Talk:Åke Blomström Award

"This article relies largely or entirely on a single source".

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The document that is refered to is a pdf-file that actually contains many different source documents.

Should this really be regarded as one source? The documents come from different sources. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 123johanlindeberg

Sure, I can amend that issue tag although it appears to be a blog. I am going to add a multiple issues shell because what this article really needs is inline citations. Everything is in External links. So I will remove 'more citations' and 'single source.' Sadly the article still needs wikilinks to other articles and what is most troubling to me is all those unfamiliar acronyms in the section: "International cooperation and financing". So I hope you understand that although I do not know how this article became in the state it is, you are going to end up with equal tagging or more. Thanks!! Fylbecatulous talk 23:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Most of the issues are sorted out. Since I have provided all of the content on this article, I am reluctant to edit information about issues. "Self published source" still remains though. Is the main problem that the pdf source document, resides on an non government site? Or is the problem that the document itself contains multiple source documents? Or both? 123johanlindeberg (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

123johanlindeberg, hello. With this specific question, the answer is that WordPress is a self-published source and a blog. Please click through and read: WP:SELFPUBLISH. Except for the blog, the article is still without any inline reliable sources to verify anything that is stated as fact. If any of the External links give information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it at the sentence or item it would support. Also, I made an amendment to the cleanup tag for the acronyms for the stations. In explanation, in the United States, we have NPR. This would not be clear to our foreign readers (or those learning English as a second language) without explaining links: National Public Radio (NPR). It only needs to be linked once upon first use in the article. Thank you for your continued work and dedication to this article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More about Multiple issues

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I believe that most of the issues have been sorted, except for more source related information.
It seems, to me, that the "Find Link" software gives somewhat misleading information.
There are links to this article, but the returned information is "0 of 5".
I have tried to reach the programmer, but I cannot find his email adress. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

DrStrauss talk 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Cleanup

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Your request was not specific enough. COI edit requests must include complete and specific descriptions of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "Please change X to Y".

1. Are the sources sufficient, or is there a need for additional sources ?

2. I believe that the cleanup is mostly done now. Do you agree? 123johanlindeberg (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. What do you think should be changed? DrStrauss talk 20:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want the template messages removed if, as I believe, the provided content is sufficient for that. I don´t want to remove the template messages myself, since I am providing this content. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any misunderstanding, these are the template messages I am referring to:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (June 2017)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: section: International cooperation and financing; please spell out all these acronyms and wikilink upon ::first use at least, and use common English names, when available, since these are based on a foreign language; section is unorganised and unclear: this is English Wikipedia, not Swedish. thanks... (July ::2017)" 123johanlindeberg (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Hello, editor inquiring is asking if the issues in the maintenance tags have been addressed. Most especially for the cleanup tag the answer is no. Some acronyms have been wikilinked and spelled out, others not, I think. When one begins to read down through the newer years for the section ' International cooperation and financing' it turns back in vegetable soup. Is this section clear to you? Perhaps a table or different method of formatting might work better. What just would have worked is spell out each time the entire name. I realise I am in the United States and NBC, CBS, and ABC are familiar to me, but they could also mean something else. Just yesterday I tried to use: CBS (disambiguation) to hunt for a record label and was totally mystified. I may work on this myself, but the request was not ready to close as answered. Thanks and best regards :) Fylbecatulous talk 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 24-FEB-2018

@Fylbecatulous: This request does not conform with the Instructions for Submitters shown under RE/I. Instruction No.4 states, in part:

"Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution. Include the sources that support the edits that you are suggesting; if you do not, your request will be denied."^[1]

Asking whether the issues surrounding maintenance tags have been met is not an actionable request. If the specific proposal is that the conditions for maintenance tag removal are met, my response would be to decline the request while asking the COI editor to direct this question to the editor who placed the template. If there was no response from that editor, then I would act. You have stated that these conditions have not been met.

As there are no other specific requests accompanying this proposal, I'm closing the template. The COI editor is free to open a new edit request — with specific, actionable proposals — at their earliest convenience.
Regards, Spintendo 04:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Template:Request edit/Instructions". Wikipedia. 20 April 2017.

[1] "Template:Request edit/Instructions". Wikipedia. 20 April 2017.

[1]