User talk:Excirial/Archive 22

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Country Club India Ltd

Hi

I am editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Country_Club_India_Ltd and it was declined as it looked ‘more like an advertisement’.

I request you to look at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Mahindra_Holidays

I feel my contents are in the same line. Also, more or less, any article related to a commercial establishment does look like an ‘advertisement’ as it provides basic information about the company/organization.

Request you to kindly approve my articles. Else, please let me know how can I make it more ‘wiki friendly’.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijaykay (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Wikijaykay,

Before anything else i feel i should point out that pointing to another article is called a WAX argument. Since anyone can start an article, not every single article's quality is the same, and the result is that some article's may be in a poor condition (Or may at least be a bad example to model an article after). Those article's may eventually be improved or removed, depending on circumstances. The article's for creation process has the advantage that an article won't be outright removed if something is wrong with it, but the standards for acceptation tend to be slightly higher since the idea is that an editor should be ascertained that their article is unlikely to be removed later on.

Having said that, if you need an example to model your article after, use the ones that are listed as a Good article. An article that qualifies as a good article has been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera, so they make a decent example. Personally i would recommend having a look at Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being fairly short (thus reading them doesn't take ages). If you need an example, i would advice modeling your own article after these.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated Article Page (Pending)

Hi Excirial,

Thanks for your first message, I've gone added links and references to the aFe page. My user name is Indikawijesekera. Please let me know if the revised is acceptable.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFe Power (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there Indikawijesekera,

I see that another editors already reviewed the article in the meantime, and personally i try to evade reviewing the same page multiple times in a row. Having said that - a few quick pointers for the page:

• If possible, use inline citations for your references - this makes it a lot easier for readers to check which source is used for each section of the article. Some help on how to do this is availible here and here.
• Don't use external links in the main article body, and specially not if they link to the subjects website - this is seen as link spamming. External links should go in the external links section, if they are considered relevant
• Try keeping peacock wording out, and watch out for a general promotional tone in the article. There are a few of those words and combined with the "Achievements" section the article has a rather promotional tone.
• And a small finisher: External links use single brackets, internal links double (The references / External links section has double brackets whereas it should use single brackets. Really minor issue of course :) )

Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

new unsuccessful article in wikipedia: Striking inside Angola with 32 Battalion (book)

The reply was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Striking_inside_Angola_with_32_Battalion_(Book)

I need to get this going as this article serves as a link to a number of other important articles.

Further, by accepting my article, I can start with a building process to expand the article and include photo material and very important maps (historical). The research had already been done and was already published by a respectable international publisher.

If I can not get started and I have no guarantee that my article shall be published, I may have wasted my time and rather go to another platform.

Please advise.

Marius Scheepers

mariusscheepers@irodo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikinginsideangola (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marius,

I fear that I - not any of the other newpage checkers - can ever guarantee that an article can or cannot be published. Whether or not an article is acceptable depends on various policies set for article content, and these are all dependent on the content of the article. In other words: I can only read an article and note the issues i see, and it is up to the writer to see if they can resolve them. Having said that - there are a few basic criteria that any article must pass, and after that the issues tend to be "details" rather then being "show-stoppers". So below is a short list that you can use to evaluate if your article would be capable of passing:

• : For any subject to be on Wikipedia, it needs to pass some criteria before inclusion itself is warranted. One of the most basic policies is that the subject must be notable, or important enough to be included. The criteria for books are listed at WP:NBOOK. There is also the general notability guideline which states that if a subject has been covered in multiple reliable sources it is presumed notable.
• Note that this claim to ntability must be backed up by reliable sources, which are mandatory in any article as they are used to back up the content that was written.

Those two issues above (Notability and verifiability) tend to be the only issues that are immutable by any other changes in the article. Promotional language, non neutral tone and other common decline issues can all be resolved with a rewrite of (part of) the article, but notability and verifiability are either present, or they are not. If the article can pass those two criteria it has a (very) good change to be accepted.

With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Financial Services Institute

Hi Excirial,

Thank you for providing feedback for the page I am creating on the Financial Services Institute. I just had a quick question in hopes that the page gets approved as I've put quite a bit of time and research into it.

My username is Washingtondc1234 and the link to my page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Financial_Services_Institute

I guess my big question is rather general, but this is the second time that I have been denied due to the page reading like an advertisement. Can you provide specific examples where this is the case? I've tried to cite everything that I've gathered from the sources listed to give credit and am just simply not sure where to go next. Is it the general tone or are there specific words I should avoid? Any specific advice I would greatly appreciate.

Thank you!

Hello there Washingtondc1234,

I can definitely point out a few examples for you, but i would note that the article's overall structure and tone is rather biased, rather then having a few promotional lines in it. Since this is an article detailing a company, i would recommend modeling it after a GA qualified article, since these have been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera. My favorite examples are Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being quite short (thus reading them doesn't take ages)

Now, a few examples:

• The Recent victories section as a whole. Most times a "recent accomplishment" section is not a good idea in the first place, since they are inherently promotional, and prone to aging (If no one updates the section in 10 years, it will still say recent accomplishments). Also, calling it recent "victories" is... even less neutral.
• The FSI Leadership Team suffers from the same sort of issue.

• It is promotional in tone. For example: "And brings broad leadership experience to FSI (peacock wording), non neutral) and Mr. Brown is regularly recognized as one of the most influential people in the investment advisory business" (Advertising) are lines that are a definate no-go.
• It suffers from undue weight. Right now the entire financial institute and origins section is about 200 words long, which this section is 500+ words long. In other words i would conclude that these 4 persons are about 2.5 times more important than anything else the organization has ever done in its entire existence. This is of course a jest, but the issue is all the same. In fact the leadership team of an organization is only hardly ever covered in a company article. Either they are notable enough for a stand-alone article, or they receive a footnote in an infobox of some sort. There are some exceptions to this rule, but in general a management team doesn't warrant a separate section.

• Finally i note that in the latest revision (as of writing) the references are gone. Your using named references which is always good, but the last revision contains only named references without content. Guess that was a mistake?

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation/References

Not sure what I should be referencing or citing on my Naalaria page. It is a fictional world that I created for my homebrew D&D games. Please help. Lonesouldier (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Lonesouldier,

In the above case i think that another policy applies here: WP:NFT. While the wording on the policy itself is somewhat harsher then i like to use myself, the core of it remains true for the article. As an encylopedia Wikipedia has a threshold on what can, and what cannot be included (Which is called notability). Thing such as a homebrew DND world won't pass these criteria, and thus cannot be included. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whiteboard Product Solutions

Hi Excirial - as I understand it, you rejected my article because it wasn't sufficiently supported by reliable sources. There is a company that is similar to WhiteBoard that has an entry called Worrell. It does not cite any sources for its entry at all. There is another one called Synapse Product Development and they mostly cite their own web cite as a source. I used these as a point of reference to write my entry. Can you help me understand why those two are okay, but my entry is not?

There was an article written about WhiteBoard in 2005, when it was still called Leisure, in a magazine called Twin Cities Business Monthly. It is not available on line, but I could email a copy to you. If I reference that article will it be sufficient to get the entry published?

Thanks. Fritz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevegd (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Clevegd,

Before anything else i feel i should point out that pointing to another article is called a WAX argument. Since anyone can start an article, not every single article's quality is the same, and the result is that some article's may be in a poor condition (Or may at least be a bad example to model an article after). Those article's may eventually be improved or removed, depending on circumstances surrounding them. The article's for creation process has the advantage that an article won't be outright removed if something is wrong with it, but the standards for acceptation tend to be slightly higher, since the idea is that an editor should be ascertained that their article is unlikely to be removed later on.

Having said that, if you need an example to model your article after, use the ones that are listed as a Good article. An article that qualifies as a good article has been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera, so they make a decent example. Personally i would recommend having a look at Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being fairly short (thus reading them doesn't take ages). If you need an example, i would advice modeling your own article after these.

As for the reference - par the company inclusion criteria multiple sources are needed, which in most cases translates to at the very least two or three clearly reliable sources. Note that these sources are also used to verify the article content, so technically taken the entire article's content should be traceable to such as reliable source.

With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

David William Parry article creation

Good morinig there! Dear Excirial, can you rereview my article, and maybe point out mistakes. I think i submitted that article once more few days ago. Thank you And how much articles per day do you look? (wondering) Anyway, thank you and good luck! =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksa757 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Aleksa757,

I try to evade reviewing the same article to many times in a row in order to allow another new page patrol to have a look at it as well. Rationale behind this is that another patrol might notice an entirely different issue then i do, and it will allow someone with an entirely fresh mind to take a look, rather having someone who has already seen multiple revisions check it again (Which can at times cause Tunnel vision at times).

As for the amount of article a day... I think it would average to 150-250 article's per evening i spend reviewing things (With some spikes to 350 or drops to 50, depending on circumstances). About one fourth to one third of that time is actually spend answering questions on my talk page, which is quite understandable since the basic templates which are placed in the article itself are quite general in tone. At the same time there are about 200-300 new AFC submissions every day, and due to that AFC is somewhat prone to becoming backlogged as well, depending on volunteer time. (At times the backlog is just 40 article's, while at other times it can nearly reach a thousand).

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liberty Holdings Limited

Good day

Please assist me with the following, I username (group comms) recently made changes to the (liberty group holdings) page but this was declined (too commercial). The company (Liberty) instructed me to post the new copy as is (they wrote the copy because they wanted to refresh the first couple of lines on their page), I was merely posting it on their behalf. My question is how do I ensure that the copy gets published?

Group comms (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Group comms,

Since you mentioned "Changes" i figure you are referring to the Liberty Holdings Limited article? If that is the case there are multiple issues i should comment on here:

• First and foremost, a company should stay away from their own article since they have a conflict of interest with the subject, especially if the change they intend to make is promotional.
• The change you posted in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liberty Holdings Limited article will never fly in its current form, as it is an advertisement for the company itself, which is against the advertising and neutral point of view policy.
• The Liberty Holdings Limited itself is currently marked as lacking lacking references and as being written as an advertisement. If Liberty Holdings Limited would want to change their article, i would suggest focusing on improving its references first, since those are ultimately what allows a company to be on Wikipedia. Without reliable sources someone may eventually challenge the article itself, which may lead to its removal.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good day

Thanks for the feedback about my article. Are there perharps any examples you could recommend of similar financial institutions that are well written (neutral) and referenced that I could check out, in order for me to be able to change the article accordingly.

Thanks, Group comms (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

would recommend modeling the article after a GA qualified article, since these have been checked for quality of writing, references et cetera. My favorite examples are Pearson's Candy Company and Pike Place Fish Market, because they are well written decently referenced, while also being quite short (thus reading them doesn't take ages). They are not financial companies, but the basis for each company article is more or less the same. Having said that - every article on the GA page can serve as an example, so there may be some examples specific for financial companies as well.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hebb_Studios

hello. Hebb studios was a business run by my parents Ralph And Jean Walker in the 1940s in Brookvale Sydney Australia. I attempted to create an article (see above link) for wikki. which was rejected on the grounds of inadequate supporting references. - Fair enough. I am very new to all of this, thus, i am not familiar with the process of quoting a reference, nor what reference would qualify. I will attempt to compile some references in the next few days, and (if is ok with you) will ask for your assistance to quote them correctly. Rohan Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan Walker (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Rohan,

For a source to qualify as a reliable source, it must meet 3 conditions:

• The publisher of the source must be of sufficient size. This means that you can quote major newspapers, large websites or otherwise sizable publishing organisations. You can't quote a personal blog or a minor website with 10 readers a year (For example).
• It can generally be trusted to tell the truth. Major newspapers and large websites tend to have quality control, but some sources such as some tabloids tend to be sensationalist over accurate, so those don't pass the criteria.
• It is independent of the subject of the article. Simply put: The subject can't have a direct relation with the source itself. So nothing they wrote themselves, or someone close wrote for them. Also nothing that the subject paid for to get written.

Before anything else, make sure that the article can meet the above requirement for reliable sources. Reliable sources are used to establish notability, which is the basic inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. If an article cannot pass this criteria, it cannot be included under any circumstance (So before investing a lot of work in the article, make sure it can pass).

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith Glaser

You recently rejected a submission regarding Judith Glaser saying that it was empty when it was not..can you please help me get this article up> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpiedmont (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you submitted on June 11 is actually a blank article (See this link to see what was originally submitted), except for the "Review request at AFC" header which is automatically generated when submitting a page. I'm afraid there is... not a lot i can do if an article doesn't contain any content except a default header (There is little to review of comment on in these cases). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not blank when I sent it...is there a way it could be wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpiedmont (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The page i linked is the revision of the page that was received by the server(s) when you saved the page. I did a check on your account just to be sure, but it seems you made no other edits under this username, and there are no deleted contributions present either (Meaning the content was never saved in the first place). Seeing that the default page header itself was saved, the only conclusion would be that there was some kind of user error, as pages are either saved or not (Pages don't lose half their content along the way). Even so I'm afraid the reason behind doesn't really matter either - since the server didn't receive the text it was never saved on Wikipedia. Thus unless you have a local copy i fear it is impossible to retrieve it.

I resubmitted..can you please tell me if I am as a member able to submit an article on a book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpiedmont (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not - do be sure to read the notability guideline for books though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Church_of_Belief_Science

Hi Excirial

I am the author of an article for creation on the Church of Belief Science. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Church_of_Belief_Science

You edited it and gave some good advice. So I've made some changes. I am new to this. I have only done one other page. So your help is appreciated. Here's what I've done to address your concerns. I edited down the section on the Church Canons, abbreviating them to save space and to make it more readable. I also added a section entitled "Criticisms" with references. I think this answers your concerns. I was confused to your mention of some catch phrases, and I guess you mean the ones that are bolded. Feel free to unbold or remove quotes around any terms that you feel are meant to be catchy rather than informative. I would appreciate anything you can do to finish this article. Send me a note if there are other concerns or if I didn't adequately address your issues.

MarkPopeEDD (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did another pass over the article, and having a closer look at it i noticed a rather important issue with the article which I only noticed it after reader and checking the usage of the various references in the article itself. It looks as if the content doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources and thus doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria in its current state (Which is necessarily for inclusion).

As of the moment there are 3 references cited - 3 books by "Cottone, R. R", and 3 other books. The books by "Cottone, R. R" do, par definition, not pass the reliable sources criteria as they are written by someone closely involved with the subject (Seeing that Robert Rocco Cottone is the founder of the church). I assume that the first response to this would likely be "But Robert Rocco Cottone was accepted, and it only quotes those" - yet policy-wise this acceptance was an error by the reviewer accepting it, since all these sources fall under the self published criteria. As for that matter i already left a notice on the users talk page.

The other three sources have an issue as well - they are not used to cite any of the main article content which is what a reliable source does, but are instead a footnote for a comparison (Persons X's theory looks similar to what person Y wrote hereandhere [Reference]) In other words this means that the relation of these sources with the article's subject is De minimis, which means that they sail the Signification coverage criteria.

Summarized i would say that both article's seriously lack in this department, and that this is especially a bad thing for the Robert Rocco Cottone as this is a biography of a living person, which requires exceptional quality sourcing to begin with. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Excirial--I will try again. I am getting it, just a bit slowly. MarkPopeEDD (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Farid Fadel Article

Dear Excirial reviewer,

Greetings from Egypt! I have recently written an article about Egyptian artist Dr. Farid Fadel, however it did not go through. Here is the link you asked for : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Farid_Fadel

I made some amendments to have it written more academically, however I would appreciate more specific comments as to how I could make it "wikipedia" material. I would also like to include pictures I took of Dr. Farid Fadel's paintings but do not know how to do that. I assure you Excirial, Dr. Fadel is a worthy personage to have on wiki. His biography was included in the "Who's Who" of intellectuals published by Cambridge in 1988 and has been a key public figure in Egyptian contemporary art (do google him and see his paintings).

thank you for your cooperation and hard work.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

yours truly,

Dalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliaFFH (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those last few edits are definitely an improvement over the last versions, and as far as i am concerned entirely took care of the tone and neutrality issue. A few extra newspaper sources might be a good thing though, since a few of them only make a trivial mention, rather then providing a bit more substantial coverage. Having said that i'll be leaving it to another reviewer to do another check, but so far it looks quite decent to me. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Larson article

I notice you declined the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Larson that a new editor submitted. I understand the issues with this original version but I have the feeling that I can help make this a worthwhile article, but it may take some time. I'm not that familiar with 'Articles for creation' . . . will this article stay on this page indefinitely so either the original submitter or others can work on the article? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there 72Dino,

With the exception of article's that have a pressing issue (Copyright violation, attack page et cetera) AFC article's are kept permanently. Actually, There are currently about 60k declined AFC article's floating around. So yes, all the time in the world to improve the article.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hideous mistakes

Last month, you were processing AfC submissions, and you found a grotesquely obscene page describing the sexual activities and proclivities of someone far too young to legally talk about in such terms; much personally-identifying information was included.

You looked at this content, and then marked it as "Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable person". If I had not happened to find this material while patrolling the far end of the userpage queue, this content would still be publicly viewable, and available for content scrapers to grab for their mirror sites.

When you find such material in the AfC queue, please send it to Oversight rather than simply marking it as 'declined'. DS (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chances are very high that i have never even saw the offending content itself, or i would have deleted it straight away before giving a random oversight a nudge on IRC to remove it altogether. AFC pages rarely require a complete and detailed check to determine what category of decline they are under - if i skim over it and notice multiple peacock words there is little reason to read everything as it would be non-neutral / advertising. If a submission is entirely without references it will be declined on those grounds, so there is no real need to check every line to judge it. If it is a copyvio then it is being deleted anyway, so no need to read everything.

It is, on (luckily) rare occasions possible to miss a page. However, A full check on every page would cut the amount of reviewed article's to about 10% of the current amount, and seeing the backlog (And even worse, up to 1 week wait time for new editors!) that does more harm then a missed attack page (as serious of an issue as those things might be). To put things in perspective - between last month and now i estimate i did about 2k AFC reviews, and this is the first attack page reported as passed, among another 17 deletions in the same timespan for that grounds.

One good thing though: AFC template will be marked as NOINDEX as soon as the toolserver lag is in a manageable condition again. It won't solve the issue, but it will at least mitigate a share of the damage as major search engines won't index those drafts anymore then. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources

Related section in archive 19
ok...I havent seen anything in a magazine or newspaper but the FOX website does list her on the roster for the prime time show, and she's been on the whole season now (boo she got a date this week though). Even the show has it's own wikipedia page. They list her age and hometown. Was that not good enough? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowponylover (talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Any page, and most especially bipgraphies, need reliable sources to support them. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source on its own since its a tertiary source, and because you might end up with amusing circular references (Page 1 references page 2, page 2 references page 3, and page 3 is a reference for page 1 again, thus being a self fulfilling prophesy. ). Also keep in mind that reliable sources are used to establish that a topic is important enough for a stand-alone article; If there aren't any sources this is an indication that this is not the case.

If she is truly notable there must simply have been someone somewhere who wrote an article that passes the reliable sources requirements. If not, there is little that can be done (Though she may be well be mentioned on pages regarding movies she acted in). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Scruncho

I have completed the edits to the article and added reliable sources. Thanks for your assistance in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorjarrold (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your of course very welcome! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

AFC reviews and article acceptations.

Copyover from external talk page
Hiyas there Gardevoir,

I have noticed your work on AFC patrol, and for most part i would say you are doing a decent job (Also - thanks for chipping away at the backlog, less articles there is always better). What i did notice however, is that you do at times accept article's which shouldn't be accepted because they lack reliable sources. An example is Oliver Grose, which is currently heading for removal at AFD. If you hav a look at the sources, you will notice that (While there are many of them), half of them don't even mention the article's subject, while the others fail the WP:SIGCOV requirement.

Another article i noticed is Robert Rocco Cottone, whose editor happened to contact me about another article he wrote. The article is sourced, but every single reference is written by "Cottone, R. R", or Robert Rocco Cottone himself. Which, of course, means that it is entirely supported by non acceptable self published references.

In other words: Your doing fine work, but be a tad carefull and make sure to check the references while accepting an article :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sant Baba Amar Singh Ji

Hi, RE: Submission of Article: Sant Baba Amar Singh ji Thank you for your reply regarding the above matter. I am emailing to make a humble request for the approval of the above submission. All the material has been taken from Nanaksar Trust Group websites. These websites are designed and implemented by the IT team – Nanaksar Trust Group. I am the Group IT administrator and copyright holder of this content. Information provided in this submission is with reference to our Chairman and Founder and activities of the Group. The reason for submission is to create awareness and fill the void on Wikipedia. I have also included the detailed references in my submission. I hope you find my request reasonable and will kindly grant permission for submission. Please feel free to contact me directly on ksingh@nanaksar.org.au. I look forward for your positive response. Thanks in advance. Regards, Kamalpreet

Hello Kamalpreet,

I declined the article as a copyright violation since the text of the article was directly copied from another source (http://nirmalsewa.com/about-us.html in this case). Under US law copyright is automatically granted on all written texts, and is therefor present unless the writer specifically waives these rights. Copyright restricts what one can do with a text - for example, it may not be freely altered or reproduced, which is necessarily for Wikipedia. Due to this Wikipedia only accepts texts that are either licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (or a more lenient license)

Having said that i would equally point out that it is rarely a good idea to copy content directly, even if the license allows it. An encyclopedic text requires another structure and writing style then most other texts, and thus it is rare for these texts to be accepted as an article. I would recommend looking in the good article category for an article with a similar subject as your own, and using that as a basis for your own article. However, before spending time it is best to read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, and checking if your article can meet these policies requirements. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

High Technology Crime Investigation Association

Hello,

This was my first attempt and want to get this entry right and accepted. Briefly, I am the former President of HTCIA, which is a non-profit professional organization, which marked 25 years in existence last year. I was asked by HTCIA leadership to do this.

You noted that it was not in a formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article and entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.

I can tone down the peacock terms, but the "independent, reliable, published sources", is going to be a bit tough. Our members know about HTCIA, Others know about it as they had attended training or received an award, like the Case of the Year winners. We will have a Membership book up and running...but that will be published by us. Much of the information is only kept by HTCIA, on its website, prior conference sites, and is not a published source. Or the material is from long ago. I can point to individual members being quoted I suppose but for details about HTCIA that is going to be lacking, except from us.

In looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfraGard, which is also a non-profit, they refer to their own website frequently for citations. I can give our website and the pages as well as archieved material over the years, but to point to an article about HTCIA is not going to be possible.

I appreciate your time in looking at this. HTCIA is a 25 yr old non-profit, who has one full time employee (not me).

Thanks

Art Bowker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Note: Article has been created in the mainspace as of current. Histmerged the old AFC article into it, and uncommented a commented category. I don't think any further action is needed as of current as the article seems to be doing well in the mainspace right now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope For Children

Hi Excirial,
It looks like you reviewed the above article and the one I found which was a cut and paste into Main space. I moved it back into AfC without a problem because the editor changed the name also. I have already done touch up on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope For Children UNCRC Policy Centre. Other than my touch up and the title, I think they are identical. Should probably blow one of them away. It's your call as to which one. This is happening more an more often lately.  :-( We need a Wiki rack or something equally painful for these editors.

Regards,  :- ) Don 01:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Seems that user:DragonflySixtyseven took care of one of the duplicates about a week ago, so i think i can mark this one as handled. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Amisera7 and Reykjavik Geothermal

User:Amisera7's article on Reykjavik Geothermal contains material that I really should delete, probably rev/del, as a quick Google search quickly brought up the original text which had been only slightly paraphrased from the sources. I see it's been resubmitted for a third time. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: I think that user:Eclipsed took care of the offending content, though the content in question is marked as copied from a US government institution, so it may actually fall under Copyrighted works by the US federal government (but i can't judge on that topic). Even so the content didn't detail the subject of the article meaning it should have gone regardless, and it seems the editor has not resubmitted the article in a month so little to do as of current. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

fixing an advertising tone in my article

Hi, Thank you for all of your suggestions and comments for improvement. I wanted to get some input from you about how I can improve the article for The Plaza 'Live' Orlando. You mentioned that it has too much of an advertising tone. What specific types of changes should be made on the article to keep it neutral? Thanks!!!!

Here is the link to the article! Thanks!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Plaza 'Live' Theatre (Orlando) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.69.162 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Seems that the article has been reviewed twice more between this question and the date of this comment - going to assume that this is handled. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jenny Eakin Delony

Hi,

Please take a look at the article on "Jenny Eakin Delony. It is not a copy and paste. LHBaker has made the necessary changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwydra (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: AFC submission was deleted as a copyright violation, and after that Jenny Eakin Delony was created which doesn't seem to be one, or at least after a few edits from a few editors it was fine. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

About article

Hi and thank you for your response to my submission.

I am totally unsure of what to edit. I have looked everywhere and feel i havent a clue on what to do next to re-submit and have it accepted. The person i am writing about is doing great things and many for charity. I feel he deserves a place on the world best wall!

Please help

Thanks

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRJames (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Asker made no edits since this question, which is more then two weeks old. Writing a detailed reply would take quite some time which i don't really have right now, and there is a high change it won't be read in the first place due to the late response date. Going to leave JamesRJames a note to give me a nudge in case he is still waiting for a response - assuming "To late to handle" otherwise. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read and thank you

Hey Excirial, So here is the thing about my page, it isn't meant to be educational or something anyone can learn from. I had the young lass named Marnina for Ritual in a show we did together, if you don't know it's kinda like a secret santa type gift giving to help cast bonding. Part of my gift was making her a wikipage that everyone could contribute to. I understand you are doing your job but PLEEEEEEEEAAAASE you would make my life if you could possibly just send this one through. There are worse things on wikipedia and this is for a close friend of mine. I would be forever in your debt. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach2hansen (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Asker made no edits since this question, which is more then two weeks old. Writing a detailed reply would take quite some time which i don't really have right now, and there is a high change it won't be read in the first place due to the late response date. Going to leave Zach2hansen a note to give me a nudge in case he is still waiting for a response - assuming "To late to handle" otherwise. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Excirial I need your cooperation

Dear Excirial

I want your help so that I can make my idea/suggestion/comment (under the title “GOD Particle : Higgs-Boson or N.H. Particle ?” on GOD particle, especially after the CERN announcement of discovery of Boson-like particles, rewritten below for your ready reference) known to the world through Wikipedia.

It depends on how one looks at it. One may consider it as an essay or write-up. I have written it as my idea/suggestion/comment written in a very positive attitude and with a neutral point of view, supported by due authentic references.

My idea/suggestion/comment may appear very simple. But let me humbly say that a strong science back ground is required to appreciate the essence of my idea/suggestion/comment. In disguise, it involves the question of rewriting many topics of Physics text book before one starts to try to unveil the mysteries of the creation. Please do not show me the path of journals etc. I want your help to inform the world at large and the concerned people simply from the very beginning for a better understanding. I expect this will prove fruitful especially with the progress of discussions and criticisms. The basic aim of all this is for benefit of mankind.

Frankly speaking, I am quite tired of Western people’s nepotism and racism (I can cite examples with due proof, if you like). They try to shy away with some kind of ready plea when it comes to giving substantial credit to Eastern people especially of developing countries, in their efforts to keep their supremacy and dominance. I am ready to contribute if you open a dialogue on the topic of “Western nepotism and racism”.

Nazmul Huda

Copypaste of an essay

………………………………………………………………………………………… GOD Particle : Higgs-Boson or N.H. Particle ? Last Wednesday (04 July), scientists of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), announced in separate press conferences in UK and Geneva , the success of the discovery of Higgs-Boson like particles which are popularly known as GOD particles. However, the scientists are not sure whether their discovered particles are Higgs-Boson particles (named after the British Scientist Peter Higgs and a Bangali Scientist Sattendranath Bose), or some other particles. In 2010, CERN in an underground tunnel near Geneva, caused a mini Big-bang. An experiment was conducted for one nano second in the 27 kilometer tunnel with seven billion electron-volts. In the Higgs-Boson theory, it was indicated that the Higgs-Boson particles (later on known as GOD particles) played the main role in creating the universe after the Big-bang super explosion. It was opined that these particles only are responsible for mass creation and conveyance of force. Had the new particles not been discovered during this time, scientists would have started thinking of abandoning this theory and started rewriting text books. The new success turned the anxiety into encouragement. As a scientist, I wish to sincerely congratulate the concerned scientists and workers of CERN for their credible success and say a few words. According to scientific definition a mass must have weight, which is a matter of gravitational/gravity force, where it is said that bodies attract each other due to that force. But is it really true? In the chapters concerning force and motion of Physics text books, it is said that force causes / accelerates (or retards) the motion of bodies. But is it really true? In publication No. WO 2004/019476 dt.22.04.2004 (priority date 21.08.02) of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an organization under the UN, the best authority in the world for patents, the detailed description of Pressure Motion Equivalence (PME) theory can be found in the 44-page story along with diagrams. The publication has been officially sent by WIPO to all its members which includes all the developed countries of the world. According to the PME theory, pressure and not force causes motion, no matter if that pressure is linear, rotational, electric/magnetic or whatever. Pressure and motion are the same things. What is pressure is motion and what is motion is pressure. It has been explained with practical examples that the cause behind motion or current is pressure. In a direction, if the pressure is less there will not be any motion even if the force is more. Some sort of pressure particles are believed to be the cause of motion or pressure. These particles have been named as N.H. particles after the name of the founder of this opinion. Publication No WO 2004/019476 of WIPO is basically a patent paper, where the scope of theoretical discussion of N.H. particles is limited. But the background and the reasoning behind the PME theory and the particles have been duly explained. However, to make his patent paper acceptable to all scientists, the inventor and founder, though himself a staunch believer in the Almighty Creator, never mentions the Creator in his patent paper, although he himself sees no difference between science and nature, creation and the Creator. This is the reason why he himself does not introduce his particles as GOD particles, even though he believes that the discovery of N.H. particles would unveil many mysteries of nature, especially those on the root of energy. In one of his published write-ups later on, he was optimistic about plenty of research in the 21st century on his theory of PME and the particle theory. Like everybody else, scientists too dream. Some dreams are realized after a lot of hard work and perseverance. If the starting point of scientific dreams is close to the truths of nature, success comes more easily. This is why I believe, the work on the basis of the PME and the N.H. particle theories, instead of force based mass, gravitation or energy, is expected to bring success. Some people may discard the idea as rubbish, by explaining that force and pressure is the same thing. But this is not at all true. To make the idea clearer, it must be said that force is at best two dimensional, whereas pressure is at least three dimensional (the possibility of being more dimensional in actual discovery is high). The nature of the particle that the CERN scientists have discovered is not yet completely known, it might be the very same N.H. particle also. If the latter proves to be true, it would really be a milestone in unveiling the mysteries of nature and creation. It is to be noted that the inventor of the PME and N.H. particle theories is a Bangladeshi. But so what? Science is in the search for truths in nature, where nobody should undermine the contribution of anybody irrespective of religion, caste or creed. After all science knows no political and religious boundaries, but is based on progress involving contributions from each and everyone.

Nazmul Huda nazinvbd@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazmulkhokon (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Seems that the question was later asked on the helpdesk. Going to assume it was handled just fine. If not, let me know. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

Oh.. Wikipedia's reviewing process is very long.. Will you review my article as soon as possible..! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Arshad_Khan I have modified my article fully and the references are now powerful. Regards, ARK (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Article is still in the review queue (9 days old), and has been reviewed the day after above question, with another comment being added a few days later by another reviewer. The article quality is far past the normal quick check i tend to do to assure people don't wait for a week because there is an issue that a 10 second glance could have pointed out. Also, due to lack of time im currently not reviewing things, so leaving this up for the other AFC patrols who will most certainly deal with it before i find some spare time. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article

I created three wiki pages by accident that were the same. and now they are all down do I have to make a whole new one?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkinsk (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: The article in question, Jason Sturgeon, seems to have been fixes and accepted in the mainspace in the meantime. Tagging it as {{Peacock}} though since there are some rather non neutral words; Besides that the sourcing isn't exactly that great but its decent enough not to tag it for removal. Considering this one done as can be. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PMOHQ

Exciral, Please help I have repeatedly done what was asked of me to provide references and I have been task to create a wikipedia page and I'm getting denied continuiously please give me a concrete answer on what I need to do to get this resolved. There are other commands that are just like mine like COMSUBPAC in the Navy and they are on Wikipedia. Please tell me exactly what I need to do to resolve this issue. Thank You for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primatoff (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Overdue response / comment: Asker made no edits since this question, which is more then two weeks old. Writing a detailed reply would take quite some time which i don't really have right now, and there is a high change it won't be read in the first place due to the late response date. Going to leave Primatoff a note to give me a nudge in case he is still waiting for a response - assuming "To late to handle" otherwise. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John de Ruiter

Dear Excirial,

I feel that I addressed all of your concerns regarding the above article and event consulted with other Wikipedia editors regarding use of citations and other requirements. I feel that I tone of the article is quite formal and balanced. I was meticulous with citations and updated or removed all useless ones. Nevertheless, the article was rejected by IceUnshattered who simply sent the exact comment as yours. This is a clear indication that he/she did not read the first and second articles to see the changes. Can you please check the latest article and give me your feedback. I believe that the article is acceptable but I will make more changes if you feel they are necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh. He beat me to it. Yes, I am the latest reviewer of that article, and I was on the fence about it, but I felt the same decline criteria still applied. I commented underneath the decline template with suggestions, but it's true that the article has significantly changed since you reviewed it, so yes, we're both asking for your second (or third, perhaps) opinion. Icy // ♫

Overdue response / comment: Based on this comment I'd say it is being handled and in capable hands. If another review is needed do feel free to ask,. though note that i am still quite, quite busy and unlikely to be able to review anything soon. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ward Morehouse III

Stivemeister (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)July 28, 2012

I understand that you are the latest editor to reject the article on Ward Morehouse III. After several sessions with the previous editor, I thought that all of the obstacles had been overcome. Would you please detail to me exactly you have feel is the reason this article is now being rejected by you?

Thanks,

StivemeisterStivemeister (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Stivemeister (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)August 2, 2012

I know you're busy both with and without Wikipedia, but I've note yet gotten a response from you regarding my July 28th query on the above subject.

Stivemeister (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister

Overdue response / comment: The latest review was by user:Matthewrbowker at time of question, and between my review and his subsequent review substantial changes were made. Currently seems to be handled by user:Maproom on Stivemeister's talk page. As with the other sections assuming this is being taken care of, let me know if it isn't (Though note that i am still in a busy period and unlikely to respond soon). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Aaty87/MD Rabbi Alam=

I am a little puzzled at your having declined the AfC with the reason " 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." with the contradictory and incompatible edit summary "Declining submission: submission lacks inline citations " I can think of several reasons for declining this article, including the unlikelihood of encyclopedic notability , but I do not see how citation format is a reason for declining this or any other article, considering that except for special cases such as potentially negative BLP, there is no requirement for ay specific citation format. I agree the way the references are presented in this article is confusing and ought to be fixed--the references at the bottom are most of them not at all to the point in any case--but I dod not see this as a reason for declining the article.

I am concerned not about hte article per se, but in our giving correct advice to beginners. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is quite the old decline you dredged up there, seeing that the time stamp for it is roughly 3 months in the past. Roughly 3 months ago the AFC Helper script still contained a default decline reason for article's that didn't have any inline citations (Using that one automatically placed the quited template and edit summary). Between 3 months ago and now that reason was removed from the helper script for exactly the same reason as you state above - it isn't exactly a valid reason to decline a page in the first place.

Right now there shouldn't be any new AFC article's that have this decline reason unless someone manually places it or uses a very old script version, though you may still find it on some of the older pages. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. There are some problems with some of the other reasons, & I will be making some suggestions about revising the reasons further atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, where I have already made some criticisms. It concerns me the extent to which the practical application of policy is at the hands not of policy discussions, but the makers of automated scripts. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ISSME

You declined this AfC submission as needing reliable sources and reading like an advertisement. However, with further inspection, I discovered that the article was a blatant copy violation of the group's website. For the future, please copy a portion of the text and use a search engine to verify that the content isn't a copy violation. As with mainspace, users may use AfC space for copy violations as well, perhaps believing that AfC reviewers won't scan the content for violations. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If i notice something is a copyvio, i will flag it as such (Well, technically i will just delete it outright, but the idea behind it is the same). Before accepting an article i tend to check a line from every section at least, and more if the texts writing style suggests that it might just have been copy pasted from elsewhere. For "Declines" i tend to check a single line, two at most. So perhaps i managed to select a single line that wasn't a copyright violation, or perhaps i just missed the article if it was further down the search results a bit. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hello,

I remarked that one of your figures is present in a scientific research paper (you can read it here for example).

Can you confirm the authors of this paper have copied your figure with no respect for the licence associated to it?

Thank you.

193.190.193.2 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Mathieu Goeminne

I must say that i am quite amused that a scientific research paper would include an image i cobbled together in 15 minutes using Microsoft Visio, especially since it hardly complex or fancy to look at (The only reason i even made it was to emphasize that TDD writes tests before writing any production code, which may sound counterintuitive at first glance). But yes, your seem to be right about the copyright violation part; The image is a straight out copy, and i cannot find any attribution for it in the article, thus violating the CC-BY-SA license. Seeing that the paper was release in 2011 i don't think there is any doubt which side made the image either.

Im not exactly bothered by the copyright violation at all since you can hardly call the image intellectual property of any kind, but it does cause me to raise an eyebrow in regards to the academic quality of the article. If the authors just pasted an image right in from an external source without any checks on copyright or correctness of the image, i can't help but wonder if the text was written using the same copy-n-paste procedure. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a change

I made changes to the Screen Protector page. As the original Inventor of the screen protector. The description you have is not accurate. It is a non licensed reference to there product. I have original timelines of the actual creation along with the meetings that took place in Arlington VA at the US patent and Trademark office. Regarding the screen Protectors.

The only other page I made is on a page listed under Schulmiester. Which was a family member. Either or both pages was corrected only for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorb (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Kaal Madhumas

Hi you have just declined my article on the above subject stating its a blank document. However if you see the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Kaal_Madhumas_-_(film) (My Project Page), it does have an article included. I am not sure how to submit this properly. This is my first article and therefore apologies for the added problem. Abhirup.roy1983 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Abhirup

Ah, that explains a thing or two. Normally AFC pages are developed on the talk page instead of being developed on the project page (which is somewhat counterintuitive now that i think about it). Since the review tag was placed on the talk page, and since that page contained a references section it looked as if that page was intended for review.

To be frank it doesn't matter where the content is placed - just place the review request template on the page that is intended for review. I see that you already did that though, and i see Alexrexpvt had now reviewed the project page itself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rising Leaders Academy

Hello,

I received a message that my article for Rising Leaders Academy has been rejected because the information was taken from the Rising Leaders Academy website. I am the founder of the school and created the website. I agree for Wikipedia to have the same information as that on my website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuhaAJaber (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The website itself states "© 2012", which means that the content on it would fall under copyright thus not being compatible for use on Wikipedia. It is possible to release the website content under a compatible license such as CC-BY-SA or GDFL, or grant specific permission, but to be honest this wouldn't matter since the text itself had multiple issues that cause it to be unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Aside sourcing and verifiability issues, the text itself is highly promotional as opposed to be neutral and encyclopedic. The only real advice i can give for this page, is completely rewriting it while using reliable sources to back up what was written. Also, this writing had to be neutral and non-promotional in tone to be accepted. It may be handy to have a look at the list of good article's, as this list contains good examples to model a page after.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Aon Creative - addition note on the Aon page

Excirial, I feel and request the "Aon Creative" line I added be reinserted on the Aon page to help readers understand the difference between Aon Inc. the Insurance Company and Aon Creative the Marketing Design company. They have an internal creative services department which some individuals get confused with Aon Creative. Having no external link is ok with Aon Creative. paul@aoncreative.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.177.3 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there 64.132.177.3,

Disambiguation pages, as they are called, are used to direct a user to Wikipedia article's that have similar names and meanings. However, if there is no underlying page to link to, a term is generally not included on the disambiguation page. Just google around a bit - there is an Aon insurance company, an Aon creative an marketing company, an Aon company dealing in keltic art, an Aon PLC, an Aon eSolutions and its an acronym for "Akademia Obrony Narodowej" and "Airdale Ops Network" (Et cetera et cetera). If you would include all of these the page would be unusable, especially since 90% wouldn't direct a user anywhere. Bottom line: If it has a stand-alone article its included on such a page, otherwise its left out. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Excirial! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 09:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Excirial!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Hoffwn i chi i gyd y gorau ar gyfer 2013! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Futurist

Hi

About the copyright issue. I used the information from there as I am good friends with the blogs owner, and in far edited several sections of the blog, including all the history sections. Not sure how to proceed, but could Lesley email you with permission providing in affect creative Commons? I only did the work because she doesn't have a wiki account or experience to create such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatehudson (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No matter any more, the page was deleted by Tonywalton last night. I find it very frustrating that he has done this without having the courtesy to check whether I'd tried to address the issue first. I'm now going to have to re-write the entire thing from scratch including sorting out the formatting again. I'll take that up with him though, not your fault, just thought I'd make you aware that this is a somewhat moot question now.

Privatehudson (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there Hudson,

The removal of the page is unfortunately a result of the way copyright works. Since the article was copied from another website without clear copyright status the page was essentially a copyright violation which is against the law. Actually i should have removed the page myself when i saw that, but i kind of prefer a second set of eyes before pressing the "nuke" button.

As for some good news though: Deleted article's on Wikipedia aren't entirely gone. In fact, the only thing that happens when an article is deleted is that they are made invisible \ inaccessible to anyone without administrative permissions. This means that the article can also be restored with its former content and formatting without to much of a hassle if so required.

As for the copyright issue itself, there are two ways to proceed:

• You could add a disclaimer on the blog itself, stating that the content is released under an open policy compatible with Wikipedia such as CC-BY-SA (Akin to the Copyright: 2012 small text often present on websites).
• An alternative to this is releasing the copyrighted materials for use on Wikipedia. Note that this is essentially the same thing as suggestion one (Everyone can use the material you created, not just Wikipedia), though in this case there is no need for a licensing small print on the page.

If you are fine with releasing the copyright in this manner and choose option 1, just give me a nudge on my talk page when the disclaimer is up. I'll be more then happy to restore the removed page for you. In case of option 2 a member of the OTRS team is likely to ask an administrator to do so as well, so in most cases that option should sort itself out.

Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Excirial

I'm sorry if I've caused any trouble, hopefully you can appreciate that I'm new to creating articles, so when I heard that the page had been deleted, and hadn't received any prior contact from the person who did so, I just assumed it had gone for good. Unfortunately had Tony sent me something at the time of the deletion it would have saved a lot of confusion. His action also removed from view the instruction you had previously sent me about the copyright issue, so thanks for sending it again. I just didn't realise that the article can still be restored and approved just as soon as the copyright issue is cleared up. I fully understand now about the copyright thing and can appreciate its important.

Tony did send a reply to me earlier today to say that it has now been put under my user space (User:Privatehudson/The Futurist Cinema, Liverpool) so I'mn guessing that it would need to be restored from there?

Anyway I'm going to add the following to the blog's history pages (all the info used comes from those three) "The information on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." I used the Creative Commons website to get the text.

Would this be sufficient for the purpose of your first suggestion, or do you suggest something else? If its OK I'll add it asap and then let you know.

Thanks for your help

Neil Privatehudson (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there Neil,

Don't worry, you didn't cause any trouble whatsoever. Wikipedia can be quite the confusing place when you just start out and the amount of policies doesn't help either. Besides, the word "Delete" normally doesn't mean "Hide it from public view" so that often causes some confusion. The article itself was already restored by Tony, and he moved it to a subpage for your account so that you can continue working on it just like before. As for the copyright - adding that line to the history pages is perfect, as that clearly indicated the content is released under a license that can be used on Wikipedia.

On to something slightly different: I had a look at the page itself and made a few changes to the page and its structure so that its structure and formatting is more in line with the other article's out there. (There is actually a Manual of Style that contains literally everything regarding page formatting. But do yourself a favor and don't even try to read it for a first page since it is ungodly large and overly detailed). There are also a few suggestions i would have for the page itself (Note that none of these are crucial to get the article accepted though):

• You may want to add interwiki links in the article. That is, links that users can click to navigate to relevant other pages. Some easy to follow help for that is present here: User:Chzz/help/linking.
• You may want to change your references to inline citations, which allow users to quickly see what reference is used for what part of the text. Some easy to follow help for this can be found here: User:Chzz/help/ref

You may also notice the "Sandbox" header i placed about the page. I mostly placed it because it contains a link that can be used to submit the article for another review. Otherwise it would be a matter of placing the template manually, but without guidance or knowing the template that can be a bit of a hassle. If you want it gone, just remove the {{user sandbox}} text from the top of the article while in edit mode.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

First of all thank you for the work you did tidying up the article, I really appreciate both this and the helpful suggestions that you made. I've done some editing of the : article itself based on your reccomendations, and also edited the blog's history pages to add the line we discussed. I wanted to get your opinion before submitting the article, also when it is submitted, I presume someone will re-check the blog to make sure that the information used is now listed as copyright free?

Regards and best wishes for 2013!

86.27.175.57 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas there Neil,

First off, also best wishes for 2013 to you! I gad another look at the article, and it is a definite improvement over the last version. The only point i'd raise is that the article contains an opinion here an there - though this is really a minor issue. Examples would be "to be the leading cinema of the circuit" (Which is a so-called peacock word) and "Luckily it was rebuilt" which (strictly taken) is an opinion. Sound like nitpicking? Not a strange thing, since that is what it really is. As for the review - adding it back to the queue will result in someone giving the current article another fresh look which will likely (and should!) include another copyright violation check. That one should turn out ok though, since i can see that the blog is now correctly marked as CC-BY-SA.

There are some things that i should point out though. First, expect that if will take quite a bit longer before the review will be done - It is not rare for article's to be in the queue for over a week or even longer before it is picked up. The reason the previous review was so fast, is because i tend to do a quick check on new article's for problems (If there is a severe problem that would always cause a decline, it makes no sense to have people wait a week for that). Second i cannot guarantee that the article will be accepted - another reviewer may spot something that i missed or didn't check for. Even so, in its current state it is definitely well prepared to face that trial. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bettie de Jong

Dear Madam, Sir, I am living in the Netherlands and new on Wikipedia English version. The article of Bettie de Jong was made for the dutch version of Wikipedia. Please see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettie_de_Jong. This was done because Bettie de Jong is well known in the modern dance business. I had many times contact with John Tomlinson, Executive Director Paul Taylor Dance Company and with Bettie de Jong (my aunt) herselve. After I put it on the dutch version I have translated the article in English and have put it on the internet. I dont realy understand why you declined the article. I read that the content has unreliable recources. Could you please tell me which of the content you mean, because I want to make the corrections. Excuse me for my english, I am not very experienced with that. I am looking foreward to your reaction. Kind regards, Willem van Iterson--87.211.183.169 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Willem,

There are two major issues with the sourcing of the article:

• Its only reference is a primary source instead of being supported by Secondary sources (I'll explain that in a second)
• Not all the content in the article is supported by a source, causing it to fail the biography of living persons policy (I'll explain that in a second as well).

Well, so much for quoting an array of awfully long policy pages and time for some human readable language explaining them. The subject of the article itself is a so-called BLP page, or a "Biography of a living person". These pages are especially sensitive, since they describe a living human being. If - for example - an article such as Battle of the Bulge contains an incorrect statement that would be annoying but unlikely to have any serious repercussions. Mistakes in biographies can be quite a bit more harmful for a person if they are present so those article are treated with exceptional care. As a result everything in these BLP article's should have a decent and reliable source that can be used to verify the content in that article.

A second issue is that the article only contains one underlying reference - a biography on the "Paul Taylor Dance Company" website. This is what they call a primary source, or a source of information that is close to the subject of the article. Wikipedia itself only uses Secondary sources, which are sources somewhat further away from the subject of the article such as newspapers, academic journals, the larger news websites and so on. This criteria is there for two reasons: Sources close to the subject are often not entirely unbiased, and they are used to determine if the subject is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.

Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer. I understand the sensetifity of the content of a BLP. I know the content is correct, I'm not afraid of that. My aunt read it and confirned the content, but I understand that's not enough. Of cource. I have to find more sources and references. I will find it.

How much time do I have before the article is declined definitely?--Willemvaniterson (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I must admit i didn't see this reply, and seeing that the article has now been accepted the question might have lost some relevance. Either way, an AFC submission is kept indefinitely when it is declined. The only time a submission is actually deleted is when it is a copyright violation or otherwise against the law (Or the page is just a bunch of swear words or similar). It is not a guarantee that a declined submission will never be cleaned up, but right now they are all kept around. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathew Daley Page

Hello,

Thanks very much for your review - hoping you can help me get a good friend up on wiki for an act heroism. Given the existing wiki page on Eric Fortier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éric_Fortier

Please let me know how I can improve the Mathew Daley page to ensure its inclusion.

Thank you very much, London1950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by London1950 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello there London1950,

This page falls under the so-called BLP1E policy, which prevents adding biographies for people who are only notable in the context for a single event. The logical question of course is why Éric_Fortier does have an article, while there is little difference between the article's. The answer to that is that this article dates from 2006, before this specific policy was drafted. After the policy was drafted it is quite likely that no-one has seen the article (Or tagged it for removal) which is why it is still around to this day. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)