Jump to content

User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

AVANCE / Articles for Creation

Hi there,

Thanks for your edits and for the comments you left - the additional information was really useful. I have amended the wording of the profile and hopefully it reads as more neutral now. I have resubmitted for review. Fbell74 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Article created by another reviewer Pol430 talk to me 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quintiq : Rewrite

Hi,

Thanks for your comments on the entry on Quintiq. I've resubmitted the page - I understand that it may require some more work. Please let me know.

p.s. I'm not sure I've resubmitted it correctly. This is the URL : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Quintiq#Quintiq — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMMelvin (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Article created by another reviewer Pol430 talk to me 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Catalogue of political and personal satires preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum

Why on earth move this to remove capitals? It's a book title for heaven's sake, and it is not for us to rewrite book titles to MOS style! Please move it back. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Verismic Software

Hi Pol430, Not sure if this is something you can do, but an article that you had approved through the Articles for Creation process (Verismic Software) has been deleted. I've left a message for the deleting editor (user:fastily), but they are not going to be on Wikipedia until Feb. 8th. It is pretty demoralizing to abide by all the rules, have an article approved and then deleted on what seems to be a whim. Would you take a look and possibly reinstate the article? HeidiSmith (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm away from the computer for a few days and there is not much I can do on an iPhone. I honestly can't remember what the article looked like, but It's very unlickley I would have approved a submission that met G11. As Fastily is offline for a while I suggest you seek a Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would do it on your behalf but it's tricky on an iPhone... Pol430 talk to me 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much Pol430! I did as you suggested and hopefully I've done it correctly! HeidiSmith (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have done it correctly, just have to wait for the outcome now, can take 7 days. Keep an eye on the deletion discussion for a result Pol430 talk to me 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"essay"?

Hello.

I'm wondering specifically why you included the "essay-like" tag in this edit? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, in my opinion it seemed quite essay-like. Specifically because: It relies on a single source, and by extension of that, does not represent other view points in a verifiable manner. Feel free to remove the tag if you disagree. Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isa Vandi

Dear Pol430 I have two references and three external links; what else shall I add? I've checked many pages in wikipedia where there's only one single external link or one single reference and yet they have been published; what makes the difference then? Best M.Kafi--M.Kafi (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In order for the subject to be notable they must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The souces and EL's listed do not meet that threshold. There may well be other articles in Wikipedia that have poorer sourcing, but the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Pol430 talk to me 23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can u plz xplane some Suggestions on Anokhelal Mishra article?

hello Pol430, thanx for your review on it. If you help me little more then it will be great. can u tell me specifically in which sentences the formal tone is missing? plz do mention the phrases. i must then dilute those phrases for creating more healthy article. where ever i found some info about his playing abilities i added references with 'who has said it'. the whole bunch of references and notes r given with the article down there. plz do suggest me what to do now and let me know aht should i do to meet the criteria.. Thanx.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packmania (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"She detected his talent" "Anokhelal was the most famous disciple of Bhairav Prasad Mishra" "Anokhelal put in unremitting riyaaz (practice)" "He used to play these and many more syllables with clarity even at an very high speed" "He was extremely fast playing ' Na Dhin Dhin Na ' with his 1st finger." need I go on? Also, the notability of the subject is not sufficiently asserted. Furthermore, you have made no attempt to improve anything before submitting it for review again. Pol430 talk to me 09:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Globalmedic

Hello Pol430,

I am just writing to inquire about the rejection of the article that I created on GlobalMedic. I spoke with some editors yesterday on the live chat and they explained to me that the original submission did not show notability. As such I added many secondary sources to the article to support the notability. I spoke again with people on the live chat today and they said that they did not understand why you might have rejected it again and suggested that I speak with you directly. If you could help me to understand what more needs to be changed in the article, I would very much appreciate it. I have read the articles on notability and have read your page of frequently asked questions. If you can help enlighten me I am keen to learn. Thank you. Amanda Amanda0708 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, I declined the article because although there are a number of sources listed, they only make passing mention of Globalmedic as an organization (with the exception of this one). There is good coverage of Rahul Singh but he already has an article. Because notability is not inherited, the organization is not necessarily notable simply because Rahul is. The notability guidelines require 'significant coverage in reliable third-party sources' and so sources connected with the subject (such as the global medic website) do not help in establishing notability. If you would like to re-submit the suggestion, I will leave it alone and wait for another reviewer to give it a second opinion. Pol430 talk to me 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of District Officers of Lubok Antu, Sarawak

Please let me know what is needed so I can get them, or correct them. Thanks. Riu Baring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riubaring (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created the article, on closer inspection the sources seem OK. Pol430 talk to me 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei)

Dear Pol430,

I've just read your FAQs but I still do not understand why my article (see Subject) lacks the following:

"This submission doesn't sufficiently show the importance or significance of the subject—see the guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information about why the company or organization is notable."

...because I included the following sentence in the article: "The significance of the group stems from the fact that it was the only organized buddhist group that publicy protested against the martial ambitions of the japanese government of that period making it well known and respected among present Zen buddhists not only in Japan but throughout the world [2]."

Thank you for your help.

Yours, Benjamin Stahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenndannzen (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin, I appreciate the submission claims they are notable for the reason you have given, but this does not, in its self, establish their notability. In order for the group to be considered notable they must receive significant coverage in independent, reliable, published sources. You need to find more independent, reliable, published sources that discuss in detail the martial ambitions of the japanese government of that period, and the groups involvement in the same, to demonstrate the groups notability. Pol430 talk to me 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Advanced Virtuality Lab

Hi, I'm trying to make a better article. I read all the manuals of style and tried to write my article accordingly. May you plz provide me with more specific information regarding my failure to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, Annyv Annyv (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Hi you need to remove all the redirects and structure the submission like an article. That involves splitting it into sections and writing in paragraphs and continuous prose. You can find help with referencing at referencing for beginners and help with article layout and structure at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. If you are struggling with Wikimarkup then the WP:Cheatsheet might help you. Pol430 talk to me 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As an example: Sita Air is an example of what a basic article should look like. Pol430 talk to me 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrated Science Program

How much coverage would be considered "sufficient coverage"?

Kerem taskin (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

At least a good paragraph that discusses the subject in some detail, in more than one reliable, published source, that is independent of the subject. See WP:VRS Pol430 talk to me 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave McGillivray, Race Director

Hi Pol430 - nothing in the submission about Dave McGillivray is copyright infringement or paraphrasing, because I am a professional writer and wrote all of the content myself. I cite his website, www.dmsesports.com, which was written by Dave and his former marketing person. His book, The Last Pick, he wrote with Linda Fechter, however, we didn't use anything from that, just used his book as a factual citations to support his running and professional background. I own Wolfe Public Relations and Wolfe News Wire, www.wolfenews.com, and all of that content on those sites - if that is the issue - was written by me or my husband Jason Wolfe. The bio article I entered into Wikipedia, however, I wrote a month ago for his website that we are revamping - using my own previous writing and his previous bios he put together on his site or ours. And all of the news releases that go out to the media, I write. The citations are all accurate, as we have an extensive clipping service. Given that, not sure where there would be any copyright infringement. the only thing I can think of is if there are any similiarities with the news coverage cited, that's probably because the news media uses my news releases that I write about Mr. McGillivray, adding their own local angle. So again, not sure where there would be anything close to copyright infringement if we wrote the information first and provided it to the media - which is the only thing I can think of that you may have come across, as I have never used or copied a phrase the media wrote on their own - and if I did, of course I would credit the media as that would give him more credibility. But no writing in the current bio I put on Wikipedia is taken from news articles anyway. Also, the article was ok yesterday except for the citations - I had the citations in the wrong place and format - so this is a brand new concern you are rasiing. Please let me know exactly where you think there is a problem and I will either clarify that with you or delete that part of the bio so we can move forward. Thanks so much. Barwolfe (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)barwolfe

The submission appeared to be a copyvio of http://www.tomkingclassic.com/DaveMcGillivrayBio.pdf, on closer inspection the paraphrasing is not as bad as first thought, so I have restored the text of the submission. One quick note about copyright: Even if you are the author of a published work you cannot publish it on wikipedia without formally donating it, by following the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. It is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright exists unless it is explicitly disclaimed on the original work. Notwithstanding the copyright issues, this submission is written in an egregiously promotional manner and needs to be fundamentally rewritten from a neutral point of view and structured in the format of a Wikipedia article. See the guide to writing better articles for help with the article structure and referencing for beginners for help with adding references. Pol430 talk to me 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Pol - thanks for the clarifications. Actually the tom king classic link is the bio Mr. McGillivray's office wrote several years ago, not the tom king classic, so again, not really copyrighted or a problem since they provided that to them. The other concern about being too promotional is interesting as we are former news reporters here at www.wolfenews.com and write everything in a factual, AP-style format - with facts and figures vs. promotional language. We don't use superlatives or compliments or non-journalistic phrases - just the facts - since we work with the media on a daily basis and know that promotional language doesn't fly. Sometimes those facts, however, are in and of themselves accolades, since Mr. McGillivray has earned so many awards and recognitions and accomplished so much. That said, I can take a crack at a rewrite if you are suggesting that but is there a particular section or phrase you think was promotional - would love to know what to avoid repeating. I read the guidelines and not surew where I was violating them. In summary, since Mr. McGillivray has run across the U.S., twice, written a book, served as race director of the Boston Marathon for more than 25 years and is known throughout the running world as one of the US's top race directors (a google search and my media footnotes show this) assume mentioning these accomplishments in a non-promotional manner is not a problem, so any specific advice you have when I am doing the rewrite would be helpful. In the meantime, I will begin a rewrite - PS - You also mention the inline references, but I followed the format given in the pop ups - was that done incorrectly? Thanks so much. Barwolfe (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)barwolfe, Beryl Wolfe

Concerning the prose: "McGillivray’s many endurance events for charity are legendary"—peacok term; "to promote physical fitness in children and help solve the epidemic of childhood obesity"—puffery, Epidemic?; "Each year he runs his birthday age in miles, starting when he was 12, and has not missed one yet."—not promotional, but also not encyclopedic, recentism; "He was born on Aug. 22, 1954 – you can do the math."—again not an appropriate neutral tone; "motivating readers to never underestimate their own ability to set and achieve goals"—POV; "The book is available from Amazon"—promotion, serves no encyclopedic purpose; "A skilled motivational speaker, McGillivray has displayed his signature ability to engage and inspire listeners to more than 1,600 audiences from corporate executives to high school students."—POV and promotional; "and in 2009 the prestigious "Jimmy Award" by the Jimmy Fund"—POV, peacock term; "In addition to running one of the top race management firms in the U.S"—uncited claim, top firm according to whom? Need I go on?
Concerning inline references: Inline refs should go at the end of the sentence they support, after punctuation. You have formatted some of them correctly but there is also a number at them sitting at the top of the submission that don't seem to be doing anything. Also, in the first paragraph there is an external link acting an inline reference, this should be re-formatted. Additionally, the submission currently displays as a wall of text and should be broken into section in the format of a Wikipedia article—see WP:MOS. The 'bull points' (•) should be removed. If you are struggling with editing in Wikimarkup, check out the cheatsheet for help. The article on Usain Bolt is an example of a good article that covers a runner with many achievements. Pol430 talk to me 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarifications. Very helpful. Will rewrite and resubmit in the proper format and tone - should I use the resubmit code or start over.... Barwolfe (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)barwolfe

If you want to start over just blank the page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave McGillivray, Race Director and start over—leave the bit at the very top that starts 'AFC submission', that will make things easier when you want to resubmit. Alternatively, you can just edit what is already there until you're happy with it, then hit the resubmit link on the decline template. Pol430 talk to me 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Improving my entry

Thanks for accepting my first Wikipedia entry, "The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis." I've looked into the grading system, but wonder specifically if you can recommend changes that would bring the entry from a C to a B or A. Again, many thanks. Kcroes (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You could start by removing the 'introduction' section that I removed once already because it should not be there. The first bank of article text is known as the lead section (See WP:LEAD) it should contain a summary of the rest of the article but should not be more than about 2 paragraphs in length. You could add more Wikilinks into the article to make the subject more accessible and remove the copyright and trademark logos from the ASSORT section—text on Wikipedia is released under a creative commons license. I have re-graded the article as B class under AfC criteria because AfC has a lower threshold than other Wikiprojects. I have also added the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Ophthalmology task force talk-header onto the articles talk page where it rates as C class. You could ask an editor at that Wikiproject how best to improve the article, I'm afraid it's not my subject area. Pol430 talk to me 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The "Introduction" is gone. I've also restored a Wikilink to Alpins' bio (will submit that soon). Trademark symbols are history. Just one question: Should I include Wikilinks every time a suitable term is used, or is it sufficient to do it only on first mention? Kcroes (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks should generally only appear at the first mention of the term. Sometimes it may be appropriate to link the same term more than once, to aid the flow of the text—just don't go crazy with them. Because this is quite a technical article, there should be at least one wikilink to each term that one could reasonably expect to be unknown to a person with no medical or ophthalmology knowledge. Pol430 talk to me 18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wing Commander Peter Stanley James DFC, AE

Dear Pol430,

Many thanks for your speedy review and for taking the time to read my article. As you probably know, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is my first submission.

Before I attempt to amend my article, I am interested to know as to whether there are any specific third party references which have been identified as outstanding or if in actuality the article subject itself is under question for notability - in which case I will cease editing.

If you might be in a position to provide further guidance this would be very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

James

James Wilford 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax l9500 (talk • contribs)

Hi James, The principle of notability applies to the subject of the article (Peter Stanley James) rather than the references. To establish notability we require that the subject is discussed in more than one reliable reference. For references, all that we require is that they are published (somewhere, anywhere), can be generally expected to tell the truth and are, ideally, independent of the subject. Are there any books that talk about Peter Stanley James that you are aware of? Or any military history websites that give him some reasonable coverage? Are there any newspaper/magazine articles or archives that discuss him? I take it that flying 1000 bomber missions was a rare achievement during WWII? Is this documented in any RAF/MoD archives? Can you find the gazette that lists with DFC award (gallantry awards assist in establishing notability)? You mention two books: 'The Bomber Command War Diaries' and 'The Thousand Plan: The Story of the First Thousand Bomber Raid on Cologne – Ralph Barker' do these discuss Peter Stanley James himself? If so they need to cited properly, I can help you with that. I am quite interested in military history myself, so I will offer as much help as I can with improving the submission. Pol430 talk to me 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pol430,

Many thanks for your recent message and offer of support in improving my submission which is very much appreciated.

I do indeed have a number of third party references from which a significant amount of the information has been sourced.

As you previously highlighted, these do indeed include the DFC citation from the 24th October 1941 edition of the London gazette in addition to a detailed record of James's experiences during the first 1,000 bomber (aircraft) raid to Cologne within Ralph Barkers book 'The Thousand Plan' and details of the Scharnhorst raid within the operational report taken upon the return of James aircraft referenced on a specific historic aviation website.

I would potentially describe my other sources as being first hand, including extracts taken from number 35 Squadron's operational record books in addition to James's personal Pilots log books.

I'm not sure as to whether the above qualifies James as a notable individual worthy of submission to Wikipedia and I suppose his importance to the annuals of RAF history and that of 35 Squadron may well be more significant.

Having said this, the thought process that has lead me to consider this submission was not only the opportunity to share James's career, but also the possibility of enriching subject matters already existing within Wikipedia such as the Handley Halifax Bomber in which he participated in the types first operation of the war, the Scharnhorst, against which he flew the daylight raid for which he was awarded the DFC and the three, 1,000 bomber (aircraft) raids.

Regardless of the outcome of the above, I would very much welcome your feedback, and would like to thank you for the time that you have spent thus far, reading through the submission.

My first experience with Wikipedia has indeed been an enjoyable one!

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax l9500 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again James, sorry for the late response, I've had a busy week. I am of the opinion that Peter Stanley James is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I can help you with bringing the submission up to standard. I think the first thing we need to tackle is the references. The ones you have mentioned above are fine to get the article started, we just need to cite them properly as footnotes. I have added an example citation using Template:Cite book just to give you an idea of how it is done. I don't have a copy of the book in question so I can;t help with placing the footnotes where they need to be in the article, perhaps you could work on that? It would be handy to have page numbers. It would be good if you could add a link to his citation in the London Gazette that you be great, I'm struggling to find it. If I have just completely confused you, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Pol430 talk to me 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbutus Ridge Retirement Community article.

Thanks very much for your constructive suggestions which will only help me improve the article. I've implemented your suggestions and resubmitted.RTBoughner (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Article created by User:Alpha Quadrant Pol430 talk to me 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AFC templates

Sorry about changing them unilaterally a few days back despite the ongoing discussions at WT:AFC—I only knew about that after mabdul pointed me to it, -_-;; since I normally just help on IRC and aren't really involved in AFC. I took a look at your userspace draft (which mabdul linked me to as well) and I certainly don't mind if you prefer your own wording to my own and want to replace it. I only changed it because I thought the old ones were problematic, without realising that others were already addressing the problem. Please accept my apologies, and thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, your wordings were better than mine in some cases--more concise. I'm making some bold changes of my own at the moment as the discussion at the AFC talk page seems to have dried up. Pol430 talk to me 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Approved Page is now Deleted

Thanks for approving my article on DesignTechSystems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prateekshah03 ) which i had first submitted for review. You had assigned it a Start Class status upon approval. This had happened on 31st December, 2011. A month later, on 7th February, my article has been deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DesignTech_Systems , with the reason mentioned as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" . Kindly help me out and let me know a way so i can get my article back online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekshah03 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely I would have approved a page that was unambiguously promotional. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Pol430 talk to me 10:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, see this [1] diff. I think you did. A412 (Talk * C) 16:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disputing I created it, I'm disputing it met CSD G11. It's not the first time Fastily's deletions have been questioned... Pol430 talk to me 16:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks A412 and Pol430 for your assistance. Let me discuss the same with Fastily. But i'd just like to say that all this ambiguity discourages new users like me. Hope the guidelines at Wikipedia become clearer with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekshah03 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Scrubbs

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the article. The article was rejected due to "plagiarism" due to the fact that it was listed on another site. This is due to the fact that this is information included in Pastor Ken Scrubbs bio that has been submitted to many sites and many other people. I have rights to this publication simply by association to the organization I have been hired to work for. I am sorry in that I am new to this whole article creation thing, and so I ask for your help in this matter. I am not acting outside copyright, and so I do not understand this rejection. Thanks again, sorry for the misunderstanding. mailto:mthaney4@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.164.8 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned in the comment left on the submission: It is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright protection exists, whether it is asserted or not. That means, anything you copy and paste from any published source is copyrighted as far as Wikipedia is concerned; unless the copyright is specifically disclaimed in the page it is taken from. The submission needs to be re-written in your own words and in continuous prose. Alternatively, you can check-out Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if you own the copyright and would like to 'donate' the material to Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

mistaken deletion

I think there was a mistake. I understand the deletion of Donna Esposito (needs better sources but, I felt her notable a having released a dozen albums for a notable indie label)but, the Cyclones was already nominated as a keep.

Please advise if I'm mistaken as to the edits and thanks! (Marc61 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

The submission was not deleted, it is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donna Esposito. It may well be that she is notable and warrants an article, but the submission was quick-failed because of the lack of reliable references. See WP:VRS. Pol430 talk to me 10:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A kind help request for showing what's bad here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bucharest_Symphony_Orchestra

Hello Pol430,

Thanks for reviewing the article! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bucharest_Symphony_Orchestra

I guess it wasn't quite right written, so I edited the content. If it's still not ok, can you please point me in the right direction?

Many thanks, Alexandru

Alxndrul (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reliant Regent & The Reliantt

Hi, Thank you for your feedback. I deceided to use the material I had collated to edit the page 'Relaint Motor Company' this was the suggestion at the intial review. I didn't know how to delete my submission, hence the terse note left in the article itself.

I hope this is okay?

Regards,

SidneySideline (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I gathered that was the case. I had to decline the submission for something, otherwise it just sits in the 'awaiting review' queue forever. There is no need for us to delete the submission. In it's current state it's not bothering anyone, so it may as well stay there until we get around to doing some housekeeping. Pol430 talk to me 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wing Commander Peter Stanley James DFC, AE

Hi Pol430,

Many thanks for your latest comments - and absolutely no need to apologise. I fear that I may have a similar week in store! I've had a bash at tidying up the referencing and footnotes within the latest draft and have also tried to identify other Wikipedia pages requiring referencing throughout the article.

I'm hoping that my latest submission is an improvement on the last however there will undoubtedly be areas which will require further correction.

Many thanks again for continuing to provide guidance on the article, I look forward to your thoughts.

Have a good week.

Kind regards,

James(James Wilford 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halifax l9500 (talk • contribs)

 Done Article created, great work! Pol430 talk to me 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Samahaara, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed where would we be without you DPL Bot!? Pol430 talk to me 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed Peacock terms from article

I have removed Peacock terms from Roomi S. Hayat. If there is any other term that you find affecting the neutrality of the article please specify so that following messages are removed from the article page.

{{COI}} {{POV}}

Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See the article talk page, the general tone of the article is still promotional and contains elements of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Pol430 talk to me 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for the review and comments. Following your feedback, i have incorporated the suggested changes to the article Roomi S. Hayat.. Please review it again and guide if neutrality is still disputed.. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have listed the article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and invited some other editors to give their opinion and contribute the article. Pol430 talk to me 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Im surprised to see my article all chopped off yet there is primary source tag on it :( Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because most of the sources for it are still primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm sorry Samar Saeed Akhtar but the changes were necessary for the article to comply with Wikiepdia's policy and guidelines. Also, please avoid using terms such as 'my article' as it implies an WP:OWNership fallacy. Pol430 talk to me 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Pol430, re this comment. It's not a problem. I made a mistake by accepting the submission without fixing the neutrality issues. The issue needed to be addressed. Thank you for bringing it up. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you updated the templates with the new help desk links. I think it would be good to offer both live chat and the help desk, as they serve different purposes or styles. Some will want to get help on wiki, others will want immediate assistance. I hope it won't dilute either forum to offer both, but as an irc help regular, I think we do a lot of good work, and in a format that for many users is more accessible and efficient than on-wiki stuff. My understanding was that the AfC help desk was designed to replace leaving messages on the reviewer's talk page rather than replacing irc help. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, personally I believe that two links is confusing to new editors. I do take your point about the different purposes of the help desk and IRC. My understanding of the discussion at WT:WPAFC was that most participants favoured a single link to the help desk. I think it may be worth asking this question directly on WT:WPAFC so that wider consensus can be gained and a range of options explored. For example, inserting a link to live chat on the help desk header might be a cleaner solution? Pol430 talk to me 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lewis Chambers

Sorry I wanted to remove all traces from the Lewis Chambers page I made, is there a way you can delete these pages for me without a reference to them being there in the past? Thesimsmania (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the page Lewis Chambers was deleted on 20 May 2011. The page history is now hidden from public view. I have checked the logs and there are no links to Lewis Chambers in any live Wikipedia articles. The only places that link to that page are various administrative archives -- which can not be deleted and should not be modified as they are now closed/archived discussions. Pol430 talk to me 21:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Could the old archives be deleted say through clean-up measures of Wikipedia? Thesimsmania (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In a word, no. Why do you want to see them deleted? Pol430 talk to me 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It was a fake article, made by me and some friends at school but, since I've started to take being a Wikipedian more seriously I wanted it removed. Thesimsmania (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is gone, it will not show up your public edit history; but those archives are part of the enduring historical record I'm afraid, they can't be deleted or blanked. Pol430 talk to me 21:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly with kind words to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Joseph Phillips (actor)

Thank you for reviewing my article. This is my first attempt at creating an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have tried to follow the style of other actor's pages without plagiarising their articles. I have linked to external sources or other Wikipedia pages to validate the information I have provided. All the information is true, factual and is written from a neutral point of view. I have used inline citations and all the citations are reliable, secondary sources. I think have used several, independent, reliable published sources. I would really appreciate your help so that I can get my article published on Wikipedia. I realise you can’t do the article for me but are there specific things I need to change or remove to make it fit for purpose? Regards, Mick. MickPhillips (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bakewell pudding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to English, Egg and The Telegraph
Bakewell tart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to English

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Pol430 talk to me 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mansoor Bin Tahnoon Al Nehayan

Hello , I wrote an article that has been reviewed by you, I responded to the comments and edited the article , but I don't seem to be able to resubmit it

please help me in solving this

thanks AUS- student — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUS-student (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, actually you did resubmit it, twice in fact. There was also some text duplication; I have fixed these problems for you. The submission is still very promotional. I will leave it for another reviewer to have a look at. Pol430 talk to me 20:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

joining discussion

would you like to join our discunion on worm that turned/adopt/walter55024.--Walter55024 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see any need for me to do that... Pol430 talk to me 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

David Michael "Doc" Mills AfC

Greetings,

Thanks for reviewing the article on our principal/superintendent Dr. Mills. He hasn't done much that is noteworthy according to wiki standards and we understand that. We compiled this based on his curriculum vita and it is likely he will retire this year from public education, having had a positive impact on the lives of over 6,000 students, to pursue research opportunities in higher education the State of Illinois is already using to in the consolidation of schools. A faculty member at our school stumbled across a wiki page dedicated to bow tie wearers and thought an entry for Mills would be a unique retirement gift for a once in a generation leader. Perhaps his career in higher education will be more reflective of a wikipedia article. 50.103.184.170 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mrs. E. 50.103.184.170 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, If you can find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, (for any aspect of his life) then please add them and re-submit for review. See WP:VRS. Pol430 talk to me 10:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, we have scoured the Internet and found a handful of sources that outline his education experience. The article from Illinois Times this past fall highlights his expertise in school reorganization as he was the first person to appear before the Classrooms First Commission to discuss school consolidation planning in Illlinois. All of the colleges he attended, some of the schools He taught at, the professional organization he belongs to, Firecrafters, Eagle S outsMensa, etc have wiki's. The bane of our problem rests with local media coverage not being picked up by regional outlets and lack of on-line reporting, it is all print out here. We hope this helps, it will be awesome if he makes tbd list of bow tie wearers. 50.103.184.170 (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, We updated a couple weeks ago with what resources we could find on the Internet and hadn't heard a reply from you. Is there anything else we can do to help our cause? May peace be with you. Mrs. E50.103.184.170 (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Thank you for your information. I am contacting for ask why you declined my submission, when the artist already have external notable references, and biography in All Music.

It's not notable this? are you sure of that? Thanks,

Zakir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakir2012 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, It is not the references to which the notion of notability applies, it is the subject of the article that must be notable. The references must be reliable, published and independent of the subject. There must be multiple reliable, published, independent references to establish the notability of the subject. See WP:VRS. Rodrigo Rodriguez might well be notable, but the only reference that goes any way to supporting that claim is this one. The other references (such as AllMusic.com) are not sufficient for establishing notability and this one does not seem to mention him by name at all... Pol430 talk to me 14:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your messege back. I was thinking All Music Editors are very notable for the biography of musicians.

Anyway I think in the link of Rtve.es from the Rodrigo Rodriguez website it's very clear his music is played in that National Radio Station.2 The phrase:" shakuhachi japonés interpretado por un argentino " means an Argetinian musician performed of Shakuhachi. In the minute 14:43 starts the music of Rodrigo Rodriguez in RNE.

That's is not fiction, is a fact. Please let me know if this is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakir2012 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the explanation. I'll create the article based on point 12 of WP:MUSICBIO. However, he is right on the borderline for notability, so any further reliable sources that you can add will help ensure the articles survival. This article has been deleted 4 times previously so don't be surprised it it ends up at AFD again.Pol430 talk to me 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your messege and aproved my submission. Howevery I am still not undertanding some ascpects about the notability. I saw many musicians who less sources,references, than him and the article is acepted and active, and not need to be improved.

I can keep writing many references, and posting sources in that article from cd reviews, but dont make any sence to me. Now I added Jazz Times review from his album "Shakuhachi Meditations".

I am asking all this things, becouse I am writer and I want to do my best. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakir2012 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok... Basically there are two types of references that we look for: those references that help to check facts and those that help to show the subject is notable. I will now try and explain what references that help to show notability are. The subject of the article (in this case Rodrigo Rodriguez) must be shown to be notable. Notability is evidenced by adding refernces that give significant coverage of the subject, in multiple reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, and have been published. Breaking that down a bit:

  1. Significant coverage -- generally this should be in the form of text, but sometimes audio clips and video clips are acceptable. The coverage of the subject must be significant. Not just anything with the subject's name in it. Not just track listing or any other type of list. There should be at least one lengthy paragraph that directly discusses the subject.
  2. The subject -- the references have to discuss the subject not their company, album, band etc.
  3. Multiple -- this means more than one, just having one reference that gives the subject significant coverage is not enough. Generally we look for 3 separate references that meet all the criteria I am now explaining.
  4. Reliable sources -- something that is generally expected to tell the truth. Major newspapers, widely recognized publications, such as magazines and books. Not just niche publications that do not have a wide reader-base. Not blogs, facebook, myspace, you tube, linkedin, twitter, fan sites or any other community-content site. It's worth mentioning that you cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as reliable references.
  5. Independent -- The references must not be written by the subject or by someone closely connected with the subject. Not their own website, not their company's website. Not press releases or paid placements.
  6. Published -- The references must be published somewhere, either online, or in print, or some other form. For example, using "all the people that know the subject personally" as a reference, is not acceptable; or saying "I know that is true because I saw it on TV, watch the TV to check" is also not acceptable.
  • Notability is not inherited, for example: if a company is notable, it does not automatically mean that the person who runs, or owns, the company is notable.
  • saying that a subject should be notable because there are other articles on Wikipedia that are very similar, is not a valid argument. Each submission is assessed on its own merits, against policy and guidance. There are nearly 4 million articles on English Wikipedia, the site has been around for over 10 years and a lot has changed over that time. We know that there are actually quite a lot of articles, that are 'live' in Wikipedia, that should not be there, but adding more unsuitable articles is not the answer. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

Pol430 talk to me 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you very much for all explanation about notability. I really apreciate.

I should keep adding refenreces link as I did before? or I should remove some unnecesary links? If the Jazz Times is a good one, what is the status of my submission?

I can keep posting more notable links if I have the oportunity.

Many thanks for helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakir2012 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, The article is live and now, because of the Jazz Times reference, the notability is fine. I don't think you need to add any more references. I will update the article talk page. Pol430 talk to me 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for suporting my article. I am glad to hear that, today I added info box and wikilinks to the article. Thank you for teaching me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakir2012 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Pol430 talk to me 17:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page, Huw Dixon- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Huw_Dixon#Huw_Dixon

Hello Pol430's

Thanks for the the feedback on my article submission, i weeded out some of the week links and replaced them with better and more links.

There are now multiple reinforcing sources regarding his academic past. Is it read for completion?

Thanks

ahahaha373

Hi, unfortunately I do not have time to re-review your submission yet, there are over 500 others in the queue. Please feel free to resubmit if you think you have addressed the concerns raised. It may take some days for a re-review. Pol430 talk to me 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bellerophon/Archive_4&oldid=1146786696"