User talk:Gigs/Archive 16

Gigs, You've accused me of copyright infringement for using elements I've written for clients' websites. I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of copyright infringement on my own articles as I was an official for those companies. Can you help me understand this better? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoddrash (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It may not be legal copyright infringement if you own the copyright to the work, but we can't accept submissions that include copyrighted material that was published elsewhere without obtaining a release from the copyright holder. Note that the companies involved (and not you) may be the sole holder of copyright if you were their employee when you created the work originally. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. You may want to also review the guidelines at WP:Conflict of interest. Gigs (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, many thanks for reviewing my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network.

However I'm unsure that the two comments you have left me are correct; I believe the article addresses them. One of your comments state that 'None of the sources added provide independent, significant, coverage.' However the article has referenced many independent significant sources. For example there are references from newpaper articles (The Guardian and The MJ), a collection of Journals from the University of Birmingham, UK Parliament publications and much more. These sources are independent (they are not linked at all with the organisation), and siginificant (for example how is a reference to the organisation from a UK Parliament Publication not significant).

Secondly you have left the comment 'If you submit the same article at AfC again without seriously addressing the issues raised by the reviewers, the article may be deleted permanently or you may be blocked for disruptive behavior. Every AfC submission requires reviewer effort, and repeatedly submitting nearly the same article is wasting everyone's time.' Each time I have submitted the article I have made numerous changes, this can be viewed through the article creation history. As stated in the above paragraph, I believe that these issues have been addressed through the changes.

Could you please explain how the sources are not independent and significant and what sort of sources are you looking for to meet this criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajidimond (talk • contribs) 10:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You aren't addressing the fundamental reasons the article keeps getting rejected. The Guardian article is written by "James Maker, policy officer for the District Councils Network", who is not an independent source. It is also not a regular Guardian article, it's published through a program that allows submitted content. It's more like a press release than an actual article. The MJ article probably does qualify as actual coverage, but it is on a very niche site, and that's just one article. We are looking for fully independent, significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On 16 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerard Fowke, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Gerard Fowke spent much of his life studying ancient burial mounds, trying to prove the existence of a civilization that predated what we currently understand to be the Native Americans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gerard Fowke. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Dear Gigs, thank you for your kind and encouraging recent remarks. I need a bit of this encouragement because of my total lack of experience in writing encyclopedia contributions; 350 Publications over decades of my professional life don't help much. You have guided me step by step, and I should have more courage now to continue, since I had more "firsts" in my life. But because of growing difficulties in reading small prints and in dealing with the computer (I still can write in "Word"), I have asked Anita Schwartz for help; she was my assistant over decades, when I was a professor at the University of Delaware. I am happy that she still can work with me to put my work into the proper form for submission to Wikipedia. Sincerely Karl W. Böer — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlBoer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

at WT:COI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to that article. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Gigs: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you were hasty in moving my page creation. It should be the "R51" as that is what is written on the side of the pistol. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going by the one source we have right now. Probably best to wait for Remington's official press release before moving it again. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's noble, but it's going to go back. There are more than one press releases now. Please change it back. --Winged Brick (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I moved it myself. --Winged Brick (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, yesterday those sources didn't exist, only TFB and sites reblogging TFB. Now that we have more sources saying no dash, it looks like it may have been an error on TFB's fault. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Several sources also spell John Pedersen's name incorrectly. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Remember The 13th at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure it was your intention to withdraw this DYK nomination before I marked it as such. If instead you still want to give it a go, let me know and I'll give it another look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Gigs, I asked Orlady to take a look at this nomination after your most recent post, and she has responded. Please let us know what you want to do at this point. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at my work on this article later on (I have a COI). I submitted it to AfC with a COI back in September '12. It was accepted, but is more representative of my work back then. Almost a year and a half later, the company asked about updating it and agreed to also make it more neutral and perhaps pursue GA. Actually I'm really happy to be circling back to a lot of mediocre work I did over a year ago and bring it up to code.

Anyways, I thought of you because it is a small software company similar to Crashplan, which I also brought up to GA after a decent (not awful, but not quite impeccable) first draft effort. I'm just doing research now, so it will be a while before I have a first-draft to offer. Let me know if you have time to take a look later. CorporateM (Talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you have something I can look at. I have a new baby and not much time for WP right now. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Act-On/Archives/2014#Improvement or if you are not available, just let me know. Thanks in advance if you do have time. Because the current article that I wrote in 2012 is already well-developed, I know it will be difficult to compare the proposed draft with the current article. At the same time, it is not practical for me to point out edits one at-a-time. Let me know if there's any better, more practical way for me to make it easier to review. It should get more vetting in the GA process as well if (*crosses fingers) I get a good reviewer. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good step, thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gigs! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

On 5 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jens Hoyer Hansen, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that there were actually 40 variants of the "One Ring" designed by Jens Hoyer Hansen for use in shooting The Lord of the Rings films? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Panam2014 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have closed it. It may not be the closure that you had hoped for, but I think in the long run, the root issues need to be addressed, and putting it under a new name won't solve them. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,
Please note that the article survived deletion less than a week ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013). The reason of this AfD nomination was the claim of it being WP:FORK but it apparently proved wrong eventually. Do you think it should be merged or nominated again? Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as the closer on the AfD said, there needs to be a high level consensus about our coverage of these events. I don't believe a simple move will fully solve the issue. As the AfD closure indicated, we need to come up with a more comprehensive consensus on the issue, taking all of our articles on the subject into account, avoiding redundancy between articles, and avoiding having articles that are effectively POV forks. I do not think it should be nominated again for AfD right away. Please work with other editors regarding removing the redundancy between this article and the other similar articles. In the end, you may find that there is nothing distinct left in this article that can't be covered in other articles. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the advice of the closing editor Scottywong and tried to ask RoySmith for recommendations on how to improve the article, but the latter hinted that they don't have an answer for the issue (see here). I honestly don't know what to do, because most editors there who opposed the article as a whole from the beginning don't seem to have clear arguments, since some voted for the article to be deleted, but at the same time they wanted it to be renamed before it's gone. So if you have any suggestions or solutions at hand i would be more than glad to consider them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say that part of the problem is that people aren't asking the right questions. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and some resident users like Panam2014 here for example, sound eager to move the article to a different title no matter what, with unclear motivations and with no willingness to discuss seriously . Other users keep saying that the article is full of "wrong information" and that it is "unneutral", on the pretext that i'm doing most of the work in it. And when i ask them to specify the reasons for which they are dissatisfied, they appear to be unwilling to clarify and they keep insisting on only one thing: the article should be deleted but renamed at the same time. So i really don't know with whom i should discuss the issues you and Scottywong hinted at, and if the article is to be re-nominated, it would probably be over void discussions (again) with no clear arguments. What do you think i should do to get over this as soon as possible and to start editing with no similar disturbance? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see your side of it, but on the other side, your position is in the minority as it does seem that a great many editors have concerns about the article, nebulous as they might be. You seem like a reasonable person, so I encourage you to try to take the lead in developing a consensus that everyone can live with. Ultimately that's what consensus means here on WP, that it's an outcome pretty much everyone is willing to go along with, even if it wasn't their exact preferred outcome. That isn't always possible because some people will "fight to the death", but it's the goal we should be aiming for. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a POV title. Can you move to June-July 2013 Egyptian protest ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

See my comment to Fitzcarmalan above. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to your decision yet, but i will add that a user and his sockpuppet both participated and were both blocked indefinitely from editing also because of their baseless POV-pushing. (see here) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't think that materially affected the outcome. I mostly considered the policy strength of each side's arguments, but of course I did give the numbers on each side consideration as well. It was for much the same reason I concluded "no consensus to move" to the "riot" name that I concluded "consensus to move" on the "protest" name, in that both "riot" and "revolution" do not enjoy very widespread use as a direct description of the subject matter in the sources provided by the RfC participants to support their arguments which revolved around WP:COMMONNAME for the most part. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, hope you're well. I'm reaching out to you since you previously helped me out with the Backend as a service article, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to help with another tech/telecom article: Time-Division Long-Term Evolution. I'm currently working on behalf of Qualcomm to update this article, which suffers from a number of issues, as I've detailed over on the article Talk page. You can find my proposed, new draft of the article in my userspace. If you have time, do you think you'd be willing to take a look and, if my draft looks okay, move it over, replacing the current article? Any questions or comments, I'm all ears! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, i need a help as i am not an administrator, the discussion of the Title for the article of "Islamist_unrest_in_Egypt_(2013–present)" is still open since dec. 2013, How to close this discussion with a decision?. the discussion is open since December 2013. you can check the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamist_unrest_in_Egypt_(2013%E2%80%93present)#Title_2 ). I can see that only one member who is against the change of the article title, while remaining editors are in favor of the change. what should we do then?, thanks 20:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have recused myself from administrative-type actions in that topic area, so that I can act as a more direct facilitator of the discussions. Gigs (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Andri Kuawko is another sockpuppet of Hans Franssen. Thought i should let you know. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your comment. I spent a lot of time on the page and saying stop wasting our time when you don't have a clue about Sara Jay, her awards or accomplishments was quite rude. I didn't know Wikipedia was us against them. Ilovepitts (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

While you have spent a lot of time working on a page for someone who clearly isn't notable, we've had to spend a lot of time deleting it over and over and over. And now we have to investigate your sockpuppeteering. Gigs (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true unfortunately and I ask for an apology. Why is everyone so mean around here. You seem to care less about the actual article than causing problems. Have you actually read anything in the article or are you a porn hater?Ilovepitts (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got nothing against that field of endeavor. You may want to review the information on WP:COI as well if you have business or personal associations with the entertainers you are editing about. Having a conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem in itself, after all most experts do have some kind of conflict, but it's something that you should disclose. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sir, thank you much for your Review. Would you be so kind to give me some recomendations on how I can improve that article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Add_Grup

P.S.: After reviewing it several times again, I've noticed some mistakes, my bad, I'll try to fix them ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Shimanovsky (talk • contribs)

I have been trying since many months to submit a page on Mr.Sanjay Matai on Wikipedia. But the same is being repeatedly declined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sanjay_Matai

I am sorry but I don't understand the problem. Broadly, it seems that Wikipedia has two issues - Notability and Neutrality.

As regards Notability, a) two large and independent publishers viz. Network 18 Publications Pvt. Ltd. (a part of CNBC TV18 Group) and Atlantic Publishers have published four books of Sanjay Matai b) two large and independent newspapers viz. Financial Times and DNA have carried his interview c) two large and independent companies viz. Indiainfoline and FLAME have reviewed two of Mr. Sanjay's books. d) many large stores like Amazon, Flipkart, Crossword etc. sell his books I have given all these references. And these prove that Mr. Sanjay is a notable author. I don't think anything more is required to prove his Notability.

As regards Neutrality, please understand that I am not a writer. I am just a reader who likes Mr. Sanjay Matai's books. I have not used any adjectives or superlatives to promote him. I have merely tried my best to state facts... that Mr. Sanjay Matai is an author; that he has published four books; that he has written many articles for moneycontrol.com; that his articles have appeared in many publications. All these are plain and simple facts. There is nothing to praise Sanjay Matai. Despite this, if you feel that wordings are not meeting Wikipedia's policies, my sincere request would be that you kindly edit the page as per your standards. I have tried my best to be neutral, but as I mentioned earlier, I am not a writer. So please edit this page and accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkarna (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

India info online owns FLAME and is affiliated with Network 18 in that they are fixed deposit managers for Network 18, and Sanjay Matai also is a writer for IIFL. This means that none of the sources are neutral since all are affiliated with the author. We require sources that are independent of the subject, not affiliated with them. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I have a few articles where I have a COI and have had a heck of a time finding an editor to stick around to consider my corrections and whatnot and I was wondering if you had the time/interest to help.

For example, it took me two months to get someone to make a couple minor corrections on a BLP page on Beverly Perdue and now I'm searching for a willing editor again for a couple minor corrections (see here) I am helping out her biographer on a pro bono basis and whether I have a COI is debateable, but I'm playing it safe.

If you follow that link, there are a couple items that I think are cited to an op-ed. They are written by Bob Geary who Google says is their "opinion columnist" however the article appears to be in the News rather than Opinion section, so the correction is a bit more complicated than I originally believed. Since we have a better source for at least some of it and it is a BLP and the rest is a very bold claim, I would think we would play it safe, but if not, I would respect your opinion in whatever direction you take it. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW - I just realized you were previously involved in the McKinsey & Company page here regarding the controversy around a survey they did about healthcare and I realized I should have notified you that I was active on the Talk page again. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you on behalf of the Global H2O team! We will work to improve our link issues, reflist, etc. Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.157.232 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding FanDraft to Category:Stubs. However, next time, try to find a more appropriate stub category to place it in. Thanks! Clone200 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The AFCH script put it into category stubs, and doesn't let you select a stub category, apparently. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I never noticed that it did that. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This is the link of the article you have declined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/List_of_songs_about_or_referencing_Syd_Barrett
In order to try to let both of us to understand where exactly the issues are localized I have to ask you some questions. Firstly I suggest to see as comparison the other similar article List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley, which I have used as example, but just trying to have an article with much more complete information.
I may agree in several things you have observed, though I can also guess (and I hope) those are due to all apparences, but I will discuss with you about that afterward, since I prefer to begin with the part that I don't agree with you:
You say: "If we were to take this as a list, there'd need to be more concrete criteria, to avoid proliferation of entries that anyone anywhere thought might be a reference to Syd." The criterias I've used for the list are concrete where in the column "Notes" it's written "About", "Ref." or "Mentioning": I've used plenty of concrete citations for that (I hope you have verified them... they are not "opinions of the cited author"). The exception could be the first 2 and the last 2 entries, though it's explained in the coulumn "Notes", but please tell me: the issue is only about these 4 entries?
Well, now the part I can agree better, and that one that perhaps may let think that the criterias are "speculative", "not dry enough", and with "a little too much flowery prose":
Please tell me, the issue is localized mainly in the introductory part of the article?
I've thought to introduce what the topic "Syd Barrett" is about and I think that to understand I'm not speculating it's enough to link to the articles Syd Barrett (for the first part of the introduction) and Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) (for the second part). Even there a bit of "prose" is used, since all the topic is a very deep "artistic" issue (by the way, I've borrowed the sentence "screed against music business" from the article Symphonic rock, in the section Pink Floyd). Perhaps I have exaggerated in the very last part of the introduction ("The following list testifies..."), but it was because the topic about Syd may appear too negative otherwise (I also used the example of the Elvis Presley article which ended with the sentence "...went on to explain, in detail, why Presley was given the title of Rock King").
For now I think it's enough if you would reply to the two questions above, thank you.

P.S. It would be better if all the issue was due to the part where I say:
"On the other hand, some of the large number of songwriters who claim to have strong influences from Syd Barrett could have included some unclaimed reference about him in their songs..."
Though it may be considered just an overall reflection/observaton we could easily discuss and agree about how to modify or remove it.

It was a borderline decline. I think you are looking at the article as a finished product too much. Keep in mind that people are going to be editing it. You won't own it, and you can't just revert everyone who adds extremely speculative references to the list, unless the criteria are more clear. I've seen a lot of lists like this get very ugly over the years as every kiddie adds their own pet theory to it. That was my main fear with regard to it as a list article, and I don't think it would be a situation you'd be happy with either, which will lead to conflicts down the road. If you do only one thing, I'd write a very clear inclusion criteria section to avoid problems later. If you did that I could probably approve it. I'd like it if you tightened up a little of the flowery prose as well, but I don't see that as the main issue. Gigs (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again,
Is it possible to revive our discussion over there? I've been dealing with other topics around here in the last few weeks, so I didn't dedicate enough attention to the article. Personally, I'm not glad with the change because the current name is too generic, doesn't reflect the seriousness of the events and is also inaccurate, since there were almost equally large protests on July 3. However, I'm willing to accept a compromise like June 30 Uprising for the moment. I know what you might be thinking but it is more precise than 'June 2013' because the date itself (June 30) is symbolic now and can refer to the whole events with many news articles now saying "Since June 30, the country has been.." or other similar phrasing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't overly worry about the name, you still have a redirect from June 30 Revolution pointing there. I still get the slight feeling that it amounts to some level of POV fork, so I think you could consider it a victory, even if it is a mixed victory. I am disappointed that a more unified and neutral strategy to cover these events did not emerge from the discussions, but that is a lot to hope for in such a contentious topic area.

Reopening the discussions toward a unified and neutral coverage of the events will inevitably lead to more compromise on your part, and require compromise on the part of the editors opposed to you. If that is a road you are willing to go down, and you think that other editors may actually compromise, then we can reopen discussions. Otherwise we may need to leave well enough alone. In time, and with historical perspective, once emotions have waned, it may become easier to develop a more neutral coverage strategy. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft page. I would appreciate some help if you could point me in the right direction to improving my article so it could be accepted in the future. The page is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maciek_Pysz

I have had it declined twice and I really would like to meet Wikipedia standards for both referencing and notability for Musicians.

1. Referencing:

I have used reliable sources, the most important of which is All About Jazz where a review of the subject appears. All About Jazz is a respected online jazz magazine with serious reviewers. All about Jazz has a page in Wikipedia.

My other sources are all reliable online publications which are not blogs or connected to the subject. These include London Jazz News and Jazzwise, both if which are very well respected in the UK.

All of the sources refer to the subject as being notable - he would not get a review in them unless his album met a high standard.

One critic wrote of him:

"This is an album that announces a major new presence on the jazz guitar scene."

All of these sources are verifiable. and I thought I had referenced them correctly in my draft. I would appreciate your help in improving my draft.

2. Notability:

I studied the Notability (music) criteria very carefully. My subject has released two albums on a major UK jazz record label - 33Jazz. His trio comprises two notable musicians, Asaf Sirkis (who is in Wikipedia already ) and Yuri Goloubev, who is a world class bass player who appears on the German label ACT. Both of these artists appear on major European labels - ACT and Edition Records.

Please can you tell me whether it is the wording of my draft that does not sufficiently indicate notability. I really would like to know how I can improve my draft.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards

Marycjames (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Marycjames

I have commented on the article page itself. I think it is on the borderline, and if you can rewrite the article to emphasize the things that make the artist notable, and maybe find one or two good sources, it should be ready for publication. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, much appreciated! With regard to the reviews I have quoted, they are independent as they are not blogs. I will certainly try to find some other reviews, but they may be in Polish. Would reviews in Polish be acceptable ?

Marycjames (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

Yes, Polish sources would be fine. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I have added a couple more substantive references and revised the text to emphasize his notability, and submitted it for review again. Thanks for your help.

Marycjames (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

Thank you very much for approving my page. I have fixed the broken ref and added a couple of links from other pages - from Asaf Sirkis and from Aar Maanta's Songs from the Diaspora so I think it is not orphaned any longer, at least I don't think it is. Thanks for your help and advice.

Marycjames (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

Hello, There is a message at the top of the article saying "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted." But I cannot see what the problem is so I cannot fix them. I notice that User:BG19bot has also added a comment. Again, I do not know what to do. Please could you point me in the right directon? Thank you.

Marycjames (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Marycjames

I have suggested the article be deleted, because it is not the subject of multiple reliable sources, the sources do not treat it as an independent subject from the product it is a component of (Snapdragon (system on chip)), and per WP:ORGVANITY (disclosure I wrote that essay). Also, most of the content is WP:NOT a product guide, specifications sheet, crystal ball, original research, etc. Another editor feels the article should be kept, because they attest it is useful. User:Atama has suggested we trim out some of the unsuitable content and see what's left.

Anyways, I think the discussion has taken its course and what is needed is some bold editing, whether that bold editing is an AfD nom, or trimming the unsuitable content, or something else. I thought I would see if you have time to take a look and do... whatever you feel is best. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Roxannequintl (talk · contribs)
  • Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Roxannequintl (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi JoeDecker, I made the changes you requested...totally made sense. Please let me know if you think we are good to go. Many thanks, Roxanne Roxannequintl (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have approved it with some additional revisions. Gigs (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gigs,

Good Morning. Thank you so much for reviewing the article and your suggestions are really valuable to improve the article.

In the column "Activities" according to the source statistics i have taken the matter and kept it as it is, as you told it might lead to the copyright infringment, i removed it and i rephrased the entire column. I checked the article again, except that column, other columns i used my own sentences didn't copy from the sources.

I really don't have any intension to advertise the school as it is a very old school and which is really promoting the dying art forms in India, i though it sould go in wiki so that people should know that there are some orgnaisations which are really working for the sake of traditional art forms with out expecting much from the others.

I completely accpet the suggestions which u have provided and did changes, please have a look in to that and please let me know how to go about that. All the sources which i have gathered are reliable only as per my knowledge.

Thank you once again

Have a great day ahead.

thanks & regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gigs,

Good Morning. Thank You so much for publishing the Article and made me to contribute to wiki.

Thanks & Regards Anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjali Reddy J (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Talk:Badoo.
Message added 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

user:Sphilbrick helped out in reviewing the "Research and publishing" section of this article and said he was all peetered out for now. user:Edge3 has helped out a lot on this article, but hasn't been on/active much as of late. North8000 has helped on this article a bit, but has since been banned. user:Cullen328 has also chipped in recently, on the Consulting services section and a few other places I think, but was unresponsive to my recent ping. So I thought since you chipped in on this article in the past, I might ping you again to see if you had some time to take a look at some cleanup requests here once/after giving user:My2011 (who added some of the content I am suggesting be deleted) has a chance to respond. CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You closed a discussion here with "Bulk changes of articles should cease". I have ceased, but the other fellow has not. What do I do now? Narrow Feint (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI and show them the consensus. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Turn about and 2 weeks has passed. oops. You closed the discussion, so do I take it that you agree that there is a consensus? That there is no need for UK? And that all changes should stop? Narrow Feint (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Our long standing practice and our bot policy dictate that mass systematic changes, whether done by a computer or a person, require a strong consensus. My finding in that closure was that there is not consensus for mass changes at that time. If nothing has changed, then no editor should be going through doing mass systematic changes. Gigs (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK I will put together a list of articles with recent changes and make a post at ANI. Narrow Feint (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very pleased with your closing of the discussion at Template talk:Cite doi. You summarized everything that was said very well and I feel that you have reflected the discussion in your closing comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It really was the sort of RfC we should be having more often. A lot of nuanced, good arguments based on not just policy and consensus, but the spirit behind them. Doesn't make the closer's job very easy, but it's far better then a bunch of pile-ons. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Four months ago you gave me a kind support about my article, as you can see in the bottom of my talk page. Actually I lost the will to continue to work on that. I'm sorry I'm replying after 4 months. Fortunately, now I've hastily added a line about the "inclusion criteria" and removed 11 artists from the list (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/List_of_songs_about_or_referencing_Syd_Barrett). Although I still think it is good to list quite well-known "properly released" songs, I hope that for now it is enough. --PCMorphy72 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have approved it with your changes. Please keep an eye on the article to prevent every random youtube person from adding their cover versions of Syd songs. Gigs (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do. I have an idea to add brief list of those Amazon/iTunes entries in the section ==Songs from the internet==, as you can see in the bottom of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PCMorphy72/List_of_songs_about_or_referencing_Syd_Barrett. I could state a limit in a "sample" of such songs of the past, like 10 songs or so... however, I can always edit the article in my user page :-)--PCMorphy72 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Can you close the request  ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've recused myself from administrative actions in the topic area of Libya's civil unrest so that I can get involved in the conversations as a mostly-neutral mediator. Because of this I won't close the RM. I did however put in a vote of support for it, which should help the closer when you find one. Feel free to invite my comment on any ongoing debates in this topic area. Gigs (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gigs. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pit Bull, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Onefireuser (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

Just in the spirit of trying to understand your view, what forum do you believe is most appropriate when an editor is using his user page to accuse a few specific editors of "politically motivated censorship" ()? To be clear, had the MFD continued with today's change I would have withdrawn my support for deletion.

Note that this editor has been accusing me of harassment at every turn since I asked him - I thought quite politely - if he minded changing his unusual habit of putting his signature in the middle of his talk page posts instead of at the end, which I find makes it much harder to work out who posted. At that time my only other interaction with him in many years was the SPI, where you'll note I expressed concern but did not call for an immediate block. So I tend to disregard those accusations. Thanks, Kahastok talk 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just drop it. And yes, that essay might apply to Discasto as well. Gigs (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Gigs, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! WCMemail 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, OK, Thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

An accident, please forget it. WCM_email 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Hi, I'm wondering why you chose to decline Draft:MAias Alyamani based on failure to show notability. It was published anyway and promptly proposed for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAias Alyamani, where I came across it. You can see my comments there, along with all the links from the draft. Why you think the article does not show notability? —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I left an explanation when I declined. I'll copy it here. "Event listings are not a reliable source for biographical claims the way you have used them. There are several broken reference links and also references that do not seem to mention the subject at all. It just does not appear that the subject is going to be notable under our standards." Merely having a long list of links in a citation section does not satisfy notability. The citations that I reviewed appeared to be event listings, and things like links to youtube, which do nothing to bolster notability. Notability requires that the subject has been written about in a non-mechanical way, by independent third parties.

The first three citations on the current mainspace article are of this nature (not independent or mere event listings) and do not help establish notability. The final citation may help establish notability, but I can't read it. It really should have probably been deleted at AfD, it is surprising that it was kept. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the two highbeam sources that are linked in the AfD. They need to be added to the article and do help to establish notability. I suggest you integrate those sources so that it is not nominated again. With those two sources, it does tip it from delete toward keep. Gigs (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for your intuitive comments at the electronic cigarette talk page! QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Do you remember this? If so, this nomination at MfD might merit a look. Or not. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)