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.

Hi, re this edit. What happened was that Citation bot ( talk · contribs) had trashed the redirect. It actually happens quite a lot. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I guess we could wait until it gets G13'd, or ask someone to delete it. APerson ( talk!) 04:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I put it back to how it was before Citation bot messed with it. That'll make it safe from G13. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].

Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your time looking at my Remedial Education in the US article. I have inserted much of the text on the traditional remedial education page, so hopefully, it will be used and helpful there! Thanks again. Allincharlie ( talk) 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On 9 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Convolutional neural network, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that convolutional neural networks have achieved performance double that of humans on some image recognition problems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Convolutional neural network. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I didn't create this article. APerson ( talk!) 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph A. Suozzi, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I didn't create this article. APerson ( talk!) 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello APerson. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Joseph A. Suozzi".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph A. Suozzi}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. APerson ( talk!) 22:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Copied to "Awards" subpage. APerson ( talk!) 16:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my work. I am now learning how to edit the document most especially how to make citations and references. Once I understand how to do it things will be find. Enjoy the Xmas holidays Best regards Akiwumi ( talk) 14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've seen that you've kindly moved page Talk:Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory/Temp to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Please, note that the headline should be Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-Brief form, as I originally named it. Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-Brief version are different versions, and that might cause some misunderstanding.

Thanks, PsicoFS

{{ done}} I have moved the submission to the requested title. Thank you for your contributions! Note: You only have to put {{ Talkback}} on the talkpage of a user if you are in a conversation with them on another page. See Template:Talkback for more. APerson ( talk!) 15:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! May I know how to find out if the resubmission was accepted?

PsicoFS ( PsicoFS ( talk) 16:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC) )

When someone reviews it, a message will appear on your talk page stating whether it was accepted (i.e. created) or declined. Alternatively, you can visit the submission page, linked in the section header of this thread, to see if anyone has commented on the submission (which doesn't generate a talk page message for you). I would also suggest reading WP:INDENT for why I keep putting those colons in front of these posts. APerson ( talk!) 16:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a change in policy? Unless there is (and I might have very well missed it), if there's an old version and a much better new version, are we not going with the new version and marking/deleting the old as a Duplicate rather than asking editors to move everything back to an old draft? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I mistakenly put the merge template on the new draft. No, there was not a change in policy; I'll put it on the old draft from now on. APerson ( talk!) 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dorle Jarmel Soria for not establishing notability, but the article was then copied to the mainspace, identical in every way as far as I can tell. Would you stand by your not enough notability established statement? Thanks in advance, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Mat ty. 007 12:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was changed after you declined it. Is notability now established? And should a history merge occur, as the original nominator simply copied and pasted, without acknowledging that it had been worked on? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 12:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it was changed, I believe that notability is now established. A history merge definitely should occur. Have a happy new year! APerson ( talk!) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have a Merry Christmas! Mat ty. 007 20:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all: thanks a lot for reviewing the article! It's my first Wikipedia article, so I'm thankful about any comments. I have just changed two of the references so that they link not to blogs, but to more credible sources.

A disclaimer: The Starling Framework is (as you sure have noticed) my own framework; it has a huge and active community, and thousands of developers are using it. Thus, I thought it was time it joined the list of other gaming frameworks that are described on Wikipedia (many of which have a smaller developer base). However, I tried to write the article as objective and general as possible. I hope I succeeded with that?

There is a book about Starling available, which was published by O'Reilly; it is listed in the article and should be a credible source. The other references point to websites that contain the specific information that is mentioned in the text. You won't find any articles about Starling in the Washington Post! ;-)

Thanks in advance for reviewing the referencing changes I just made! Let me know if you have any other ideas or suggestions that could lead to the publication of the article.

-- PrimaryFeather ( talk) 07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article as it is now looks pretty good, but probably needs a few more sources to establish notability. Here are some source ideas; you'll have to check the reliability, though. With a community that big, there must be websites, blogs, and maybe even news stories mentioning it; those should probably be added too. If you are the creator of this framework, that's not a big issue; however, I would suggest reading the policy WP:COI and the essay WP:BCPA. I look forward to this article's creation! APerson ( talk!) 14:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the additional infos, that helped! I added a bunch of external websites and a list of 3rd party libraries that make use of Starling. Furthermore, since I wrote the article, a new book has arrived, which I added, as well. It would be great if you could have a look at those changes and tell me if that's what you were looking for! Cheers, -- PrimaryFeather ( talk) 11:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally, the purpose of Articles for Creation is to create articles that can survive an attempt to delete the article. At this point, with one or two more sources, the article definitely would be accepted. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson ( talk!) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi APerson,

I asked on the IRC channel on what the expectations may be in order to get the Velocite Bikes article included. They gave me some useful insights, with the last one being to actually ask you as to what you expected to see, or not see for that matter, in order to include Velocite Bikes article.

I would greatly appreciate your specific feedback on what it is that I can do to improve my article.

Thanks,

Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmajor ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only content of the article is the lead and a list of the awards the company has gotten. A typical Wikipedia article on a company, for example Google, has "History", "Products and services", and "Corporate Affairs" sections; Facebook has all of these plus "Reception" and "Criticisms and controversies" sections. Not all of these should be added to the article at this point; however, a "History" section and maybe even a "Products and services" section. The most important thing is avoiding an advertisement-like tone, which you can mostly accomplish by reading the Manual of Style, section WP:WTA. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson ( talk!) 04:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick feedback. Well I removed some content because of the earlier rejection and advice that I was given. I removed the products, and some other content. It is no problem for me to put it all back in, but it feels that I am stuck in a loop. Regarding your comparisons to other websites I understand, but the article I am creating is in the bicycle companies category. Among the articles that can be found here the one I am writing far exceeds the most other bicycle companies articles' quality in terms of citations, or even content in some cases.

I am sorry if I sound somewhat frustrated, but the approval process and path that I am on resembles something from the Vogon rule book. Would it be possible to have you and only you review my article once I resubmit it? This way your feedback will be clearly applicable and any error that I made can again be corrected easily without reinterpretation. Resubmitting and waiting for the next available editor is of course a possibility however the review wait time is now 30 days meaning that it is likely that getting the article approved may take a very long time, and may tie up several more editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmajor ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

When your article is re-submitted, it is not possible to determine who will review it, i.e. there is no way to "assign" a submission to a specific reviewer. I will try to get to it first. Regarding the article content, notability does not seem to be an issue any longer, provided that citations aren't removed. There could be one or two more sections of content, so please re-submit after adding, perhaps, a "History" section. At that point, the article will be able to survive an AfD (which is what Articles for Creation is all about, anyway) and I (or another reviewer) will create it. APerson ( talk!) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Was editing Bardia Rahim while you declined it, seconds ago as it is open in my sandbox. Please read notes first. Subject meets notability golden rule and is to be opened to be edited and in discussion. Please undo so it may be worked on Osrius ( talk) 04:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You can still work on it, even when it's declined, and you can resubmit it again. APerson ( talk!) 04:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I read your explanation on the talk page, I understand it and I want you to know I am reporting another user not you, just in case you were confused. However, if you did not send an explanation I would have included you. I would refrain from such verbiage as it seemed like your pointing fingers at people and talking in all caps when read. Please understand I mean well and I thank you for the direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

All right; I'm glad this has been resolved. Merry Christmas! APerson ( talk!) 02:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope this reaches you with the right references: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carbone_Smolan_Agency

Thank you for taking the time to read and make comments on my entry for the Carbone Smolan Agency. I will go back and do as you suggest, specifically, remove the agency's website and any bold peacock language that cannot be substantiated. When I wrote the NYC is the epicenter of design, I cited the number of designers registered with the leading guild of Graphic Design, the AIGA. NY, I offered, has more members than the combined total of LA and Chicago. I thought that was "enough" to back up that comment but I will see if I can find some other reference and note it and add a footnote. If I cannot, I will remove it.

Your comments were helpful. But you only mentioned those two small issues. Are there any other things that stand out that make this entry unacceptable? I was more afraid you guys might ask me to back off all the footnote references — too much. But I figured better err towards more third party substantiation than not. Again, thank you for the time you took reading this and offering some suggestions. I have been waiting anxiously to see what an editor thought of this. I feel that I am very close.

If this helps, here is your comment to me for easy reference: "Comment: While this is a very good article, there are just a few issues that should be cleared up before creation of this article; namely, the slight -y feel, phrases like "New York is widely regarded as the epicenter of American design" (uncited) and the link to the company's website at the end (which sort of smacks of an advertisement). After those have been fixed, please re-submit the article. APerson (talk!) 17:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)" Porterwritewiki ( talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

There are only two things I would like to see fixed about the referencing: first, the stack of general references (those {{ cite web}}s between {{ Refbegin}} and {{ Refend}}) should be integrated into the article, using <ref> tags and keeping the {{cite web}}s, so it is possible to see which statement is sourced by which reference; second, the <ref>–enclosed references really should use {{cite web}} templates. In general, the more footnote references, the better.

A different issue is posed by the tone. At some points, I am unsure if I am reading a biography of Ken Carbone (check out the first paragraph of the 1976-1985 section)The vast majority of the article does not read like an advertisement. However, some phrases stick out as having a tone like that of one, such as " Some remain. Others do not. But Carbone Smolan endures" read that in Morgan Freeman's voice five times fast and the link to the company's website at the end (which I mentioned in my comment on the submission itself and has not been changed).

So, as I said in the comment, the article just needs a few issues cleared up before creation. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Your time is valuable and I appreciate you helping me get this article in shape.

First, I deleted peacock/Morgan Freem style tone that you suggested seemed too advertising-like in tone. I also removed that final reference to the CSA website. I took away that "epicenter" comment about NY Design and removed " Some remain. Others do not. But Carbone Smolan endures" comment… yes, I can hear Morgan Freeman reading that. And James Earl Jones.

Second, I am confused on your format recommendation because of my inexperience: in the current draft, I inserted external website references in the text IN ADDITION to the cite/footnote references. But since I am new to this, I do not think this is what you intended for me to do. See my effort in the OPENING section and cut and pasted your suggested "<ref>" format --- but it looks odd in the preview. The footnote citations are not changed. Down below, in Clients & Scope, I tried another style, writing the cited reference directly into the text "(See Communication Arts www.commarts.com/..>"). I do not believe this is proper, but it does allow the reader to see exactly where the citations coming from right next to the comment.

In either case, I believe your suggestion is intended to aid the reader experience. But I am a novice at this. So please share with me an example of what it looks like in CODE in another live article and what the CODES are in the edit pages so I can properly address your concerns and make the appropriate changes.

Porterwritewiki ( talk) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

Maybe what it needs is making sure outside references are immediately next to EVERY comment rather than the end of a paragraph?

Porterwritewiki ( talk) 00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

It looks like you copied my <code><nowiki>s directly from the source code. What I meant was just copy and paste the <ref>s directly from the regular, rendered text. I apologize; I really should have linked you to the help page for citation sooner. Anyway, here it is: Citation Style 1. I'll fix the citations now. The article looks pretty good now. APerson ( talk!) 14:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

APerson,

Thank you again. OK -- I will review the link and then look to see what you did. Not to sound daft, but do you recommend anything else for ME to do now? I cannot imagine you have the time to add those "regular rendered text" refs in all those places in the text draft. If I am still requested to do so, do I include the ENTIRE reference, including the name, link, page numbers, author of article notes? I apologize for my confusion… Porterwritewiki ( talk) 16:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki ( talk) 16:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's good now. Resubmit it and I'll accept it. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson ( talk!) 17:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

I went back into the text and added in (Parentheses) regular text references to the citations. This makes it super easy for a reader to keep track of the sources without popping down to the reference table. I also corrected some citation/footnotes that were not property aligned. Now it looks great. Rather than Morgan Freeman, we have Mr. Chips reading this article. Oxford not Hollywood. Thank you so much for your volunteer efforts on my behalf. I made my annual $$ contribution to the Wiki Foundation the other day and will do so again with appreciation and pride this summer. Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)PorterWritewiki

Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

Done. Resubmission is in your cue. Thank you again, APerson. You are a good coach.

Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki

Accepted. By the way, you don't have to include the ~~~~s before what you write. Also, I would recommend looking at WP:INDENT for an explanation as to why I keep putting those colons in front of our posts. To continue to make the article better, Wikipedia:Article development is a good guide. Thank you for your contributions! APerson ( talk!) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article was created. APerson ( talk!) 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the TINA.org article. If I eliminated all the content that is attributed only to TINA.org, would that suffice? I believe that all the other sources cited are solid, journalistic sources as defined by your guidelines. Any guidance is greatly appreciated. RayPellecchia ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find another source to which you can attribute that content, please do so. According to WP:SELFPUB (which you should look at), there are some situations in which you can cite TINA.org. If you are unable to attribute it either to TINA.org or any other reliable source, it would be advisable to delete that content. APerson ( talk!) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that additional insight. I had indeed looked at WP:SELFPUB and was hoping that the self-published material might be viewed as permissible. On reflection, I can see that some of it refers to another organization, which rules it out. Others list TINA's website features and social media that the public can use to help themselves in the fight against false advertising; I was looking at those as helpful to the public more than self-serving, but perhaps they are too self-serving? Any view on that would be welcome. One final question: once I edit the article and re-submit, does it go to the back of the line for review again? As Tom Petty says, the waiting is the hardest part. Thanks again. RayPellecchia ( talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am certain that one thing that can be attributed to any webpage is the existance of that webpage (e.g. This organization has a Twitter.^[1]), so that use should be fine. One thing I would strongly suggest fixing is that section "Media Coverage". All of those articles would make really good sources, so they should be used as such. (If you have a relevant external link that can't be used as a source and meets the external link guidelines, put it in a section called "External Links".)

Once you re-submit it, a time estimate will be displayed at the top of the "This article has been submitted" box and it will go to the back of the queue, time-wise. However, we are currently in a " backlog drive", where there is an incentive for the Articles for Creation reviewers to review as many articles as possible (with high quality, of course.) Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Terrific advice. Thanks again! RayPellecchia ( talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this aren't necessary, because if no page to be edited is specified, the template assumes it's the page that goes with the talk page the request is on, which is correct in this case. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 18:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

Thank you for the review of my article GAL22V10. I've gone back and added more sources including a textbook I recently got access to and multiple materials from college curricula as citations. Is it acceptable in its new state, or am I missing the mark with where I should be proceeding with notability? I assume that the Lattice Semiconductor sources are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB. Am I correct there as well? Thanks! Rarkenin ( talk) 03:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability seems good at this point, and you are correct in the application of WP:SELFPUB. If you resubmit it, another reviewer or I will review it and almost certainly create it. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson ( talk!) 04:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and for the review of the article. It is now revised, hopefully in accord with the comments and the review, overseas friend also helped with the style and contents. The article was shortened by 25 %, all non-English references except one, essential but without an English equivalent, were removed, together with the links to other language Wikipedias and Slovenian text. 6 new references were added. May I ask for your opinion? AndyKamy ( talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good now. The multiple third-party sources you cite seem to establish notability, and the grammar is good now. I added a couple of [citation needed] tags; please add sources for those sentences. Then, re-submit it and I'll create it. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson ( talk!) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for further comments, for another review. As instructed I added the sources for the two sentences where citation was needed and resubmitted the article.

AndyKamy ( talk) 21:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ done}} Created the article. APerson ( talk!) 14:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It has 7 declines. I think they are notable but prior submissions have been promotional and properly declined. I'll be working with them to make a proper submission with a conflict of interest. I was wondering if after I take a run at it if I could persuade you to take a fresh look at it. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the main issues I have with the article is not a lot of reliable, third-party sources. For instance, the "Technology" section (consider renaming to "Products" or "Products and Services") is completely lacking sources. The one statement that you stack 5 sources is the founder of the company; while it is important to cite a source or two with a statement like that, consider using those sources where they are needed more. The lead only has a single source, and the "Privacy" section sounds a little bit like a legal disclaimer in an advertisement. I hope these comments are helpful. APerson ( talk!) 20:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Yup. To clarify, I did not author any of the prior submissions.

I think the Privacy section is misleading, because they do have a lot of privacy-related features that are covered in secondary sources, but it is glaringly missing the point-of-view that it is actually a concern. While I only found one source that really nails this on the head, it's a crucial NPOV problem.

I've just got History, Software and services and Privacy sections on the draft that I'm working on mostly from scratch. I'll give you a ping when I'm ready and we can see if it stands up to the flames of impartial scrutiny. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your work during the WP:GOCE January 2014 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa ( talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for reviewing the Kloq Band page. Having read your comments I have added a few more references on top of the ones already there...

Regarding Empirion, they have their own Wikipedia page. They also features on Prodigy's 'Firestarter' single as a remix. I fail to see what else I can find as the band were notable and have been for years (since 1993).

Please advise with anything else that can be done to get this added as soon as possible.

Thank you very much in advance ! -- Woody286786 ( talk)>

That second sentence in the lead ("The bands music and sound has evolved from what was a Trance Music DJ project to a EBM, Electro-industrial sound into a full live Electronic rock Band.") is both unsourced and seems to have the same tone as promotional content for the band. Perhaps this could be reworded so that it is less promotional or integrated into the first sentence; either way, it should have a citation to a reliable source.

As for other comments, the entire "Band Members" section definitely needs a citation, as does the "Discography" section. For more types of things that should be cited, WP:PROVEIT says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged [should be attributed] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Please try and cite all statements that fit these criteria. Notability is also something that should be considered; there are probably a couple more periodicals that could be cited, such as a profile of the band or something of that sort. Make sure that the magazine or newspaper is a reliable source. I hope this addresses your questions. Feel free to ask more if I left something unresolved. APerson ( talk!) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you change your rationale? I'm going to change my votes soon; I'll give you updates. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are updates; you can change your opposing comments. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Sure. APerson ( talk!) 13:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm unclear exactly on what parts of the guidelines in WP:MANOTE this article is not meeting. The subject himself is noted in the article as the subject of several magazine articles (in English as well as other languages), and has held a distinctive position as a Hong Kong police force instructor. The art he teaches also meets the criteria under the guidelines, as it maintains international branches and is described in articles featuring Wan Kam Leung as well as other instructors. This info is from the English sources provided. The issue noted by the first reviewer seems to be with the Chinese sources; should I pare down the information taken from the Chinese sources and reassess the adherence to the notability guidelines then, using only English sources? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echirlin ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the articles cited, there is only one English-language, linked source that I can verify. The Blitz article is a good source. Therefore, notability seems good. However, another question I have about the article is the citations. According to WP:V, anything "likely to be challenged" must be cited. Examples of statements that should be cited include all those in the three middle paragraphs of the "Wing Chun Career" section. APerson ( talk!) 01:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But y... Asrarbaigs ( talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the reason I put on your talk page:

... because your contribution does not include one or more citations to reliable sources.

The policy section WP:PROVEIT says that anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. Your edits (for future reference: ( one, two, three) added the sentence "Nirmal is surrounded by many bangalpat taalab,khajana taalab,apna taalab,gollapet taalab,khasar taalab,moti taalab,manjulapur taalab,dyangapur,darzi taalab,darmsagar,siddapur..", which was not sourced to a reliable source. If you can, feel free to find some reliable source that says that, then check out Citation Style 1 for how to cite something. Thank you! APerson ( talk!) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message (yes, I am new) - but the previous edits likewise had not provided proper cited references - besides, it is charged with an agenda throughout which cannot be substantiated, hence my edits. Bouncing Faces ( talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Feel free to undo my edit. Also, you may want to start a new section on the article's talk page. APerson ( talk!) 03:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - your reasonable approach is most appreciated - much obliged to you. Bouncing Faces ( talk) 03:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi - are you able to undo your edits as I'm not sure how to reverse the edit?

Alternatively, please instruct me so I can do it please, thanks :) Bouncing Faces ( talk) 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually - I think I've sorted it - thanks very much! :) Bouncing Faces ( talk) 04:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what is going on here, but I've reverted Bouncing Faces again. "The last Ice Age ended around 5,000 BCE, and England has been inhabited ever since."? Dougweller ( talk) 09:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see he reverted me and has been reverted in turn by another editor. I told him 2No one claimed people were living there for over 800,000 years, the evidence points to habitation at that time. You changed the dates for the end of the last ice age by 5000 years, the date of the bow in Europe by 4000 and the date of the channel opening by 1500. You changed numerous to few. You were not "correcting unsubstantiated claims", you were changing sourced statements and even deleting the sourced material about the Devon jawbone." Dougweller ( talk) 12:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Bouncing Faces: You don't need to click "New Section" when replying to an existing conversation; WP:TP has some helpful information about using talk pages. This discussion should really be carried out on the article's talk page; I see that there already is a section, so it should be discussed there. APerson ( talk!) 13:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message and re-direction. However, "Doug" is insistent on undermining the truth as well as my edits and, because of his disrespectful behaviour, I have been put off supporting Wikipedia. Please do me the kindness of referring this matter higher up, just in case anyone up there is interested in the truth. If not, then on their heads be it (the spreading of lies), and I cannot in good conscience support lies. Thank you for your own kindness and reasonableness, nevertheless. Bouncing Faces ( talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit new but was trying to be helpful regarding Textspeak.

A redirect to SMS Messaging seems misleading and prevented interaction with other contributions to "textspeak"

"TextSpeak" applies to a variety of Interests

Is can be SMS, it can also refer to TextSpeak the technology, and it can also be used as a type of slang

"The process of shortening words and adding numbers" and may have nothing to do with SMS at all.

So i removed the redirect, but left it intact for others to continue to add to the page in coming months etc.

best regards :) OemEngr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemengr ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest making an article (using the Article Creation Wizard) about the technology before creating the disambiguation page. APerson ( talk!) 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am sure if I am signing correctly.. but let me try

talk

I did not think the technology of "TextSpeak" is the exact reason to remove the redirect. I simply question that "TextSpeak" Wiki should even use redirect, and certainly question why it was decided in 2007 it should go to "SMS". My point is it does not always mean SMS Messaging. In fact, Oxforddefines TextSpeak while excluding all references to SMS altogether. I feel my post should be left and expanded on, and not automatically steer wiki "textspeak" to SMS messaging with a redirect.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.. or if I've made my point, please reinstate my edits and along with the Oxford Link. I would be happy to update the TextSpeak page with more detail as well, but I think a redirect does not serve the readers of Wiki.

:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemengr ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

About signing: whenever you are on a talk page, you can sign your posts by putting four tildes (~~~~) after whatever you've just written.

About everything else: An important point here is that the redirect from Text speak goes to SMS language, not SMS, since "text speak" is merely another way to refer to the term "SMS language". I think that the redirect should be replaced by a disambiguation page if and only if there is something to disambiguate to. If there's an article about something else with the same name, by all means let there be a link to it. However, seeing as how there isn't an article about it, I think we should wait until the article is written before giving different things with the same name. APerson ( talk!) 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks on the tip on signing. For 2 or more items to disambiguate this page I can suggest 2 items now. Both "Internet_Slang" and "SMS_Language" would be more informative and a good start, rather than a hard redirect. Perhaps a link even to this might be helpful (it was for me anyway). Thoughts? .. BR Oemengr ( talk) 15:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) talk

Two notes about talk pages: You don't have to add the link to your talkpage, since it's already included in your signature. Also, I would suggest reading WP:INDENT for more information about talk page indentation.

About the disambiguation: It seems that you are proposing that Text speak be replaced with a disambiguation page with links to Internet slang and SMS language. One issue I have with this is that the two terms do not mean the same thing: one means the language used on the Internet, and the other means the language used on the SMS system. The original purpose of redirects is to avoid duplicate entries by redirecting all queries for terms that mean the same thing to the same location, so it would not be good if a redirect were replaced with a link to a page that doesn't mean the same thing. Also, the link you provided (the Wiktionary appendix) is already linked from the top of Internet slang. Again, I would recommend first creating the technology article, then creating the disambiguation page. APerson ( talk!) 18:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am unfamiliar with your style, but it seems to follow (at times) APA (I teach that), but in the case of McCarter, the initial should be a capital P (not lower case) and then Kyle should not follow (it is his middle name). On my copy, Fortress Press states Philadelphia, not Minneapolis. It is also Philadelphia on worldcat.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

With that explanation, the revert makes much less sense. I reverted my revert.

On a side note: You do not need to end your edit summaries with ~~~~, since you are already credited in the page's history. APerson ( talk!) 13:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit ( [1]) should not be classified as vandalism under any measure; and neither was it a test, as I knew what I was doing. 166.137.88.159 ( talk) 04:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I saw "rain colour = green" and thought it was vandalism. I see that an HTML comment was added preventing mistakes and will try to be more careful with people who are trying to change the color of rain in the future. APerson ( talk!) 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The list of things that are claimed to be associated with the purple ribbon is outrageously off. Just to name a few, Child Abuse is a blue ribbon, Drug abuse is red, Homelessness is green, Loss is blue and pink, 9/11 is red white and blue, anti gay bullying is a rainbow. The list goes on of what ribbons stand for the things listed under the purple ribbon, one of the few correct things is Crohn's disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.70.98 ( talk) 05:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

However, you removed quite a few things on the list that did have citations. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, a policy, includes a long list of things that should be considered instead of deleting text. Therefore, try to either tag the ones that are inaccurate or list the ones you removed on the article's talkpage. Feel free to go and add those things to the other "awareness ribbon color" articles, but make sure to cite a reliable source for them. Thank you for your contributions! APerson ( talk!) 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have taken note of what you said last time we spoke. Was just wondering if you could take a look once again and tell me if everything is all in order. I have included citations on pretty much everything that needs be. Band member, labels, history, notable content etc. Was also wondering what the next step would be and how long roughly it would take to go live. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody286786 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have just accidentally deleted my Submission part out and had to resubmit it... I actually resubmitted it 17 days ago when we last spoke and was 611th in the queue.... I am now last again. Is there anyway I could get put forward? Just when I think I'm getting the hang of this. Woody286786

 Created Article seems good now. APerson ( talk!) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome... Thanks for all your help and all the tips and advice you gave me on this. this. User:Woody286786 ( User talk:Woody286786) 03:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi APerson!

I've gotten several notifications that you have left me messages on my talk page, but every time I look I don't see anything. I apologize if you gave me notes for correction and it seemed I ignored them. Not sure if it's just me, or if there is an issue with my page? Maybe if you respond here I'll be able to see them?

Thanks!

Seabascol55 ( talk) 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Seabascol55

I think that the system is giving you a notification every time I edit your talk page, not just when I leave a message on it. The most recent (a grammar fix to my comment) was on 10 February, and I haven't left a message on your talkpage since the first discussion about your submission. APerson ( talk!) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was hoping you could weigh in on the article again. I'm getting a little frustrated with it. It was rejected because one of the editors thinks that all of my sources are paid promotions, which none of them are. I'm not quite sure what recourse I have other than to tell them they are wrong? Can you please advise me on this?

Seabascol55 ( talk) 15:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Seabascol55

I'll go and take a look at the discussion. I agreed previously with you that some of the sources are very reliable and others are less so. By the way, two notes on talk pages: You only have to type ~~~~, not ~~~~Seabascol55. Also, you may want to take a look at WP:THREAD, which gives indentation guidelines for talk pages. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for being so helpful. Seabascol55 ( talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked Alternative medicine#External links to see how the unicode character works. It doesn't, could you please go back and change the character to File:Asclepius staff.svg? Thanks! -- evrik ^{( talk)} 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Already done APerson ( talk!) 15:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with your rejection of Ryan_Van_Winkle.

• "The article should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources". It includes refs from three international broadsheet newspapers The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Age. He has also won the Crashaw Prize, which is a major UK poetry award. These are more than enough to demonstrate notability.
• "Reads kind of like a short, newspaper-style bio." Since when has this been a problem? It's a short bio using newspapers as references. You have a problem with tone?
• "Lead needs to be expanded a lot." It really doesn't, not for a three paragraph article. In no way is this a reason to reject an article.
• "Written like an advertisement". How? There is no overtly promotional tone? It talks about his background and the work he has done, that's all.

I have to say that it is no wonder that AfC is backed up if you keep rejecting articles with such flimsy reasoning. Span ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all 4 points of the above comment, and, in fact, I just accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The revision where I declined it looked to me like somebody hosting creating a vanity article. This seemed to be confirmed to me by the username, User:DavePoems, and the fact that the only contributions of the user (as of this post) are edits to the article in question. However, I will definitely be more careful when declining articles in the future. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. APerson ( talk!) 00:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Person, we stick to the rules about accepting or rejecting articles. I appreciate that you will go carefully. Span ( talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have accepted several articles you recently declined:

• Stefan Stremersch meets WP:PROF from holding a named professorship at a major university--the article did need considerable editing for format and style, but I did it easily enough--it was just a matter or removing excess material and fixing the attempt at an infobox.
• Larry Bourne seem unquestionably notable for the same reason. The style could be improved a little, but it's not all that bad as it stands.
• Hand Therapy (Journal), and Health Services Management Research, tho both minimal articles, meet the notability guideline,m inclusion in a major selective index (Scopus).

In the other direction, I nominated an article you accepted Carbone Smolan Agency for AfD as hopelessly promotional--I couldn't see any way to fix it without starting over. I almost sent Japec Jakopin, to AfD for the same reason, but I decided he was notable enough to be worth fixing and cut the irrelevant parts

I consider Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0 very highly promotional -- I am trying to decide what to do with it. As typical for articles on european projects, the style is so opaque that it's hard to figure out what to do. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stefan Stremersch, at the time I declined it was a completely uncited BLP (albeit with 2 external links, which were links to his bio at two university websites). Even though notability was met, sourcing was poor (i.e. nonexistent).
• Larry Bourne ( version I reviewed) was rather promotional and poorly sourced ("one of the leading geographers in North America", cited to a press release, and "His primary research interests are[...]", followed by a long list and uncited), and, at the time I declined it, only (or almost only) was sourced from press releases and university websites.
• As for Hand Therapy (Journal) and Health Services Management Research, I did not know of the notability guideline for periodicals. Could you link me to it?
• See the talkpage section for Japec Jakopin; could you point out how it is hopelessly promotional?
• Could you provide some sample sentences that show the high level of promotion present in Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0?

Thank you for your advice! APerson ( talk!) 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a useful conversation for all concerned. Span ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Spanglej: Would you mind giving some feedback to all involved about the articles in question? Thank you! APerson ( talk!) 15:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Some of the main criteria for academic notability:

• . The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
• . The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
• . The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
• . The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
• . The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
• . The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Both Stefan Stremersch and Larry Bourne certainly meet the above on several counts.

Larry Bourne was well referenced (at the time of rejection). I can see nothing in the reviewing instructions about only accepting secondary references It does say: "The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons." WP seems to developing a strong anti primary refs zeitgeist that isn't reflected in WP:PSTS. Certainly the extra secondary refs help support notability.

Japec Jakopin seems fine re notability as it's clear he has made an impact - see the Financial Times and Playboy refs. Promotionalism can be edited out.

I am not sure of how much work reviewers are expected to do on the articles these days, or indeed how much work you might be interested in. Certainly a cursory search on Googlebooks shows that Larry Bourne appears in over 14000 publications - mostly, it seems, related to city planning. This, in itself, should tell you that the subject is very notable and has a major academic impact. It seems to me that there is little point in rejecting articles without some effort to improve them, as the current system seems to just keeps them in the loop. I see many articles with 7 or 8 resubmissions each with slight alterations. Surely better to rescue the ones that can validly be rescued? But, I acknowledge that each editor brings the time, interest and approach that they bring and that we are all volunteers.

Hand Therapy (Journal), Health Services Management Research, Carbone Smolan Agency and Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0. I mostly edit biogs. Company profiles always seem to sail perilously close to promotional syntax to me. Perhaps it is in the nature of the beast. Many eyes on articles like these and a good knowledge of company notability guidelines would seem to be the best bet here. New Culture Technologies certainly needs a major re-write but like DGG, I don't know what to make of it. Which is why I stick to biogs. I've no doubt that most of these articles are near the margin, which is why it's important to go carefully. Hope that helps. Span ( talk) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Various points. In general (everything I say is of coursemy personal interpretation of what the rules are to the best of my understanding, not what I think they ought to be)

1. There are no formal enforceable standards for how to use AfC , except those applying to WP content in general. However, a reasonable degree of cooperation with general practice is expected, as it is everywhere in WP; ArbCom just deadmined someone for failing to cooperate or explain primarily with respect to AfC . AN/I has also topic-blocked a few uncooperative or eccentric editors from AfC.
2. There is no one place where general AfC practice is set out. The exact procedures of the AfC WorkGroup may not have general consent at this point; the general ideas do.
3. The accepted standard for accepting at AfC is a reasonable possibility of passing AfD (sometimes defined as 50%, tho some people, including myself, try to look for a little better) (The rationale is the person could always just put it into article space themselves, and, if declined and they think it unreasonable, they often do.)
4. The G speedy criteria apply even in AfC space, except that it is customary to be somewhat more lenient with G2 and G11 in the hope of improvement. The A criteria or the Prod criteria do not apply in AfC space, but they would apply to anything moved into article space.
5. We do not accept articles on living people without some reliable reference to verify the essential facts. It does not necessarily have to be a true third party reference, nor does it have to verify everything in the article. If unsourced BLPs are not removed at BLP PROD, they will be removed at AfD unless they get sourced.
6. The requirement for third party sourcing is for contentious or disputed facts, and for interpretations. This applies with special rigour to living people, especially for negative material. The requirement for third party sourcing in the GNG is a little different, and refers to independent sourcing , because it serves to show that others than the individual think him noteworthy.
7. WP:PROFis an alternative to the GNG, not a supplement to it. The provision normally met is showing that the person is an authority in their field; the other provisions are sometimes helpful shortcuts, The way someone is shown to be an authority is by the attention paid to their work. In the sciences, this is shown by citations to their journal articles. The exact standards vary by field, but there's generally agreement at AfD. As a rough guide, a full professor at a major research university is always accepted rejected at AfD unless there's prejudice, like their supporting some position we disapprove of here or working in a field we have contempt for.
8. For faculty in the humanities, it is often easier to meet WP:AUTHOR which is a very flexible standard indeed.
9. At AfC about half the articles will never be acceptable, though some are accepted. . 10% are acceptable as they come in, but half get rejected and usually never approved because the editors give up. Of the remaining 40%, less than one one-half of them ever get worked on again, about half the time successfully. That is, we lose more useful articles than we take, because most people do not return, & most who do never get helpful advice.
10. We therefore should never reject an article for minor problems, or because it could be better. They will get improved the same way everything else gets improved, in stages.
11. The best practice for minor problems is for the reviewer to fix at least some of them. I usually do that.

As for specifics, @APerson:

1. An article about a faculty member containing only one sentence: "A.B. is the Some Particular Named Chair of Something at X Well-Known University." with a reference to his official university CV, will almost always pass AfD. More is desirable, but not necessary.
2. Stremersch was therefore perfectly acceptable at the time you declined it. It would certainly have passed AfD. The main thing it needed was cutting the minor publications, which I did when I accepted it. I also fixed the attempt at an infobox; I wouldn't have kept it as it was, but i could have removed it if I hadn't felt like fixing it. Spanglej made some further improvements.
3. Bourne similarly would have passed also at the time you reviewed it. The sources were sufficient to show notability, tho not third person: major national level honours show notability. The advice you gave was flat-out wrong and contrary to policy--third party sources were not needed. I made some minor changes--further improvements by several people followed. if I had the time. I think some are still needed--we usually list all the books, and only particularly important articles. Some adjectives also still need removal.
4. Carbone Smolan Agency is at AfD & may or may not be kept. It shouldn't be. Unfortunately, the need to remove promotional articles is insufficiently recognized. I give in the AfD nomination the specific traits which are promotional. If it is kept, I will probably fix it, tho I resent needing to redo the work of promotional COI editors.
5. Jakopin, as I said. was not hopeless. I fixed the worst of it, because he's very notable . I would not have approved an article with a long section about his ancestors, or the career he did not follow. Such content is inappropriate. I'm flexible in what I'd approve, but not that flexible, because an article with such content has less than a 50% chance of passing AfD . More work is still needed, but it should be by someone who knows the subject better than I. (I see I disagree with Span here as well as with you. If I dod send it to AfD, that's the way it will be decided.)
6. The practical standard for journals is inclusion in selective indexes. Like most WP guidelines, its a practical guideline, not a formal one. The quality of the publisher is also in practice relevant. Scopus counts, tho there is some debate over whether its really selective enough. In any case , the two articles are good enough to risk AfD-- I give Hand Theory a little over a 50% chance--it's by a relatively minor publisher. HSMR is by the same publisher, but it's reputation is better in the social and management sciences than in medicine. In practice, the
7. ISNT is an excessively written article about a relative minor subject. Such articles are inherently promotional. Specific signs of promotionalism include
   1. buzzwords: critical use of information" " to further develop culture and media policies." "future perspectives" "
   2. worse, meaningless buzzwords: "competence platform"
   3. pleonasms: "future perspectives" "complex and heterogeneous"
   4. unsourced quality or priority statements: "one of the first"
   5. adjectives of quality: "major" "valuable resource" "extensive program"
   6. namedropping, such as the list of actually notable "collaborators" who once did something with them.
   7. advertising, plain and simple: "which encourages the users to deal with political content in a playful way and provides factual information and feedback opportunities." "s, enlightening the opportunities, challenges and risks of information and communication technology"
   8. minor details about the early days of the organaization.
   9. Repition of the name and of the suborganization's names.
   10. Listing all publications however minor, without any clear indication which are published by the organization, or in colalboration with it, or merely by people who sympathize.
   11. total avoidance of hard facts like membership , budget, number of staff.
   12. Listing of all news organizations that have covered it, even slightly
   13. Excessive ELs

It has some other problems as well. german references are fine, but english ones are advisable as well. Key German ones need a translation of a title or a key phrase, too high a percentage of refs are to their own websites, Printed sources are referred to using only dead links to online versions not available, while the specifics of the print should be given also.

I have decided what to do with it--I've decided to send it to AfD unless it gets improved with in short while. My guess of the chance of keeping it is about 30%--higher if rewritten, of course.

@Span. I agree that the distinction between promotionalism and information can be a little tricky. Even more trick in this respect than articles on companies are articles on non-profits. (perhaps because they get less scrutiny) The fundamental distinctions I try to use are 1/whether it is written in encyclopedic language, and 2/ whether the intend t is to tell readers what the company would want them to know--especially prospective purchasers/clients/students/contributors) or to provide information a general reader would want to know. To some extent its a question of promotional intent. Almost any promotional article can be cleaned from promotionalism by stubbifying -- the question is whether there would be anything much left, or whether it would require rewriting. If it requires basic rewriting rather than adjust the language or removing improper sections, its a G11 candidate. Increasingly, I consider it relevant for AfD whether the //ny is also marginal. I didn't use to think this way, but the deluge of promotionalism has led me to consider marginal notability plus marginal promotionalism to justify deletion. But that's a decision to be made at AfD, not be one person at AfC. If we had effective ways of getting contributors toactually improve articles, we could use a higher standard at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies that it has taken so long for me to get back to you with a proposed article for Tapad. I'll have it you soon. I've also submitted one for Brilliant Earth at: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brilliant_Earth

It's sort of a "feel-good" topic because their whole business is based on ethics, though there is a short snippet of criticism in there.

I saw that the queue is backlogged by 2,500+ submissions. I'm not really sure how fair it is for me to ask if I can skip to the front of the line, but if you do have time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, if you feel I should wait my turn, that's ok too. ;-) CorporateM ( Talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm trying to take a temporary break from AfC reviewing due to the amount of talk page traffic I've been getting over it. You may want to try asking another AfC reviewer. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you! APerson ( talk!) 23:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good Evening APerson, understanding you are very busy, would you please take a look at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Colorvision_International.

I made the adjustmets you suggested. Thank you for your help. D Cocchiarella 01:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcocchiarella ( talk • contribs)

At the moment, I'm trying to take a temporary break from AfC reviewing due to the amount of talk page traffic I've been getting over it. You may want to try asking another AfC reviewer. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you! APerson ( talk!) 23:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In this edit, you tagged the article with {{ technical}}, to say This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Unfortunately you didn't comment at the talk page to say why you thought that. This is a perennial issue with mathematics articles -- perhaps most readers do not understand any of them, or even want to do so. Presumably a reader looking for information about Yoneda's lemma is already reasonably prepared mathematically. Are you suggesting that the article is too technical for a reader who, say, already knows what a category is? As it happens I do not think that it is, and am removing the tag. In any event it would help if you were to explain your concerns at the article talk page rather than this "hit-and-run" tagging. Deltahedron ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing at least 25 user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 ( talk) on 10:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing at least 175 submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for contributing to the backlog elimination drive! Posted by Northamerica1000 ( talk) on 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Hello APerson:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 ( talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

APerson, My first ever article about the Carbone Smolan Agency in New York was accepted by you on January 8 2014. A friend searching for it just told me it was not available. When I looked it up, she was correct. I also had my Sandbox deleted for some unknown reason. When I looked on my talk page there was a lot of talk regarding articles that I had not written and had nothing to do with. Can you explain why the article was later pulled off Wiki (by another reviewer?) and if any of this has to do with the articles that have been attributed to Porterwritewiki (me) but I had nothing to do with? Could my Wiki name have been hacked? If there was a problem with the Carbone Smolan Agency article AFTER you approved it January 8, I was unaware of it. I had not checked back in more than a month. Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Bianculli, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 02:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I read your comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whited00r. It said "Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

But there were references up until the day before you declined it! Somebody named "Happy Attack Dog" deleted the external references. I consider that vandalism.

(Note that I had weeks earlier deleted many references that the original author had written, because the first moderator who declined the article said they were "blogspam.")

Can you suggest a way to get this article approved without waiting another month... and possibly getting vandalized again? Mackerm ( talk) 14:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(Pinging @ Hasteur, @ Sintaku, @ Happy Attack Dog) The Gizmodo ref seems to at least give some indication of notability. However, even in combination with the other independent source, the submission still seems to be failing GNG. If other reliable non-blog sources can be found, I'm all for creating this article. APerson ( talk!) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You can look at the last version of the article before I did my edits. The original author included a huge number of reviews, including C-Net Wired, and Engadget. Too many, I'll agree, but I'd say he did a pretty good job for a new Wikipedia author. Is there any alternative to re-submiting and waiting a whole month?

As for the article "failing GNG", people will certainly fix it once it's approved. They won't fix it if they can't find it. Mackerm ( talk) 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mackerm,

I just wanted to let you know that the reason I deleted the Review section was not to damage the page, but to take out, what in my opinion, was the promoting of the product Section (that is, the Review section) in order for it to fit better with the guidelines of NPOV. Hope this will clarify everything.... Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is notable, however it is written like and advert and isn't sufficiently referenced to prove notability. Sorry I should have probably chosen not notable over written like an advert as per the AfC reviewing guidelines. With more independent reliable references see WP:RS, it may pass notability see WP:GNG. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello APerson. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " David Bianculli".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Bianculli}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. APerson ( talk!) 23:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the last log report I had from APerson on that article:

03:37, 8 January 2014 APerson (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency to Carbone Smolan Agency (Created via Articles for creation (you can help!) (AFCH beta)) (revert)

Now I cannot find my Wiki history or that article! Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki ( talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is my response. If you can offer me ANY advice on how to resubmit this, I welcome it. You have been nothing but kind, fair and honest. I am learning to do this and as a writer for one of the most respected magazines in the field, Communciation Arts, I would like to write more articles on this subject about other studios and people who should be on the Wiki resource list. DGG might not like my writing but CSA is peers with MANY other firms (e.g. Pentgram, Massimo Vignelli, Steve Heller) who are on these pages. I had not checked the article in a while. So, if I can work with you, please let me revise it so it will pass the stink test of being too promotional. There are thousands of for profit organizations on these pages and if you have to tell their story, it is by nature promotional. But I tried very hard to cite many third-party resources to PROVE that it had merit and CSA was worthy. Thank you again,APerson. Porterwritewiki ( talk)porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki ( talk)

Talk History: I just learned that a previously approved article I had written was deleted. First, reading the trail of comments below, I am a person, not a team of editors and I find the suggestion by DGG that I am "I suspect from the name of the contributor and totally inappropriate style that this is the work of many of our not-very-skilled-paid-editors" to be hostile, personal and insulting. I have never written for Wiki and I am a known writer for other magazines that cover graphic design. Every suggestion APerson made to me for change was made. DGG's suggestion that I cited their own ARCHIVE is incorrect. I did cite their book — which was NOT self published — and I used information that told their history. If that should be cut down, so be it.

To be safe, I tried to find any relevant citation in our industry and used it. APerson did not ask me to make fewer citations and all of them are respected (not TRIVIAL) in our industry. Too promotional? It is the brief history of an esteemed FOR PROFIT company that has made a historic impact on this industry and is revered by many of the same people who are featured on this online resource? Please, if someone can guide me on what to remove I will make the effort to do it. I put a lot of time into this and I was certain that this article was superior to ANY of the peer organizations that I was reading on WIKI that are up and acceptable now.

As for "name dropping" (another comment by DGG, that is unkind and inaccurate), the names I cite I also quote and they are people on Wiki who are PEERS of Ken Carbone and Leslie Smolan. The pair were just nominated to the AIGA Hall of Fame, affirming my choice to write this article about this agency. Why write it? Because so many of their peers are on Wiki now and if they are Wiki then Carbone Smolan should be too. I have received no payment from CSA for this but I know them personally (of course) and told them I felt they should be on the encyclopedia if people like Pentagram and Stefan Sagmeister and Steven Heller and Massimo Vignelli were.. These people are competitors and peers. And as for "trivial mentions" in publications, most of these are interviews My first reviewer, APerson, was very helpful and I responded to each of their comments and requests/suggestions for changes.

When you ask the contributors to be polite and appreciative, how do you regard the acid commentary of an editor like DGG? Other Wiki editors deemed the piece worthy of publication. If Wiki is not a place to talk about such companies as Carbone Smolan and other design firms of note, fine. But pull all of them down. But don't call my promotional when I used so many outside references to verify that the CSA group is notable, important and has made a great impact on the graphic design/communication arts profession.

I have never yet deleted an article , or listed one for deletion, on the sole grounds that it appeared to be written by a paid editor. for one thing, even if we did ban paid editing, there is so much already in WP that perfectly well-meaning people could think that the style they customarily use is expected and appropriate. If I assumed wrong I apologize, but we are under such a deluge of clearly paid promotion that we're getting very defensive. However, that an article is accepted by one editor at AfC does not necessarily mean that it will be kept in the encyclopedia. No one person decides that, but rather the consensus. I am not infallible, and I accept the result of the community. The decision was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency. I listed it for deletion, and other people commented. Opinion was clearly divided. the closer (User:Slakr) gave a detailed rationale for his close, and the first step normally would be to discuss it with him. However, to facilitate matters, I notified him for you just now, and suggested he come here.

Both he and I were of the opinion that the subject was notable, and an acceptable article could be written. I will gladly put the article back in your user space and make some suggestions for improving it. (I could go in detail into all the things that made it seem overly promotional , but it'll be better done when we have it in front of us.) OK? DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on my talk p., I have moved the deleted article to User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone Smolan Agency for improvement. (I moved it there, not back to AfC, to avoid confusion DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

I do not understand why my article on Tito Canepa was not accepted. Can you please explain so I can make whatever changes are necessary?

Thanks, Leezk ( talk) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's guidelines, which I linked to in my comment on your submission (look under the "decline" box), is WP:VAGUE. It talks about some words and phrases that generally should not be used in Wikipedia articles, since they make the article seem like it isn't neutral. To quote from my comment on the submission:

Some phrases in this submission which I think violate this guideline include "his work enjoyed a new wave of appreciation" (rather vague), "he is the leading modernist painter of the US Dominican dispora" (probably fails WP:PEACOCK; needs a reference), and "In 1996 it was only natural that..." (check MOS:OPED).

There are other phrases besides these. In general, if a phrase doesn't seem neutral, you should try replacing it with something else OR adding a citation to a reliable source. For instance, in "In 1996 it was only natural that", the "it was only natural that" could simply be removed, since a) it's not neutral and b) it doesn't add anything significant to the article. I hope this clears things up! APerson ( talk!) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your input; I've made the changes as you suggested. Please let me know if the article is alright now.

Best,

Leezk ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Created The article was created.

Side note: You may want to check out WP:THREAD for correct indenting guidelines. You don't need to click on "New section" at the top to reply to an existing conversation; just edit the section where the conversation is and add what you want to say at the bottom of it. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Aperson,

The banners at the top and bottom of the article warn of bare URLs and the dearth of categories. I have fixed both issues. Is it therefore possible for you to remove the banners?

Tito Canepa's son owns the paintings and photos of them which he would like to have included in the article. I am puzzled by the different size requirements for "non-free content, fair use". I see that for common cover art the horizontal and vertical dimension of an image should not surpass 250 px and 400 px respectively. The total pixels should not surpass 100,000. There seems to be a different resolution and size guideline for thumbnail inline images. Can he be in touch with you for guidance in these issues?

I appreciate all your help in presenting this Wikipedia article in the most elegant and presentable format.

Thanks so much!

93.46.210.207 ( talk) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, an editing guideline, urges you to "go for it". By this, I mean: go right ahead and remove the tags! It is not necessary to ask someone else to remove the tags, or even discuss doing so, if the removal of the tags is obviously not controversial (i.e. it is obvious that the issues mentioned have been fixed).

For your image resolution question, I think you're looking at WP:IMAGERES. I am not an image expert, so I would highly recommend that you ask over at WP:IMAGEHELP. The article looks pretty good; you may want to check WP:DEV for help on how to develop an article and WP:WBA for advice on writing effective articles. Thank you for your contributions! APerson ( talk!) 22:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for reviewing my article Isle of Man Companies Act 2006.

This is my first submission to Wikipedia, hopefully I will follow it up with additional articles about the other Isle of Man Companies Acts in due course.

I am going to try to improve the Article as you have suggested by adding more references which demonstrate notability.

In the meantime, please do let me know if you have any other specific suggestions.

thanks again Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middletonkatz ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Martinjskatz seems to also be working on the template, so I've pinged him (using {{ ping}}).

The biggest issue I have with the submission at the moment is that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. APerson ( talk!) 20:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I took a look at the GNG. Is your concern about the sources cited or about the notability actual topic itself ?

In terms of the notability of the topic itself - I note that a number of companies acts already have Wikipedia entries - which I personally find very useful. For Example..

• BVI Business Companies Act - which as it happens references Isle of Man Companies Act 2006 in its footnote.
• The UK Companies Act 2006 as well as other Companies Act for Scotland, HongKong, India, South Africa and probably many more that arn't listed on that page..

There have been more than 10000 companies incorporated under the Isle of Man Companies Act 2006 since it was introduced in 2006.

Please can you provide me with a little more guidance of how / if I might modify the draft to make it acceptable ?

Thanks Martin Katz - Middleton Katz - BTW - I am martinjskatz but i decided to submit the article as middletonkatz because I will get other members of my company involved in writing future articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middletonkatz ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

About the article: Looking at the revision as of this post of the submission, I see only 3 sources, one of which is a link to a generic homepage of the website and two of which are government publications. The main concern I have right now about the submission is that the sources aren't enough to prove notability. One easy-to-read rendering of Wikipedia's notability policies can be found at WP:42 - what other editors and I am looking for are sources which prove that the act is notable. For instance, if you can find a periodical article that mentions that statistic (There have been more than 10000...), then by all means put that in the submission and cite that article!

A couple of notes about other stuff:

• You should read WP:THREAD for advice on indenting posts made to talk pages, which is a convention generally followed on Wikipedia in order to make conversations more easily understandable.
• About your use of multiple accounts: quoting WP:ISU, Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted. I would strongly suggest using your personal account rather than the "corporate" one. See WP:CORPNAME and WP:MULTIPLE for more information on this.

Thank you for your work on the article, and I'm looking forward to the point at which it can get created! APerson ( talk!) 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, thank you for your patience and your advice. I will not use the MiddletonKatz account anymore. Further changes will be done via martinjskatz as you have recommended. I have added a couple more newspaper references; Financial Times and a local Isle of Man Newspaper. I have also added the 10,000 company statistic supported by a link to the Isle of Man Government statistics website. I haven't resubmitted it yet - please can you let me know if I should ?

Thanks again Martinjskatz ( talk) 20:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

hello again...Aperson; I decided to resubmit the article again now I have made those changes. I hope that's ok Martinjskatz ( talk) 08:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

One reference that I had a problem with is the MiddletonKatz website. The issue is not with the fact that you're linking to the website, but the fact that it's a generic link - i.e. that it just links to middletonkatz [dot] com, not a specific page on that website. I would strongly recommend fixing this.

Otherwise, the article seems good in terms of quality and I will definitely take another look at it as soon as this change is made. APerson ( talk!) 13:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made the changes as suggested and improved (I hope) the quality of some of the referencing. Please let me know if you have any other comments - otherwise, I hope for the good news that you have created my first article on Wikipedia - thank you:-) Martinjskatz ( talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Created Article was created. APerson ( talk!) 20:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you patience. I appreciate it. Martinjskatz ( talk) 06:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of schools in Bikaner, Rajasthan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Public School and Delhi Public School ( 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) 08:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for reviewing 50 or more submissions during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 ( talk) on 18:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		A barnstar to you for re-reviewing 25 or more user reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia! Posted by Northamerica1000 ( talk) on 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark ( dibra) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying issues with references on this page. I have removed the dead links and statements associated with them. please check out the remaining references and let me know whether they actually support what they claim to. I thought they did but would value an external opinion. Fattutor ( talk) 20:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fattutor, I placed the {{ unreliable sources}} tag on the page because I saw references to sites like Google Plus and LinkedIn, which have a high chance of being unreliable sources. However, looking at WP:BLPSELFPUB, the sources are used in a correct fashion. I don't really have any other complaints about the sources used in the article, though I saw some statements in the article that need sources and tagged them with {{ cn}}. APerson ( talk!) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive edits and suggestions. This was my first wikipage when I started out and I would value critical appraisals as most edits don't really tell what exactly the editor meant by it. I have removed the dead links and put in a missing citation. What can I do to improve the citations? It would be really helpful if you could advise what is lacking iand what is needed. There is a wealth of paper citations as the period referred to is in Sri Lanka and they have not put up all their newspapers on line and a lot of material is in non English language publications Fattutor ( talk) 06:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the lead section. Any comments or suggestions Fattutor ( talk) 06:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One really important content guideline that pertains to good sources is WP:RS, a guideline on identifying reliable sources. You may want to check that out, as well as WP:DEV, a page that describes the "stages in a life of an article". Briefly looking over the article, I see a small amount of issues that should be solved by a good copyedit (I'll try to do one as soon as I have some free time).

About that lead section: It looks like you expanded it by copying and pasting the "Known for" section from the infobox into the lead. While this may provide a concise version of the major points in the article, which is the whole point of a lead, I would recommend a look at WP:MOSINTRO, which talks about what a lead should look like.

About talk pages: You don't have to start a new section every time you respond; you can just add your comment at the bottom of the section where the discussion is taking place. However, you should indent your posts to improve their readability. I would suggest looking at WP:TPHELP for strongly suggested general talk page layout and WP:THREAD for specific help on indentation.

Anyway, thank you very much for your contributions! APerson ( talk!) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

many Thanks. I really appreciate the advice and guidance. your conduct epitomises what i expected from a good wikipedia editor to improving articles and supporting others instead of a purely regulatory function. I will have a look at the areas you recommended and try to write a stand alone abstract as they do in some academic papers which can stand alone Fattutor ( talk) 08:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I accidentally created a general hospital character as days of our lives. So can u please delete this page:- /info/en/?search=Carlos_Rivera_%28Days_of_Our_Lives%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessruby ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Already done APerson ( talk!) 16:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

U suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.0.206 ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevant article: Carlos Rivera (General Hospital). Relevant AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Rivera (General Hospital)

Hello,

Why is my article being considered for deletion? Please advice and if possible do give me more time to improve my article. /info/en/?search=Carlos_Rivera_(General_Hospital) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessruby ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Princessruby, it looks like @ Livelikemusic has already described why they nominated the article for deletion and you didn't respond there. APerson ( talk!) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I will respond right away, thank you. -- Princessruby ( talk) 07:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that I left her @ Livelikemusic a message on her page the very same day on why the page should not be considered for deletion. If possible do give me a week's time to work on my article, thank you. -- Princessruby ( talk) 07:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anybody has voted on the AfD so far; after reading the article more carefully, it is possible that I will vote.

A side note: You don't have to click "New section" to reply to an existing post; all you have to do is edit the section that contains the conversation and add your post at the bottom. Also, it is generally helpful to other editors to indent your posts according to the guidelines at WP:THREAD. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to make a note, I am a he not a she. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh my bad. I thought you were a "She" all this time.-- Princessruby ( talk) 18:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello APerson,

I have a question regarding the creation of this article: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Blimp_Rock

Will a greater quantity of secondary, reliable citations allow this article to be accepted? If so, what number of citations might you suggest?

Thanks for your time, Pdemakos ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello APerson:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of ( t)  Josve05a ( c) by {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

Dear APerson, Thank you for your review of my article on media management. You said that the content was not enough for an article of its own. So my question is, what has to be included to become an article of its own? I am not happy with the solution to include my text into the article media communication, because media management is something quite different. I would like to improve my text for media management and would appriciate some advices. Thank you a lot in advance! Mysterious-times Mysterious-times ( talk) 12:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I will respond on your talkpage. APerson ( talk!) 18:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a relevant source of information. I am not sure I found your comments unless it regards the presence of Wikipedia articles referenced when there should not be. So, my first submission had not enough references and the second submissions included inappropriate references. After reading the guidelines I realized that there were too many insignificant references in my article and it was my intention to clean it up. My apologies for not doing it quickly enough and wasting your time. I will remove all the Wikipedia links plus the links where she is barely mentioned. I will add a section about they Young Dubliners because I discovered she was a founding member of that group in the late 80's. I'd like not to waste your time, can you let me know please if I am in the right direction. Regards,

Vincent Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincepm ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you're heading in the right direction. I would also suggest (note that this is not required) taking a look at Citation Style 1. APerson ( talk!) 02:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not actually a submission. APerson ( talk!) 00:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello APerson. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " Shari Olefson".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Talk:Shari Olefson (attorney)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo ( talk) 17:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't actually a submission; this was caused by an accidental transclusion of the AfC submission template. APerson ( talk!) 00:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the AFC "Reference Intakes". I've added a sentence to the lead; do let me know if more is required. Norman21 ( talk) 09:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Already done The submission was already promoted to an article. APerson ( talk!) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

{{ admin help}} Would it be possible for an admin to add the bot I'm operating which just got approved for trial to the AWB checkpage? Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Removed request from talkpage; best to list it at only one venue APerson ( talk!) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Every Witch Way § i have rights.

 – APerson ( talk!) 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my AfC reviews. I'm concerned, however, because you put your comments in the bot-controlled section of the page. Won't these reviews be over-written the next time it adds more to the list? You might move your reviews to the bottom with the other reviews. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, in my experience the bot will always detect the comments and move them to the bottom. The backlog drive page advises placing them in the top section, as does the documentation for Template:AFCDriveQC. APerson ( talk!) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't know that. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer me this question, APerson. In this day and age, can we afford to turn a blind eye to torture, persecution and murder. What does Wikipedia want to tell the readers of Putin's page. That he is an outdoors guy, that he can sing, that he rides horses. How can this be put under public image and not the fate of these people. There are enough reliable sources to prove these monstrous events. How can Vladimir Putin not have one Controversy section. His power, KGB membership and mental capacity has brought the deaths of numerous figures who fought for democracy in the former Soviet Union, which now looks like the Former Soviet Union is going to be The Current Soviet union. How can we live with ourselves knowing that we saved a page which misinforms readers. I implore you to read the information that you reverted.

APerson if you are really a person, you will understand why this information needs to be added to his article. Not as a form of propaganda. Because it isn't that. It's facts. Putin's current page is a farce. Please let Wikipedia be a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Radiohist, you should bring up any questions you may have about the neutrality of the article on the article's talk page, not my user talk page. You can add whatever content you want to the page so long as it isn't directly copy-and-pasted in violation of WP:COPYVIO and its addition doesn't violate any other Wikipedia policy. I would suggest looking at the information page WP:COPYPASTE. Thank you for your understanding. APerson ( talk!) 00:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In other words you are not willing to assist me, but simply to scold me...thank you very much for wasting my time? Radiohist ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that I am not willing to assist you in fixing the issues you have with the article, due to the lack of experience I have in writing content in that specific subject. The only thing I'm scolding you for is copying-and-pasting a large chunk of text from a website into an article. To repeat my most recent comment, if you were to write the content in question and add it to the article - without close paraphrasing of the website and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, I wouldn't mind if you added it.

If you believe that the article violates WP:NPOV, go for it! (While keeping in mind WP:CAREFUL and WP:BRD.) APerson ( talk!) 18:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

You recently rejected my article on Angel Propps. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused as to what I need to do to cite sources. She has over 100 titles in print and won several awards. Do I need to place the entire body of her work into the article? Also her teaching schedule spans across the years and she has a hectic schedule still. Do I need to cite those sources as well? What exactly separates notable from non-notables? I'm not asking to be huffy, I am just trying to ensure that I get this done properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovationaangel ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The user Joe Decker has written the best explanation I've found of notability as conferred by independent, reliable sources: One of the basic bars an article like this is going to have to meet is notability, which is defined under Wikipedia as being shown by coverage in arm's-length, reliable sources. These are usually things such as newspaper articles and magazine articles, and excludes the sort of "reprinted press releases" common to some local business rags--those sources must be independent and reliable. (from here) So, all you need to do is go and find some sources about Angel Propps (which are about her: this specifically excludes tangential mentions) and cite them in the article, while demonstrating that she is notable. The specific guideline that's relevant here is WP:NAUTHOR. If one or more of the criteria listed there are met, it means that she's likely to be notable (from the intro to the criteria). APerson ( talk!) 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Again APerson.

Would you check this article out and tell me if I have it on the correct place so that is cued for review. You may remember this story and that you approved it about Jan 7 but it was pulled down in late Feb. In late May I edited it heavily, removing some of the concerns. It MIGHT have too many sources but I did remove many of the quotes attributed to the subjects, Ken Carbone and partner Leslie Smolan. Anyway, I am new to this and I am not certain I have placed it back in the appropriate area. I will sign off here then sign back on with a link to the location of it now. porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki ( talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The link to the draft today is: /info/en/?search=User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone_Smolan_Agency Porterwritewiki ( talk) 18:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

When you would like to submit it to the Articles for Creation process (which I remember you did last time), just put {{ subst:submit}} at the top of the submission. It's fine if you keep it in the user namespace (i.e. the title of the page starts with "User:"); you can also move it to the draft namespace.

A quick note about the content of the submission itself: before submitting it, carefully read the discussion that resulted in the article's deletion. Be absolutely sure that the article does not violate WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Having said that, good luck with the article! APerson ( talk!) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have just read the NOTFORPROMOTION page and the link off it to NOTABILITY requirements. I will read again and edit some more before I move it to the Articles for Creation page. Then, I will let the folks like you decide and give me feedback. Thank you for your advice and attention. Porterwritewiki ( talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You rejected my submission for a page for the upcoming film "Found Footage 3D" with only a link to "What Wikipedia is not". That covers a very broad range of topics. Can you please be more specific? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.128.186 ( talk) 06:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on the draft linking to the policy WP:CRYSTAL, which is a section of " What Wikipedia is not". The guideline WP:NFF and the essay WP:FFILM should also be considered: according to the former, your submission would be considered notable, since it has been confirmed by a reliable source that principal photography has begun. However, the previous reviewer declined the submission with a note that it would be best to wait until the film has been released to create an article about it. Given that many of the sources in the submission tend to read like press releases (see also WP:PRIMARY), I think it would be better to wait until the movie is released. Finally, please keep in mind the original Articles for Deletion discussion. Thanks! APerson ( talk!) 18:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand how or why the goalposts got moved. The article was originally marked for deletion because there were no reliable sources confirming that filming had begun. There are now three reliable sources attesting to that fact (including one which uses the phrase "we can confirm that filming has begun") but now, for reasons I don't understand, someone ELSE has decided that it doesn't pass notability guidelines until it's been RELEASED, which is not what the plain language of the notability guidelines says. So why the change of heart? That's all I'm trying to understand. Why does this article now have a higher bar to clear? Thanks. Steve austin99 ( talk) 02:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that multiple people voted to delete it in the past, I feel that it might be a better idea to wait until the movie is actually released. Although I may be running the risk of LAWYERING, WP:NFF doesn't say that once it gets released, it's notable; it says that if it has not been released, it isn't notable.

However, if the article gets created now, there's a chance that it will get proposed for deletion, perhaps by the same people who proposed that it get deleted the first time. I can definitely create the article now, but I think waiting would be good too. What do you think? APerson ( talk!) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's kind of my biggest worry: that it'd be PRODed or speedied by the same people. I've been told by more than one editor that it's usually better to wait until you have a lot of sourcing that's harder for people to argue against, as otherwise successive deletion discussions makes it harder to argue for notability in the future. IE, if it gets added to the mainspace each time we get a little more coverage like 1-2 sources, then it's easier for them to argue that it's still non-notable even though the latest version of the article has 3-4 more sources than the previous version. It's frustrating, but I've seen it happen. As far as releasing goes, the argument "once it releases" is pretty much code for "once it releases it'll be likely to gain more coverage, which will help it show notability". It's fairly common for horror movies to get some initial coverage but then all of it dries up once the film is completed. I've worked on multiple articles for films where I expected there to be sourcing, but then the sourcing never came about- sometimes even with a big name actor involved. A good recent case would be Deadly Revisions, an article that I've been working on for a while now. It has Bill Oberst in it, who is pretty much the It Guy of horror movies right now, but it's received pretty much no reviews in places I could use as a RS. A lot of the mainstream sites put out material about it to begin with, but haven't released anything since so I'm stuck waiting in the hope that they'll review the DVD/VOD release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually strike that- finally found a review. I should hopefully be able to move it to the mainspace now! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The submission Northwest Conference Baseball History has been rejected twice on the basis of requiring more reliable, independent sources. Because these archives stretch back to the late 1980's, few (sometimes just single) sources exist to reference the data and text that comprise in the wiki page submission. Because of these limitations, looks like I'm stuck (dead end).

Salem zeus ( talk) 18:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC) salem_zeus

I declined your submission because it looked to me like a vast majority of the sources were not independent. However, considering the subject of the submission, it would be hard to avoid using a lot of sources that are related to the article's subject. I wasn't considering the subject thoroughly when I declined it.

However, there are still large problems with the article's content, so I could interpret my decline as declining due to poor usage of sources. Generally, Wikipedia articles are written in summary style, which doesn't give room for excerpts from the website. Those should definitely be removed or summarized before the article gets created. APerson ( talk!) 19:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What should I do next--just wait? I am new to DYK. Btw for Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden, I was told I should do a QPQ, but I don't know how to do them. Are you able to help please? Zigzig20s ( talk) 04:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You should just wait for someone who manages the queue to come by and move it there, thereby preparing it for display on the Main Page. For an explanation of what QPQ is, you should see #5 at WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria. Basically, when you self-nominate for DYK (and you have five or more DYK credits) you have to review another DYK nomination. APerson ( talk!) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}} I disagree with your assessment of the noteworthiness of Donadea. It is every bit as noteworthy as any other civil parish in Ireland. I know of no other article for a civil parish that has been refused. Many, like Kilshanny, have even fewer merits than Donadea. Even if it was not notable, it is essential to the building up of a comprehensive schema for parishes and baronies in the county such as has been developed for County Clare. Please revisit your decision. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, arguments like "any other civil parish" fall under OTHERSTUFF and INN. The decline reason I used your submission, in my interpretation, says absolutely nothing about whether or not I consider it to be a notable subject. It simply states that I do not think that the sources sufficiently prove the notability of the subject of the submission. As of this post, the sources of the submission are: a link to a database of place names, one SPS (which was added since my review of the submission), the local church's website, a SELFPUB, and a corporate website that is only about the park, giving the parish a tangential mention. Per the nutshell summary of NGEOG, which has been promoted to a guideline since the review, [l]egally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. Therefore, as soon as there are sources which prove this, the submission is definitely going to be accepted. APerson ( talk!) 01:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does it have to be populated? If the article was solely about the forest park and not the surrounding parish, would it be notable? For example, does Frank's Wood meet the criteria? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The population of a place is not a requirement for notability; instead, it's a condition that results in the place being considered notable. I can find a bunch of sources about just the park, but there don't seem to be a whole lot of sources that give Donadea Forest Park significant coverage (as mandated by WP:GNG). I personally don't think that Frank's Wood meets the criteria given the provided sources, and I just tagged it to indicate that. APerson ( talk!) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I accepted it; everyone is agreed that all such parishes are notable. (forests and parks vary, but we have usually kept those of any significance.) All that is necessary for an article is to show real existence, because there have been mistakes with names and so forth. The references show that. I accepted it. But Laurel Lodged, the article needs improvement: please add more detailed sourcing, and remove adjectives of praise. APerson, those are the sort of improvements that can be made in mainspace. I think the consensus for acceptance is that the article just has to be good enough that it clearly won't be deleted DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

DGG, that makes sense; can you point me to some discussions where the consensus that all such parishes are notable has been reached? APerson ( talk!) 02:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

as I do not believe anyone has ever nominated a civil parish for deletion in the seven years I have been here, there has been no discussion. See the lists at the end of Civil parishes in England--every one is a blue link. There have been discussions on Philippine barangays, with variable results, partly because of their unfamiliarity here. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

Draft:CitizenShipper ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi APerson! Thanks for reviewing this article. I can see a couple places where I might tone down language that appears in the independent sources, but there's not a whole lot that looks unencyclopedic. Can you tell me what parts you think should be removed? I hope to copyedit and add more sources very soon. You might also compare Anyvan, Shiply, and UShip, which are all in the same category. (Feel free to tone down any ad language in any of those articles as well!) Thank you! Frieda Beamy ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Created I probably was too strict with the guidelines when I initially declined the article. The guidelines for reviewing submissions say that the submission must have a 50% chance of surviving an Articles for Deletion discussion, and this submission has a chance that's almost certainly better than that; therefore, I'll accept it. APerson ( talk!) 02:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

Draft:Troy Ladd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my page submission has been declined for "lacking notability" when I have 10 times the notability listed of current peers of my subject that do have published pages (I have multiple independent published book and magazine articles referenced- while others have one or two). Editors in the live chat have told me I have plenty of notability for publication or posting, but still I am declined and given little to no guidance on making changes that will correct the page for posting. Please help! Thank you- ADDED- No respose to my question? Response was given to the person below mine? Please advise. Hhrfan ( talk) 00:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hhrfan, would you mind pinging (using {{ ping}} or something) the editors who have assured you that the subject of the submission is sufficiently notable?

First of all, please remove some of the duplicated content from the submission so we know what version to review. The main problem which, when fixed, will move the submission much closer to being accepted, is the tone of the submission. All submissions have to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAP. Although your submission is not an extreme example of an advertisement, there is still content there that definitely has a non-neutral tone. For instance, (without a source) the submission claims that "Troy is looked to by fellow hot rod owners and builders for inspiration" and characterizes some of his builds with "refined elegance". Additionally, the long list of television shows could probably be turned into prose. Hope this helps! APerson ( talk!) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The people who told me were quite a while agto and this completely confusing system doesn't make it easy fo non-computer programmers like me to navigate. Are you saying you do not see enough "notability"? The requirement is so totally random. I've seen so many published pages with one reference listed. So is it really the tone than? I do not know how to remove previous submissions. Hhrfan ( talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the duplicated content. It looks like the article is good: although a few tone issues remain, I'll just tag the article about them rather than hold up creation of the article. Thank you for your contributions! APerson ( talk!) 20:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}}

Draft:Entrevues Belfort film festival ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi ! You put on relief the fact that there is two submissions for the same page. However, for the first submission, you told me that there was a lack of external links in english and blocked the edition of it, so I created a second draft with, this time, several external links. This page is the exact copy of the french one... so I really don't understand why I encoutered so many issues to publish a page which is the exact copy of a pre-existent page on the French Wikipédia. Look at our website, there is nothing false or wrong with thoses submissions.. So, I can delete the first submission and keep this one for another review ? BeastieJim ( talk) 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You !

BeastieJim ( talk) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BeastieJim, it doesn't look like you were blocked from editing the draft. If the draft was protected from editing, it would show up here (the "Page protection" section would indicate something other than "Allow all users"). If you were blocked from editing, the user who blocked you would definitely tell you.

I checked the fr.WP article; I had no idea it existed, since interwiki links aren't for drafts. Anyway, it looks like someone put it up for deletion (reason: non-notable) in January 2012, but it was kept unanimously. Per the results of the deletion discussion there, it looks like the festival is definitely notable. I'll create it. APerson ( talk!) 23:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)