• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - policy for company owners

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn. Companies do not have a right for there to be a Wikipedia article about them, any more than they are entitled to an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:03:48, 22 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 216.104.200.54

• 216.104.200.54 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Amini Cishugi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes, I understand the point, he wrote and still wrote on wattpad, and I linked all his books publish outside wattpad. He appears in some news paper like karibu, I read about him in 2014. I could give you his own website but it's the one who manager it, reason I give you external reference links to his work done.

216.104.200.54 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Worldbruce,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your faith merits you an indulgence.

The Plenary Indulgence

Thank you for supporting my candidacy to run NPP. I found your support for me against of field of well-qualified Wikipedians meaningful. Although I did not win the consensus of the aggregate I hope you find that your faith in me was not misplaced. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your help at Resource Request--you and all your colleagues. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions requested

Hi Sir (Worldbruce) Thank you for the suggestions on the page I was creating. Please, when you find time can you give me more suggestions on my page Dr Suresh David. I am trying to learn. Sorry for the trouble. Thank You Regards Yourgirl (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Maritz, LLC article

Hello! On behalf of Maritz, LLC, I am trying to update the company's article. I have added an edit request here and posted requests for help at WikiProject Companies, the Articles for Creation help desk, WikiProject United States, and the talk pages of a few individual editors, but so far no one has responded to the edit request to add a corporate overview section and information about Maritz's current and former subsidiaries.

I've proposed text for the article here. I realize this request is a proposed article expansion, and not an Articles for Creation submission, but this major addition to the article is similar to an Articles for Creation review, so I am reaching out to a few Articles for Creation participants, such as yourself, to see if someone can review the proposed addition for accuracy and neutrality. Is this something you'd willing to help with? If you are not interested, that's alright, I am just not sure where else to ask for help for the edit request I submitted over a month ago. Thanks for considering. MadisonfromStanding (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestions sir

Thank you once again for the help sir, waiting for your suggestions sir on the page I am creating. Yourgirl (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

heads-up: I mentioned you

I mentioned you here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

New deletion/redirect discussion of Washiqur Rahman created

New discussion of Washiqur Rahman created. I had to revert your edit so i could add the afd template, you can add to the discussion. Please don't redirect until discussion is over.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of page

Dear sr. wikipedian, I have improved the page of Chand Mia with due references. He was awarded as Bir Protik for the contribution of Bangladesh freedom struggle. The link also connected with the page of Bir Protik in Wikipedia. It is my earnest request to reconsider the deletion proposal. thank you. Pinakpani (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pinakpani: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. The specific criteria for soldiers says they are notable if they were awarded their nation's highest award for valour (such as the Bir Sreshtho) or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Bir Uttom) multiple times. Being awarded the Bir Protik is not enough to make someone notable, although such a person may be notable for another reason, such as becoming a highly respected academic or going into national politics after their military service.

Chand Mia should be remembered for his brave service, but not in Wikipedia, which is not a memorial site. If you wish to write about him, I suggest you do so at an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria, such as FamilySearch or WikiTree.

A final note on sources: The Daffodil International University forums are not a reliable source because they are user-generated. Liberation War (https://sites.google.com/site/bdliberationwar1971/) is self-published, so it is not a reliable source either. Neither should be used as a reference on Wikipedia. Amardesh Online and Prothom Alo are good sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, We are continiously trying to supply good references for the article. thank you. Pinakpani (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Blanking sourced content in Directorate General of Forces Intelligence article

A few weeks ago another anonymous editor blanked out part of the section titled 'Controversies' regarding a Bangladeshi who had worked for RAW saying that the section included incorrect information. I reverted the change explaining appropriate policy. The section was again removed. Not wanting to get into an edit war, I backed off and asked for help. I must have put my request in the wrong place because I did not get any responses. Should I be bold and re-enter the fray by reverting the blanking? I found multiple sources for this incident including the newspaper article that was used originally. Thank you for your thoughts on this.Bobdog54 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bobdog54: I noticed the repeated blanking of the Malik section, and the weak justification given. I didn't do anything about it for several reasons. The section was originally inserted by a sockpuppet, the cited source does't say Malik was a DGFI agent so there's no clear reason for covering it in the DGFI article, and the whole story seemed a bit sensationalistic and speculative. In contrast, the section I restored is supported by an article by David Bergman (journalist), who one might term the Seymour Hersh of reporting on Bangladesh.

If the other sources you've found make the Malik story more coherent, credible, and most importantly, relevant to the DGFI article, then you would be within bounds to restore the Malik section. Add citations to the other sources, put a note on the talk page justifying the inclusion of the content, and link to that in your edit summary to demonstrate that you tried to initiate a discussion with ShahadatBD. Whatever you decide, it's nice to have another person copy editing, source checking, and watching Bangladesh-related articles! --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply. I will do some research and see what I find. I will admit to taking the news articles at face value, not being in a position to be able to see other interpretations.

It is my pleasure to edit articles from Southeast Asia. I enjoy it and I feel strongly about making sure that the articles are as "clean and tidy" as possible. Bobdog54 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Worldbruce. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.—usernamekiran(talk) 02:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Proposed deletion of International Scholarships Non-profit Organization

Hi Worldbruce,

I have removed your proposal for deletion of International Scholarships Non-Profit Organization because the sources are authentic. Bangladeshism, Byapon & Maasranga Television have interviewed the founder however Byapon's link was provided only to refer the founder's section. Bangladeshism has more reliability than Byapon does as Bangladeshism works with Bangladesh Govt. and is a sister concern to NahidRains Production which is also working with Bangladesh Govt. while Byapon is a private company journal platform. Maasranga Television's video was uploaded by a random YouTuber which was provided as reference because Maasranga don't publish their recorded version of shows. The Founder was their invited to discuss how he came up with this nonprofit organization and what he sees in front of him. The video was recorded from the middle of the show T for Teen in Maasranga therefore, you haven't seen the host questioning the founder about what he was saying. Also the nature of the show is that people coming to it speak alone and they are not questioned during recording. You wrote in the end, self promotion is not notability. I also believe the same! And this article has more than one reliable sources, so it is not in the pattern of self-promotion. Teri maki —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Public universities of Bangladesh

Hello Worldbruce. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Public universities of Bangladesh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A redirect would be optimum... Thank you. Winged Blades ^Godric 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Why You Rejected my Editing on Bangladesh Chatra League article? is it false that they aren't involved this kind of crime? if you want to see source, I would like to give you Afrosa Anam (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Afrosa Anam. All articles must be verifiable, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. This is part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia: neutral point of view.

You are welcome to expand Bangladesh Chhatra League, but content you add must cite reliable published sources (see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how). Here are some suggested sources to get you started:

• Rashiduzzaman, M. (March 1972). "Leadership, Organization, Strategies and Tactics of the Bangla Desh Movement". Asian Survey. 12 (3): 185–200. JSTOR 2642872.
• Khan, Zillur R. (March 1976). "Leadership, Parties and Politics in Bangladesh". The Western Political Quarterly. 29 (1): 102–125. JSTOR 447587.
• Dube, Siddharth (8 November 1996). "Bangladesh's Students More Interested in Politics Than Studies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
• Dube, Siddharth (8 November 1996). "Political Violence Plagues Colleges in Bangladesh". The Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
• "Country of Origin Information Report: Bangladesh" (PDF). Home Office: Border & Immigration Agency. 31 August 2007.
• "Country Information and Guidance: Bangladesh: Opposition to the government" (PDF). Home Office. February 2015.
• Ahmad, Mumtaz; Nelson, Matthew J. (April 2009). "Islamic Education in Bangladesh and Pakistan: Trends in Tertiary Institutions". Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research. ISBN 978-1-939131-01-0 – via Project Muse. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
• Islam, Md Saidul (March 2011). ""Minority Islam" in Muslim Majority Bangladesh: The Violent Road to a New Brand of Secularism". Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. 31 (1): 125–141. doi:10.1080/13602004.2011.556893.
• Islam, Md Saidul (2011). "Trampling Democracy: Islamism, Violent Secularism, and Human Rights Violations in Bangladesh". Muslim World Journal of Human Rights. 8 (1). doi:10.2202/1554-4419.1184.

If there are any of these that you can't get freely online or through a library, Wikipedia Resource Request can help you get access. If English is not your first language, consider contributing to another language version of Wikipedia, such as bn.wikipedia.org.--Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

14:11:20, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Bennieandthejets

Worldbruce, Thank you for your helpful responses to my questions about why my draft was deleted. I really appreciate the clear explanations. Thanks again, Bennieandthejets (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Heavy Edit on Bengal Sultanate

Hello sorry to disturb you but I just noticed your large amount of Edit on the sultanate of Bengal page and I felt that It was unnecessary due to the page containing one of the most intricate parts of Bengali History and most of the information you deleted was accurate and contained refferences I understand some of the pagss contents were unnecessary but not all such as the contents about the Culture and Foreign relations and much of the history. So can I ask you why you deleted so much of the useful contents? Ahnaf.AR.2106 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits by or on behalf of a sockpuppet evading a block may be reverted by anyone at any time without further justification. Unfortunately Bengal Sultanate was heavily edited by such sockpuppets (Akib.H, Damien2016, F2416, HistoryofBangladesh, Vaza12, etc.)

You are correct that the Bengal Sultanate is an important part of Bengali history. So it's important that Wikipedia get it right. Before deciding what to do, I spent considerable time comparing the text of the article with some of the cited sources. On a huge scale, what was claimed was not verifiable, it was not true, was cherry picked so that it wasn't the whole truth, or true elements were twisted and recombined to create original research. Whether this was intentional or merely incompetence, I don't know. Wikipedia values accuracy and usefulness, but it requires verifiability.

After much consideration I concluded that the effort required to fix the damage line by line would far exceed the effort required to begin again from a blank page - identifying reliable sources on the topic, reading them, and summarizing them. Blowing up the article and starting over was indicated. I'm still collecting reliable secondary sources, with a focus on WP:HISTRS, and would welcome any recommendations you may have regarding sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Asking for help Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Hello, Worldbruce Recently you had stated that some reference are 293 page long in the article of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Actualy, recently I gave a lot of reference on that page. So, I thought you were talking about my 17 page long reference. Maybe, my mistake, sorry for that. But if you tell me which one is 293 page long that will help me. Maybe I can fix it. If you can plz help me. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ominictionary: {{Page numbers improve}} applies to any citation of a book that refers to a range of more than two pages. Ranges of three or five pages are a minor problem, but wider or open ended ranges are a bigger problem. If there's a reference to a 17-page-long section, that's a problem. There's a reference in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to ISBN 0-19-579300-5 that uses the range pp. 100–393. If you fix all four of the longer ranges, you're welcome to remove the maintenance template, otherwise please leave it to remind editors that the cleanup needs doing. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sam Lavelle

Could you explain how Sam Lavelle meets WP:ATHLETE, or even WP:N? I don't see it.--Otterathome (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Lavelle played (albeit only as a 93rd minute substitute) in a match on 5 August between Morecambe F.C. and Cheltenham Town F.C., which are clubs in EFL League Two, a fully professional league.[1] So unless I've missed something, he meets criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY. I don't agree with the guideline, but repeated attempts to tighten it have failed, so I put up with it and move on to more productive uses of my time. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I see, unexpected notability guideline, thanks for the frank response.--Otterathome (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ingram article

I've read the article you've sent me about Ingram--thanks for doing that. I am not sure how to use it to be honest. There isn't much there.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback re COI

Hello, how do I report a COI exactly? Can you help me find a fair editor for my AfC request? The first four were biased and could not read, quote, or interpret wiki policy in proper detail!! :x Skinduptruk (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Skinduptruk: There isn't exactly one way to declare a COI. I recommend starting by placing on User:Skinduptruk a statement such as:

I am Kurt Pudniks. I have a conflict of interest with regard to the autobiography Draft:Kurt Pudniks. I am aware of the applicable policies and guidelines, and will abide by them. I submitted the draft through articles for creation in accordance with WP:COIEDIT. I understand that I do not own it and it may be edited mercilessly. If it is published, I will propose any changes via its talk page rather than editing it directly.

Aim for simplicity, clarity, and transparency. Your goal with the declaration is to acknowledge that you have a COI, briefly explain its nature, convince people that you know what you're getting into, and reassure everyone that you will always put the encyclopedia's interests above your own. It might help to also say something about why you're here, such as "I am Kurt Pudniks. My primary interests are physics, Tokelau, and Medieval legal history." That's up to you.

I have added {{connected contributor}} to the talk page of the draft, and will update it to point to your declaration when you've made it.

In any thread in which you talk about your autobiograhy, disclose your COI (which may be done by linking to your user page declaration). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At last a reply that makes sense! Sounds good, will do as you suggest. Thanks for the link to connected contributor. btw what do you think about the first two editor's draft rejections and the comments by Newyorkactuary? Skinduptruk (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the draft closely, but will do so when I have time, perhaps on Monday or Tuesday if another volunteer doesn't get to it first. It will be evaluated on its own merits. Reviewing other reviews would not be productive. Huon, Primefac, and NewYorkActuary have extensive experience in article creation and deletion. Any editor can make a mistake, but if they've offered you advice about the draft, then odds are it's sound advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I get the feeling they are experienced. But they would just launch into obscure assertions & assumptions eg. show us 3x "non-political" news items. Or that Mr. Pyne is biased "because he endorsed you". I'm like well he said that based off his opinion. Then Huon said "Trump fact checks are news". Bizzare stuff I'm afraid :/ Your replies are infinity times more sensible and coherent so I look forward to your review against wiki policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES from memory)... did you get a chance to look? ;) Skinduptruk (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for the Book Week scans. I know they're a pain in the ass to retrieve, so I especially appreciate your time. czar 03:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you forgot...

...to sign your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Gallery. Great list of references, though! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Thanks, that's what I get for editing while tired. That discussion could use more voices, but there's a lot to wade through, which no doubt puts people off. The nominator doesn't appear to have a good grasp of notability. Their first and only nomination, it appears to be tit-for-tat for the principal author's nomination of the nominator's favorite primary school (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenealy School). --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We all make mistakes sometimes; earlier today I added references to a previously-unreferenced article and completely forgot to add a references section so they would show up. (Fortunately I caught the mistake before anyone else.) Thank you for the additional context regarding the Lamont Gallery AfD. I'll check out the other AfD, too. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Gérard Pince draft page

Thank you very much , worldbruce. I have submitted a new page in following your advices. Could you tell me how to improve it? Best --Regulussimo (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! For your help with Category:Redirects from ISO 4! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Kazi Nazrul Islam

@Worldbruce:Hi! I myself was thinking about removing the 'indian' from Kazi Nazrul Islam's Wikipedia page's nationality section , but it seems that a certain ip address did just that. I do have proof that dual citizenship isn't allowed for Indian citizens and what he did was justified. Here's the link : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_nationality_law. I honestly have read this so many times that I memorized it. Do read the "Renunciation and termination of Indian citizenship" part. And Correct me if I'm wrong. DarkSpartan (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Kazi Nazrul Islam

@Worldbruce: I forgot to mention some things. I'm having some problems determining if accepting a Government Invitation would grant one citizenship of that country. I assumed that it would be just that. I don't mean to be rude, but I want Wikipedia articles to be as accurate as possible and to have neutral point of view. As of now, I've done no edits to that article whatsoever. I'm not blaming you for anything. Like I said, Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a wikipedian just starting out(New). DarkSpartan (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have questions about dual citizenship, consider asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any such question. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away.

The subject came up in connection with Kazi Nazrul Islam in a very limited way. Obviously he was not a life-long Bangladeshi because Bangladesh didn't exist for ninety-plus percent of his life. An IP editor changed the infobox to show only one nationality, Bangladeshi. In an edit summary I asked them why - did they think having multiple nationalities would confuse readers by making it appear that he was a dual national? If that was their objection, then instead of removing one nationality, a better course of action would be to add parenthetical dates after each nationality, showing that he didn't become a Bangladeshi until the year of his death. Communicating all of that in a 255-character edit summary is difficult and I seem to have failed, as the IP editor responded with a semi-incoherent rant about dual nationality. I don't consider the infobox change important enough to be worth pursing the matter. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lives of Children

	The Ortega y Gasset Barnstar
	God's work is retrieving some dusty tome of a noncurrent periodical from one of the few libraries that hold it, to scan for a fellow Wikipedian. Thanks again, wb. Looking forward to writing this one. czar 06:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks very much with all your help at WP:RX, it is much appreciated. I didn't reply to your email, as you said you don't monitor it, but it made me chuckle. I hope your patched-corduroy knees didn't get too dusty!!! Thanks again! — fortunavelut luna 15:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ToCs

For Bevan and Davis. I am fairly confident that both would support the content, but it is no longer a problem, and I would need too much of the content to be sure. Much as I would like to read both of these books, I think that it is out of scope at this point. Maybe one day I will get hold of one of them and write something more detailed about the history of diving, but that is not urgent. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For some helpful suggestions re 'Walter Hoyle'. WIREeditor (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

House of Borgia

Hello. Do you want DNA testing?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatta Toro (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Gatta Toro. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end; this will automatically insert your username and the date when you save your edit.

There are two concepts in play with regard to the list in question, verifiability and notability. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable, in other words attributable to reliable, published sources. Readers must be able to check that it is not just made up. A DNA test is not a published source. One example of a published source would be a book. An example of a reliable published source would be a book written by an acknowledged expert in the field and issued by a publisher with an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking. See Referencing for beginners for how to cite your sources.

To include a name in a list on Wikipedia, it must be verifiable that it fits the specific inclusion criteria of the list, but being verifiable is not sufficient. For most lists, including this one, the person must also be notable, in other words someone who should be included in a general purpose encyclopedia. Wikipedia evaluates a person's notability based on the extent of coverage of that person in independent, reliable, published sources. Novice editors are often advised to cite at least three such sources to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested article for Alertus Technologies

Thank you for your help on submitting my request! Will let you know if I have any questions. Lizzirees (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Declare Any Connection

"Hello Jeremydandrus17. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Draft:Olson Communications Inc., and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jeremydandrus17. The template

can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:

. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)"

Wordbruce,

I am not directly or indirectly compensated by the company that I have created a page for. I have worked with them before, and I thought that there is nothing wrong on helping out a good business.

Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jeremydandrus17: Per WP:MULTI, please make your statement on your talk page, in section User_talk:Jeremydandrus17#Declare any connection, rather than spreading the topic over multiple talk pages. No one else will see it here. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Karachi

Hey, do you happen to know why my expansion of the population table in the Demographics section of Karachi's page isn't showing up? It only shows up the the 1998 Census. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: It isn't a vanilla table but an instance of {{Karachi Historical Population}}, so you'll have to add a "2017" parameter (or co-opt the 2011 one) to the template in order to get the corresponding value to display in the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Do I then have to add the source seperately on Karachi's article? If it's possible for you to fix that, that'd be great. Otherwise, I can do it later. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct, the source cited in the infobox for the latest population should be cited again in the footnote field of the Karachi Historical Population template. I don't see any purpose to the NPR citation, so you could replace that one. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I just tried messing around with the template and couldn't get it to work, so someone else more literate than me in editing will have to do this. I tried changing the year on the template, but it didn't do anything on the actual page of the article. Anyway, the citation for the Census number is already there in the infobox and such, so it'd be rather easy once someone can fix the template. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at the template, and it now ends with the 2017 number. The change from 1998 to 2011 and 2011 to 2017 needs some explanation, but others can take it from here. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but 2011 wasn't a Census year, so it doesn't even belong in the template. Karachi hasn't lost population; that number was a pretty shakey projection, and not even from a statistics agency in the country. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

How would I removed 2011 from the template? I've tried twice, but failed each time. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That isn't something I'm comfortable assisting you with. I suggest you open a discussion at Talk:Karachi. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was neither a census nor an estimate from the country's statistical agency, so it was never a reputable/serious estimate. Especially now that we have an actual Census number, 2011 needs to go. It usurps that number, anyway. Otherwise, you get a ridiculous population table that shows that city having lost population, which is simply not the case. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nickname

Hello, I'm Fisherman13 (talk). I noticed that you recently removed 'Nickname' at North South University in the infobox without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherman13 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fisherman13: 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 and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

There are two obvious problems with "NSUer":

1. It cites no source. All articles must be verifiable, citing reliable, authoritative sources. Editors' personal knowledge does not belong. Searches of www.northsouth.edu for the term NSUer returns no results. Searching Google for the term returns no reliable sources.
2. It appears to confuse a demonym (what one calls a person who attends NSU) with the institution's sports team name. From the source of Template:Infobox university, one can see that "nickname" is shorthand for "athletics_nickname" or "sports_nickname". Template:Infobox university/doc explains the correct use of the field. As an example, the demonym for Princeton University is Princetonian, but the athletic nickname is Tigers. There is no evidence that NSU has a sports nickname.

--Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 at WP:PR

Bengal famine of 1943 at WP:PR  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Raine Study

I didn't even need to go to the second page of googling...Naraht (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking your opinion

Hello, There is discussion about using Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Urdu name in the talk page of the article . If you have any opinion you can give it there. Plz visit the [talk page if you have any opinion about this matter Ominictionary (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I monitor status of request?

I signed up for Newspapers.com access on 24 October, but I don't know what happens next. Will someone contact me? Do I have do monitor my application?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I don't know. Signups were different when I had newspapers.com access. I've used the new "library card" signup procedure for Questia, but that was long enough ago that I don't remember the details. I think I received an email about two weeks later directly from Questia, but the mechanics may be different for each partner. The library card page for newspaper.com shows a pie-wedge of pending applications, so everything may be on track, but I don't know whether you should expect more information on-wiki, via email, or through your newspapers.com account. Cameron11598 is listed on that page as the "processor" of applications, so they would be the best person to ask. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Phill! I've been backlogged with finals so I haven't been as diligent as I should have been on Requests. I'll get yours done today. Typically after the library card application notifies you of your status as "sent to partner" it is usually 24 to 72 hours turn around. Log in to your newspapers.com account and you should be up with an account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: ping --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: (and sorry for intruding Worldbruce ) I got the email today announcing acceptance, and it said to watch for a followup email. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Be courteous

'Does not meet WP:NACTOR. His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career does not meet WP:AUTHOR.'

I agree, and yet this is true about many active listings at Wiki that have not been deleted because the person has little or no notability. Reviewers should be more thorough in their vetting.

Your comment is also paraphrased into your own opinion ('His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career...' ). I have not been able to find any rejection criteria in the Help pages phrased quite this way. Not necessarily admirable qualities for an unbiased review. It comes across as some petty judgement on your behalf.

It would be more courteous and intelligent to stick by the printed rules and perhaps include a link in order to educate those people who may be new to contributing to and navigating the site. It is sufficient enough to reiterate the guidelines without reducing yourself to petty insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cesarromero: Worldbruce isn't responsible for every poor article that's made it through our review and patrol processes. Cf. WP:OSE. His comment was in his own words because our guidelines don't address your draft specifically; rather, he analyzed our guidelines as they applied to your draft. It is not evidence of bias, and your assertion that his review to you is discourteous, unintelligent, a "petty judgement," and insulting is both delusional and disruptive. You clearly are not here to learn how to contribute; rather, you have pursued in dramatic form a POINTY campaign of dishonest cleanup tagging and personal harassment in the wake of your draft's rejection. (See here for your admission of intent.) If you keep this up, you will likely find yourself blocked. See WP:NOTHERE. Rebbing 02:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rebbing: You seem rather emotionally involved in this. There you go again with the name calling: ('is both delusional and disruptive.') instead of just taking a neutral, or mature, stance by simply clarifying and helping with links to pages that would further educate a contributor. To quote from your own page: 'I should be reminded every day of Miss O'Connor's advice: "You can be so absolutely honest and so absolutely wrong at the same time that I think it is better to be a combination of cautious and polite.' Cesarromero (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cesarromero: You have never identified the active listings you're alluding to, but looking at some of the articles you have edited recently, Erika Anderson was created in 2005, years before the Articles for creation (AfC) process was instituted, so no reviewer ever vetted it. AfC is a highly recommended, but entirely optional path. The creators of Caitlin Dulany, Howard Fine, Larry Moss (acting coach), and Scott Plank chose to create those articles directly in mainspace, so again, no reviewer ever vetted them. In other cases you may be right that reviewers should be more thorough.

I haven't examined the aforementioned articles closely so I can't say whether they should be deleted, but we delete over 100 a day. Editors are well aware that some articles need to be deleted, and we do what we can as an all-volunteer workforce. Proper due-diligence before proposing deletion usually takes at least an hour, requires an examination of the article's history, may require the repair of dead links, and often requires a trip to a major library to search off-line sources and those not indexed by search engines. Deletion is different from AfC in that the burden is on the deleter to show that a topic is not notable, whereas the burden is on the creator of a draft to demonstrate to reviewers that the topic is notable and should be published to mainspace.

AfC is a way for newcomers to draw on the experience of old hands. Reviewers exercise their best judgement and offer expert opinions. After another reviewer declined Draft:Mark Durbin for failing to show the subject's notability, you wrote, "I'm not quite sure why this was declined." Kvng and JSFarman both explained why, to which you replied "I'm still slightly confused" and submitted the draft for another review. To try to help you understand, I went into more detail in answer to your question and in declining the draft than is contained in a boilerplate response.

I'm glad you agree with the comment I left on your talk page regarding the draft. Durbin had roughly a dozen single-episode credits over a 25-year career. One of the sources you cited described him as a "slash-actor", with the emphasis on all the jobs he'd had before the slash, like dockworker/actor. From these I get "occasional". The WP:NACTOR guideline refers to "significant roles". By significant it means roles like Frasier on Frasier, not lesser parts in single episodes of Frasier. From this I get not significant, or "insignificant". "Bit-parts" comes straight from another of the sources you cited. You presented no evidence that anyone had written about his writing, which would be necessary to pass WP:AUTHOR. You cited only two columns he had written, which in my book is "limited". Summing up what the sources say as "occasional insignificant bit-parts and a limited writing career" is no insult. It is not anything for Durbin to be ashamed of, but it is not sufficient to justify a biography in an encyclopedia.

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. Also note that it is customary to indent your reply one level further than what you're replying to, an effect achieved by starting with one more colon (:) than the previous post. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Worldbruce: Thank you. Now that was informative and helpful. Cesarromero (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Bierbrier, Morris. "The Descendants of Theodora Comnena of Trebizond". The Genealogist

Hi WB. Excuse me for the nuisance, but I was wondering whether you could re-send the material I requested here? For some really odd reason, I can't find it back anymore in my files nor mailbox. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: sent. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Splendid. Thanks alot, including for being so extremely fast (!). Lucky I am indeed (referring to your email). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the JMR article

Hi Worldbruce, thanks a lot for your response to my question about the Journal of Magnetic Resonance article. I'll take a look at the pages you suggested and see if I can improve it. Thanks for the help.--SciFive (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Worldbruce. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected casualties with three citations in Bengal famine of 1943

I have corrected casualties with three citations in Bengal famine of 1943 SpidErxD (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	thank you for your advice Hustle7 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You helped me once about article thank you! But it wasn't enough can you please help me again

Hello Worldbruce I want to thank you by helping me trying to put active article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saint_Joanikije_Devi%C4%8Dki). But sadly the men who should approve it did not again, said that sources you sent me was not reliable. I do not understand what source he wants now? I have putted every single source you sent me as an answer and plus we have you further reading and still isn't enough. Can you help somehow to fix that, and change mind of this stubborn man about my article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semantron (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Ejembi John Onah

User: Worldbruce, thanks so much for the great work you have done on the draft:Ejembi John Onah, I am already taking care of the issues raised, you really did a great work Ejembi12 (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Worldbruce, once more thanks for the great work on the above article. The article has been corrected to take care of all your observations; all body text now have verifiable secondary sources: On the subject being a recipient of a prestigious international academic award by KAAD foundation; https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAAD, it was confirmed by Dr. Marko Kuhn-Head KAAD http://www.kaad.de/en/kaad/mitarbeitende/ that the subject had the award between March 1996 and October 1997. Dr. Marko Kuhn further stated that such award list was not published by any such academic agency as protected by law. As you know; notability academia has 9 criteria in which an article can establish only one to be notable. Since the subject is a recipient of a prestigious academic award on a stand alone proofs notability academics among others fulfilling 1-8 criteria on notability including professor test not notable professor test as outlined by wiki policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), please shift the article to the main article space, thanks. Ejembi12 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce, I got message from you

Hi Worldbruce, I got a message from you asking if I am getting paid to write a Wikipedia page. I am not how do I declare that? Thanks, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dquintero2017 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dquintero2017: In general, reply to a posting wherever that posting is, not somewhere else. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Disclose your conflict of interest (COI) in three places:

1. On your user page.
2. On the talk page of any topic you edit with a COI, i.e. Draft talk:Mike Lewis. You may use the {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}} template, whichever applies, for this purpose. If you have trouble with the syntax, someone else will do this for you after you've made your user page declaration.
3. In any discussion thread in which you talk about the topic with which you have a COI. This may be done by linking to your user page declaration.

A typical user page disclosure might be something along the lines of:

I have a conflict of interest with regard to Draft:Mike Lewis because I'm a part-time public relations and marketing intern at an organization founded by him. I am aware of the applicable policies and guidelines, and will abide by them. I submitted the draft through articles for creation in accordance with WP:COIEDIT. I understand that I do not own it and it may be edited mercilessly. If it is published, I will propose any changes via its talk page rather than editing it directly.

The actual text will of course depend on the nature of your COI. Paid interns must abide by the more stringent mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Even if an internship is unpaid, the intern is still receiving compensation in the form of services - training, work experience, network building - so paid disclosure might be judged to be required. Failing to disclose your conflict of interest gives the (hopefully false) impression that you have something to hide, and carries consequences not only within Wikipedia, but risks running afoul of U.S. Federal and California State laws regarding unfair or deceptive business practices or acts. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject specific list of AfCs needing review

Following our discussion at the Australian Wikipedians noticeboard pre-Christmas, I set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/ArticlesforReview which uses the petscan query you suggested to filter out the AfCs relevant to WikiProject Australia. When first established, we had around 40-50 AfCs in the list, which was reduced in zero in a matter of days (particular thanks to User:The Drover's Wife for a mighty effort in clearing the backlog). Together with a small number of other Australian contributors, we seem to be turning around most new items on the list in about a day or so. So, I would strongly suggest setting up similar arrangements for other active WikiProjects (I realise many are no longer active) as it really does address a major hurdle that many of us willing to do AfC reviews found too daunting in practice (that is, identifying articles that we were likely to have the expertise to review). Indeed, I think it would be good if these WikiProjects were organised as sub-categories of Pending AfC submissions, as is currently done by age Category:AfC pending submissions by age, with the necessary automation in place to keep these categorisations correct (we are doing it manually for Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/ArticlesforReview but an automated system for all active WikiProjects would be better).

The next problem we found were that there were articles about Australia in the AfC pool but not tagged as WikiProject Australia (and therefore not revealed to us by the petscan query). I spent an hour or so with AutoWikiBrowser trawling the all Pending AfC submission category for any article that contained "Australia" and then manually assessed it to see if it was "Australian" content on merely making a glancing mention of Australia (as in "The product is sold in many countries including ...., Australia, ...."), tagging the truly "Australian" articles so they would show up in our petscan search. So if the category system for WikiProjects was implemented, then presumably those AfC submissions without project tagging could go into a separate category. That would then make it efficient to run AWB over that untagged category and manually tag any AfC submissions as appropriate. Doing it over the whole set is way too time-consuming to do on a regular basis, but doing it over a much smaller set is more realistic.

An alternative approach might be to automatically tag any AfC that mentioned Australia (or whatever the relevant key words are for particular WikiProjects) as {{WikiProject Australia}} and then rely on the Australian reviewers to re-tag them if they felt they were not in the scope of that project. This might be a more effective way to deal with them (ensuring that some WikiProject has initial responsibility for the article, even if they just flip it to another more appropriate WikiProject).

By organising the AfCs by WikiProject (as outlined above), it should be possible to maintain a dashboard showing which WikiProject AfCs were backlogging enabling a call for help to go out to that WikiProject. I think that is probably more effective than the mass invitations that were recently sent out (I note I got one even though I am signed up to AfC reviewing so clearly they were pretty indiscriminate). I think people are much more likely to respond to a call in relation to their particular topic interests (it certainly worked for Australian AfCs).

Anything, just some ideas for you to help keep the AfC flood more under control. Kerry (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka

Their motivation's pretty obvious and I doubt they'll stop without a topic ban. Which will be tricky, as they'll just get another staff member to do it, and then another. Page protection? Funnily enough, my old school had a similar dislike of the gay spy John Vassall being added to the list of alumni! KJP1 (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I reported them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ITHS reported by User:Worldbruce. Perhaps a short block will wake them up to the need to work collaboratively. More likely they'll just create a new account and keep reverting. In which case they'll get blocked as sockpuppets, and will keep reverting as IPs, which will lead to escalating periods of protection, ... All very tedious. Things never end well when connected contributors create/edit an article to promote something or someone. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)