![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Whether an AFC page that was vandalism could be tagged for speedy deletion was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD apply for WP:AfC? I then reviewed the instructions and see that they are asking that vandalism, attack pages and copyright violations simply be blanked and left to be archived. Especially with respect to attack pages and copyright violations, they should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion. We remove these as quickly as possible and archiving them exposes Wikipedia to potential legal liability. (This is all the more true of attack pages on living persons.) I have accordingly modified the instructions.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|csd}}
. Or does the script do that automatically?
Someguy1221 (
talk)
21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chargemaster
as a new reviewer, I don't have enough experience to be sure.
I would lean towards declining this on the grounds that:
Could someone who has reviewed more than a dozen or so pages (like me) take a quick look and give me their opinion, so that next time I will be better prepared to decide on my own? Thanks! David FLXD ( talk) 05:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I requested a new bot, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 13. Regards, mabdul 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdul ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I was on the submissions page and was unable to see any links to the submissions waiting for review. This seems to have been from more pairs of open braces ({{) than closed braces (}}). I fixed that by adding a pair of closed braces to the end of the line. Now the link shows up, but so does a pair of closed braces. I cannot seem to remove those without the initial problem recurring. Could someone please take a look and see what I'm missing? -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Rotaik/sandbox
I have checked both mainspace and AfC for title Aung Aung Taik, nothing.
Yet it won't move. The topic is certainly a notable artist, work needed on sources and formatting.
David_FLXD
(Talk)
19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Bravo on the updates to the AFC Helper script. I really like the 'Clean the submission' function! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Just one to keep an eye on: it seems to have attracted the attention of a number of IP editors, some serious, some vandals. I think the subject might just scrape by WP:WEB, but the submission's in no state to be accepted right now. joe•roe t• c 08:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone handle this request? I don't have the necessary software to convert the mp4 file to ogv. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems when I decline an AfC submission, I'm getting this error message.
Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting...
I removed the previous script from common.js page and also bypassed my cache. -- Luke (Talk) 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
@Kevin – We are bugfixing that and it should be patched ASAP.
@Luke – Try the script on a different page. --
Nathan2055
talk –
contribs
23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I know there has been quite a bit of discussion recently regarding when submissions can be deleted. Are submissions which authors have completely blanked deleted? Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that articles for creation show up on Google. As these are at times BLP violations, at other times copyvio or promotion, is there any way we can get these automatically noindexed? Dougweller ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
These are tabulated in our monthly AfCs requests. At what point can the approved or listed redirect class tags be removed? Would this not help shrink our list totals? Why couldn't editors simply add the redirects rather than say "Yep, it's a redirect. Tag!"??? — WylieCoyote ( talk) 02:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
What are the odds that the article this heading was clipped from, dealt with a notable subject?
"Other Career Paths Almost Taken"
David_FLXD (Talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) (with tears in my eyes)
David_FLXD (Talk) 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering the vast majority of new AfCs are declined or suggested to be fixed for reasons that new editors don't initially understand, and also that some aren't autoconned, I'll let our "assisted move" slide. But I don't think I'll do the move myself and stick to approval/declining. Thanks to those who replied. — WylieCoyote ( talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#AFC Helper Script. Congratulations and thanks to all the devs and users who helped make such a great tool for AfC reviewers! avs5221( talk| contrib) 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
When you're using the 'mark as reviewing' function with the updated helper script (which is ace, by the way), is there any way of stopping it from leaving a comment at that stage? I've not usually got anything to say at this point in the process, so I've been leaving it blank but that results in a comment saying 'comment|undefined'. I don't think it's a big issue at all – just thought that it might look a bit confusing perhaps to new contributors...
Thanks!
Loriski ( talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiya folks. Would it be helpful to add some instructions and process for submissions by editors with a COI? For example, maybe a checkbox in the Article Wizard where the submitter can delcare they are "personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article". This could then follow through to the helper script: to add a notice to the draft, and if accepted, to auto add the {{ Connected contributor multi}} template to the talk page. Just an idea... -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
To summarize, there is a proposal to topic ban the above editor from AfC for 3 months at the above page. -- Rs chen 7754 06:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible for Wikipedia talk:Article wizard to be redirected to this page? All it seems to do is cause discussion that most likely should be here. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Following on from the above topic, along with a long line of complaints, queries and what not in multiple places like AN(I) and mailing list, just what should the standard of acceptance be? Just where on the line of WP:CSD to WP:GA should it be drawn? ( Standard are too low but wait standard are too high) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC ( talk • contribs) 17:59, July 7, 2012
Coming upon the thread above, it occurred to me that after the quickfails, the decline of most AfC submissions are based on lack of sourcing and that is the touchstone in the discussion above. However, the various iterations of text for lack of sourcing in the decline template only refers people to WP:N and WP:V as the basis of failure, with no guidance on how to address the failure. Of course, if submitters follow the links and explore WP:N and WP:V in detail and follow further links found there they will find out how to cite and how to look for sources and that they must be independent and reliable, etc. but we know that is expecting a lot from most. So I have added a "what you can do" section to all of the lack of sourcing versions of the decline template, with {{
find sources}}
included. I will post one below (substituted so I can remove the category). Let me know if you think it's an improvement and any tweaks you might have.
Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrect Hasteur ( talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I worked with Earwig on the new design for the decline template and we also globally collapsed the "How to improve your article" section. I really think we need to make this section of the template easier for the noobs to see. I suggest we blow up the size of the drop down box and add something into all of the decline reasons talking about that box. (Then again, most noobs don't even read the decline reason and just cry to the reviewer...) -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that we're just going to keep adding and adding to this template, making it more bloated, more useless, and more confusing. The tips were collapsed because they were making the template too large to be useful – think of how MediaWiki:Blockedtext works. Obviously, the implementation was a bit poor. I have a proposed, shortened version of the submission template that removes what is, in my opinion, unnecessary:
Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrect Hasteur ( talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Changes:
So, what do we think? — The Earwig (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
|
. At least I thought that I should develop that into the AFCH correctly...
mabdul
08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)I don't know if anyone else will find this useful but I've recently taken to suggesting other projects that people could donate their material to when it clearly doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article (after seeing other folk do this at Teahouse). Wikinfo, Wikibios and Wikiversity are all happy to take material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability... Seems to work quite well as a slightly nicer way of turning away articles that are unlikely to ever qualify for wikipedia, no matter how much they're worked on... Loriski ( talk) 16:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do about this one. I blanked the AfC for copyvio and placed a warning at User talk:Robinjamesshort#July 2012. I don't think it's a CCI because it's just the one topic and hasn't been going on that long. But the user doesn't seem to want to mend his ways. So, just keep a lookout for him, or for anything on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kissak Kai Karate-do or similar titles. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Note: If you know of a better place to take this, feel free to move this there) Okay, so not long ago I noticed user:Mdann52 and their request for unprotection, where they wanted Ken Sibanda unsalted as the writer had apparently drafted a suitable article at AfC ( link). Obviously the article has problems, the writing is poor and the sources are poor, including IMDB sources. Worried that the user had made a habit of accepting not-too-great AfC submissions, I looked through their contribs and found that pretty much every submission this user has accepted has issues. Here is the list:
These articles are all very recently created, with a lot of sourcing problems and in many cases writing/formatting/tone problems. I've already asked the user to stop reviewing until they have more experience, but I have no idea what to do with all of these articles. I don't believe we have a process for bad articles recently created via AfC (like moving them back or something). The volume of articles here is beyond me. I'd really appreciate some more eyes on these articles so we can make sure they're dealt with. Some may need deleted, some may just need a big clean-up, but pretty much every single one has problems that are instantly noticeable.
I'm not trying to bite this user or anything. I think that, like many newer editors they've simply stumbled on an area where they've wanted to help out, but they don't have the required knowledge of policies and guidelines. As in, if they've accepted articles with Facebook as a source, I really doubt they've been spot-checking them for copyvios either. Some eyes/help would be great, please. I just don't know what to do with all these. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I enabled the gadget and it now works. Mdann52 ( talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The first one I looked at, Natural Resource Charter has copyvio in it from the official website. They will all need reviewing for copyright violations. Dougweller ( talk) 13:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
...don't do it. Even if a user incorrectly moved a submission, it should not under any circumstances be moved back to mainspace. Your basically saying to the noob that their article is horrible and it's not even close to being ready for mainspace. Do what an NPP would, mark it for deletion or tag it. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In AfC we have: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iconography of 9/11 and in article space we have: Iconography of 9-11, both apparently the work of User:Grotme, the latter having been edited a little by Paulderhooligan. Grotme apparently requested review of a sandbox article, and KTC moved it to AfC (manually? sandbox tag was still attached). Less than 6 hours later Grotme appears to have created the page in article space. The article doesn't seem ready for creation. What now? Do we wipe the AfC and hand the created article to New Pages Patrol? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
HI, i would like to nominate "Shiela Birnbaum" for an article. She is a lawyer who gets paid by the company which bought FOXCOMM, the guys that wired up the Capitol Buildings wireless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.11.134.217 ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to modify the helper script and decline rationales to distinguish between unsourced BLP's and defamatory BLP's? Using the script places a note that the article can be deleted at any time; however, an unsourced BLP should have a delayed PROD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|CSD}}
. Isn't Earwig clearing the BLPs, Copyvios, etc. regulary?
mabdul
19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|CSD}}
and doesn't give the option to remove CSD. That modification could be helpful.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Without touching the article, that is. We have two, maybe three IP's from France playing Tag Team AfC. We were even asked to approved it as a stub, and they will make it an article later. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joël Courtois :- ) Don 02:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This editor apparently created an article in AfC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Areum, then cut and pasted it to Main space Areum and continued editing. Theoretically we should do a history merge to one or the other? Or should I just blow the AfC one away and move Main space article back to AfC? :- ) Don 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help with this one. Will one of you more experienced editors please review this article. See comments on my talk page and author's talk page for background. Thanks, Stella Txcrossbow ( talk) 04:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Working
:- ) Don
23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
wall of text; wrongly placed submission |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Among these saints were the revered Dalai Lama, Anandmayi Ma, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Chidananda, Sushilkumar Jain, Daya Ma, and various Sufi saints including Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan. He won admiration from, and deep veneration of, one and all. He spread his religion-less Divine message in every nook and corner of India. Sri Sitaramdas Omkarnath attracted every type of devotee. Most of his devotees belonged to the Hindu fold, but there were many from Muslim, Christian, Jain and Buddhist faiths as well. Many of his devotees hailed from foreign countries too. The Indian intellectual class was struck at the breadth and depth of Sitaram’s knowledge, his literary abilities and his spiritual attainments, despite such a simple upbringing. Many of his writings are quite in the revelatory class of spiritual literature like the Vedas and Upanishads. He was also able to reach the less literate and intellectual as well. Everyone knew that in his presence it was possible to realize God. The abstruse was dispensable. The simplest practices had the demonstrable power of bringing about the highest spiritual realizations. The ritualistic-minded found his simple practices liberating. Sitaramdas attracted devotees in lakhs. Thousands gathered wherever he went. Though leading a life of near-poverty, he gathered and disbursed huge sums of money and food in charity. He expounded and promoted the tenets of the ancient Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma in his writings. In his works, the significance of various practices of Hindu Dharma is explained inunequivocal terms. There is an all-inclusiveness and comprehensiveness about his philosophy, which is very reassuring. He explains in unequivocal terms, that for persons having evolved to different degrees, different approaches to spirituality may be called for depending o their "stage" of realization. Sitaram himself is known for having revived interest in the chanting of the names of God, Naama-Japa. He came to be known widely as the ‘Naam Avatar’ (Incarnation of the Name of God or personification of Naam). In his life, Omkarnath attempted to map in minute detail the entire terrain of his own spiritual realization. He made great effort to explain his own experiences in detail, which always inspired his devotees. The practice of Naam-Japa is actually ancient, but it has often historically been linked to the cult of Bhakti. He taught that Naam-Japa can lead on into the "deep yoga" where one has access to Jyoti (Divine Light) and Nada (Divine Sound Om) , which he called the "essence of all yoga". Omkarnath always stated that this was a blissful but arduous course of yoga, and was never meant for the modern masses because it calls for true renunciation, including sexual continence, right diet and a daily commitment to long hours of meditation and silence. One also needs an able adept or guide who has probed the depths of authentic realization. All these are scarce these days, not even valued or sought after. To adopt the Naam practice truly is to rise to the Divine sphere of yoga, he said, for it invites the descent of true Nada and true Jyoti that characterize "deep yoga". He often declared that these two experiences, Jyoti and Nada, were common to all human beings, all types of bodies or minds, all sects or denominations. Whatever one’s creed or degree of preparation, if you are on the way to the Supreme Reality, one is bound to experience Nada and Jyoti. "Seekers of every shade and complexion meet at this crossing of the roads: this is a point where all roads must meet, and then they diverge, each following its course, until they meet finally again on fulfillment. This last point of convergence, this confluence is marked by realization of the descent of Divine Light (Jyoti) and the resounding Divine Sound in the head (Om). " On this Master’s analysis, or rather his mapping of the various spiritual streams, it follows that diversity of spiritual approach is an admitted and inescapable fact; because aptitudes and temperaments greatly vary, approaches have got to be various and a leveling down of all difference into one drab and rigid monotony is neither desirable nor practicable. What is sauce for the goose cannot be sauce for the gander; the fox and the crane cannot feed from the same vessel. So diversities are and should be there. But a unity emerges out of all diversities: the goal is one and the same for all, and the Rome that all roads lead to is Divine Light and Sound. Omkarnath on "Deep-Yoga: "Apart from this final meeting- point, there are three more points where they meet: the first is the starting-point, namely the Naam; the next is the crossing of the roads at Nada and Jyoti, and the thrird is the deep Yoga of Light. All irrespective of creed and ideology can chant the Naam or and say it silently: to start with Naam is an ideal course in spiritual life. It is a simple way for which all are eligible, because it encourages unbroken concentration even to those who otherwise seem completely incapable of it. "And it is also possible for those who subscribe to a different ideology to adopt the Naam as an adjunct to their own cult, for the Naam is a short cut to Jyoti and Nada, which constitute the passport to the more advanced "deep yoga". "This stage forms a common platform for all seekers, and when this stage has been reached, the paths bifurcate again, the Hatha Yogi concentrating on Jyoti, the Laya Yogi on Nada, the Raja Yogi aspiring after Nirvana, the Bhakta yearning for the vision of God, the Jnani undertaking vichara or analysis of the Supreme in the form: Neti Neti, Not this, Not this, A-savdam, A-sparsam, Not-sound, Not –touch, Only-Light and so on." That different seekers present different grade of eligibility is a fact. But it is equally a fact that this basic inequality is hard for even spiritual aspirants to exactly own these days. No one "wants" their ego to die. To deserve and then desire Realization may be beginning wisdom, but to be actually Realized is not at all easy, particularly in our own dark times. Even the unprepared billions have their own world-views and aspirations, and because they have yet to be "fit" for what they demand, they cannot curtail their aspirations in proportion to their competence. This psychological factor results in frustration, sullen despair or even suicidal daring. Some even disparage or belittle the whole process of True Realization and keep out of spiritual realms altogether. Their thirst remains unslaked as a result and their aim in life remains unRealized, but they cannot help it. Some dare beyond their deserts and come to grief; in defiant spirit of rebellion they practise what proves disastrous for them. Unhappy they find impostors too in the field to exploit and ruin them, for so-called gurus do appear before them, all too willing to initiate them either ignorantly or fraudulently into mantras or systems to which they are not actually entitled at the moment, the consequences proving deplorable at the end. Omkarnath stated that a True Master solves this problem with sympathy and originality, both equally rare and profound. He eases the situation by placing all alike on the same footing; he preaches the Naam to which all have equal access and by virtue of which all eventually can rise alike to the summit, if they have the strength to reach the "deep-yoga". To chant the Naam and repeat it constantly is to earn the deep-yoga threshold of Sound and Light that is desired innately by all. Is it the right to Pranava (chanting Om) that is demanded? Voicing the demand is useless; willful utterance without eligibility will be harmful. But to repeat the Naam is to have Pranava (Om) well up from within the being as Naad, and that alone is realization of Pranava. To chant or put ‘Om Om Om’ in the mouth is silly as well as even deadly except for those prepared for Jivanmukti, and a Jivan- mukta is scarce; but to chant the Naam is to have the Pranava Nada and then ‘Om’ distinctly and continuously audible within. So the Master offers the Naam and all else including the deep-yoga of Light via the Naam. And he does not want you to argue uselessly: he asks you to do it and to see the result for yourself. Omkarnath's is the scientific way, the way of experimental verification. The taste of the pudding is in the eating: the truth of what he says is to be tested; it is to be verified by practice. OM. PEACE. PEACE. PEACE. By Prof. Sadananda Charkrabarti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.69.193 ( talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
|
I am trying to do my part with helping review articles. 600+ in the backlog is exciting, but also discouraging. The other day I was reviewing, and it seemed like for every one article I reviewed and subsequently left comment, declined or created article, 2 or 3 more took its place. My questions is this... being a new reviewer, I wanted to know
Thanks, "Stella" – Txcrossbow ( talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I find I can get through more articles if I try to pick a "type" eg company names, or personal names, or sandboxes, and just work with those for a while. It also helps to keep perspective and not decline too quickly, since you have a better basis for comparison. I've been watching the number climbing for a few days now, been working in another area, but I will come back and help right now! David_FLXD (Talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I helped an anonymous editor write this. The project is severely backlogged though so shall i just go ahead and move it to mainspace? Or would that be in poor taste…? Cheers, benzband ( talk) 13:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I just got a message on my talk page saying "Can you, please, create a redirect of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram? This title is very long, people often commit mistake while typing such a long title. I, only, request you to create a redirect (short which can typed easily) of mentioned page. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)". Why me? I have no idea, and I have no knowledge of the AfC process, but it's clear to me that that thing needs to be deleted one way or another, and perhaps some other action needs to be taken. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this concerns two Wikiprojects, this section is transcluded on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as well
Hello there fellow AFC reviewers,
I had a short discussion with Mabdul regarding a possible new feature for the AFC helper script, that would allow a reviewer to mark a draft as high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts consideration. For those unfamiliar with the Wikiproject: WikiProject Abandoned Drafts adopts high quality drafts created by editors who have left the project, and never finished or managed to post what they were writing.
During AFC review this is also a fairly frequent situation – Some drafts only lack a few details before they are accepted, yet the editor never return to finish the last few issues. Since the draft is declined, and since multiple people are reviewing, a draft might get lost in the 55K+ declines drafts even though it would only take some polish to finish. To prevent this i would suggest an additional option for the AFC helper script, that allows one to mark a promising draft for tracking. If the original writer would suddenly leave, there would be a record of his draft for someone else to pick up (Without having to sift trough thousands of declined pages to find them.
A few things to consider though:
Any idea's and suggestions are most welcome :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
I picked up this article on Jorge Prieto Laurens to review. It doesn't provide any sources. The guy is clearly notable (as a quick google search shows) so I would usually put the references in myself. However, in this case, most of the sources are in Spanish and while I've got a bit of Spanish it's definitely not enough to do a good job of this. Any Spanish-speaking takers? Or should I write to the creator and ask for sources? or...
Thanks!
Loriski ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was just doing reviews and ran into this: User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. I was going to do a standard move into AFC space, but it is MFD tagged, see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. So I didn't move it, and was unsure what to do. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done a significant amount of checking, and at this time there appears to be no accurate way to turn off the AfC Statistics (Submissions) when it is too large to display. However at this time is is 4 days old and pretty much useless. I think we can script it to shut down when it gets too old to be useful. Yes, no? :- ) Don 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've heard from toolserver-l that this lag is expected to continue at a steadily increasing rate until early August. It'll then be a while after the lag finishes climbing before it reaches 0 (as the servers have to catch up)... frankly, I've become disillusioned with the Wikimedia Foundation's tech teams over the past year, since we've had at least two month-long chunks where replag has been outrageously high, and similarly, database lag within the WMF cluster has often been reaching dangerous peaks as well. I can't tell if this is just me or we've actually been having more problems than usual. Oh well. — The Earwig (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I calculated the exact numbers, and we have ~10 hours before normal service resumes. Great! -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:- ) Don 06:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope. 11h 23 m 36s and increasing at a rate of one second per second. — Earwig talk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has been declined 6 times by 5 different people. It has been a big point of contention as demonstrated on the talk page. I submitted it to MfD for a second opinion so to speak, but the general populous does not seem to be very interested in dealing with the French either. Perhaps we could get some independent opinions from some people here not involved. I just want it to go or stay. The only other option I see is to move it to Main space and CSD it. Thanks. :- ) Don 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi mad... I got your message but I so lost. Techie I may be but most of your message went over my head. Please advise Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I keep finding articles in sandboxes with AfC templates that are already in WT:AfC. And, there is no easy way to find the problem children until they collide somewhere along the way. :- ) Don 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just declined an article, which was the second or perhaps third time it had been declined. Article name is
United States gubernatorial elections, 1973, submitted by user Emeraldgirl. I couldn't find any reference to such elections when I tried to review the article. I did find lots of strange stuff though, see the results returned please via Google and the Wikipedia reviewing helper tool (sorry, this is a hideous looking URL, but I can't enter it with Wiki formatting as it is being rejected as blacklisted):
hxxps://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&oq=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&gs_l=serp.3...188165.192426.0.192998.14.14.0.0.0.0.137.1607.1j13.14.0...0.0...1c.QlVnQLtrP-g
The most troubling were this, which is some kind of creepy malware PHP redirect thing that is red flagged by Web Of Trust, this is the URL:
hxxp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CJEBEBYwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zensquared.com%2Femail%2Findex.php%3Fq%3DaGh0dHA6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2F0ZWdvcnk6UGVuZGluZ19BZkNfc3VibWlzc2lvbnM%253D&ei=i94QUKDVOaLh0QH784DAAw&usg=AFQjCNEmZ8O0TdWoD-0O7llp97QWVh3BHg&sig2=7_7kjtBs6fRAEdGrOKrlBw
and says "Jul 7, 2012 – ... 1972 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States gubernatorial elections, 1973 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass intelligentsia ..."
and several links from this website
epo dot wikitrans e.g. hxxp://epo.wikitrans.net/show.php?id=2900962.
Two more odd things:
Could someone who knows more than I do check into this please? It seems irresponsible for me not to mention these things to someone. -- FeralOink ( talk) 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just welcomed someone with Twinkle, who submitted apparently an autobiography. The template says his article has or will be shortly CDS'd. I did not think autobiographies were prohibited? And, how does it get CSD'd? :- ) Don 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just tried to move User:Ryan nojadera/BIGSTART INCORPORATED: Center for Research and Personality Development and could not move... the title is blacklisted which brings me to two questions:
That is all. carry on. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of you will already know this, but there are also many new reviewers like me, who may not.
I just discovered that even an external link to a webpage which one knows (or suspects) is hosting material in violation of copyright, is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. See
WP:LINKVIO. That means that every new article containing links to, hmmm, what example comes to mind? Oh, say YouTube (!), is possibly or probably in breach of the copyright policy.
YouTube (I went and looked) does not provide any way of verifying whether a particular video or whatever has been properly licenced. Also, while they claim to uphold copyright owners' rights, they place on the copyright holder the burden of first discovering that the copyrighted material even exists on YouTube, and then submitting a specific notice or notices requesting removal of the material from YouTube. So, as Dougweller informed me, it might be a good idea to remove any links to YouTube before accepting a new article. Of course, there may exceptions, such as material that originates with YouTube itself, in which case the link would be ok. But all those news videos... probably not.
David_FLXD
(Talk)
Review me
12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include more options for the redirect type templates, such as including {{ R from initialism}}. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks madul, could you please add the following:
These are the two I've had to use which aren't on the AFCH list, althoguh there are a lot of them ( Template:R template index). Would it also be possible to be able to select more then one and two. And when more than on is selected to have it placed inside Template:R template index. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to correspond with people who edit what I am writing about the Estonian author Jaan Kross, but I have not yet found my way around this website. Where do you actually look when you want to have a simple dialogue with the person(s) who edit, remove, challenge, etc., things you have written?
With regard to Jaan Kross, one major problem when trying to create a proper webpage when most of the pertinent information is not written in English. My mother-tongue is (British) English, but I have a reading knowledge of several other languages (e.g. Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, German, Dutch, and a little Russian). This means I can access a great deal more about Jaan Kross than you can find if you only know English. But you run into trouble with this eternally popping up sign about verification. As many Wiki-monitors may not be able to read the languages I have listed, you can often not verify the veracity of what I am writing by looking at the sources, as you can't read what is written there. As the world is not monolingual, entries would be severally limited if you only quoted things from English-language sources. In the case of Jaan Kross this would be a few reviews, biographical sketches, and obituary notices. One rather thorough article by Ian Thomson appeared in the Guardian (UK), but I have relied mostly on non-English-language sources, such as the 2009 biography of Kross by the Finn Juhani Salokannel, because I have recently obtained the Estonian translation. And Kross himself wrote about 1,000 pages of autobiography in two volumes, which have also only appeared in Estonian and Finnish translation, not two of the world's most accessible languages.
I would be grateful if someone would contact me directly at: (email address deleted) and explain a little about how I can continue to chat and discuss with monitors and others, because I still find navigating around this part of the website very difficult. Eric Dickens ( talk) 13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently failed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal Personal Number UPN for a number of reasons, one of which was sheer reference bloat – over 1,600. By contrast, today's featured article has 66 references, and a good article I reviewed yesterday has 145.
One of the problems I've found is when failing an article due to unreliable sources, there seems to be a tendency to add more references and resubmit, in the (presumably misguided) belief that it's the quantity rather than the reliability of the references. The result is you can end up with a single sentence that doesn't really assert any notability, and 10 or more references tacked on the end of it. For instance, I failed Geek & Sundry yesterday for this very reason (though I see it's since been fixed).
Is there any way we can educate people away from this? -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is happening, but we seem to have an increasing number of multiple articles on the same subject being submitted from sandboxes. I have been moving some of them because it is quick and easy when I have a minute or two, but I don't know what to do any more with the duplicates. Do I number them John Smith (1), John Smith (2), John Smith (3)? Get them history merged into one article for submission? We also run the risk of approving a crappy one when there is a really good one sitting there. I'm clueless. Suggestions, ideas, is there a procedure? -- :- ) Don 01:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a carbon copy of the AfC process (or close to it) for {{request edits}} so editors with a COI can submit content for review for articles that already exist. I need a lot of help on templates to get it up and running and thought someone from AfC might be able to help. I've started it here. The Talk page has some of the template work I've run into so far that I don't have the technical skills to do. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this one? I'm not a judging anyone's beliefs, but I can't tell if this is a serious article or based on a fictional story. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nachtblut, German Metal Band is missing from this wikipedia. See de:Nachtblut for informations. -- 87.158.131.132 ( talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a new category to decline AfC articles that only contain primary sources? I've seen quite a few today – I generally tag them as "unreferenced or referenced by unreliable sources" with some boilerplate text along the lines of "This article only contains primary sources. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability of an article." I'm concerned that a primary source isn't necessarily an unreliable source, depending on context, which may confuse people. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
|v=
and changed the original decline reason dramatical without gaining a consensus here...
mabdul
11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)I find on some of my watched articles, vandalism reverting. But the original vandalism does not show on the watch list. 99.9% of the time they are IP's. Are IP revisions ignored, or what? -- :- ) Don 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a head's up, I tried to review this (it looked like a perfect candidate to pass, to be honest) and the script threw a wobbly. Turns out that years and years ago somebody tried to create the article multiple times, and got the article name salted after too many speedy deletes. What's interesting is the subject of the article might not have been notable then, but is notable now. I have filed a DrV here – will be interesting to see what happens. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that Nouniquenames. -- :- ) Don 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
When reviewing, I've been getting a caution, Please check the source code! This page contains a really long HTML comment!
When I do, the only comment is usually this boilerplate:
<!-- This will add a notice to the bottom of the page and won't blank it! The new template which says that your draft is waiting for a review will appear at the bottom; simply ignore the old (grey) drafted templates and the old (red) decline templates. A bot will update your article submission. Until then, please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page". -->
Can the script be modified to avoid false alarms on this particular long comment? Kilopi ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
AFCH seems to no longer be working (using Google Chrome 21.0.1180.57 on OS X Snow Leopard). This seems to be due to a JavaScript syntax error in line 976 of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js – document.getElementById('afcHelper_get_teahouse) is missing a closing quote character. I'd fix the "live" version but I don't know how to – who does? -- Ritchie333 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A template at the top of every submitted article lists reviewer tools as "Reviewer tools[hide] Instructions • Silent Chain (talk: + bio) (log) • Move: To project space • Run Reflinks • Run Citation Bot • Search: Google, Bing, WP"
Does this "move to project space" make any sense? I'd presume the desired outcome would be to either move to article space (if the page is accepted) or leave the text where it is (if it is declined or still needs revision)? I presume most reviewers ignore this link, instead using WP:AFCH, but sending Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pagename to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Pagename is rarely desirable and I'm really not sure why this is the only 'move' link currently being displayed in the template. Presumably, the move target needs to simply be Pagename and not WP:AFC/pagename? K7L ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Milton Ruiz; 9 August 2012:
Is there a correlation between gout and vitamins?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.81.129 ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been reviewing accepted and declined articles, going day by day forward from July 1. My preliminary findings are very distressing. I consider the error rate at least 20%, equally divided in both directions, and even for the ones decided correctly, inadequate help to the new contributors is almost always provided. I'm not going to summarize them till I get further along, but you can see by my user contributions which accepted ones I have sent to AfD, and by my move log which declined ones I have moved to mainspace. (I'm not doing all the 20% I think wrong, just a few of what I consider the clearest examples.) I have for convenience been using the AfC helper tool when I accept, as it nicely cleans up the unnecessary messages. I could of course simply move using the normal move function and clean up manually, as could any Wikipedia editor.
I just now found a town article with adequate primary sources declined at AfC as not meeting notability .I moved it to mainspace, as the WP rule is that towns whose real existence is proven are always notable. Out of the articles on towns challenged at AfD over the last 2 or 3 years, not a single one whose real existence can be shown has been deleted.
My principle is that is that if is good enough not to be deleted by AfD when in mainspace, it's good enough to be accepted. (Some would say if it passes speedy, but I think that's wrong: we don't want to discourage new editors by accepting what will be promptly deleted at AfD .) The same criteria apply as for all WP articles. As for all WP articles, further improvement can and should be done by normal editing. The standards for notability and the other content guidelines are not set by AfC. AfC is not independent of Wikipedia; the general rules apply to everyone. If AfC uses a different standard, they are wrong to do so, just as any other project that uses a standard other than the general standards of the whole encyclopedia --but as far as I can tell, there is no practical AfC standard, for everybody there does just as they please, leaving whatever message they please, without bothering to pay individual attention to what they are doing.
The AfC process has asked for greater participation. They need to realize that if they get people from the experienced wp editors dealing with new pages, we will use our normal standards. I think they do indeed need more such people, for at this point only a minority of the reviewers seem to know Wikipedia well enough to review articles. If we can't get competent people here, we will need some other approach. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Better education of new users/new page creators will clear up these problems once and for all when the Foudation's new landing page (on hold) is further developed and released, but at the moment some kind of system is urgently required. I'm not involved with the day-to-day running of AfC, but I am concerned about its horrific backlog and the staggering low quality reported by DGG. I don't know how many of the 223 members are regularly working on AfC or what their experience is, but several possible solutions spring to mind:
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this project, but an occasional contributor to Wikipedia for about 7 years, let me offer you my thoughts :
-- Ritchie333 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The current wording of the templates is:
Perhaps this should be worded to ask "if you believe your article has been rejected in error, please ask at the help desk instead of merely resubmitting the same unchanged text again" and to advocate resubmitting an article only if it has been changed to fix an identified issue.
Certainly, the huge WP:AFC backlog does mean that reviewers have to wade through large quantities of self-promotional submissions from non-notable people and businesses to find the few good new articles, and with several hundred pages sitting in backlog it's inevitable that the amount of review time available per-page drops with a corresponding increase in error rates. The current wording attempts to not WP:BITE by using carefully-worded language which encourages authors to keep resubmitting pages – whether or not they're fixable. (A lack of wikification, detail, formatting or footnotes is fixable and a rewrite should be encouraged, a self-serving advertisement for a non-notable commercial firm is typically not.)
Conversely, there needs to be a quick way to appeal a mistaken decision if reviewers mistakenly flag a valid source as unreliable or a well-known subject as non-notable. The "resubmit" button slips the article into the very bottom of the pile, where it won't be seen for at least a week and will then be displayed with the original rejection tags to increase the change of another knee-jerk rejection. Directing the "why was my page rejected" enquiries to somewhere where they will be answered reasonably quickly (such as the help desk) could reduce the number of resubmitted pages, cutting down on both backlog (as many articles are pointless resubmissions) and time taken to fix an erroneous review. K7L ( talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice the category Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes, where the message reads "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.". This is quite confused:the intended meaning sure is that it contains material that does not the meet the minimum standard for citations.. As a general statement the way it is used it is contrary to policy as given at WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE, and the very page referred to, the information page, which is not even a guideline, Wikipedia:Inline citation. There is no general need for a WP article to have inline citations, and if this is the only reason an article is taken to AfD the article will not be deleted. I repeat the general agreement above that if an article would pass AfD , it should pass AfC . In most cases such citations are desirable; is some few cases, usually involving negative BLP or matters under dispute or actual quotations they are indeed necessary, but as a general rule inline citation are just one of the acceptable means of providing verifiability. The 1000 or so articles in that category have almost all been wrongly refused, and need to be reviewed. I think probably 90% of them will show a valid reason for refusal, and should be marked accordingly. Anyone using this category incorrectly needs a reminder of WP policy. Given the magnitude of the problem, how shall we proceed? DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I request an article on the great boo illustrator, Ted Rand. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is that count Earwig?. I think when this happens, we should just redirect the submissions page directly to the category list instead of changing all the wording in the submissions page. But we still need a metric. Yes, no? -- :- ) Don 05:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that our WP:FFU talk page banner ( Template:WPAFCF) does not exist at Wikimedia Commons. Would anyone object if I import the File for upload banner for use when FFU requests satisfy Commons license requirements? — JmaJeremy• Ƭalk• Cont 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Some (claiming to be the subject of the article) left a message on my talk page, that the submission showed in Google searches. The g-web version of the declined submissions does [2] and [3]. Is there something we can do about this? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Nouniquenames one problem with Twinkle got fixed. It seems Twinkle does not only wants to bite the Newbies, but peel their skin off and rip their gust out through their anus.(anuses, ani?) I just welcomed a user with Twinkle who's article had been declined, and Twinkle said: "Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted."
I'm going to rip Twikle's guts out thorough his/her/its anus if it has one. -- :- ) Don 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
How would a fluid with a high solute concentration affect osmotic pressure when compared to just water which has no solutes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.144.121 ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have some editor throwing words at me like Noodletools, Google Scholar, TED, MN2020-a. Can somebody 40 years younger or so, handle this? All this new-fangled speak making me psychotic.
--
:- ) Don
03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute on the Environment and User talk:Dcshank#Rejected article Thanks dudes and dudettes. -- :- ) Don 03:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
ANSWER Because any educated person would recognise it as this most commonly used communist slogan,.. in the history of communism. Which would then cause any cross referencing search engine to bring up obama's statment about redistributing wealth, being a direct quote from the communist manifesto, written by Karl Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moadib420 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be a good idea to save us time and to save the servers time, that the Submissions tab in AfC point to Category:Pending AfC submissions rather than the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions which is more or less broke most of the time lately. We can still have a link to the sortable list on the category page. In either case right now, the sortable list is 2 clicks away and Category:Pending AfC submissions is 2 clicks away. It will then be one click. I think we are sucking up a lot of server time every time we go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because it tries to generate the list each time, but aborts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Yeh/nay on the page swap? -- :- ) Don 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The current setup is to show all pending submissions plus submissions accepted or declined in the past 36 hours (that's currently a bit unclear, sorry). Splitting up the template into multiple pages is an interesting idea, but I'd advise against it since 1) the bot would be making two or three times as many edits, theoretically using up even more resources; 2) there would still be no easy way to view all the info at once; 3) the bulk of the space is taken up by pending submissions, and I don't think that chart would get much smaller by removing declines and accepts. Additionally, we've been having problems due to high m:Toolserver replag, but that seems to be heading down at the moment. Only displaying the top X submissions could also be a good idea, but how do we decide which to display? I'm apprehensive about restricting to, say, the oldest first, since the chart would become less useful for fast reviewing of new submissions (by sorting by smallest first or unsourced), which I find to be one of its best uses. — Earwig talk 00:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What, if anything, can be done about editors who continue to submit a draft article without dealing with the issues that led to the previous decline? for example see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Datt which has now been declined 5 times. DES (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internews Europe which doesn't have an obvious COI problem but does seem to have a submitter who doesn't quite get it. DES (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For issues like this, I just CSD it for being disruptive after the third time of being submitted without being improved. It works great when you keep running into the article, but I would be more cautious if five different editors are using the same reason, as then you just look like a dick. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I inadvertently used the wrong decline template on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orbitrap – the article already exists in mainspace; it's not duplicated in AfC. I'm just going off-line for few hours; please clean up after me. *trout*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
With the recent boatload (and I mean boatload – even the archives have unchecked submissions!) of submissions over at WP:AfC/R, I think that the inevitable is finally appearing... the problem of not be able to accept requests for multiple redirects (in one submission) using the Helper tool. Is this something that can be done? Remotely possible? Just throwing this into the hat... Theo polisme :) 06:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are the putative article pages in talk space? If they were in WP space then we could discuss them, as it is discussion is fragmented on the AFC page, the user's talk page and the various places they go for help. Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
I'm working to write a bot to categorize submissions that aren't in AfC space for moving by humans. Basically, this would help make attacking the backlog easier as you can easily see which submissions need moving. I'm creating this post to discuss whether such a bot should be created. Please respond with your thoughts. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Twice now I have selected an article from the yellow colored area of {{ AFC statistics}} (the rows supposed to be pending review), only to get the message "Article not currently submitted for review." This currently happens with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Cardinale. Is the template not picking up the status correctly? Or what is going on? DES (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if we could borrow someone from AfC for the {{request edit}} queue. Noun and I spent a bit of time expanding Template:Request edit to create an AFC-like system of decline and accept templates, but I noticed substantial content submissions aren't being processed well (3-5 weeks in some cases).
The request edit queue is very small compared to AfC, so I don't mean to draw too much attention to it. Just an editor or two with experience reviewing COI submissions. I've been managing the queue a little, mostly by closing completed requests and fixing it when people use the wrong template, but it's odd for me as a COI to actually approve reasonable content from other COIs. It's possible I'm just being impatient. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
name of box present on top of M.S paint screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.204.27 ( talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am researching the origin (s) of spider or arthropod? Can I get help?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.160.161 ( talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There are so many AFCs. Is there a sorting of any kind that someone can link me to by subject?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What i am seeing more often is that more users are summiting their articles through their sandboxes, instead of the article wizard, This is becoming a big problem. Is there someone out there that can create a bot (to automaticly send a message to the creater of the article), or edit the "When to decline a submission" and add one more to the list of criteria for the denial of the article (because it was created in the sandbox). Dominicskywalker ( talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone more familiar than I with new users take over the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users in India? This is a new user who's obviously keen to help, but I feel I'm having some trouble getting the concept of encyclopedia vs indiscriminate collection across to them. Per my initial comments on the AFD in question, I'm aware that this falls under WP:BITE and made a conscious decision to do so anyway (any decision to keep would have set a major precedent, and and delay in deletion would have resulted in a lot of wasted work on the part of the creator); however, because I'm the biter I'm probably not the most appropriate person to be having the discussion. Mogism ( talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
During my participation in the cleanup this weekend, I discovered quite a few problems, some in the system, some in the way people are using it. First, the system.
Now, the way people use it:
My overall evaluation of this experiment, now that I have had some actual time in the trenches, is that unless we can fix the problems, we would be better off without it, and deal with everything in one place: NPP. If an ip wants to make an article, they should simply be guided to make an account. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
|cv=
is already used and can/could modify the complete text.Okay:
---
I wish the ACTRIAL new page reform had been upheld by the WMF, then we wouldn't have this backlog. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a duplicate. Am I missing something? -- :- ) Don 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a feedback page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback which has literally no edit/cleanup/archiving since I stopped checking the page. Should we shut down the feedback page as it literally also doesn't give any useful input (mostly blank feedback inputs, nothing what to change, or afc submissions at the wrong places) what to change on the wizard? mabdul 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just left my feedback on this page. I was scrolling through previous feedback, and I came across some Nazi stuff here: Feedback from 184.174.176.138 (7 April 2012). Could you delete this please? TuttiFruttiCherryPie ( talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I've said, we aren't using the feedback, so let's just delete any links and soft redirect to this page. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
At the help desk we sometimes get questions about the review templates not showing the "resubmit" link any more, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Kasey Lansdale, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 18#Articles for creation/Peopleperhour or Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 7#Added reliable sources/inline citations. Sometimes the users just misunderstand something, but I believe in many examples the "resubmit" link really does not appear any more (see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick O. O'Meara which has multiple "submission declined" messages but no "click here to resubmit" link). Is that a deliberate attempt to discourage repeated resubmissions, or is it a bug that should be fixed? Huon ( talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. -- :- ) Don 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This beautiful new instrument maybe invented by William Close, please someone make an excellent article. Thanks and sorry if posting in the wrong place. Please see and listen to his work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhUWIUkelw
And thanks, Twister, i may do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.143.157 ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
(article deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovescu ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What horse was the Hickstead Derdy Trophy modelled on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.210.255 ( talk) 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:VPP#Articles for creation that involves AFC. David 1217 What I've done 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking through many of the posts on the help page it is clear that many of the draft creators seem to think that this system is the only way articles are created. They often complain: "..but 'this', 'that' and 'the other' article also has the same issues that you say my draft has but it has been approved". The reply is usually (correctly) based on OTHERSTUFF, but I hardly ever see the replier actually explain that the other rubbish article most probably never came through this system otherwise it would also have been turned down. That would clear up the idea that reviewers are treating some submissions unfairly. Roger ( talk) 08:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This decline should be reviewed and reversed. Electrospray ionisation ( ESI) mass spectrometry is a well-established scientific method, and extractive ESI (the topic of the proposed page) is discussed in journals like Chem. Commun., as the references in the draft (like this one) show. It is not nonsense, no matter what the declining editor might think. And no, I had nothing to do with writing the draft, I just noticed the decline. 121.217.36.168 ( talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Afc talk automatically detects whether the user talk page is of an IP address and shows a message for IP users to create an account so that they can create articles directly. However the template will detect IPv6 addresses as registered users and tell them that they can create articles directly, which they actually cannot. The automatic detection has to be replaced with a parameter in the template (such as "anon") which if set to "yes" will display the message for IP users. The AFC script must also be modified so it can detect an IP address (JavaScript can do this, but the MediaWiki parser functions used it templates cannot) and add the parameter accordingly. jfd34 ( talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
it said i deleted the first line but i din't pls help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101DelenaInforma ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I came here to make the same point as DGG's no. 1 above, about not telling contributors of copyvios that they can continue working on their submission when it has actually been deleted. I have only one thing to add to his comprehensive list: when a decline notice is the first entry on a newbie's talk page, it seems less BITEy if it is preceded by {{ welcome}} or another suitable welcome message, which also gives the newbie links to general advice which should help them do better next time. It ought to be possible to do that automatically – the existing PROD template mechanism puts {{ firstarticle}} before the PROD when added to a new page. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
How does User:Mdann52/AfC welcome look to everyone? Mdann52 ( talk) 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome-- Amadscientist ( talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like WP:AFCH and the templates only leave space for one rejection reason when declining an article. This is problematic as often an article fails multiple criteria, such as the unsourced stub of a self-promotion for a non-notable business which fails WP:RS, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:ADV and WP:COI but inexplicably gets tagged only with "this lacks reliable sources, but please go ahead and submit this ten more times as we wouldn't want to offend you" in WP:AFC without identifying a huge list of other issues which will cause a resubmission to quick-fail even with a source. Encouraging the user to go ahead and endlessly re-submit the same advertising with "by the way, the local business journal mentioned us once long ago" as a token source is a waste of their time and ours unless there's some reasonable prospect of a viable article. Maybe we need something like the WP:TWINKLE "Tag" function where a page with {{ multiple issues}} gets a checklist worth of tags for each item which must be corrected. K7L ( talk) 19:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just been quite annoyed with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Echo Barrier, and while I'm generally lenient about users creating articles about themselves, as it's a rookie mistake that can be learned from, since this looks pretty much like a straightforward spam, I've decided to not just decline the submission, but also nominate it for speedy deletion. I notice DGG did something similiar here a few days back. What do other people think? -- Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to stop reviewing articles in User space and move user space articles to AfC ASAP and before reviewing. It is causing all kind of problems including history merges. What should I do when the User page is moved to AfC? The User page is now a redirect to AfC. Most newbies are not going to figure this one out. The same problem applies to sandboxes. I think we should move the user's sandbox which is now a redirect to a subpage by that name and make them a new sandbox. If we wanted to be nice. -- :- ) Don 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
So, are we moving them to AfC-space? Just open submissions in userspace or any pages in Category:AfC submissions in userspace? -- Mysterytrey 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have another history merge to do, and this one looks horrible. Somehow the article got into AfC with a copy in the sandbox. The editor apparently edited in AfC for awhile then in his sandbox for awhile. Awhile is more than a month in each case. I'm finding articles reviewed in the sandboxe and a copy reviewed in AfC. Most of the time I have to request a CSD for move, but sometimes a history merge. I have also found articles in sandboxes with an article in AfC and a reviewer removes the template in the sandbox because it is already in AfC. The editor requests another review. Then another reviewer removes the template from the sandbox. The editor requests another review. I think we need to get them out of the sandboxes ASAP and definitely not review them in the sandbox. IMHO. -- :- ) Don 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are parallel edit histories (the two pages were being modified in the same timespan) a history merge is explicitly not recommended as it interleaves the two articles in the revision history to put them in order of time/date. History merge is intended to fix copy-and-paste moves only – where the history of one page ends where the other begins. Perhaps what we should be doing is using the existing '|D|duplicate|' decline reason ("this is a duplicate submission and we chose to review the other version at (name) instead...") instead of trying to stitch together what are, after all, duplicate submissions by one user. K7L ( talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the mess of sandbox AFC requests could be the result of templates like {{ user sandbox}} (placed by the "my sandbox" gadget) which invite the user with "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." That link preloads {{ AFC_submission/Subst}} as a new section directly on the sandbox page. At no point is the user prompted for a proposed article title. K7L ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Another oddball manner to create a duplicate submission: IP asks a registered user via IRC to create National Lobster Hatchery, it's obligingly created as a stub so that the IP can expand it to an article. IP registers a new account six minutes later, then creates Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery which is declined as the title now already exists in mainspace. *oops!* We now have two of this same topic (one mainspace stub, one AFC article) with the rejected WP:AFC draft as the more complete of the pair. A request was left on talk:National Lobster Hatchery and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery that the user combine the two into one viable article. Annoyingly, the template placed on the user's page counterproductively encourages that they keep editing the duplicate version with "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery. To edit the submission, click on the 'Edit' tab at the top of the window." K7L ( talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As a temporary/long-term fix, I have created {{ R to AfC namespace}}. Thought/other possibilities I could make? Mdann52 ( talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It used to be that if I typed in something for which there was no Wik article, I was given, inter alia, a choice of suggesting the article. Now, this option does not appear if I am signed in. What gives? Kdammers ( talk) 05:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been meaning to post this for a while. The next update to WP:AFCH is v4.1.16 and is almost ready to be released. It contains:
The problem is in a nutshell this: a library that MediaWiki depends on has updated and now uses a different appearance for notifications. This breaks the script. I'm putting in the extra hours to write an emergency patch so I can put out a release candidate, but it could be a week at most. Please reply if you have any questions. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 01:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Could the bot be updated for if case name="blah/sandbox" then try moving with name "blah". Possibly on fail try "blah 1"... -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try to answer all of your questions:
Finally, it looks like Tim has fixed the massive bug holding back the update, so I hope to have a release candidate out by Monday. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js'); // AFCH v4.1.16rc
Sry for interruption... As I noted on Nathan's talk page: please keepup doing good work, and trust him as long as he gets enough beta testers, but sadly because I'm without net access, I can't do anything nor I have the time for it atm. I know that my last beta script had many bugs in, but that was the reason it was called a "beta script"... Leave me tbS or mails and I will respond, even in emergencies... mabdul 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Whether an AFC page that was vandalism could be tagged for speedy deletion was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD apply for WP:AfC? I then reviewed the instructions and see that they are asking that vandalism, attack pages and copyright violations simply be blanked and left to be archived. Especially with respect to attack pages and copyright violations, they should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion. We remove these as quickly as possible and archiving them exposes Wikipedia to potential legal liability. (This is all the more true of attack pages on living persons.) I have accordingly modified the instructions.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|csd}}
. Or does the script do that automatically?
Someguy1221 (
talk)
21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chargemaster
as a new reviewer, I don't have enough experience to be sure.
I would lean towards declining this on the grounds that:
Could someone who has reviewed more than a dozen or so pages (like me) take a quick look and give me their opinion, so that next time I will be better prepared to decide on my own? Thanks! David FLXD ( talk) 05:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I requested a new bot, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 13. Regards, mabdul 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdul ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I was on the submissions page and was unable to see any links to the submissions waiting for review. This seems to have been from more pairs of open braces ({{) than closed braces (}}). I fixed that by adding a pair of closed braces to the end of the line. Now the link shows up, but so does a pair of closed braces. I cannot seem to remove those without the initial problem recurring. Could someone please take a look and see what I'm missing? -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Rotaik/sandbox
I have checked both mainspace and AfC for title Aung Aung Taik, nothing.
Yet it won't move. The topic is certainly a notable artist, work needed on sources and formatting.
David_FLXD
(Talk)
19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Bravo on the updates to the AFC Helper script. I really like the 'Clean the submission' function! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Just one to keep an eye on: it seems to have attracted the attention of a number of IP editors, some serious, some vandals. I think the subject might just scrape by WP:WEB, but the submission's in no state to be accepted right now. joe•roe t• c 08:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone handle this request? I don't have the necessary software to convert the mp4 file to ogv. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems when I decline an AfC submission, I'm getting this error message.
Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting...
I removed the previous script from common.js page and also bypassed my cache. -- Luke (Talk) 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
@Kevin – We are bugfixing that and it should be patched ASAP.
@Luke – Try the script on a different page. --
Nathan2055
talk –
contribs
23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I know there has been quite a bit of discussion recently regarding when submissions can be deleted. Are submissions which authors have completely blanked deleted? Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that articles for creation show up on Google. As these are at times BLP violations, at other times copyvio or promotion, is there any way we can get these automatically noindexed? Dougweller ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
These are tabulated in our monthly AfCs requests. At what point can the approved or listed redirect class tags be removed? Would this not help shrink our list totals? Why couldn't editors simply add the redirects rather than say "Yep, it's a redirect. Tag!"??? — WylieCoyote ( talk) 02:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
What are the odds that the article this heading was clipped from, dealt with a notable subject?
"Other Career Paths Almost Taken"
David_FLXD (Talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) (with tears in my eyes)
David_FLXD (Talk) 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering the vast majority of new AfCs are declined or suggested to be fixed for reasons that new editors don't initially understand, and also that some aren't autoconned, I'll let our "assisted move" slide. But I don't think I'll do the move myself and stick to approval/declining. Thanks to those who replied. — WylieCoyote ( talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#AFC Helper Script. Congratulations and thanks to all the devs and users who helped make such a great tool for AfC reviewers! avs5221( talk| contrib) 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
When you're using the 'mark as reviewing' function with the updated helper script (which is ace, by the way), is there any way of stopping it from leaving a comment at that stage? I've not usually got anything to say at this point in the process, so I've been leaving it blank but that results in a comment saying 'comment|undefined'. I don't think it's a big issue at all – just thought that it might look a bit confusing perhaps to new contributors...
Thanks!
Loriski ( talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiya folks. Would it be helpful to add some instructions and process for submissions by editors with a COI? For example, maybe a checkbox in the Article Wizard where the submitter can delcare they are "personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article". This could then follow through to the helper script: to add a notice to the draft, and if accepted, to auto add the {{ Connected contributor multi}} template to the talk page. Just an idea... -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
To summarize, there is a proposal to topic ban the above editor from AfC for 3 months at the above page. -- Rs chen 7754 06:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible for Wikipedia talk:Article wizard to be redirected to this page? All it seems to do is cause discussion that most likely should be here. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Following on from the above topic, along with a long line of complaints, queries and what not in multiple places like AN(I) and mailing list, just what should the standard of acceptance be? Just where on the line of WP:CSD to WP:GA should it be drawn? ( Standard are too low but wait standard are too high) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC ( talk • contribs) 17:59, July 7, 2012
Coming upon the thread above, it occurred to me that after the quickfails, the decline of most AfC submissions are based on lack of sourcing and that is the touchstone in the discussion above. However, the various iterations of text for lack of sourcing in the decline template only refers people to WP:N and WP:V as the basis of failure, with no guidance on how to address the failure. Of course, if submitters follow the links and explore WP:N and WP:V in detail and follow further links found there they will find out how to cite and how to look for sources and that they must be independent and reliable, etc. but we know that is expecting a lot from most. So I have added a "what you can do" section to all of the lack of sourcing versions of the decline template, with {{
find sources}}
included. I will post one below (substituted so I can remove the category). Let me know if you think it's an improvement and any tweaks you might have.
Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrect Hasteur ( talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I worked with Earwig on the new design for the decline template and we also globally collapsed the "How to improve your article" section. I really think we need to make this section of the template easier for the noobs to see. I suggest we blow up the size of the drop down box and add something into all of the decline reasons talking about that box. (Then again, most noobs don't even read the decline reason and just cry to the reviewer...) -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that we're just going to keep adding and adding to this template, making it more bloated, more useless, and more confusing. The tips were collapsed because they were making the template too large to be useful – think of how MediaWiki:Blockedtext works. Obviously, the implementation was a bit poor. I have a proposed, shortened version of the submission template that removes what is, in my opinion, unnecessary:
Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrect Hasteur ( talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Changes:
So, what do we think? — The Earwig (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
|
. At least I thought that I should develop that into the AFCH correctly...
mabdul
08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)I don't know if anyone else will find this useful but I've recently taken to suggesting other projects that people could donate their material to when it clearly doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article (after seeing other folk do this at Teahouse). Wikinfo, Wikibios and Wikiversity are all happy to take material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability... Seems to work quite well as a slightly nicer way of turning away articles that are unlikely to ever qualify for wikipedia, no matter how much they're worked on... Loriski ( talk) 16:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do about this one. I blanked the AfC for copyvio and placed a warning at User talk:Robinjamesshort#July 2012. I don't think it's a CCI because it's just the one topic and hasn't been going on that long. But the user doesn't seem to want to mend his ways. So, just keep a lookout for him, or for anything on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kissak Kai Karate-do or similar titles. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Note: If you know of a better place to take this, feel free to move this there) Okay, so not long ago I noticed user:Mdann52 and their request for unprotection, where they wanted Ken Sibanda unsalted as the writer had apparently drafted a suitable article at AfC ( link). Obviously the article has problems, the writing is poor and the sources are poor, including IMDB sources. Worried that the user had made a habit of accepting not-too-great AfC submissions, I looked through their contribs and found that pretty much every submission this user has accepted has issues. Here is the list:
These articles are all very recently created, with a lot of sourcing problems and in many cases writing/formatting/tone problems. I've already asked the user to stop reviewing until they have more experience, but I have no idea what to do with all of these articles. I don't believe we have a process for bad articles recently created via AfC (like moving them back or something). The volume of articles here is beyond me. I'd really appreciate some more eyes on these articles so we can make sure they're dealt with. Some may need deleted, some may just need a big clean-up, but pretty much every single one has problems that are instantly noticeable.
I'm not trying to bite this user or anything. I think that, like many newer editors they've simply stumbled on an area where they've wanted to help out, but they don't have the required knowledge of policies and guidelines. As in, if they've accepted articles with Facebook as a source, I really doubt they've been spot-checking them for copyvios either. Some eyes/help would be great, please. I just don't know what to do with all these. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I enabled the gadget and it now works. Mdann52 ( talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The first one I looked at, Natural Resource Charter has copyvio in it from the official website. They will all need reviewing for copyright violations. Dougweller ( talk) 13:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
...don't do it. Even if a user incorrectly moved a submission, it should not under any circumstances be moved back to mainspace. Your basically saying to the noob that their article is horrible and it's not even close to being ready for mainspace. Do what an NPP would, mark it for deletion or tag it. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In AfC we have: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iconography of 9/11 and in article space we have: Iconography of 9-11, both apparently the work of User:Grotme, the latter having been edited a little by Paulderhooligan. Grotme apparently requested review of a sandbox article, and KTC moved it to AfC (manually? sandbox tag was still attached). Less than 6 hours later Grotme appears to have created the page in article space. The article doesn't seem ready for creation. What now? Do we wipe the AfC and hand the created article to New Pages Patrol? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
HI, i would like to nominate "Shiela Birnbaum" for an article. She is a lawyer who gets paid by the company which bought FOXCOMM, the guys that wired up the Capitol Buildings wireless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.11.134.217 ( talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to modify the helper script and decline rationales to distinguish between unsourced BLP's and defamatory BLP's? Using the script places a note that the article can be deleted at any time; however, an unsourced BLP should have a delayed PROD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|CSD}}
. Isn't Earwig clearing the BLPs, Copyvios, etc. regulary?
mabdul
19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
afc cleared|CSD}}
and doesn't give the option to remove CSD. That modification could be helpful.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Without touching the article, that is. We have two, maybe three IP's from France playing Tag Team AfC. We were even asked to approved it as a stub, and they will make it an article later. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joël Courtois :- ) Don 02:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This editor apparently created an article in AfC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Areum, then cut and pasted it to Main space Areum and continued editing. Theoretically we should do a history merge to one or the other? Or should I just blow the AfC one away and move Main space article back to AfC? :- ) Don 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate some help with this one. Will one of you more experienced editors please review this article. See comments on my talk page and author's talk page for background. Thanks, Stella Txcrossbow ( talk) 04:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Working
:- ) Don
23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
wall of text; wrongly placed submission |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Among these saints were the revered Dalai Lama, Anandmayi Ma, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Chidananda, Sushilkumar Jain, Daya Ma, and various Sufi saints including Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan. He won admiration from, and deep veneration of, one and all. He spread his religion-less Divine message in every nook and corner of India. Sri Sitaramdas Omkarnath attracted every type of devotee. Most of his devotees belonged to the Hindu fold, but there were many from Muslim, Christian, Jain and Buddhist faiths as well. Many of his devotees hailed from foreign countries too. The Indian intellectual class was struck at the breadth and depth of Sitaram’s knowledge, his literary abilities and his spiritual attainments, despite such a simple upbringing. Many of his writings are quite in the revelatory class of spiritual literature like the Vedas and Upanishads. He was also able to reach the less literate and intellectual as well. Everyone knew that in his presence it was possible to realize God. The abstruse was dispensable. The simplest practices had the demonstrable power of bringing about the highest spiritual realizations. The ritualistic-minded found his simple practices liberating. Sitaramdas attracted devotees in lakhs. Thousands gathered wherever he went. Though leading a life of near-poverty, he gathered and disbursed huge sums of money and food in charity. He expounded and promoted the tenets of the ancient Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma in his writings. In his works, the significance of various practices of Hindu Dharma is explained inunequivocal terms. There is an all-inclusiveness and comprehensiveness about his philosophy, which is very reassuring. He explains in unequivocal terms, that for persons having evolved to different degrees, different approaches to spirituality may be called for depending o their "stage" of realization. Sitaram himself is known for having revived interest in the chanting of the names of God, Naama-Japa. He came to be known widely as the ‘Naam Avatar’ (Incarnation of the Name of God or personification of Naam). In his life, Omkarnath attempted to map in minute detail the entire terrain of his own spiritual realization. He made great effort to explain his own experiences in detail, which always inspired his devotees. The practice of Naam-Japa is actually ancient, but it has often historically been linked to the cult of Bhakti. He taught that Naam-Japa can lead on into the "deep yoga" where one has access to Jyoti (Divine Light) and Nada (Divine Sound Om) , which he called the "essence of all yoga". Omkarnath always stated that this was a blissful but arduous course of yoga, and was never meant for the modern masses because it calls for true renunciation, including sexual continence, right diet and a daily commitment to long hours of meditation and silence. One also needs an able adept or guide who has probed the depths of authentic realization. All these are scarce these days, not even valued or sought after. To adopt the Naam practice truly is to rise to the Divine sphere of yoga, he said, for it invites the descent of true Nada and true Jyoti that characterize "deep yoga". He often declared that these two experiences, Jyoti and Nada, were common to all human beings, all types of bodies or minds, all sects or denominations. Whatever one’s creed or degree of preparation, if you are on the way to the Supreme Reality, one is bound to experience Nada and Jyoti. "Seekers of every shade and complexion meet at this crossing of the roads: this is a point where all roads must meet, and then they diverge, each following its course, until they meet finally again on fulfillment. This last point of convergence, this confluence is marked by realization of the descent of Divine Light (Jyoti) and the resounding Divine Sound in the head (Om). " On this Master’s analysis, or rather his mapping of the various spiritual streams, it follows that diversity of spiritual approach is an admitted and inescapable fact; because aptitudes and temperaments greatly vary, approaches have got to be various and a leveling down of all difference into one drab and rigid monotony is neither desirable nor practicable. What is sauce for the goose cannot be sauce for the gander; the fox and the crane cannot feed from the same vessel. So diversities are and should be there. But a unity emerges out of all diversities: the goal is one and the same for all, and the Rome that all roads lead to is Divine Light and Sound. Omkarnath on "Deep-Yoga: "Apart from this final meeting- point, there are three more points where they meet: the first is the starting-point, namely the Naam; the next is the crossing of the roads at Nada and Jyoti, and the thrird is the deep Yoga of Light. All irrespective of creed and ideology can chant the Naam or and say it silently: to start with Naam is an ideal course in spiritual life. It is a simple way for which all are eligible, because it encourages unbroken concentration even to those who otherwise seem completely incapable of it. "And it is also possible for those who subscribe to a different ideology to adopt the Naam as an adjunct to their own cult, for the Naam is a short cut to Jyoti and Nada, which constitute the passport to the more advanced "deep yoga". "This stage forms a common platform for all seekers, and when this stage has been reached, the paths bifurcate again, the Hatha Yogi concentrating on Jyoti, the Laya Yogi on Nada, the Raja Yogi aspiring after Nirvana, the Bhakta yearning for the vision of God, the Jnani undertaking vichara or analysis of the Supreme in the form: Neti Neti, Not this, Not this, A-savdam, A-sparsam, Not-sound, Not –touch, Only-Light and so on." That different seekers present different grade of eligibility is a fact. But it is equally a fact that this basic inequality is hard for even spiritual aspirants to exactly own these days. No one "wants" their ego to die. To deserve and then desire Realization may be beginning wisdom, but to be actually Realized is not at all easy, particularly in our own dark times. Even the unprepared billions have their own world-views and aspirations, and because they have yet to be "fit" for what they demand, they cannot curtail their aspirations in proportion to their competence. This psychological factor results in frustration, sullen despair or even suicidal daring. Some even disparage or belittle the whole process of True Realization and keep out of spiritual realms altogether. Their thirst remains unslaked as a result and their aim in life remains unRealized, but they cannot help it. Some dare beyond their deserts and come to grief; in defiant spirit of rebellion they practise what proves disastrous for them. Unhappy they find impostors too in the field to exploit and ruin them, for so-called gurus do appear before them, all too willing to initiate them either ignorantly or fraudulently into mantras or systems to which they are not actually entitled at the moment, the consequences proving deplorable at the end. Omkarnath stated that a True Master solves this problem with sympathy and originality, both equally rare and profound. He eases the situation by placing all alike on the same footing; he preaches the Naam to which all have equal access and by virtue of which all eventually can rise alike to the summit, if they have the strength to reach the "deep-yoga". To chant the Naam and repeat it constantly is to earn the deep-yoga threshold of Sound and Light that is desired innately by all. Is it the right to Pranava (chanting Om) that is demanded? Voicing the demand is useless; willful utterance without eligibility will be harmful. But to repeat the Naam is to have Pranava (Om) well up from within the being as Naad, and that alone is realization of Pranava. To chant or put ‘Om Om Om’ in the mouth is silly as well as even deadly except for those prepared for Jivanmukti, and a Jivan- mukta is scarce; but to chant the Naam is to have the Pranava Nada and then ‘Om’ distinctly and continuously audible within. So the Master offers the Naam and all else including the deep-yoga of Light via the Naam. And he does not want you to argue uselessly: he asks you to do it and to see the result for yourself. Omkarnath's is the scientific way, the way of experimental verification. The taste of the pudding is in the eating: the truth of what he says is to be tested; it is to be verified by practice. OM. PEACE. PEACE. PEACE. By Prof. Sadananda Charkrabarti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.69.193 ( talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
|
I am trying to do my part with helping review articles. 600+ in the backlog is exciting, but also discouraging. The other day I was reviewing, and it seemed like for every one article I reviewed and subsequently left comment, declined or created article, 2 or 3 more took its place. My questions is this... being a new reviewer, I wanted to know
Thanks, "Stella" – Txcrossbow ( talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I find I can get through more articles if I try to pick a "type" eg company names, or personal names, or sandboxes, and just work with those for a while. It also helps to keep perspective and not decline too quickly, since you have a better basis for comparison. I've been watching the number climbing for a few days now, been working in another area, but I will come back and help right now! David_FLXD (Talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I helped an anonymous editor write this. The project is severely backlogged though so shall i just go ahead and move it to mainspace? Or would that be in poor taste…? Cheers, benzband ( talk) 13:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I just got a message on my talk page saying "Can you, please, create a redirect of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram? This title is very long, people often commit mistake while typing such a long title. I, only, request you to create a redirect (short which can typed easily) of mentioned page. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)". Why me? I have no idea, and I have no knowledge of the AfC process, but it's clear to me that that thing needs to be deleted one way or another, and perhaps some other action needs to be taken. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this concerns two Wikiprojects, this section is transcluded on the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as well
Hello there fellow AFC reviewers,
I had a short discussion with Mabdul regarding a possible new feature for the AFC helper script, that would allow a reviewer to mark a draft as high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts consideration. For those unfamiliar with the Wikiproject: WikiProject Abandoned Drafts adopts high quality drafts created by editors who have left the project, and never finished or managed to post what they were writing.
During AFC review this is also a fairly frequent situation – Some drafts only lack a few details before they are accepted, yet the editor never return to finish the last few issues. Since the draft is declined, and since multiple people are reviewing, a draft might get lost in the 55K+ declines drafts even though it would only take some polish to finish. To prevent this i would suggest an additional option for the AFC helper script, that allows one to mark a promising draft for tracking. If the original writer would suddenly leave, there would be a record of his draft for someone else to pick up (Without having to sift trough thousands of declined pages to find them.
A few things to consider though:
Any idea's and suggestions are most welcome :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there!
I picked up this article on Jorge Prieto Laurens to review. It doesn't provide any sources. The guy is clearly notable (as a quick google search shows) so I would usually put the references in myself. However, in this case, most of the sources are in Spanish and while I've got a bit of Spanish it's definitely not enough to do a good job of this. Any Spanish-speaking takers? Or should I write to the creator and ask for sources? or...
Thanks!
Loriski ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was just doing reviews and ran into this: User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. I was going to do a standard move into AFC space, but it is MFD tagged, see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. So I didn't move it, and was unsure what to do. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done a significant amount of checking, and at this time there appears to be no accurate way to turn off the AfC Statistics (Submissions) when it is too large to display. However at this time is is 4 days old and pretty much useless. I think we can script it to shut down when it gets too old to be useful. Yes, no? :- ) Don 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've heard from toolserver-l that this lag is expected to continue at a steadily increasing rate until early August. It'll then be a while after the lag finishes climbing before it reaches 0 (as the servers have to catch up)... frankly, I've become disillusioned with the Wikimedia Foundation's tech teams over the past year, since we've had at least two month-long chunks where replag has been outrageously high, and similarly, database lag within the WMF cluster has often been reaching dangerous peaks as well. I can't tell if this is just me or we've actually been having more problems than usual. Oh well. — The Earwig (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I calculated the exact numbers, and we have ~10 hours before normal service resumes. Great! -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
:- ) Don 06:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope. 11h 23 m 36s and increasing at a rate of one second per second. — Earwig talk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has been declined 6 times by 5 different people. It has been a big point of contention as demonstrated on the talk page. I submitted it to MfD for a second opinion so to speak, but the general populous does not seem to be very interested in dealing with the French either. Perhaps we could get some independent opinions from some people here not involved. I just want it to go or stay. The only other option I see is to move it to Main space and CSD it. Thanks. :- ) Don 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi mad... I got your message but I so lost. Techie I may be but most of your message went over my head. Please advise Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I keep finding articles in sandboxes with AfC templates that are already in WT:AfC. And, there is no easy way to find the problem children until they collide somewhere along the way. :- ) Don 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just declined an article, which was the second or perhaps third time it had been declined. Article name is
United States gubernatorial elections, 1973, submitted by user Emeraldgirl. I couldn't find any reference to such elections when I tried to review the article. I did find lots of strange stuff though, see the results returned please via Google and the Wikipedia reviewing helper tool (sorry, this is a hideous looking URL, but I can't enter it with Wiki formatting as it is being rejected as blacklisted):
hxxps://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&oq=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&gs_l=serp.3...188165.192426.0.192998.14.14.0.0.0.0.137.1607.1j13.14.0...0.0...1c.QlVnQLtrP-g
The most troubling were this, which is some kind of creepy malware PHP redirect thing that is red flagged by Web Of Trust, this is the URL:
hxxp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CJEBEBYwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zensquared.com%2Femail%2Findex.php%3Fq%3DaGh0dHA6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2F0ZWdvcnk6UGVuZGluZ19BZkNfc3VibWlzc2lvbnM%253D&ei=i94QUKDVOaLh0QH784DAAw&usg=AFQjCNEmZ8O0TdWoD-0O7llp97QWVh3BHg&sig2=7_7kjtBs6fRAEdGrOKrlBw
and says "Jul 7, 2012 – ... 1972 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States gubernatorial elections, 1973 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass intelligentsia ..."
and several links from this website
epo dot wikitrans e.g. hxxp://epo.wikitrans.net/show.php?id=2900962.
Two more odd things:
Could someone who knows more than I do check into this please? It seems irresponsible for me not to mention these things to someone. -- FeralOink ( talk) 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just welcomed someone with Twinkle, who submitted apparently an autobiography. The template says his article has or will be shortly CDS'd. I did not think autobiographies were prohibited? And, how does it get CSD'd? :- ) Don 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just tried to move User:Ryan nojadera/BIGSTART INCORPORATED: Center for Research and Personality Development and could not move... the title is blacklisted which brings me to two questions:
That is all. carry on. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of you will already know this, but there are also many new reviewers like me, who may not.
I just discovered that even an external link to a webpage which one knows (or suspects) is hosting material in violation of copyright, is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. See
WP:LINKVIO. That means that every new article containing links to, hmmm, what example comes to mind? Oh, say YouTube (!), is possibly or probably in breach of the copyright policy.
YouTube (I went and looked) does not provide any way of verifying whether a particular video or whatever has been properly licenced. Also, while they claim to uphold copyright owners' rights, they place on the copyright holder the burden of first discovering that the copyrighted material even exists on YouTube, and then submitting a specific notice or notices requesting removal of the material from YouTube. So, as Dougweller informed me, it might be a good idea to remove any links to YouTube before accepting a new article. Of course, there may exceptions, such as material that originates with YouTube itself, in which case the link would be ok. But all those news videos... probably not.
David_FLXD
(Talk)
Review me
12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include more options for the redirect type templates, such as including {{ R from initialism}}. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks madul, could you please add the following:
These are the two I've had to use which aren't on the AFCH list, althoguh there are a lot of them ( Template:R template index). Would it also be possible to be able to select more then one and two. And when more than on is selected to have it placed inside Template:R template index. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to correspond with people who edit what I am writing about the Estonian author Jaan Kross, but I have not yet found my way around this website. Where do you actually look when you want to have a simple dialogue with the person(s) who edit, remove, challenge, etc., things you have written?
With regard to Jaan Kross, one major problem when trying to create a proper webpage when most of the pertinent information is not written in English. My mother-tongue is (British) English, but I have a reading knowledge of several other languages (e.g. Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, German, Dutch, and a little Russian). This means I can access a great deal more about Jaan Kross than you can find if you only know English. But you run into trouble with this eternally popping up sign about verification. As many Wiki-monitors may not be able to read the languages I have listed, you can often not verify the veracity of what I am writing by looking at the sources, as you can't read what is written there. As the world is not monolingual, entries would be severally limited if you only quoted things from English-language sources. In the case of Jaan Kross this would be a few reviews, biographical sketches, and obituary notices. One rather thorough article by Ian Thomson appeared in the Guardian (UK), but I have relied mostly on non-English-language sources, such as the 2009 biography of Kross by the Finn Juhani Salokannel, because I have recently obtained the Estonian translation. And Kross himself wrote about 1,000 pages of autobiography in two volumes, which have also only appeared in Estonian and Finnish translation, not two of the world's most accessible languages.
I would be grateful if someone would contact me directly at: (email address deleted) and explain a little about how I can continue to chat and discuss with monitors and others, because I still find navigating around this part of the website very difficult. Eric Dickens ( talk) 13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I recently failed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal Personal Number UPN for a number of reasons, one of which was sheer reference bloat – over 1,600. By contrast, today's featured article has 66 references, and a good article I reviewed yesterday has 145.
One of the problems I've found is when failing an article due to unreliable sources, there seems to be a tendency to add more references and resubmit, in the (presumably misguided) belief that it's the quantity rather than the reliability of the references. The result is you can end up with a single sentence that doesn't really assert any notability, and 10 or more references tacked on the end of it. For instance, I failed Geek & Sundry yesterday for this very reason (though I see it's since been fixed).
Is there any way we can educate people away from this? -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is happening, but we seem to have an increasing number of multiple articles on the same subject being submitted from sandboxes. I have been moving some of them because it is quick and easy when I have a minute or two, but I don't know what to do any more with the duplicates. Do I number them John Smith (1), John Smith (2), John Smith (3)? Get them history merged into one article for submission? We also run the risk of approving a crappy one when there is a really good one sitting there. I'm clueless. Suggestions, ideas, is there a procedure? -- :- ) Don 01:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a carbon copy of the AfC process (or close to it) for {{request edits}} so editors with a COI can submit content for review for articles that already exist. I need a lot of help on templates to get it up and running and thought someone from AfC might be able to help. I've started it here. The Talk page has some of the template work I've run into so far that I don't have the technical skills to do. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this one? I'm not a judging anyone's beliefs, but I can't tell if this is a serious article or based on a fictional story. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Nachtblut, German Metal Band is missing from this wikipedia. See de:Nachtblut for informations. -- 87.158.131.132 ( talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a new category to decline AfC articles that only contain primary sources? I've seen quite a few today – I generally tag them as "unreferenced or referenced by unreliable sources" with some boilerplate text along the lines of "This article only contains primary sources. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability of an article." I'm concerned that a primary source isn't necessarily an unreliable source, depending on context, which may confuse people. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
|v=
and changed the original decline reason dramatical without gaining a consensus here...
mabdul
11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)I find on some of my watched articles, vandalism reverting. But the original vandalism does not show on the watch list. 99.9% of the time they are IP's. Are IP revisions ignored, or what? -- :- ) Don 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a head's up, I tried to review this (it looked like a perfect candidate to pass, to be honest) and the script threw a wobbly. Turns out that years and years ago somebody tried to create the article multiple times, and got the article name salted after too many speedy deletes. What's interesting is the subject of the article might not have been notable then, but is notable now. I have filed a DrV here – will be interesting to see what happens. -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that Nouniquenames. -- :- ) Don 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
When reviewing, I've been getting a caution, Please check the source code! This page contains a really long HTML comment!
When I do, the only comment is usually this boilerplate:
<!-- This will add a notice to the bottom of the page and won't blank it! The new template which says that your draft is waiting for a review will appear at the bottom; simply ignore the old (grey) drafted templates and the old (red) decline templates. A bot will update your article submission. Until then, please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page". -->
Can the script be modified to avoid false alarms on this particular long comment? Kilopi ( talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
AFCH seems to no longer be working (using Google Chrome 21.0.1180.57 on OS X Snow Leopard). This seems to be due to a JavaScript syntax error in line 976 of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js – document.getElementById('afcHelper_get_teahouse) is missing a closing quote character. I'd fix the "live" version but I don't know how to – who does? -- Ritchie333 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A template at the top of every submitted article lists reviewer tools as "Reviewer tools[hide] Instructions • Silent Chain (talk: + bio) (log) • Move: To project space • Run Reflinks • Run Citation Bot • Search: Google, Bing, WP"
Does this "move to project space" make any sense? I'd presume the desired outcome would be to either move to article space (if the page is accepted) or leave the text where it is (if it is declined or still needs revision)? I presume most reviewers ignore this link, instead using WP:AFCH, but sending Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pagename to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Pagename is rarely desirable and I'm really not sure why this is the only 'move' link currently being displayed in the template. Presumably, the move target needs to simply be Pagename and not WP:AFC/pagename? K7L ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Milton Ruiz; 9 August 2012:
Is there a correlation between gout and vitamins?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.81.129 ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been reviewing accepted and declined articles, going day by day forward from July 1. My preliminary findings are very distressing. I consider the error rate at least 20%, equally divided in both directions, and even for the ones decided correctly, inadequate help to the new contributors is almost always provided. I'm not going to summarize them till I get further along, but you can see by my user contributions which accepted ones I have sent to AfD, and by my move log which declined ones I have moved to mainspace. (I'm not doing all the 20% I think wrong, just a few of what I consider the clearest examples.) I have for convenience been using the AfC helper tool when I accept, as it nicely cleans up the unnecessary messages. I could of course simply move using the normal move function and clean up manually, as could any Wikipedia editor.
I just now found a town article with adequate primary sources declined at AfC as not meeting notability .I moved it to mainspace, as the WP rule is that towns whose real existence is proven are always notable. Out of the articles on towns challenged at AfD over the last 2 or 3 years, not a single one whose real existence can be shown has been deleted.
My principle is that is that if is good enough not to be deleted by AfD when in mainspace, it's good enough to be accepted. (Some would say if it passes speedy, but I think that's wrong: we don't want to discourage new editors by accepting what will be promptly deleted at AfD .) The same criteria apply as for all WP articles. As for all WP articles, further improvement can and should be done by normal editing. The standards for notability and the other content guidelines are not set by AfC. AfC is not independent of Wikipedia; the general rules apply to everyone. If AfC uses a different standard, they are wrong to do so, just as any other project that uses a standard other than the general standards of the whole encyclopedia --but as far as I can tell, there is no practical AfC standard, for everybody there does just as they please, leaving whatever message they please, without bothering to pay individual attention to what they are doing.
The AfC process has asked for greater participation. They need to realize that if they get people from the experienced wp editors dealing with new pages, we will use our normal standards. I think they do indeed need more such people, for at this point only a minority of the reviewers seem to know Wikipedia well enough to review articles. If we can't get competent people here, we will need some other approach. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Better education of new users/new page creators will clear up these problems once and for all when the Foudation's new landing page (on hold) is further developed and released, but at the moment some kind of system is urgently required. I'm not involved with the day-to-day running of AfC, but I am concerned about its horrific backlog and the staggering low quality reported by DGG. I don't know how many of the 223 members are regularly working on AfC or what their experience is, but several possible solutions spring to mind:
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this project, but an occasional contributor to Wikipedia for about 7 years, let me offer you my thoughts :
-- Ritchie333 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The current wording of the templates is:
Perhaps this should be worded to ask "if you believe your article has been rejected in error, please ask at the help desk instead of merely resubmitting the same unchanged text again" and to advocate resubmitting an article only if it has been changed to fix an identified issue.
Certainly, the huge WP:AFC backlog does mean that reviewers have to wade through large quantities of self-promotional submissions from non-notable people and businesses to find the few good new articles, and with several hundred pages sitting in backlog it's inevitable that the amount of review time available per-page drops with a corresponding increase in error rates. The current wording attempts to not WP:BITE by using carefully-worded language which encourages authors to keep resubmitting pages – whether or not they're fixable. (A lack of wikification, detail, formatting or footnotes is fixable and a rewrite should be encouraged, a self-serving advertisement for a non-notable commercial firm is typically not.)
Conversely, there needs to be a quick way to appeal a mistaken decision if reviewers mistakenly flag a valid source as unreliable or a well-known subject as non-notable. The "resubmit" button slips the article into the very bottom of the pile, where it won't be seen for at least a week and will then be displayed with the original rejection tags to increase the change of another knee-jerk rejection. Directing the "why was my page rejected" enquiries to somewhere where they will be answered reasonably quickly (such as the help desk) could reduce the number of resubmitted pages, cutting down on both backlog (as many articles are pointless resubmissions) and time taken to fix an erroneous review. K7L ( talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice the category Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes, where the message reads "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.". This is quite confused:the intended meaning sure is that it contains material that does not the meet the minimum standard for citations.. As a general statement the way it is used it is contrary to policy as given at WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE, and the very page referred to, the information page, which is not even a guideline, Wikipedia:Inline citation. There is no general need for a WP article to have inline citations, and if this is the only reason an article is taken to AfD the article will not be deleted. I repeat the general agreement above that if an article would pass AfD , it should pass AfC . In most cases such citations are desirable; is some few cases, usually involving negative BLP or matters under dispute or actual quotations they are indeed necessary, but as a general rule inline citation are just one of the acceptable means of providing verifiability. The 1000 or so articles in that category have almost all been wrongly refused, and need to be reviewed. I think probably 90% of them will show a valid reason for refusal, and should be marked accordingly. Anyone using this category incorrectly needs a reminder of WP policy. Given the magnitude of the problem, how shall we proceed? DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I request an article on the great boo illustrator, Ted Rand. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is that count Earwig?. I think when this happens, we should just redirect the submissions page directly to the category list instead of changing all the wording in the submissions page. But we still need a metric. Yes, no? -- :- ) Don 05:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that our WP:FFU talk page banner ( Template:WPAFCF) does not exist at Wikimedia Commons. Would anyone object if I import the File for upload banner for use when FFU requests satisfy Commons license requirements? — JmaJeremy• Ƭalk• Cont 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Some (claiming to be the subject of the article) left a message on my talk page, that the submission showed in Google searches. The g-web version of the declined submissions does [2] and [3]. Is there something we can do about this? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Nouniquenames one problem with Twinkle got fixed. It seems Twinkle does not only wants to bite the Newbies, but peel their skin off and rip their gust out through their anus.(anuses, ani?) I just welcomed a user with Twinkle who's article had been declined, and Twinkle said: "Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted."
I'm going to rip Twikle's guts out thorough his/her/its anus if it has one. -- :- ) Don 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
How would a fluid with a high solute concentration affect osmotic pressure when compared to just water which has no solutes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.144.121 ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have some editor throwing words at me like Noodletools, Google Scholar, TED, MN2020-a. Can somebody 40 years younger or so, handle this? All this new-fangled speak making me psychotic.
--
:- ) Don
03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute on the Environment and User talk:Dcshank#Rejected article Thanks dudes and dudettes. -- :- ) Don 03:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
ANSWER Because any educated person would recognise it as this most commonly used communist slogan,.. in the history of communism. Which would then cause any cross referencing search engine to bring up obama's statment about redistributing wealth, being a direct quote from the communist manifesto, written by Karl Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moadib420 ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be a good idea to save us time and to save the servers time, that the Submissions tab in AfC point to Category:Pending AfC submissions rather than the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions which is more or less broke most of the time lately. We can still have a link to the sortable list on the category page. In either case right now, the sortable list is 2 clicks away and Category:Pending AfC submissions is 2 clicks away. It will then be one click. I think we are sucking up a lot of server time every time we go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because it tries to generate the list each time, but aborts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Yeh/nay on the page swap? -- :- ) Don 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The current setup is to show all pending submissions plus submissions accepted or declined in the past 36 hours (that's currently a bit unclear, sorry). Splitting up the template into multiple pages is an interesting idea, but I'd advise against it since 1) the bot would be making two or three times as many edits, theoretically using up even more resources; 2) there would still be no easy way to view all the info at once; 3) the bulk of the space is taken up by pending submissions, and I don't think that chart would get much smaller by removing declines and accepts. Additionally, we've been having problems due to high m:Toolserver replag, but that seems to be heading down at the moment. Only displaying the top X submissions could also be a good idea, but how do we decide which to display? I'm apprehensive about restricting to, say, the oldest first, since the chart would become less useful for fast reviewing of new submissions (by sorting by smallest first or unsourced), which I find to be one of its best uses. — Earwig talk 00:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What, if anything, can be done about editors who continue to submit a draft article without dealing with the issues that led to the previous decline? for example see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Datt which has now been declined 5 times. DES (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internews Europe which doesn't have an obvious COI problem but does seem to have a submitter who doesn't quite get it. DES (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For issues like this, I just CSD it for being disruptive after the third time of being submitted without being improved. It works great when you keep running into the article, but I would be more cautious if five different editors are using the same reason, as then you just look like a dick. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I inadvertently used the wrong decline template on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orbitrap – the article already exists in mainspace; it's not duplicated in AfC. I'm just going off-line for few hours; please clean up after me. *trout*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
With the recent boatload (and I mean boatload – even the archives have unchecked submissions!) of submissions over at WP:AfC/R, I think that the inevitable is finally appearing... the problem of not be able to accept requests for multiple redirects (in one submission) using the Helper tool. Is this something that can be done? Remotely possible? Just throwing this into the hat... Theo polisme :) 06:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are the putative article pages in talk space? If they were in WP space then we could discuss them, as it is discussion is fragmented on the AFC page, the user's talk page and the various places they go for help. Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
I'm working to write a bot to categorize submissions that aren't in AfC space for moving by humans. Basically, this would help make attacking the backlog easier as you can easily see which submissions need moving. I'm creating this post to discuss whether such a bot should be created. Please respond with your thoughts. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Twice now I have selected an article from the yellow colored area of {{ AFC statistics}} (the rows supposed to be pending review), only to get the message "Article not currently submitted for review." This currently happens with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Cardinale. Is the template not picking up the status correctly? Or what is going on? DES (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if we could borrow someone from AfC for the {{request edit}} queue. Noun and I spent a bit of time expanding Template:Request edit to create an AFC-like system of decline and accept templates, but I noticed substantial content submissions aren't being processed well (3-5 weeks in some cases).
The request edit queue is very small compared to AfC, so I don't mean to draw too much attention to it. Just an editor or two with experience reviewing COI submissions. I've been managing the queue a little, mostly by closing completed requests and fixing it when people use the wrong template, but it's odd for me as a COI to actually approve reasonable content from other COIs. It's possible I'm just being impatient. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
name of box present on top of M.S paint screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.204.27 ( talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am researching the origin (s) of spider or arthropod? Can I get help?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.160.161 ( talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There are so many AFCs. Is there a sorting of any kind that someone can link me to by subject?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What i am seeing more often is that more users are summiting their articles through their sandboxes, instead of the article wizard, This is becoming a big problem. Is there someone out there that can create a bot (to automaticly send a message to the creater of the article), or edit the "When to decline a submission" and add one more to the list of criteria for the denial of the article (because it was created in the sandbox). Dominicskywalker ( talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone more familiar than I with new users take over the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users in India? This is a new user who's obviously keen to help, but I feel I'm having some trouble getting the concept of encyclopedia vs indiscriminate collection across to them. Per my initial comments on the AFD in question, I'm aware that this falls under WP:BITE and made a conscious decision to do so anyway (any decision to keep would have set a major precedent, and and delay in deletion would have resulted in a lot of wasted work on the part of the creator); however, because I'm the biter I'm probably not the most appropriate person to be having the discussion. Mogism ( talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
During my participation in the cleanup this weekend, I discovered quite a few problems, some in the system, some in the way people are using it. First, the system.
Now, the way people use it:
My overall evaluation of this experiment, now that I have had some actual time in the trenches, is that unless we can fix the problems, we would be better off without it, and deal with everything in one place: NPP. If an ip wants to make an article, they should simply be guided to make an account. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
|cv=
is already used and can/could modify the complete text.Okay:
---
I wish the ACTRIAL new page reform had been upheld by the WMF, then we wouldn't have this backlog. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a duplicate. Am I missing something? -- :- ) Don 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a feedback page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback which has literally no edit/cleanup/archiving since I stopped checking the page. Should we shut down the feedback page as it literally also doesn't give any useful input (mostly blank feedback inputs, nothing what to change, or afc submissions at the wrong places) what to change on the wizard? mabdul 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just left my feedback on this page. I was scrolling through previous feedback, and I came across some Nazi stuff here: Feedback from 184.174.176.138 (7 April 2012). Could you delete this please? TuttiFruttiCherryPie ( talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I've said, we aren't using the feedback, so let's just delete any links and soft redirect to this page. -- Nathan2055 talk – contribs 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
At the help desk we sometimes get questions about the review templates not showing the "resubmit" link any more, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Kasey Lansdale, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 18#Articles for creation/Peopleperhour or Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 7#Added reliable sources/inline citations. Sometimes the users just misunderstand something, but I believe in many examples the "resubmit" link really does not appear any more (see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick O. O'Meara which has multiple "submission declined" messages but no "click here to resubmit" link). Is that a deliberate attempt to discourage repeated resubmissions, or is it a bug that should be fixed? Huon ( talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. -- :- ) Don 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This beautiful new instrument maybe invented by William Close, please someone make an excellent article. Thanks and sorry if posting in the wrong place. Please see and listen to his work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhUWIUkelw
And thanks, Twister, i may do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.143.157 ( talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
(article deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovescu ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What horse was the Hickstead Derdy Trophy modelled on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.210.255 ( talk) 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:VPP#Articles for creation that involves AFC. David 1217 What I've done 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking through many of the posts on the help page it is clear that many of the draft creators seem to think that this system is the only way articles are created. They often complain: "..but 'this', 'that' and 'the other' article also has the same issues that you say my draft has but it has been approved". The reply is usually (correctly) based on OTHERSTUFF, but I hardly ever see the replier actually explain that the other rubbish article most probably never came through this system otherwise it would also have been turned down. That would clear up the idea that reviewers are treating some submissions unfairly. Roger ( talk) 08:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This decline should be reviewed and reversed. Electrospray ionisation ( ESI) mass spectrometry is a well-established scientific method, and extractive ESI (the topic of the proposed page) is discussed in journals like Chem. Commun., as the references in the draft (like this one) show. It is not nonsense, no matter what the declining editor might think. And no, I had nothing to do with writing the draft, I just noticed the decline. 121.217.36.168 ( talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Afc talk automatically detects whether the user talk page is of an IP address and shows a message for IP users to create an account so that they can create articles directly. However the template will detect IPv6 addresses as registered users and tell them that they can create articles directly, which they actually cannot. The automatic detection has to be replaced with a parameter in the template (such as "anon") which if set to "yes" will display the message for IP users. The AFC script must also be modified so it can detect an IP address (JavaScript can do this, but the MediaWiki parser functions used it templates cannot) and add the parameter accordingly. jfd34 ( talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
it said i deleted the first line but i din't pls help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101DelenaInforma ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I came here to make the same point as DGG's no. 1 above, about not telling contributors of copyvios that they can continue working on their submission when it has actually been deleted. I have only one thing to add to his comprehensive list: when a decline notice is the first entry on a newbie's talk page, it seems less BITEy if it is preceded by {{ welcome}} or another suitable welcome message, which also gives the newbie links to general advice which should help them do better next time. It ought to be possible to do that automatically – the existing PROD template mechanism puts {{ firstarticle}} before the PROD when added to a new page. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
How does User:Mdann52/AfC welcome look to everyone? Mdann52 ( talk) 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome-- Amadscientist ( talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like WP:AFCH and the templates only leave space for one rejection reason when declining an article. This is problematic as often an article fails multiple criteria, such as the unsourced stub of a self-promotion for a non-notable business which fails WP:RS, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:ADV and WP:COI but inexplicably gets tagged only with "this lacks reliable sources, but please go ahead and submit this ten more times as we wouldn't want to offend you" in WP:AFC without identifying a huge list of other issues which will cause a resubmission to quick-fail even with a source. Encouraging the user to go ahead and endlessly re-submit the same advertising with "by the way, the local business journal mentioned us once long ago" as a token source is a waste of their time and ours unless there's some reasonable prospect of a viable article. Maybe we need something like the WP:TWINKLE "Tag" function where a page with {{ multiple issues}} gets a checklist worth of tags for each item which must be corrected. K7L ( talk) 19:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just been quite annoyed with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Echo Barrier, and while I'm generally lenient about users creating articles about themselves, as it's a rookie mistake that can be learned from, since this looks pretty much like a straightforward spam, I've decided to not just decline the submission, but also nominate it for speedy deletion. I notice DGG did something similiar here a few days back. What do other people think? -- Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to stop reviewing articles in User space and move user space articles to AfC ASAP and before reviewing. It is causing all kind of problems including history merges. What should I do when the User page is moved to AfC? The User page is now a redirect to AfC. Most newbies are not going to figure this one out. The same problem applies to sandboxes. I think we should move the user's sandbox which is now a redirect to a subpage by that name and make them a new sandbox. If we wanted to be nice. -- :- ) Don 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
So, are we moving them to AfC-space? Just open submissions in userspace or any pages in Category:AfC submissions in userspace? -- Mysterytrey 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have another history merge to do, and this one looks horrible. Somehow the article got into AfC with a copy in the sandbox. The editor apparently edited in AfC for awhile then in his sandbox for awhile. Awhile is more than a month in each case. I'm finding articles reviewed in the sandboxe and a copy reviewed in AfC. Most of the time I have to request a CSD for move, but sometimes a history merge. I have also found articles in sandboxes with an article in AfC and a reviewer removes the template in the sandbox because it is already in AfC. The editor requests another review. Then another reviewer removes the template from the sandbox. The editor requests another review. I think we need to get them out of the sandboxes ASAP and definitely not review them in the sandbox. IMHO. -- :- ) Don 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are parallel edit histories (the two pages were being modified in the same timespan) a history merge is explicitly not recommended as it interleaves the two articles in the revision history to put them in order of time/date. History merge is intended to fix copy-and-paste moves only – where the history of one page ends where the other begins. Perhaps what we should be doing is using the existing '|D|duplicate|' decline reason ("this is a duplicate submission and we chose to review the other version at (name) instead...") instead of trying to stitch together what are, after all, duplicate submissions by one user. K7L ( talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the mess of sandbox AFC requests could be the result of templates like {{ user sandbox}} (placed by the "my sandbox" gadget) which invite the user with "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." That link preloads {{ AFC_submission/Subst}} as a new section directly on the sandbox page. At no point is the user prompted for a proposed article title. K7L ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Another oddball manner to create a duplicate submission: IP asks a registered user via IRC to create National Lobster Hatchery, it's obligingly created as a stub so that the IP can expand it to an article. IP registers a new account six minutes later, then creates Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery which is declined as the title now already exists in mainspace. *oops!* We now have two of this same topic (one mainspace stub, one AFC article) with the rejected WP:AFC draft as the more complete of the pair. A request was left on talk:National Lobster Hatchery and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery that the user combine the two into one viable article. Annoyingly, the template placed on the user's page counterproductively encourages that they keep editing the duplicate version with "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery. To edit the submission, click on the 'Edit' tab at the top of the window." K7L ( talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As a temporary/long-term fix, I have created {{ R to AfC namespace}}. Thought/other possibilities I could make? Mdann52 ( talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It used to be that if I typed in something for which there was no Wik article, I was given, inter alia, a choice of suggesting the article. Now, this option does not appear if I am signed in. What gives? Kdammers ( talk) 05:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been meaning to post this for a while. The next update to WP:AFCH is v4.1.16 and is almost ready to be released. It contains:
The problem is in a nutshell this: a library that MediaWiki depends on has updated and now uses a different appearance for notifications. This breaks the script. I'm putting in the extra hours to write an emergency patch so I can put out a release candidate, but it could be a week at most. Please reply if you have any questions. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 01:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Could the bot be updated for if case name="blah/sandbox" then try moving with name "blah". Possibly on fail try "blah 1"... -- Nouniquenames ( talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try to answer all of your questions:
Finally, it looks like Tim has fixed the massive bug holding back the update, so I hope to have a release candidate out by Monday. Thanks, Nathan2055 talk – contribs 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js'); // AFCH v4.1.16rc
Sry for interruption... As I noted on Nathan's talk page: please keepup doing good work, and trust him as long as he gets enough beta testers, but sadly because I'm without net access, I can't do anything nor I have the time for it atm. I know that my last beta script had many bugs in, but that was the reason it was called a "beta script"... Leave me tbS or mails and I will respond, even in emergencies... mabdul 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)