User talk:Gronk Oz/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Gronk Oz. I have thought it useful for me to update Wikipedia articles on subjects that I am researching for other purposes. I use a small subset of information I gather for Wikipedia updates and, of course, only published material can be used for the Wikipedia articles. (One can usually tell where I have been - there is typically one or two citation reference numbers at the end of each sentence.) Where I have information from unpublished sources, I do not use or reference it in a Wikipedia article.

What should one do when articles are subsequently damaged by people who don't know a subject well, use one or two references out of context to justify a position, and then doggedly re-edit an article to suit their conclusion? I don't see value in citing 30-50 published articles - resulting in a string of 30-50 superscript citation numbers - after single a word to try to demonstrate that a term I have used really is the term that was used for the item concerned. I don't really have an interest in a combative "s/he who edits last wins and proves reality." If people were interested in working collegially to identify the best way to present material, that would be good. But where they have only their own preferences and insist on that being what goes into Wikipedia, point scoring rather than good articles seems to be the objective.

Can you advise? If there is no place in Wikipedia for well-crafted, robustly-based articles, I can desist from trying to improve articles covering subjects I happen to have researched for other purposes and spend my life on more productive enterprises. Vogel Era (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating John Dwyer (medicine), Gronk Oz!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An excellent read!

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about

Winged Blades ^Godric 16:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	That's for writing such an excellent piece. Winged Blades Godric 16:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Browser hanging a little, mouse pointer at the wrong place when I clicked it... I meant to only rv the last change, deleting the "Sources" section... I'll have a look at the history & fix the rest. Sorry 'bout that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear, Philippe Ziade is a living entrepreneur and there's another Philippe Ziade on wikipedia which creating many confusion. I am an aerospace engineer and not an expert editor like you on wikipedia. I created myself the article gathering online references after watching many TV interviews featuring this guy and wanted to be my first article and learn more wikipedia tweaks to participate in other scientific articles. The intention wasnt in any way promotional and I hope you can help me creating the article in the correct wikipedia guidelines. Could you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Rawad00: I replied on the page where the question was originally asked, so that other editors can follow the whole conversation if they want to. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Gronk Oz: Thank you for your help, I tried removing many external links and added some more references, will continue on searching for more. Your contribution is mostly welcomed. User:Rawad00 (talk)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Gronk Oz, I have checked the reference pages for TWICE Magazine and they do work; would you consider this update worthy of inclusion on the Micro Center Wikipedia page? The May 22, 2017 issue of TWICE Magazine, a trade journal for the Consumer Electronics industry, lists Micro Center 9th among the top 100 U.S. consumer electronics retailers with sales of $2.493 billion - would it be possible to update the 2015 sales figure?66.194.187.100 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ^[1] 4119Leap (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)4119Leap 4119Leap (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)4119Leap (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you help me fix the South Geelong wikipedia page? The bar on the right is all screwed up and I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kualityedits (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Y Hi, @Kualityedits: How is it now? In the Infobox (that's what "the bar on the right" is called) there is a parameter called "pop_footnotes" which points to the Census Quickstats where the population figure came from. The problem was that the URL should have been within <ref> ... </ref> tags, but it wasn't. So instead of just producing a nice neat footnote, it tried to type out the whole URL in the Infobox, making it way too wide. I did a little more tidying up too while I was there, but didn't change the contents. Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the {{

Thanks for the hint, I dream of horses, but I am a bit confused - I don't remember adding {{stub}} to any articles in living memory. Did you have a particular article in mind? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

At

ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits

) @ 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Ah, I see - I don't use the "page curation bar" (I'm not even sure what that is), but that tag was added by the AWB tool. If it's not appropriate, then the issue really should be raised at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I do not know how to run that script you refer to - I clicked on the link and it talks about Javascript, which I have zero knowledge of. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On a second look, you're right. I typically don't tell AWB users to stub sort, since they probably backlog

ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits

) @ 00:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally, as volunteer editors here with many years experience, you should immediately consider changing your own approach here, and be less provocative or harsh. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest you look at the version prior to my last edit, which also has many prexisting flaws I.e. [4] I will attempt to fixes some of these problems now. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalism for other editors to revert the edit with the numerous grammatical flaws that you posted twice. Better proofreading might have avoided triggering such strong reactions. Now that you have made corrections the lead reads much better. Thanks for the fixes and explanation. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:@Hertz1888: I have made another further attempt to improve this introductory text. Mostly I attempted to remove the repetition. Could you please advise me of any significant issues or problems with these new changes via the Talkpage? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:@Hertz1888: I have just added eight suitable references into this article. Further ones are need in the main text of the document. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@

being bold and making that change, and I believe I also did the right thing by reverting it. Nevertheless, I did not mean to cause any ill feeling. The next step is to discuss the issues civilly on the Talk page. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Saying "...if you propose removing the reference to amateurs using observatories then it seems like something that should go to the Talk page and it probably should have a reference, since magazines are full of articles about amateurs who do have permanent observatories of their own and others who use shared observatory facilities through clubs" I never did this, said this, nor did I add "clubs". That was done by Hetrz1888, not me. Either state the actual 'personal bias' slight or withdraw the incorrect accusation. 'Ill feeling' and 'hurtful' are irrelevant. Stick to the actual facts, please. The only central issue for me here is avoiding

WP:GF, and you saying "personal bias" did exactly that. [Worst, this entire article is a utter mess, with few cites at all and many odd contradictions. Much of the preexisting text is already hearsay.] Arianewiki1 (talk

) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: It's my turn to admit an error - looking at the Diff, I got the orange and blue highlighting mixed up. Indeed, you added the observatory mention, not removed it. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive that mistake of mine. To move forward, I can only repeat that the proper action if your edits are reverted is to discuss the relative merits of different options on the article's Talk page. Don't start an edit war by reverting other editors' reversions. I will not take part in such an edit war. What goes into the article is not up to you and me; Wikipedia operates on a general consensus among editors. Taking it to the Talk page allows more editors to contribute their views, which produces a better article in the end result - and that's why we are here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

On 26 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Duffy (astronomer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that astronomer Alan Duffy is constructing a dark matter detector 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) underground in a gold mine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Duffy (astronomer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Duffy (astronomer)), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Make sure you check the official team name with spelling before correcting spelling. Acces Interdit is the correct spelling. Northern Championship Wrestling is a Quebec promotion. Therefor, some of the names are French based. Mr. C.C.

@

Fishhead2100: Thanks for pointing that out. I have put the other corrections back on the article NCW Tag Team Championship. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

≠== Need help for the page Half Major ==

Dear Mr Gronk Oz,

As you see,this is my first wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Major .Since I am more of a novice,thank you for correcting and helping me with the references.I have deleted the lines where citations were needed and made the information minimum.I have also corrected the links in the References section and you may see that the links are not expired.I have also added a category section. The second link is that of a bengali newspaper.The performances of this band is reported in the 2nd page of that daily.Since I am fluent in both Bengali and English I have taken references from this daily.The information is 100% genuine,assured.I have also corrected a few more things.

I am grateful for your suggestions and have tried to make it authentic as much as possible.

Thanking you, Prithwi Raj India [GOD!You actually memorised the first 71 digits of pi!!!]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithwi Raj (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prithwi Raj: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope this is the start of a long association. I have improved those two references, although I do not speak Bengali at all so I was not able to determine the title for the article in dindarpan.com, nor the name of that newspaper itself - perhaps you could fill those in?

However, there is a more important issue - Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable, independent sources have to say about the subject in extensive, in-depth coverage. So the first step before writing the article is to collect all the best references. And the problem with the

too soon for this band to have an article - it is likely that this article might be deleted unless more substantial references can be found to support it. If you want to improve the article, that should be your main focus.--Gronk Oz (talk

) 02:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

peacock words" and phrases, such as "Moreover, the phone will have..." which sounds more like advertising copy than an encyclopedia article. Finally, it would be best to stick to standard formatting for numbers, such as "20 MP" rather than "20-MP". Once you are confident that you have made the article impartial and balanced, you are welcome to remove the tag. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 11:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping @

Ernestchuajiasheng: because I got it wrong last time. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 12:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz.

I just wanted to ask a question about List of fictional crossovers regarding the Finishing story plot lines section:

In that section, it mentions that The

Cypher7850 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Cypher7850. It warms my heart to see a relatively new editor taking sources seriously. List articles often don't contain references because they would become terribly cluttered; those references are in the linked articles instead. In this case, the article on Death's Head has much of the information you mention, along with references, so there is no need to duplicate those in the List. By all means clarify the list by saying which incarnation of The Doctor is involved. Then check that the Death's Head article contains all the rest of the information you want. Hope that helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk.

Thanks for your input. I've gone ahead & made the change, along with adding the Comic & issue number that the two first met in.

Could you check if it's good enough?

Thanks again,

Cypher7850 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Y @Cypher7850: Looks good to me. Keep up the good work. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

... for copy-editing Johannes Kalitzke. Why you have to tag a new article under development, I don't know. If you feel you have to (but for whom?) take the right tag, "inline", when plenty of sources are there under External links. Articles from the German Wikipedia are typically sourced only by literature, not inline. Give me seven days please, next time, to adjust to en standards and make it ready for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:DYKRULES) --Gronk Oz (talk

) 10:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the elucidation, exactly what I needed after having written more than 200 articles this year, of which 199 appeared on DYK. - I was on vacation, on an erratic line, and interrupted before completion, and have other more important things to do right now. - You didn't answer for whom these tags are good, at all. The usual reader will see without tag that a reference section is empty, and will also see that an article is there in three other languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: We all thank you for your extensive contributions. I am sorry if adding the tag somehow offended you, but it's not a big deal: just remove it once the references are added. To answer your question, tagging the article serves at least two purposes. Firstly, it alerts a reader that the statements made in the article are not supported and so they should take care to verify the information. (I think you overestimate the lay reader's familiarity with Wikipedia's standards to assume that they would notice that references were missing.) Secondly, it adds the article to Category:Articles lacking sources and the lists of Unreferenced articles which facilitates other editors' work on addressing such problems. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not offended, just wondering why time is spent on tagging. For some reason, it happened more this year than before (pictured 1, pictured 2). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@

cn

}} tags seem valid, but quite overdone in my opinion: in the Music section there was no need to tag every instrument individually, one for the paragraph would serve the purpose.

In my own case, I often check new articles, generally using the AWB tool. Mostly it picks up typos, etc. It also automatically adds some tags, e.g. for orphan articles. And sometimes I notice other problems in the process, such as an article without references. In that case sometimes I will start the project of investigating the subject to try to find references, if the topic is of particular interest to me - otherwise I tag it if the issue is significant and move on to check the next article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave it like that. "Orphan" is another tag I always shake my head when I see it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Kalitzke --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, @Gerda Arendt: unfortunately, I don't feel I am competent to review it because the major source is in German, and I do not speak German at all. However, I do have a couple of comments to offer:

1. I am concerned that it missed the 7-day window to nominate for DYK. The article was created at 12:44 on November 15, 2017 and nominated at 20:20 on November 22, 2017.
2. It meets the size criterion now: "readable prose size" is 2144 characters, well over the threshold of 1500.
3. There are more red-links than are normally preferred. Some of these (Jeanette Chéro, Wolfgang von der Nahmer, Carla Henius, and Deutscher Musikrat) are inter-language links using the {{
   H:IW
   . Other red links (for Forum für Neue Musik. Johann-Wenzel-Stamitz-Preis, and Bernd-Alois-Zimmermann-Stipendium) should only be used for notable subjects that should exist in the English encyclopedia. I cannot comment about whether that is the case here or not, but be prepared for questions about that.
4. The second reference (moz.ac.at) looks self-published, so should only be used sparingly.
5. Earwig's Copyvio detector found 13% confidence of violation ("unlikely"), and the overlap was mostly on job titles, names of organisations, and similar appropriate uses.

Good luck with the DYK nomination! --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Should I have added FYI? I didn't expect a review ;) - If any guideline suggests to prefer a direct link to a foreign Wikipedia, it should be changed. Ask Graham87 who pointed out to me years ago how difficult that can be for a reader. Interlanguage links are great, even if no article is pending, because they show notability, and offer text in a different language clearly marked as such. I will reduce the red links by writing the articles, but don't do more than one article a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the pointer to

ill}} is the way to go. I look forward to following the progress of your DYK nomination. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 11:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz and Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the pings and the kind words. Yes, Gerda and I did indeed have a conversation about this nearly eight years ago. I'm not a fan of plain inline interwiki links in articles, but they're mentioned by the help page on this topic, so ... meh Graham87 14:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK that neither hours and minutes nor red links are part of DYK criteria? (The "newness" is a fine thing to reject an otherwise insufficient nom without much effort, but I'd grant several days of grace to a fine nom.) I think your talent and diligence could help

today's will grow. - Look at List of composers by name: a red link in another Wikipedia establishes notability enough to be included, without considering a future article in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 16:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you're right about the flexible time requirement. The first Eligibility criterion requires that "A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old", though an individual reviewer may decide to be lenient - I hope so. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

My native language is not English, but in this thread I feel it more than normally, sigh. - Did I say newness was not needed? No, I wanted to express that it isn't judged by hours and minutes. On the seventh day after "creation/expansion/move to main space" (whatever hour and minute) is enough. I have given others IAR exemption from the seven days even, but so far not needed it myself. Today, because of that limit, I will have to expand Wolfram Röhrig but that can be now or right before midnight. I'll begin now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, appeared today, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Congratulations! --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. There is a company called SnatchBot who have repeatedly tried to create a Wiki page. They've contacted me and I do believe they are noteworthy, although they might not have been at the time of their earlier attempts. If you have a moment, could you give your own opinion on this? I ask, because you were one of the people who rejected the earlier versions. These are the references they have given me:

• A mention in a book: https://www.amazon.com/Chatbots-Introduction-Easy-Guide-Making/dp/1999834801/,
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/mnewlands/2017/12/22/these-chatbot-usage-metrics-will-change-your-customer-service-strategy/,
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/business-reporter/snatchbot-future-business-communications/,
• http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=439853&ver=html5&p=12%20%E2%80%A6#{"page":12,"issue_id":439853},
• http://www.businesscomputingworld.co.uk/chatbot-trends-and-advances-for-2018/,
• https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-easiest-free-chatbot-creation-sites-594890/6/,
• https://chatbotsmagazine.com/the-future-of-chatbots-an-interview-with-avi-ben-ezra-of-snatchbot-me-aea0028a8319,
• https://chatbotsmagazine.com/five-situations-where-you-should-use-a-chatbot-5a3f97fd56da,
• https://www.facebook.com/chatbotsummit/photos/a.1871026133127309.1073741828.1836788306551092/1980067598889828/?type=3&theater

I've also posted these in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/M-S but as you are aware, such requests are not usually addressed.

For full disclosure, I acknowledge that if the SnatchBot page is created, they will pay me, so maybe I'm being biased in my examination of these sources. That's something you can take into account.

Cheers,

Jean JeanBennel (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:PAID

to be sure everything is above board.

I took a look through all the references you listed above, and the first four look pretty convincing to me. After that, the others carry less weight, being brief mentions or self-published. That doesn't mean they can't be used, but they don't count much for notability. However, it seems to meet the criteria at

WP:COMPANY

- if it came up for deletion with the references you list above, I think my vote would be to keep. Other people may feel differently.

Where you might struggle is that much of that coverage focuses on the PRODUCT, whereas this article is about the COMPANY of the same name. The company does not "inherit" notability from the product (see

WP:INHERITORG

). So in your researches, it would be good to keep in mind that you want sources that cover the company itself in depth. I also searched for any awards the company might have won, but I could not find any - if you can find independent industry awards or similar then they would also contribute to notability.

I hope this helps. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gronk Oz, I appreciate the time you spent looking into the references. For now, I'll leave it as a request for the company entry to be made and see if any kind editor will take it up. And I shall advise the company to win a few awards! Cheers JeanBennel (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for improving my article. But, I have one question for you, why my article doesn't appear on search engine? Can you help to tell me how to? Thanks in advance.

@

RezaSetiawan02: I am not clear what search engine you are using, and I really don't understand much about the details of how they work. I do know that Google, for example, often takes over a week to be updated when sites change - but I can't comment on how that compares to other search engines. You might have to contact the administrators of the specific search engine and ask them how they build their indexes. --Gronk Oz (talk

) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day @Rwood128: that's a good question. There is currently a redirect at "Sailortown" to Sailortown (Belfast), so I can't do a normal move. I'm not sure how to do that, so I have asked at the Help Desk, with this question. We should get an answer soon, but it's nearly 3am here so I might be in bed before then... --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rwood128: My pleasure - and I learned something in the process, so it's all good! --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I replied to you on my David Meade peer review. I do have a few questions for you. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

(

mad

02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I'm really sorry for asking these questions. However, I'd still wonder the remoted country Gronk is at. --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: That's good advice, thanks for pitching in. @LovelyGirl7: no harm done, but Wikipedia editors often prefer to stay anonymous. Exchanges are generally friendly and supportive, but mostly try to stay more or less on task. I may not have been very clear: I didn't go to a remote country, but to a remote area of my own country (Australia) - sorry if it was confusing. We were supposed to be having a stargazing weekend, but instead we saw lots of rain, lightning, and hail. Such is the way of life!--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Glad you did not go to North Korea (sorry if I mentioned it). I’m glad you corrected me when I mentioned remoted country/area. —LovelyGirl7 talk 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will add summaries i tried that earlier today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, Bubblesorg.

Hi Thanks for replying to my thread. I'm very new to wiki back end and it's really confusing. I'm working with Steve Hughes. He is a really good radio presenter with loads of experience and has been in a lot of movies and commercials so is a worth while actor. Sure, he isn't Brad Pitt, but I do believe he deserves his own page for the good he does in the community and his years of diverse interesting living. You mention the Articles for Consideration and Autobiography pages which I've read. Do you know of someone that could write the article on Steve to varify the facts? His IMDB page has his acting filmography, the OneFM page shows his current radio credentials (http://onefm.co.za/members/steve-hughes/). Thanks for your input and help. This stuff is hectic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebird75 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @

Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Gathering_references

.

Then, once you have the sources, you can judge whether there is enough to support the article. If so, write the article as a summary of what the sources say about him, and proceed from there following the steps in

Wikipedia:Your_first_article. And if you have questions, as you probably will, feel free to ask me or the TeaHouse.--Gronk Oz (talk

) 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate, yes, a member just trying to make sure the 59 Club page is correct. It is the oldest motorcycle club of its type in the UK and quiet famous, but the leaders are older & spend a lot of time making sure it doesn't morph into something it isn't or get used by others to promote their own tribute groups or trade on it's glory. the wiki page is something where that has happened & we want the page just to tell the story of the club for future motorcyclists without any fake news within it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverendtonup (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reverendtonup: an admirable project. If I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion, the best way to achieve that within Wikipedia is to base the article on what is published in reliable, independent sources. Even if that means that some facts which are known to the members are not included, because they are not independently verifiable. There is a problem with writing an article you're too close to, that you tend to write what you know, rather than summarizing what the sources say. To make the quickest progress, use of the Talk page associated with that article to make specific suggestions, and get input from other editors to work out the best way to incorporate those changes. (It's a pain, but it's better than having your changes reverted and it's back to the start.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks so much for the edits you made to Edward G. Stoiber!!! I used to used AWB on every article I worked on to catch things I missed, but I have a Mac now, and haven't been able to figure out how to install it (afraid to mess up my computer).... anyway... I would like to ask a favor. I worked on Ute people, making a lot of changes and adding content. It would be wonderful if you could run AWB on that article. I am happy to barter research effort, review an article, etc. in exchange.

If it doesn't work out, no worries.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, CaroleHenson. I ran AWB over the article Ute people, and it did not find any corrections - well done. I'm afraid I can't help with your Mac issue though - I have never used one so I don't know how to set it up for AWB. There are some suggestions at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Running_on_Linux_or_Mac but I see your point: they do look risky. As an alternative, I am always happy to run AWB across anything, so feel free to send me a list at any time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I'll wait til I have especially long ones like Ute people, but I greatly appreciate the offer! Let me know if I can help out somehow sometime.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: For peace of mind, I just ran AWB over the 200 articles you edited most recently; it just picked up a couple of minor things (and I'm sure they were not in your contributions anyway). --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, that was really nice of you! I really appreciate that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the comment about the links. I have now included some from Internet. Could you please take a look?--Isamares (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Isamares. You should be very happy with that article: it is looking good. I did a quick cleanup of the references and minor copy-edits. I imagine that the "comment about the links" you're asking about is the Orphan tag. If that is the case, it's not a question of working on this article itself: it is a matter of what OTHER articles link to this one. At the moment, no other articles link to Lugo's article. So if you want to tackle that, find other articles about topics where she played a significant role, and add the link to this article. You can always check by clicking "What links here" on the toolbar to the left of the article. I hope that makes sense: please let me know if there are any more questions. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the answer. Yes, I did refer to the Orphan tag. I thought a link like this would make it: https://noticiaalminuto.com/efemerides-20abr-nacio-betty-cecilia-lugo-filantropa-dedicada-al-zulia-y-confundadora-de-la-casa-de-la-misericordia/.

I also want to inform you that this page is a translation of the original page in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Cecilia_Lugo.

Would this help the page to be published?--Isamares (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: The article is already published. Now starts the ongoing process of improving it, as for every article. That reference to noticiaalminuto is fine but any number of references doesn't affect whether the article is an Orphan. It is an Orphan because there are no other Wikipedia articles which link to it. For instance, on Spanish Wikipedia there is an article about AZUPANE-Lagunillas, and that article links back to Betty Cecilia Lugo. But there is no such article on English Wikipedia that mentions her. This isn't a substantial problem, but it is good when articles are inter-linked. I have added a note to Talk:Betty Cecilia Lugo saying that this article is a translation of the Spanish article - that's a good thing to add, thanks for letting me know. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and for adding the note about the translation from Spanish. In fact, I am now translating from Spanish the article "AZUPANE-Lagunillas". According to what you wrote, once this article is published the article "Betty Cecilia Lugo" is not anymore an orphan. Am I right? --Isamares (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: As long as that article includes a link to the Lugo article, then yes - that will mean the Lugo article is not an Orphan any more. It will be rewarding moment when you get to take that Orphan flag off, because the article will be connected to another one. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for your help.--Isamares (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: My pleasure! Get back in touch if there is anything else I can help with. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Update August 2018

Hi, I am back. Since the page was considered an "orphan" I collected data to make an article that I could connected to it. Now I saw that the "orphan" notice is not there anymore. That is good. In any case I have now all data and plan to make a new page soon. I would need your cooperation in fixing references when it is published. In the same way you did the first time. That and more.--Isamares (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I just learned something. The Orphan tag is still on that page, but a recent change means that the message only displays if its date is either the current month or the previous month. Otherwise, the tag still places it on the list of orphans so editors who wish can follow up, but "the community consensus is that this issue is insufficiently critical to merit notifying general readers of the issue for more than a couple of months."

I'm glad to hear that you started your next article the right way, by collecting the sources. Let me know if you need a hand with something.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have made the page. Find it here and please take a look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZUPANE-Lagunillas--Isamares (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: - looks good! I cleaned up the references a little; I hope you don't mind. Apart from that, I just have one very minor suggestion - I notice that the capitalization is not consistent: sometimes it is "Azupane–Lagunillas", while at other times it is "AZUPANE-Lagunillas". Unless there is a reason to vary it, I think it would be best to chooose one and stick with it. But like I said, that is just a little thing, and the article looks good. The photos really lift it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all corrections. It is AZUPANE-Lagunillas. I only found it in the text in capital letters. You are welcome to correct it if I missed one. By the way, I had made that mistake in the title but someone gently corrected it and wrote AZUPANE in capital letters. I didn´t know how to do it.--Isamares (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

One more thing. I don´t know how to include "Spanish" in the languages. Could you do it for me? Remember this is a translation from the original in Spanish.--Isamares (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected link to the article:

@Isamares: - the uncapitalized version is in the article title. I notice that you have a redirect from the capitalized version, so there should not be any confusion for the reader.

I had never used an inter-language link before, and I was surprised by how easy that was to do. Just under "Languages" on the left hand side was a link to "Add links" - it popped up a window where I filled in the language code and the article. Done. And I learned something, so it's a good day. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I did no deal myself with the capitalization in the title. It was someone else. I thought that person had changed it in the page, but now I see it is not the case. I want to change the title in the page and write AZUPANE in capital letters. Is it possible? Could you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isamares (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isamares: - You're quite right, the article was originally created with capitals, and another editor changed it believing it was "correct capitalisation". To make sure everybody is agreed, I have asked for their agreement first at User_talk:Frayae#Page_AZUPANE-Lagunillas_moved_to_Azupane–Lagunillas. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The name of that school was AZUPANE-Lagunillas. If they write Azupane-Lagunillas the article is about a school that never existed. It´s simply a lie. If it could not be changed it would be better to eliminate the page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Isamares (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I just saw that the person who made the mistake restored the capital letters, thanks to your help. I appreciate it. I must say that after reading the explanation he gave about why he has changed the capital letters I was astonished. This is certainly not a reason to change the name of a page. That person obviously did not even read the article!

Thanks a lot. I am deeply grateful.--Isamares (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, @Isamares: but the job is not finished yet. The article still needs to clarify what "AZUPANE" stands for. I pinged you on that discussion with a suggestion on the other editor's Talk page at User talk:Frayae. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood. On my side I could edit the first paragraph as follows:

AZUPANE-Lagunillas (Zulia Association of Parents and Friends for Children with Special Needs-Lagunillas District) was the first school for children with learning disabilities in the western region of Zulia, Venezuela.

I guess you refer to something else, don´t you? In any case this would be the name of AZUPANE-Lagunillas in English.--Isamares (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added the expansion of the initialism to the section on The school. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I made minor changes on that and I take it for granted that the page is now OK. Tnanks for your help.--Isamares (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, unfortunately I’ve had issues continuing our discussion on the Epping discussion, as Wikipedia seems to have a glitch. Sorry for not signing my posts. You made a good statement. My main purpose was to tell you there are not enough resources to show that Sydney is part of “great western Sydney”. Your statement on the media describing the area as north west time to time is correct, however suburbs such as Hunters Hill, Wahroonga and Normanhurst to name a few, have also been stated as North-West by the media due to their geographic location from the Sydney CBD. The only source provided to state that Epping is west of some sort, is by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, which doesn’t even say its “Great Western Sydney”. I can’t find any other source to describe Epping as being in that region. The reference of Epping being considered as part of the North Shore is also seen in this documentary describing the tragedy of the Lin Family murders provided In a documentary with channel 7, on the series “Tonight”. The documentary was called “Brenda Lin: Soul Survivor. Other references are like I said, by businesses. This doesn’t make Epping part of the North Shore, however in describing the suburb on the article, it will help readers understand the confusion as Epping is the “in between” of various regions. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@HornsbyBbSyd: if you look at the article on Epping, there are two references supporting that it is in the Western region, and none for the Northern region. Nevertheless, both are mentioned in the lede.

Rather than spotting individual stories where the term has been used, it is be better to refer to use something with broader application, such as the Daily Telegraph's local paper "Northern District Times" includes Epping in the area it services.^[1] Unfortunately I can't find anything like a coverage map or a list to show how they have divided Sydney up into regions: there is just this search box. Better still would be to find a source which specifically discusses what is called by various region names. I hoped there might have been a general interest article in one of the newspapers about this, but I could not find it.

However, establishing that some people refer to it as North does not mean it isn't West. I don't have any problem with saying it is North - that is already there in the article. I just don't understand why you want to remove the reference to it being West when the position of the relevant government authorities say it is, not to mention the compass.

Of course, all this will change soon when the new Greater Sydney Region Plan is adopted - at that time Epping will be part of the dreadfully named "Central River City".^[2]

All of which brings us back to the main question: what different wording do you propose? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Please forgive me for such a late response to your last edit. I recently tumbled across this news article referring to Epping as the North Shore once again. https://www.9news.com.au/2018/08/24/06/39/epping-train-station-stabbing-police-investigation

This is another prime example of suburbs between Epping and Thornleigh being referred to as the North Shore, including surrounding suburbs such as Macquarie Park and Marsfield.

The different wording I propose would be “Epping is sometimes referred to as the North Shore” or “Epping is part of the Northern Suburbs and North Shore regions.” This could be used on suburbs that are frequently referred to as the North Shore that sit against lane Cove National Park. In particular, North Ryde, Macquarie Park, Marsfield, East Ryde, Beecroft and Pennant Hills. This would make a clearer perception for readers and researchers.

Would love to have your help, thank you.

HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz! You created a thread called Disambiguation quandry at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk ) 19:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

astronomy and scepticism

Thank you for quality articles such as Astronomical Society of Victoria, Loretta Marron and Alan Duffy (astronomer), for consolidating references, for good answers at the Teahouse, for illustrating the Aust Scep Con and honeybee on lavender, for "Human behaviour fascinates, confuses and scares me in pretty much equal degrees." - member of the Australian Computer Society, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz! You created a thread called DYK quick question at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk ) 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)