This is an archive of past discussions with User:RileyBugz. 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.

Hi, you recently rejected my article for reliable sources. Is it that the sources need to be cited differently or none of the sources I have meet Wikipedia standards? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Judy005 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Judy005 - the submission was declined because you don't have an adequate amount of reliable sources provided to verify the content you added. It means that there are key content areas that are unreferenced or poorly referenced that must be before the draft is accepted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your use of naughty language in your edit summaries is offensive to me. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bfpage: Sorry, it's just that I really dislike advertising, and I get mad when I see it on Wikipedia. Have a good day! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I really dislike advertising, too. We all leave a trail on the internet and wikipedia. You can't erase that content - employers and others can find things like that. So be careful. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, ...chill man. WP:CIVIL applies to edit summaries too and your edit here shows that you haven't yet taken Bfpage's caution to heart. Don't let impatience interfere with your track record of solid contributions to the project. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Suppose so. I'll try and fix such things. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Awakenedgroup (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Roanoke Festival in the Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Day I am trying to learn how to create a 'neutral tone' article. I presented facts and need guidance on words to use to be in compliance. I have added a newspaper citation but am not sure it is what is needed. Any help is appreciated Awakenedgroup (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awakenedgroup: This means not using pronouns like "we", "us", etc. It also means removing things that are promotional, like how the executive director isn't paid, and how things are "unique" to it. Also, you need to read what I said, and put your citations inside ref tags. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. I just posted an article that I'm very surprised you flagged for deletion about digital casting - something used by millions of people around the world. I am here to learn and grow - so please enlighten me as to what you think I did wrong so I can improve my contributions and this article! Sincerely Charleslechien (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charleslechien: The reason I did it is because it read like an advert. For example, the phrase "is a process that enables both talent and people who solicit and employee talent(...)" sounds more like something you would have in an advertisement. Just state what we all can agree it is—a talent agency. Hopefully that example will help you understand what I mean. Have a good day! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charleslechien: Wait, was the article you created about digital casting itself, and not a company? Sorry for that misunderstanding. If that is the case, you should probably move it to Digital casting (without the capital C). You can do that by clicking "more", then "move", and then changing the title. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh man! Phew! Thank you - yes, this is about digital casting itself! To my knowledge it is not the name of a company. Thank you and I may need your help to move this but I will try!

Thank you! <3 Charleslechien (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey - thank you again for the prompt response and help - I did as you suggested but your deletion tag is still there. What shall I do? I am absolutely going to adjust the tone and add more good stuff; but it would be super cool if that tag was off. Please advise, and thanks again...

Charleslechien (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned you had a book of egg measurements, could I get some for hamerkop? Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Unfortunately, it doesn't include the hamerkop. It's North American-centric. I have some time this weekend, though, so I will search and see what I can come up with. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• No dramas, I found the info I was looking for. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear @RileyBugz: I edited the Brodha V draft to reflect your comments and other feedback I received at the Article for creation help desk. When you're free, would you mind taking another look? Much appreciated! Best, Nramesh (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You're almost there. I will try and clean it up and get it in the main space tonight if I have the time. Thanks for your efforts! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nramesh: And I'm done! I have cleaned the article up and accepted it. Thanks for your hard work! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Thank you so much! You're the best! Nramesh (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Somebody needed to put an end to this. Thank you. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome :) RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Following your comment [1] the new account initiated a move at Talk:Ching Hai, possibly seems to be attracting acolytes. In ictu oculi (talk)

• WriteIncunabula (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Reverend Peter Farmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission, however, I do think your decision may have been hasty. Though I am new at this, I took the time to verify my sources and made no un factual statements. Nor is it any kind of peacock phrase to state that a soldier and priest of many decades spent a life dedicated to service. Many professions are defined as "serving," including those. Although you told me to see the body of the article for more examples, you did not provide any. Please reconsider your rejection of my article.

@WriteIncunabula: I would disagree. Even though the definition of service may include being a reverend, we wouldn't use that term. We would instead state what he was, not really what he did. In addition, everything is not sourced, and not everything that is sourced is sourced to reliable sources (for example, the citation to that legacy site). This is why I declined your article. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I'll consider your suggestions and make some changes, however I respectfully disagree that even encyclopedic language cannot state what a person did as opposed to what a person was. What a deceased historical figure "did" with his or her life is relevant, factual and the phrase "service" is not in and of itself some kind of puffery or promotion. While I understand the "legacy" source may not be as traditional as a newspaper article, that website is a sort of repository for obituaries that get published in reliable newspapers. For example, in Father Farmer's case, that obituary was posted in the Monterey Herald and two more accredited newspapers in Northern California. The quotes which I referenced were signed by the people, his former students, who posted them using their full names, and even dates of their direct knowledge of the subject. They are primary sources. By the way, I personally never met the man, and only heard of him after he died. I researched articles no longer available in any online archives, spending hours at the county seat's library going through microfilm. Further, I used an article based on his life and death that was written by a journalist of the Monterey County Herald, and was not an obituary. I also used published church archives which reference hand-written margin notes and specific dates, and a detailed historic "service record" as provided by the full time, professional Archivist of an established and well respected institution. In other words, the source's professional career is based upon ethical reliability and accuracy in the care and collection of historic records. I am doing this on my spare time, and learning more about how to edit on Wikipedia as I go, so I fully intend to continue my research into the man and post articles on related subjects. I actually learned about him while researching another topic for which I am awaiting editorial feedback, and was so impressed by his life I decided to write this article on him. I am waiting to hear back from people who knew him to learn whether I may find other published sources and reference material to augment the work I've already done. But, I have a full time job and when I look at what is out there already, and read the requirements published by Wikipedia, I think I have met, if not exceeded, the bar of what is required to be allowed to post an article. So again I ask you to please reconsider your rejection. Thank you. WriteIncunabula (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

	Wikilove
	Thanks a lot for accepting my first page! PoetVeches (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• RLowery (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nelson M. Oyesiku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am requesting a re-review based on the editor, RileyBugz comments. I have gone back over the article and have made several changes, trying to make the article sound more like an encyclopedia thoroughly explaining what "genome wide associate studies" are by defining them and replacing other text that seemed to "science-y" with language that seems easier to understand. I have also tried to give this a global perspective, citing that Emory University is in Atlanta, GA, US.

One of his comments, though, was that I used "peacock terms." If you could specifically cite these terms, I would appreciate it, as I am not finding these on my own.

Also, I have fixed the punctuation around the references based on the feedback of another editor jmcgnh, and do have one question, I cannot find Dr. Oyesiku's birthdate cited in any literature, should I take that out altogether?

Thank you,

Rachel

RLowery (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@RLowery: Well, I'd say that it is pretty good. And yes, if you can't cite the birthdate, then remove it. You actually seem to have fixed the peacock issues too. Good job! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello RileyBugz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Red desert (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rana June (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! This was my first time writing a Wikipedia article but I thought I had done the requisite reading up on the protocol. All of the sources are verifiable and, in my opinion, reliable. What did I get wrong? Thanks!

@Red desert: Hello! First off, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, everything should be cited. If you can't source something, then remove it. Hope that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You say

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject

Please,

• mark where the neutral point of view is violated,
• why the sources are not independent, reliable, published,
• where do you see the peacock terms in the article.

Elaborate all on the Draft talk page. Thank you.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I will respond here, thank you very much. Looking at it again, it seems that the sources are reliable. But, you need to avoid stuff like "fought against historian being a paid liar of the rulers" and "These, for a historian, unfavorable social conditions were something he faced and understood as a dictature." It promotes the subject. There are other examples like this in the article; I trust that you will find them yourself. Hope that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference saying "fought against historian being a paid liar of the rulers" just rephrased H. de Balsac. See, for example, Balsac's Catherine de Medici. The sentence "These, for a historian, unfavorable social conditions were something he faced and understood as a dictature." does not promote anything, rather stated a fact. The sentence is supported by a reference. How about the POV violation, the peacock terms?--109.92.165.210 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

References may be biased, but that doesn't mean that the article should be. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We are not supposed to judge references for that will unavoidably introduce POV.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But we are. Please see this. It tells us that we should balance the sources. I bet that there are some people who would disagree with the statement about historians being a paid liar of the rulers. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No Sir. We can only counter one reference by another, not to use our personal opinion to disqualify reference we do not like. This is not place for betting. Please, provide reference rejecting de Balsac.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, your this says: The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. --109.92.165.210 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz,

I've updated my wiki entry for Rene B. Azurin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ren%C3%A9_B._Azurin) based on your suggestions. I've re-submitted it for approval. Please let me know if I should edit anything else.

Thank you much. Peppa.santos (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Congratulations for your significant contribution to Black-necked grebe which was crucial for the article's promotion to GA!--Kostas20142 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar Horis (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello RileyBugz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Riley, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For reviewing over 1,000 articles in the past year, it is my pleasure to award you the NPR Bronze Award. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It's probably because of all those redirects I have been reviewing... RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• K.alansari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hager Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've removed any of the content that lacked sources and tried to improve the word choice within the article to remove any puffery or peacock terms. I'm doing my best to work with the guidelines you guys are giving me and will continue to do so.

Nice job! The problem is, the company doesn't seem to be notable, meaning that we cannot find enough independent, reliable sources. The current sources seem to be press releases. To establish notability, you will need to find multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss this company in depth. If you can do that, then the article will be good to go. Good luck! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@K.alansari: Ping. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok I'll work on that, thanks! K.alansari (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Just a note to let you know that an AfD you participated in is up for review here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• K.alansari (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hager Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unable to resubmit article

Hi RileyBugz,

I've added as many reliable sources (mostly books) to the article 'Hager Group' as possible, mostly in German and French, although I'm unable to resubmit the article for review again I'm not sure why. K.alansari (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

K.alansari (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@K.alansari: I just cleaned it up a bit and accepted it. Nice job! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz,

Thanks for accepting it! I'll continue to work on the article to ensure its the highest quality possible. K.alansari (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Tishchenko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stephan Welk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've added reliable sources and deleted information that can't be linked to a reliable source.

@Tishchenko: I just cleaned it up and accepted it. Thanks for your contributions! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added citations and improved the article Draft:Meyatha Maan. As per your instruction I have moved the draft to Article, but again it was moved back to Draft by Admins. As per his advice I have applied for reviewing the article Draft:Meyatha Maan. Kindly help me to pass through the Review process and to publish/move the draft into Article space at Meyatha Maan. ChinnZ (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like somebody already accepted it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Riley! I have not seen you around for quite a while now! I hope you are doing great. Would you able to provide a prose review for the common loon's FAC? Thank you very much, and I hope you have a great rest of the day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Hi! I'm doing great? How about you? Anyways, I don't think that I'll review it, since it seems that there is no need, because of the large amount of reviews that it has already garnered. Hope you have a good day! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure has gotten a lot of reviews now! :P I am doing great too. Thanks a ton, and have a great rest of the day! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Riley, Thanks for your response. I didn't know that my draft was not showing up. I have submitted it as a new article, as you suggested. ComeShineMusic (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

On 14 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black-necked grebe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the black-necked grebe is flightless for two months of the year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black-necked grebe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black-necked grebe), 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.

— Maile (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello RileyBugz, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Tara Harrison (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:William Hanson Dodge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi RileyBugz. Thank you for reviewing my article on William Hanson Dodge. I am guessing that the "reliable citations" issue has to do with the archival citations, is that right? If I remove the material that depends on these archival sources, leaving only the information sourced to books and articles, would the result be an acceptable article? (Hope so!) Please let me know when you get a chance. Thanks, Tara Harrison (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Tara Harrison

@Tara Harrison: I'm pretty sure that the archive material is actually perfectly fine; the problem is that there is material that, as far as I can see, is not supported by a citation. Hopefully that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:RileyBugz. 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.