User talk:78.26/archive2013-2

DYK for Abbey Tavern Singers

Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please approve changes incorporated

Dear Sir/ Ma'am

I have edited my contribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sankar_Datta as per your advice. Please kindly check and approve.

Regards Arunabha

Arunbh2 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(replied at users talk page) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your approval. I am new and still trying to find my way around.

Regards Arunabha

Arunbh2 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Mobile Financial Services - bKash (2)

Hi, you have declined the submission of 'bKash'. Could you please point out the reasons of your disagreements very specifically? Please specifically let me know the lines, for that you are opposing.--Bellayet (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Bellayet! Thanks for taking the time to write this article, and for your desire to improve it. First, I think your subject is clearly notable. There are several things I think you could do to improve the article.

• First, I deemed this to look like an advertisement because the article spends a good percentage of words describing "how-to" and why it is safe and regulated. These are not inherently bad, but as it stands the overall tone of the article seems to be promoting bKash, and not a disinterested, encyclopedic article about a company.
• I think one of the biggest improvements you could make is to expand the history section. There is nothing in this section that actually deals with the company history. Who is bKash? Where did it originate from? Who founded it? When?
• The Concept section needs some cleanup (this won't keep your article from being promoted, it is just for general improvement purposes.) The services provided are too detailed. Opening an account is intuitive, and the other options are basic services for banks. Buying airtime is a good item. What else besides basic (but mobile) banking services and air-minute purchases does the service provide?
• the third reference (BRTC) links to a 404 error. Can the url be tweaked to link to a valid page?
• the last reference (International Institute of Science Technology and Education) is fairly long. I would include the page number the information came from.

I hope that is useful to you. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Senior Army Career Counselor - Page Submission Declined

Thank you for taking the time to review the Senior Army Career Counselor page I recently created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Armyreenlistment/Senior_Army_Career_Counselor).

I've been in constant email/Facebook communication with current and former leaders of this Army career field Primary Military Occupational Specialty (PMOS) 79S and I've gathered all information I could gather (minus a couple pictures...some are deceased). Sergeant Major Retired (Dr. now) was voted Career Counselor of the Century by the 79S career field upon his retirement for his importance to this field and is the most knowledgeable Career Counselor (historically speaking) of our field's past. I know this may not really hold much weight in terms of reference for a non-Army Career Counselor and I'm not sure which way to go in terms of finding good quality references (I did upload a book of retention history that Dr. Pionk wrote).

Would email traffic or direct communication with Mr. Pionk provide information so as to get this page published?

Please assist at your earliest convenience, Matthew Quick Master Sergeant US Army, Active --Armyreenlistment (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, as a US citizen, thank you - deeply - for your service to our country. I am afraid that email traffic and personal communication does not count as a source, because it it not verifiable. In short, there is no way that one can look it up with Google, or go to the library to do some fact checking. I highly recommend you read wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. After that, if there is anything I can do to help you find reliable sources, let me know. Again, thank you for your service, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been working very hard gathering and posting references. This is a completely new learning experience...but a good. Can you please look over and see if I am on the right track and close to a possible 'Resubmission'? --Armyreenlistment (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sergeant Quick, theonesean, talk page stalker here. I took a look at your article, and the Gazette source appears to be a reliable, independent source. Generally, media sources are considered the status quo for good sources. If you can find more coverage of this in media, your article will be wonderful. But very good, in particular the writing. After this article is done, I hope you stick around and put that talent to good use. Thanks, theonesean 02:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

disagreement on mark martin victories

Mark Martin does indeed have 40 Sprint Cup series victories, but only 35 of them came during his tenure with Roush Racing. The other 5 were in 2009, while he was driving for Hendrick Motorsports unsigned comment 03:23, 9 July 2013‎ 174.62.143.247

You are absolutely correct. I missed the details of your edit. I apologize, and I have self-reverted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Mentoring_Academy#Citation_fixes

This is not a Flam,, but I need help. (I spent 40 min on this email,, wiki is important to me)

This project is like how Wikipedia was started donations (not VC money) and all volunteers. Unfortunately I don't have any volunteers or donations, hmmm I must be crazy. Look at WMA site again,, it is wonderful project.

I'm new to adding articles @ wiki. The notable comment is interesting. I looked it up, and then cruzed around Wiki,,, seems like World Mentoring Academy is more relative than a majority of articles.. but oh well.

I looked at others citations and did what they did. ie Alexa rank, The CLEP & DSST, I can link to a wiki sources but the 60 NYU-SCPS language tests has no Wiki article. Media most of the times just copy's the Company/Organizations Press Release,, the media is understaffed I have worked in the PR field. (just like Lobby's write many of the US Law's) The citation of the other MOOC's are mostly referring to their Press Releases.

MOOC's (education) are few, here's a comparison

	Coursea.org (est 4/12)	Udacity.com (est 2/12)	edX.org (est 5/12)	Worldmentoringacdemy.com (est. 4/10)
LMS(Learning Module system)	yes	yes	yes	yes
Courses	140 aprox	24 active	38 aprox	700 (same content as other MOOC's)
Earn Univ Credit	Yes (6 courses)	no	no	Yes (170+ courses)
Semester (start - end)	yes	open	yes	open (anchored with credit test)
Tuition	free*	free*	free*	free (no data mining, etc.)
Capitol	$22 million (VC)	$15 million (VC)	$60 million (Univ)	None ( not bound by VC, Gov. or Religion obligations)
Wiki article	yes	yes	yes	nope :(

(unsigned 17:55, 9 July 2013‎ User:Clowningar)

First of all, not taken like a flame, they are fair questions. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I hope I can say this as kindly as possible. You seem to have a serious conflict of interest with the proposed article subject. From that standpoint, thank you for submitting through AfC. Also, while schools of higher learning have been pretty much deemed inherently notable, does the WMA have any standing with an accrediting body? It does not appear so. If it does, please find a source, it will really help your article's chances for promotion to mainspace. I would also ask that you spend some considerable time studying our policies regarding what is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Your comparison to other sites will not help your article be promoted, as there are numerous articles that will eventually be deleted through the Articles for Deletion process. You may be able to take solace in WP:TOOSOON, as it appears your orginzation is brand new, and may eventually earn the citations and significant mentions in reliable sources that will make a wikiepdia article easy to write. I outlined the problems with your sources in my decline at Articles for Creation. If you come up with new sources and would like my opinion as to their independence or reliability, I'll be happy to help. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious

music
Thank you, composer, player and listener, for quality articles on music, recording and related people, such as Costanzo Antegnati and Robert Leonhardt, and for musically phrased reviews, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I am deeply touched! I will certainly treasure this jewel. I hope to create several more music articles, perhaps even some more opera-related ones, but I will never attempt to match the creative output of yourself, or of so many others who have recieved this precious gem. But this can't hurt the ol' inspiration department here at 78.26! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't compare! At one point I was asked to pass Precious to new writers, so I did today, again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Gerhardt Article

Hi, Thanks for your comments. In terms of citing news and sites, I'm in need of some help. What's the best way to do that? Also, I'll plan to find new sources (not Amazon) for books. (unsigned 14:11, 10 July 2013‎ user:Kmboehm‎)

You've done a good job of citing news and sites, in general. You fixed one of the Amazon references, all I was trying to convey is that you should cite the book itself, instead of citing the amazon website. The best way to do this is to use the following templates, as appropriate: template:cite news, template:cite book, template:cite web. Once that is done, and while I can't speak for any of the other reviewers, I would have promoted the article. Oh yes, please sign your talk page postings with "~~~~". All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, I'm still working on the Gerhardt article. I'm struggling a bit with this citation format. How do I cite non-news websites? Also, do these cites come immediately after the sentence, or should I place them in the reference list? Thanks for your help. ~~~~".

Hi Kmboehm‎, you can use the cite web template for a non-news site just as well. In my opinion, place the citation directly after the fact that is supported by the source. Merely adding to the reference list gives an unclear citation style. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, I just resubmitted the article, hopefully with the correct citations. Thank you. Kmboehm (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and well done! Article rightfully promoted by another editor. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Rocco

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad_Village AfC

Hello

I would help with working to get this article in the right form. Kindly advise.

link...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scleatus#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation

Thank you. (Scleatus (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

clarification

Hello

Not sure if I included the correct link for the article in the earlier post.

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

I will be obliged for your help in correcting it.

Thank you. (Scleatus (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Most importantly, how is your article different from Parayakad, which you link to? I wasn't sure if it was a duplicate or not, but if you could make the distinction clear it would be really useful. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Next, after you have differentiated your article, please see WP:RS as cited in the decline. After you review this, I'll be happy to answer questions you may have about the policy, and how you can find these sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scleatus/sandbox

The other Parayakad in wiki is only a small block(muri) in a village. "Parayakad is a muri (area) within the Chittatukara Village Panchayat, North Paravur Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam district, Kerala, India"

The village I am referring to is a larger and more substantial place. I linked them only because I thought I had to. They are not really connected. I see that I was wrong to link them. What will be the best best way of handling this without conflict and yet respecting the other entry? Should I include a note about the other Location?

Much obliged for your guidance.

Thank you.

(Scleatus (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification. I think that you should edit the other article to make it clear (particularly to those of us who are unfamiliar with Indian divisions of governance) to show that it is a sub-part of your to-be-created article. Yes, this will create a (temporary) redlink, but that is ok. You might reference the other article, saying something like "There is also a muri within Panchayat Village called Panchayat" and perhaps detail its location within the larger area. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you. I will do that and get back. I am grateful for the prompt and clear suggestions. Wiil be in touch. The Best.

(Scleatus (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC))

Autopatrolled

Hey 78.26. Just wanted to let you know I've given you the autopatrolled userright, in recognition of your content creation. My eye was specifically drawn by Maurice Rocco; it's a lovely article, and a wonderful choice for DYK :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the trust, and the kind words! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad_Village AfC part 2

Hello I have revised the article as you suggested. Made alterations to differiantiate the two articles . I have edited the other article to avoid the confusion and clarify the facts. I have also researched and addressed the WP:RS issues as recommended and introduced relevant references.

Kindly review and advise how to proceed.

Thank you.

(Scleatus (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC))

Hello! Thanks for making the distinction between the articles. However, I don't see where you added any sources to the article. For instance, you say the source is the census, but where would I go to find these census numbers? I'll bet there's an official government page you could reference! As stated in the original decline notice, please see WP:REFB and WP:Citing sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Where are you making the edits, for your AfC submission? I don't see any edits on page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parayakad Village since my decline. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I have submitted it after writing to you. It is in the wikipedia talk: articles for creation section. It is said it is waiting for review. I saw earlier contents with a refernece note repeated at the end of this new article .I guess i did not delete it. Plese ignore that.I will go back delete it.

Thank you.

(Scleatus (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC))

HELP please

I wasn't actually trying to create an article for submission! I was trying to put it in my sandbox. Do I have to create my own sandbox? All links were taking me to that for some reason and it was the only way that i could get into my sandbox. Any help would be appreciated. Also, I hope that i do not lose the article that I was working on. It is an actress who is red-linked in several places on WP, and although I at first put in a request for article creation, I noticed how long the list of requests is, so I decided to try and gather-up what i had accumulated in my current open tabs in researching the noteworthy actress.-TeeVeeed (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Added for clarification-How do I get into my sandbox please?TeeVeeed (talk) 01

30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! Unfortunately, somehow the "submit AfC" button was clicked, so I moved it per policy. There is a link on the main WP:Sandbox page that creates your own personalized sandbox. You won't lose that article, and if you need help I'll be happy to move it to your sandbox after you've created one. Let me know if you need further assistance. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes-thank-you, I had no intention of submitting it as an article! I don't know why it took me there since I was trying to get into my sandbox area. It was telling me "article for creation:sandbox/username....", like I had to submit my sandbox for creation as an article submission! -OK I will try to get into my sandbox. Thanks again, I may have more questions.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad part 3

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

Hello

In the meantime it was reviewed by someone else. I found you really focused and really wanted help from you. I amnot sure if you had a chance to look at that version. I have tried now to comply with the new reviewers advice (though I had no intent or reason for advertising to begin with) and neutralised the statements and tried to focused the referencing better. The text may have become a bit bland now.

I have been in touch with the wiki help desk and they have suggested that I could perhaps ask you review and help out. I would be grateful if you could be kind enough to do that.

The last edited version is above link Now. I would wait for your advice on how to proceed. Thank you for your help.

(Scleatus (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC))

Hi there! I'm glad to help out. I think you did a lot to remove what Bonkers (the other reviewer) percieved (correctly, in my opinion) as promotional. Do you have a source for the following two sentences?:

• "A martial arts specialist known as Kunjan Parayakattil originally from North Kerala and a fugitive from the ire of his local ruler settled and started a Kalari in this area. People from near and far used for to attend for regular training and also for advanced skills. The kalari also used to treat ailments with special techniques."

I've bolded the words that may be problematic, at least without a source. Keep your notes, I find them useful explanations. Did the people who "came from near and far" settle in the area, or were they just temporary visitors? What "special techniques" were used? All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad

Hello

"People from near and Far" is based on a statement from P.L. Sebastian's book that "trainees used to come from distant places". They were only temporary visitors.

The "advanced skills" is based on common knowledge that Kalaris provide basic physical training for flexibility for dancers and Kathakali artists and advanced martial arts training for combatants. Northen Kalari style movements were attractive to trainees in the southern Kerala where this kalari was established.

"Kalari also used to treat ailments with special techniques." This is based on common knowledge that the kalari guru(master) will be skilled in traditional medicine and it is always a part of a Kalari's function. The special techniques used are based on herbs and herbal oils and marma(vital points)knowledge know as marmachikitsa (treatment of vital spots)

Kalari Vidya(Kalari Arts/Knowledge) includes systems of marmaabhyasam(technique of vital spots) system of attacking and defending body's vital spots, marmaprayogam( application to the vitalspotss) a system of locks and methods of application to vital spots,and marmachikitsa(treatment of vital spots)system of emergency counter application of and treatment for injuries to body's vital spots.

I also include a general outline of Kalaripayattu for an over view....

Kalaripayattu is an Indian martial art from the southern state of ancient Kerala.One of the oldest fighting systems in existence

Northern kalaripayattu is based on elegant and flexible movements, evasions, jumps and weapons training, while the southern "Adi Murai" style primarily follows the hard impact based techniques. Combatants can disable or kill their opponents by merely touching the correct marmam (vital point). This is taught only to the most promising and level-headed persons, to discourage misuse of the technique. Marmashastram stresses on the knowledge of marmam and is also used for marma treatment (marmachikitsa).

Indian martial artists are knowledgeable in the field of traditional medicine and massage. Kalaripayattu teachers often provide massages (uzhichil) with medicinal oils to their students in order to increase their physical flexibility or to treat muscle injuries encountered during practice. Such massages are generally termed thirumal. Kalari massages and ayurvedic massages are related.

Sorry about the long message.

Thank you for your help.

The Best

(Scleatus (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC))

No, the long message is good. The additional context is good for someone such as myself, who is completely unfamiliar with terms that may be common, even basic, in India. Would you like me to make a few edits that I think would help get this promoted? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Joseph M. Schwartz

I have edited and rewritten the pages. on Joseph M, Schwartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joseph_M_Schwartz&action=edit&section=4 Although I have searched for guidance on how Wikipedia handles footnotes, I remain confused. How should I deal with a mixture of in page references and explanatory footnotes? Other suggestions you may have? I have long pages of downloaded material evidencing other author's citing of Joseph M. Schwartz. Do you want me to send a list to you? Thank you for your assistance. Duane Campbell DuaneCampbell1 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Duane Campbell! Thanks for writing. Please see WP:REFB, I think you'll find it helpful. I don't usually see the need for footnotes, I've only used them once, and that was to explain a discrepancy in references. Just my opinion. References are absolutely essential, particularly for a living person. First, would you please clean up the formatting of your article? Copy the information you have in green to your user page, so I can reference it there if need be, but the article can't be promoted with it there. Second, the article seems to repeat itself. Please pick one of the versions, and delete the other one. Yes, your list of references would be good, but how about sending me 4 or 5, I don't know if I want to deal with 50 of them! Hopefully I can help show you how to insert appropriate references if you still have trouble after reading the Wikipedia referencing guide. Your subject is clearly notable, all that is really needed is to format it to meet WP:MOS. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to your suggestions above. You say, copy the material in green to my user page. I do not have material in Green. I have posted the latest version on user page DuaneCampbell1. In prior work I was posting on the talk page and in the sandbox as I tried to resolve the issues. Since posting the latest version, I do not see material that repeats itself.

re: list of references. as suggested.

Here is a list of Google book cites for Joseph M. Schwartz. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kKyojdUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao These are the reviews I have included in the piece.

1. “Schwartz Wins North American Society for Social Philosophy 1996 Book Award,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 27:2 (September 1996): 31.
2. For list of recent winners, including Amartya Sen, G. A.Cohen, Will Kymlicka and Seyla Benhabib, see <http://www.pitt.edu/~nassp/bookaward.htm>.
3. See Benjamin Barber, review of The Permanence of the Political, American Political Science Review 90:30 (Sept 1996): 640-41; and Steven Lukes, “In Circles,” Dissent (Spring 1997): 119-122.
4. For representative reviews of the work see Erin O’Brien, review of The Future of Democratic Equality, Perspectives on Politics 7:4 (Dec 2009):972-74 and Michael Hirsch, “Returning Theory to Politics,” New Politics XII:3 (Summer 2009).

For endorsements of Schwartz’s work by Cornel West, Michael Walzer and Frances Fox Piven, see http://www.amazon.com/Future-Democratic-Equality-Rebuilding-Solidarity/dp/0415944651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373656711&sr=1-1.

A selected list of references to his writings in academic journals. 1. The Future of Democratic Equality: Reconstruction Social Solidarity in a Fragmented America, New York: Routeldge Press, Sept. 2008. 2. The Permanence of the Political: A Democratic Critique of the Radical Impulse to Transcend Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Beyond the Politics of Disappointment? (Congressional Quarterly), Wilson McWilliams (2000), 158 Child of the Sitdowns (Kent State University Press), Carlton Jackson (2008), 170, 204 “Comments: The Commentariat and Discourse Failure,” International Affairs, Richard Jackson (2007), 174 Contemporary Sociology, American Sociological Association (1997), 815 Critical Perspectives on Democracy (Rowman & Littlefield), Lyman Legters et al (1994), 110 173 Democracy, Education, and the Moral Life (Springer), Michael Katz, et al (2008), 123, 126 Democratic Hope (Cornell University), Robert Westbrook (2005), 71 Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? (Princeton University), Alan Gilbert (1999), 291 The New World of Politics (Rowman & Littlefield), Neal Riemer (1997), 164 “The Permanence of the Political” (Review), Dissent 44 (2), S. Lukes (1997) “The Permanence of the Political” (Review), Journal of Politics 59 (1), S. Fisher (1997) “The Permanence of the Political” (Review), Contemporary Sociology-Journal of Reviews 26 (1), J. Scott (1997)

“The Permanence of the Political” (Review), American Political Science Review 90 (3), B. Barber (1996) “The Permanence of the Political” (Review), Critical Sociology 23 (1), G. Xia (1997), 127-132 Politics and Passion (Yale University Press), Michael Walzer (2006), 105

I have read and used the Wikipedia referencing guide. EAch time I use it, I seem to change the system. I have used the above group in the piece and they are entered with Please explain the formatting suggestions you recommend. Thank you for the assistance.

Duane Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneCampbell1 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I see this. I want to give this a decent answer, so please excuse my delay in replying. I hope to address this thoroughly on the 21st. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed the references, I'm not going to "template" all of them, but I'll do some from your list, and I'll comment on the amazon.com link. Here is how I would input the information for the first four (which I numbered above):

1. It would seem that using template:cite journal would be best. {{cite journal |year=1996 |title=Schwartz Wins North American Society for Social Philosophy 1996 Book Award |journal=Journal of Social Philosophy |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=31}}
2. template:cite web seems appropriate here, as follows: {{cite web |url=http://www.pitt.edu/~nassp/bookaward.htm |title=2012 NASSP BOOK AWARD |website= |publisher=NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY |accessdate=July 22, 2013}}
3. Again, it appears that the cite journal template is best, but this time we have an author to credit. {{cite journal |last1=Barber |first1=Benjamin |year=1997 |title=review of The Permanence of the Political |journal=American Political Science Review|volume=90|issue= 30|pages= 640-641|accessdate=22 July 2013}}

regarding the book listed on amazon, I don't know where that quotation originates from. amazon.com is not a reliable source, as anyone can edit it. If you find the origination of that quote, it would indeed be a very useful addition. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you for the response. I will work through these. when the references are fixed, should I re submit on Articles for Creation/ Joseph M. Schwartz, or on Duane Campbell user page? 03:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)03:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)DuaneCampbell1 (talk) Duane Campbell, July 22, 2013.

I would place it in Articles for Creation. Also, I highly recommend you place each reference directly after the fact/sentence that it supports. Again, let me know if you need more specific assistance. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)~ Duane Campbell July 23, 2013, — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneCampbell1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad part 5

Hello

Yes.That will be kind. Please Go ahead.

Thank you for your help.

(Scleatus (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC))

Please take a look at the changes I've made. Also please any factual errors I may have inadvertently introduced! If you like them, let me know. I think this article is ready for promotion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

David Lerner (Designer) Submission Decline--Q's about notability

Hi There,

My submission for fashion designer David Lerner was declined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Lerner_(Designer)

The comment added said: "Comment: none of the references are about the subject per se, merely about his line of clothing. At the same time, they are not independent of subject. "

I was wondering what some better sources / types of sources would be that would prove the subject to be notable. Would an interview with him be okay? You say they have to be independent of the subject...how can we show his notability while choosing something totally independent?

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.21.88 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings 108.41... Thanks for writing. The sources you list are ok, but they reference a fashion line, and you are writing a biographical article. Try to find news sources on the person himself. An interview with him would be wonderful, as long as it is published in Vogue magazine, or the New York Times, or some other reputable source. You can't use an interview that you've conducted yourself, because other editors can not do any fact-checking, and that constitutes original research, which is a no-no around here. Also the interview can not be used if it appears on facebook, blogspot, or some other website that anyone can edit. A really good place to start is WP:REFB. Just to clarify, when I said it needs to be independent, it means that the source can not be something in any way controlled by the subject. In other words, Mr. Lerner's personal website is fine for factual accuracy (presumably), but does not help establish notability, because anyone can create their own web page. However, if a writer for Vogue does a write-up on Mr. Lerner, that is independent, because presumably Mr. Lerner does not have any say on Vogues editorial policy. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the helpful feedback! We are now thinking that it would be better to instead make a page not about David Lerner himself, but a page for his fashion line, "David Lerner Designs"--in that case, all the sources we already have would be fine, right? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.21.88 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Parayakad

Hello. Thank you. It is fine. Shall I go ahead and submit it now.

The Best (Scleatus (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

Parayakad

Hello

I have resubmitted this article now. Thank you. The best.

(Scleatus (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC))

done, and promoted. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

C2 Energy page

Hi, thanks for the quick response to to writing of our site. May I ask what was at fault which helped you arrive at your decision, what neets changed to ensure it passes your terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.233.86 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read the links cited in my decline reason. Please understand that what I say is with respect, because I understand that being a new editor at Wikipedia is difficult, and the policies can be daunting. They are there for a good reason, though. In short, your proposed article reads much more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It is not *about* the company, so much as it is *for* the company. Additionally, the article needs independent, reliable sources. If you need help, see WP:REFB. I hope that is helpful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Countdown—Time in Outer Space

Hello! Your submission of Countdown—Time in Outer Space at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusanLesch (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Agnew

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Countdown—Time in Outer Space

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Force Therapeutics Afc

Hi 78.26,

Thanks for your quick review and feedback on the article. The comment helps a lot to give a more clear reason why it was rejected besides the simple generic wiki "advertisement" statement. Much appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Force_Therapeutics From what you're saying, to improve I need to find more source material on the background of the company. Would that alone be enough to get this article approved? I know it reads a little like an ad but that is the way the available sources direct the article...most of them talk about the company's product offerings. It's hard to strike a proper balance with the sources available. Is there anything else I need to do to make this a verifiable article? I've been tweaking as much as I can to make the language neutral.

Looking forward to your response.

O obineche (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello O obineche! Thanks for writing. A general comment first. You duplicate your references. You use inline citations (congratulations, this is one of the hardest things for many AfC contributors to master), and then you re-list them in bullet form. Please remove the bullet list, its redundant. As written, the article may be summarized as "There's this company that exists. Here are it's products." Why is this company worthy of an encyclopedia entry? The closest the article comes is the sentence "FORCE Therapeutics was selected to be one of ten “Healthcare Transformers” as part of the inaugural class in the StartUp Health Academy for Health and Wellness Entrepreneurship." I understand that it can be tricky finding the balance between establishing a company's notability and not sounding promotional. Use your sources for facts, but try not to copy the tone of the articles, if they come across as promotional. I would concentrate on true news articles, such as the Huffington Post. Be wary of press releases, which is what the emrdailynews sources appear to be. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your great feedback! I just made another edit paying close attention to your comments. I tried to lengthen the history portion with some other source material I found to give the article more balance. Also, the language is about as neutral as it can be without losing meaning and context. Let me know what you think when you get the chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Force_Therapeutics O obineche (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

regarding Monster High

It was not personal analysis, I did research the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.114.3 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Please cite your sources, and all is good. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here it is, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=66961 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVxg04yEmM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.114.3 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source, in and of itself. If it is a news story, say from the BBC, cite the BBC instead of YouTube. By the way, please see WP:REFB, I think that will help you. If you need help with the mechanics of citing sources, let me know and I'll try to help. On an unrelated note, I most cordially invite you to create an account. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Claude Blankiet - help with revision

Thank you for reviewing the article about Claude Blankiet. This is my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia and I appreciate your help. I have made some revisions/added more outside sources as you suggested. Would you please review the edited article and let me know what still needs work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Claude_Blankiet Thank you, Jaj531 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Julie Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaj531 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is still a bit promotional. I think reviewing WP:PEACOCK will help you out. In my opinion, you have mulitple reliabel sources with significant coverage (copcomm and winespectator), so notability is established. I think it would be helpful if it were broken into sections, take a look at some other wikipedia articles for ideas on formatting. Hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please approve

Dear 78.26 We have edited to Kento Masuda page contribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kento_Masuda#cite_ref-KLAR_0 as per your advice. Please kindly check and approve. --Kaori Muraji (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

article on Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla

Dear 78.26,

thank you for your message of some months ago. Meanwhile I got a messare from Hasteur, notifying me that the article will be deleted if not edited soon.

I have been trying to get more references on my article from Prof. Holm-Hadulla ( Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla), e.g. on his role in IPA, about which I had heard from a student of his. But I didn't, so herewith I give up on that article and request it be deleted. Just bc I am curious - if I had gotten the missing references, would the article have been eligible for publication? I used the one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlfred_Broderick as kind of template, this guy, too, had some books and some media appearances, without being as known as S. Freud or a pop star, but still he got published in the internat'l wikipedia. Thank you in advance and best wishes Cvfriede (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)cvfriede Aug 9 2013

PS: Is there some kind of reply function to messages people get from you? I could not find any.

I don't have time right now to give the complete answer your question deserves, but your article for creation page can be restored. I would move it to your personal sandbox, then it won't get deleted. Hasteur is merely part of a project that is attempting to get rid of 10's of thousands of pages that have been abandoned. Yes, you can "reply" by using template:talkback, as I am going to do on your talkpage. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess this has a simiple answer. Yes, if there has been multiple, reliable, in-depth coverage of your professor, it would easily be eligible for publication. I think the Wikipedia policy you're really looking for is WP:PROF. I hope that is helpful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry for an approve

Dear 78.26

Thank you for your advice. We have done the contribution to creation page along with your advice especially notation in depth of the details with references. That is Masuda's artistic careers also how deepen with notable personalities so I was wondering how handle with care all these information. Please considering to approve a page. Best. --Orugoro (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kento_Masuda#cite_ref-KLAR_0

Hello Orugoro and Kaori Muraji, I have looked over the article, and thank you for all the hard work you've put in. There are still some issues. First, the article reads as a promotional piece for Mr. Masuda. An encyclopedia article should be *about* the subject, not *for* the subject. Please remove peacock terms (see WP:PEACOCK) from the article, such as "Masuda has had the chance to work with world renowned personalities also a global sensation with a swiftly-growing fan base" which is found in the lead paragraph. Also, notability is not inherited, so trying to demonstrate how important the artists Mr. Masuda has worked with are is also not helpful. An example of this is "The album was audio mastered by his friend Bobby Hata,[3] a recipient of numerous gold records for his work at Warner Bros. Records". It would be better to say "The album was mastered (engineered?) by Bobby Hata." Leave out friend, you don't have a source to support that claim, and leave out the gold records part, because that has nothing to do with Masuda, and can be discovered by following the allmusic reference. This is not an exhaustive list of all the wording that should be modified, but I hope it helps guide you as to what the reviewers at Articles for Creation are looking for. Don't use Amazon as a reference, it is not really reliable, and anyone can list an item at any price. I could list a book there for 100 million yen, but that wouldn't mean anything. The biggest problem is that I still don't see any in-depth coverage of the person, as a person. Lists of album credits, yes. Directory listings, yes. Hasn't any newspaper or magazine ever written about who Mr. Masuda is? There are a number of grammatical problems with the page, but that won't prevent it from being moved to the mainspace. I have corrected one error that caused accidental humor. If you need further help in this area, I'll see what I can do. Keep working at it, I think I'll check this person's music out, I am a fan of contemporary instrumental music. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello 78.26, thank you so much for every details which we have edited done along with your advice. We also have had searched all Masuda's information on the current web, I think it's everything. Right now our current status is waiting approved, should be keep waiting for it with someone another librarian? If you are alright please let moved up to the mainspace. If not, let us know what you need we will try to the best. Ah yes, enjoy his music then you would be understand him as a person, I think? Thank you. --Kaori Muraji (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello 78.26, thank you for approved a page. I am sure keep on improvement this page and we are really enjoying to contribution as well as learning what is Wikipedia. We are really pleased that you will build that world's schoolbook project! Please enjoying his music too that we loves his art of the music. Sincerely, --Kaori Muraji (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, 78.26! You're receiving The Working Man's Barnstar because you reviewed 117 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're Welcome re:Elmo Tanner!

May have more information to add to this from some old fan mags, but it may take a bit to get that done. We hope (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly understand! I've got more "to-do" projects on Wikipedia than I'll ever get around to in this lifetime. Good to hear from you again! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There's just so much from the various fan magazines about various celebs, I've been taking one magazine at a time, trying to go through it totally for all that could be used-either for articles or as photos. Glad to see you're still hard at work with the music articles! We hope (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd be particularly on the lookout for articles regarding Maurice Rocco, I'd certainly be very appreciative. There's got to me more out there on this artist than I've found. Many thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting the article on my watchlist now and will see what's around about him. We might get lucky with some older newspapers and magazines. Will definitely take a look! We hope (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Abbey Records

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Surplus Line Association of California

Thank you for your comments on my earlier submission and for your willingness to help move it from rejection to acceptance. I would like to discuss with you further what, in particular, I might do in order to facilitate this. In establishing "notability," are we talking about citations in media sources, for example, and if so, how would that be worked into the article? I would be glad to hear any specific suggestions you may have. Clistonb (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Clistonb! It is not that the sources themselves must be worked into the article, it is that what is already in the article must be supported by reliable sources. For instance Insurance Journal and National Underwriter are two good examples that may help with establishing notability. I just sent you a "Welcome" message that has some very useful links. I would also recommend you take a look at the Referencing For Beginners page. In this particular instance, the two core Wikipedia policies that are preventing your article from being promoted are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I hope that is helpful. Again, if you identify some reliable sources, including some independent ones, and aren't sure how to apply the wikicode that creates the references, let me know, and I'll give a hand. (Although have patience, as you can tell it may take a few days for me to reply) All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have gone back in and tried to fix the issues you mention, and I would also like to take you up on your offer of helping me apply the wikicode creating the references. What I have now is just rudimentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clistonb (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a good start. Based on what you've given, I can turn this into references. Problem with #4: It doesn't really support the claims, it is just a blank transmittal forms. Do you have anything to support the 1937 creation date? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the SLA website, no, nothing on the 1937 date. I can't even imagine it gained any media coverage. What else would serve as an acceptable source?

We could scratch reference #4 and lose nothing. Seems like #3 got lost somewhere, but that third reference could cover the Stamping Office portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clistonb (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

DQ Page

Hello,

I made two changes, one was immature but to demonstrate to a person that wikipedia can be changed by anyone. I'm sorry for creating more work for you.

The other change was legitimate. The DQ page lists Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada as the world's busiest location for DQ, but the source used for this fact indicates that Charlottetown, PEI, Canada has the world's busiest location. This is what prompted me to make the change. The information in the source does not match the information in the article.

Again, I'm sorry for any extra work I may have caused by changing Dennis The Menace to Doolang the Menace. That was to prove a point, that wiki is a fully editable page and that if you don't read the sources you can sometimes get fooled.

Thank you b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.61.10 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there b, thank you for writing and for the explanation. I checked the source, and I reverted back to Charlottetown. Regarding our friend Doolang, I appreciate the apology, and see that it was WP:POINT and not vandalism per se, although that is generally discouraged. The problem is I saw the blatantly incorrect information, which caused me to assume that your other edit was also factually incorrect, without checking the source. Wikipedia is indeed the "encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit", and often anyone does, including those who do not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind when editing. I spend a good share of my wiki-time reverting vandalism. Again, thank you for the explanation, and for the heads up. I most cordially invite you to create an account, as you seem to be the intellectually curious type who would enjoy it here, and have the ability to truly improve this place. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Bartholomew Voorsanger

Dear Editor,

I have received this message: xxxxxxxxxxx Your submission at Articles for creation: Bartholomew Voorsanger (October 2)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC) xxxxxxxxxxxx

What part of the article you considered as being a copyright work?

At your earliest convenience, please advise me with what I can improve the article, for a successful submission and approval.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gmihalea, I am sorry your contribution did not end successfully. The problem, and it is a big one, is that the article text was directly copied from www.voorsanger.com/people/1‎. This is a copyright violation, which wikipedia takes very seriously. When re-submitting the article, please use your own words. More than one source must be used to support an article, I highly recommend you give WP:REFB a thorough read. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: It appears the Bartholomew Voorsanger already exists. Work on improving this article, as using the Articles for Creation process on an already-existing article is a waste of time. Make sure the existing article does not have the same copyright violations the AfC article had. Per my previous suggestion, it also appears the existing article is in danger of deletion, because it is unsourced. Again I recommend you read up on the sourcing requirements of wikipedia, which are all the more stringent for a biography of a living person. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I will re-write the article as you advised me. What other guidelines you can offer? I really appreciate! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(reply on Gmihalea's talk)

CSD G12

If you add a G12 and blank the page, it takes far longer to get it deleted. I have to restore the page back and add the G12 banner to the restored page, so that I can use the very useful script in the banner to test how much data has been copied. Sadly the script will not work with history pages, only the live one.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Per AfC instructions, that is what we are supposed to do, and the AfC Helperbot blanks the page. Alternate suggestions? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some discussion need to start at the AfC - as far as I can see, there are only a editors few blanking - I'm not saying you are wrong! Obviously some effort went into the G12 template to add the Duplicator Detector system, but it won't work (and I've tried) unless the page is current. Certainly every "normal" article tagged with G12 (often using Twinkle to add the template - and why not, it's so much easier) never gets blanked, and if the Duplicator Detector shows a large copy, then they get deleted really quickly anyway. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong - but I've noticed that the ones blanked always last to get deleted! Food for thought. :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll copy this at the AfC Discussion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - just had a further hunt - both Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations and WP:CSD#G12 do not suggest blanking when applying G12.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ferko String Band

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Brian Barnette submission declined

68.42.199.216 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC) The article for Brian Barnette has been nominated for deletion and I do not understand why. I was told I needed reliable sources, so I edited. I was told I needed photographer's permission to use the photo, so I submitted permission from the photographer, publisher and author. Still declined. After I persisted with the editing, I was told if I submitted again my account would be deleted. Please, explain this to me. Why should this author's article be deleted? (unsigned comment from user:68.42.199.216

If you read the page, the reason the AfC submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Barnette has been nominated for deletion is that it has not been edited in six months. A bot (automated message) gave this message, because Wikipedia has decided that if a proposed article hasn't seen any action in six months or longer, there must be no interest in the subject any longer. Getting copyright permission for a particular copyrighted photograph is a rather complex process which involves much more than just saying "I got permission". I've actually never tried to do it, you might ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. I don't see where you've been told that your account will be deleted. As an IP editor, you don't have an account. You can be temporarily blocked from editing, but I've a feeling you've misread the message sent to you. What is usually sent is that if the issues that caused the decline aren't addressed, the article will be declined again. That has nothing to do with an account being blocked. For what it is worth, the reason for my original decline has not been addressed. Sentences such as "He is a popular speaker and can be booked for engagements regarding any of his work. He is most gifted at leading discussions on personal growth and life strategy" are blatantly promotional and have no place on an encyclopedia. I hope that is helpful. If I haven't addressed your concerns, please let me know. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grozie Thomas

Could you please tell me why I am constantly getting declined for mr grozie thomas article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricemillsap (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The reviewers have told you why it has been declined. Your sources do not establish that the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. I am not saying your subject does not deserve one, but has your subject been discussed in depth by reliable, independent sources? Please see WP:NOTABILITY. Also, Referencing for Beginners might be helpful to you. Thank you for writing, and I hope that was of assistance. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding review of A Tally of Types submission

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the "A Tally of Types" article submission.

I have read your comments, hopefully reworked the article to your satisfaction and would like to re-submit it in hopes of your approval.

Warmest regards,

John Christian Stoddart

190.75.126.8 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is vastly improved, and my concerns about context are completely alleviated. The problem remains the referencing. The first reference only mentions the book in passing. The second isn't really a reference, but a notation. It would likely be better to move the note to the article body (in parenthesis?) and use the Moran book as a reference. The third reference isn't a reference, I would add an "External Links" section and provide a link to "1973 version". The last reference is self-referential. To establish notability, the article subject should have "multiple references" (generally interpreted to mean at least two) that are Reliable, independent of the subject, and discuss the subject in some depth. I think the Moran book would qualify, if moved to references. The article needs another. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear 78.26,

Once again, thank you for reading and commenting this article. The reference to whether or not there really was a type revival programme is really a footnote. I have moved the references around and referenced the Typophile website, as well as added an "External Links" section as per your suggestion.

Warmest regards,

John Christian Stoddart 190.75.126.8 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infinite Comics

Hey, thanks for reviewing the Infinite Comics page I submitted. You made mention of using more sources - Gizmodo being one that made the cut. I just wanted to clarify what you meant. Using a source like Marvel Comics is too connected to the subject matter and therefore not a good option. But a source like Gizmodo is good because it's not connected to Marvel? So would other, non-marvel news agencies be better? Comic industry news like, for example, Comics Alliance or Newsarama or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perazza (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're getting the idea. Marven Comics is a great source, but it does not help establish notability (worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia). Adding independent, reliable sources is the fastest way to article approval. Hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Smith_Curry

Thanks so much for your help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Smith_Curry

The person doing most of the work on the page is out of the country for a couple weeks and will address the issues upon his return. A couple of my initial thoughts: Allmusic.com verifies Curry's work on albums from Jason Aldean and Taylor Swift (and many others)---two of the largest artists in any genre. Additionally, the site verifies his work on live albums for Kid Rock and Erasure, showing he toured with at least two huge rock acts. A quick search shows countless other Wikipedia pages on sidemen with far less accomplishments and references.

I am surprised imdb.com isn't considered a legit source... What is the preferred site to verify film appearances?

Finally, so much of what sidemen and session musicians do is just not recorded (no pun intended) and is hard to verify. Part of the reason for creating this page is I feel what these people do is important and should receive more publicity and appreciation.

Again, thanks so much for your hard work!

Climber192 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb, I should have linked here Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb for the explanation. A reliable source that might have something on him is Billboard magazine. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

21:21:21

Hi! Just to let you know that the page you created (Air Lane Trio), was created at 21:21 hrs on 21st Oct (21:21:21)... I found it amazing n couldn't resist telling you this :) Have a nice day! Martinian ^{Leave a message!} 16:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

How interesting, and what fun! I didn't fathom. Not quite like writing the four-millionth article, but as a math major with a concentration in probability/statistics, I appreciate that you brought this to my attention. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Cloudmachine new draft

Hi! It's been a while but I finally found some time to redo the thinsg you suggested. If you feel like it I would appreciate your view. Should I just submit or wait for your reply? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkum (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC) --Berkum (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is much improved. If I were reviewing again, I would pass it. (I prefer to not do two-reviews of the same article in a row, so I will let someone else pass it.) By the way, imdb is not considered a reliable source, because like Wikipedia, anyone can sign up and edit it. Do you by any chance have another reference for those claims currently supported by the imdb references? All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for taking a look at it. That looks promising then. I didn;t know about IMDB. I found two external links, that might work.. the first o9ne is of a big tv series he worked on, just the online credits of the series itself (dutch) and I found a Grammy entry list, but I'm not sure that's a solid reference given the blog it's on. But the entry is real, I found another site it's on aswell. I hope it helps... Thank you for now! Berkum (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Why wasn't my page excepted? IIt was an unbiased article about an actual event that affected the Northern County of san Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oside SILENCER (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the rationalle for the decline. The main problem is that your sources do not establish notability. How can a reader verify your subject is important and that the claims made in it are true? Second, I do not find this article to be unbiased. There is a lot of opinion in the article in its current form. Statements such as "had a tendency of attempting to recruit black students", "Adding to the already destabilizing situation", and "which was the programs most loyal and dedicated much to the dismay of the Vista Community Clinic" (there are many more) are emotionally-charged statements which desparately need an independent, reliable source to back these claims up. I think you will find Referencing for Beginners to be helpful. As a gentle side-note, I did except your page from promotion, I believe you meant "why wasn't it accepted". All the best, and happy editing. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Article keeps getting declined

Hello,

I added multiple third party writings (links) about the subject over last few submissions - yet you say there is nothing added for notability - i don't understant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavegecko (talk • contribs) 03:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links are very different from sources. External links do not support claims, they just send you to a related topic. The closest external link you have that might be considered a source is is the bankers blog, as it definately supports the claim that his book exists. However, this is a private blog, and as such is almost certainly not considered a reliable source. This blog also gives no information about the subject, Mr. Wood, it only gives information about his book. Notability is not inherited, so just if a subject A knows or has worked with subject B that is notable, that doesn't mean subject A is automatically notable. Please look deeper into the comments left by Anne Delong, and read the links in the decline rationale. You may additionally find Referencing for Beginners helpful. Additionally, as a biography of a living person, inline sources are required. I hope that is helpful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with rejected Article for creation

Hello Sir/Madame, I have edited an article which not been accepted because it included copyrighted information. Could you please advice me what to do. I have used references where needed. Thanks in advance BiheWiki (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 31/10/2013

Ah yes, I remember that article. I think it is a great subject, and deserves a wikipedia article. The problem is that your article wording was lifted directly from the cited source. Sources are great and necessary, but you have to use your own words. you can't copy wording from the source, as that violates copyright law in most jurisdictions. I hope that helps! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

David John Doukas

You should not have deleted this AfC as not meeting the standard of notability. As he holds a named chair in a major university he meets the standards of WP:PROF., and nothing more has to be proven than that he does hold the chair--his official web page is sufficient for that. Although not cited in the article, it can easily be found. It might well be that this is a copyvio from such a page--that's the thing to check on articles like this. Checking, it does not seem a copyvio from http://louisville.edu/campushealth/site-medschool-familymedicine/faculty-staff/academic-office-faculty/david-j-doukas-md, but I will need to check if it is copied from elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I saw that there were no sources, and declined for the wrong reason. Thanks for the heads up. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A Quick Thank You

First for assuming good faith, and it was!... Second for showing that one can delete an editor's edit "respectfully", without being patronizing, and make an instant friend with them on WP. If you are already an admin, I am happy. If not, you can count on my !vote when you run for admin. Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not an admin! And no plans to be one, although the vote of confidence is surely appreciated. Regarding good faith, I certainly hope so, because I've done precisely the same thing! Happy editing. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's cool... :) Worldedixor (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

New Article Rewrote for Bartholomew Voorsanger

Hello,

I rewrote my previous article (which was deleted at your suggestion) about the architect Bartholomew Voorsanger, and now I am positive that it will meet all the requirements to be approved. Before submitting the article for consideration, I would like to ask you what do you think is the best way to do it: 1. create a new article and submit it for consideration 2. edit and improve this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Voorsanger with my new information, resources, etc.

My opinion, is that the second option is better, right? if so, please let me know what is the procedure for that (I edit that page, and then - how do I submit it for consideration???)

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No question about it, edit the existing article. Wikipedia does not allow there to be two separate articles regarding the same subject. You don't have to do anything special, just edit the page. It's live, and your edits will be seen immediately. I hope that helps! All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bartholomew Voorsanger articoe

Hello

Thank you for reviewing my article re. Bartholomew Voorsanger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Voorsanger).

In the review message you stated that it contains copyright material. What part of that article is the copyright material???

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bartholomew Voorsanger

Sorry!!!!! Now I realise that I was referring to an older message from you.

What do you think about my article re. Bartholomew Voorsanger - is it good now, should I expect that my contributions to that article to be deleted?

I would like also to add some pictures with some works of his, what advises you can offer regarding uploading pictures?

I notice that at the top of the webpage it shows this message

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (September 2013)

Why is that? It will dissaper now that I added relevent references?

Thanks

PS: sorry again for the previous message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that I am saying this with the utmost respect, because I want you here, and I want you creating and improving more articles and having a wonderful experience here at Wikipedia. As strongly as I can possibly emphasize, you must immediately revise the wording of this article. The problem isn't that you are using sources. The fact that you are using sources are good. The problem is that you are copying wording from these sources word-for-word. Take the information from these sources, but not the wording. Convey the idea, but not the exact phrasing. It is a legal issue, the article in its current format violates U.S. copyright law, and probably the copyright law in most other jurisdictions. For instance, the seventh paragraph of the "Biography" section is copied word-for-word from http://www.voorsanger.com/people/1. Please make revising the wording a priority, or your article will indeed be deleted. On a less imperative note, you also need to trim down the Projects, Awards, and Publications. It makes your article read like a resume or a business prospectus, not an encyclopedia article. Again, I hope this is helpful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "more references" tag no longer applies. It was appropriate when it was added, but because you've added sources, it should be removed as no longe applicable. I will remove it, but first you need to deal with those copyright issues. Please. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your advise. I really appreciate. I will update the article according to your suggestions. I checked many times the text of my article, not to violate any copyright. I will check it again.

Thanks!

I will keep you posted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Update article

Dear editor,

I have updated the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Voorsanger.

Please let me know if my changes improved the article as per your suggestions.

Thanks!Gmihalea (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)GmihaleaGmihalea (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! Standing ovation! Thank you, I found no instances of copyright violation. I would say your article is safe from deletion. Now we just need to tweak it a bit. I like what you did with the "Selected Projects" and "Selected Awards" sections, particularly the awards section where you added several sources. I'd stil like to see it trimmed down a bit, focusing on notable buildings with their own wikipedia article, and awards that are independently sourced, but that is a minor point. The next best thing you can do is remove the promotional language. Phrases such as "The architect’s keen sense of public service" and "The private character of his residential buildings include an equally consistent obsession with capturing nature and light through" are *for* the subject more than they are *about* the subject. Please see WP:PEACOCK. At the very least, these statements should come from a reliable source, and should be phrased such as "Mr. Bill D. Ingkritik of National Architecture Weekly states that Voorsanger has an obsession with capturing nature and light...". It is a subtle, but important, difference. Again, I hope that is useful. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you so much. i am very happy that i managed to participate in wikipedia community. i will continue to improve this article and others. i am currently uploading a couple of images into the bartholoew voorsanger article. let me know if i do it correctly. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmihalea (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Mdann52! You're receiving the Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 101 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 18:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

‎

Special *UNofficial* 1-week mini-drive

Davidwr has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. This brownie is for your acceptance of two AFC submissions, John Kent (hymnist) and Doc Halo. See also: [1]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)†

Both submissions were borderline. I would've declined the second and seriously considered declining the first, both for not demonstrating the subject's notability enough to stave off a possible AFD nomination, and the second for some of the reasons you raise on the article's talk page and in the cleanup templates that you put on it. I seriously considered PRODding Doc Halo but instead I put a note on the talk page and tagged it for notability. By the way, thanks for alerting the editor that he needed to change his username. He's changed it.

One more thing: If you move a user's "main" user page, go back and change the leftover redirect to something else. You can either change it into a {{softredirect}} or, preferably, replace it with some boilerplate like {{user page}} or just the words "This is a user page" then let the person know what happened to his user page on his user talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I think this first (the hymnwriter) is notable, and went back to add sources, if you would be so kind as to share why you think this historical person is not notable, I'd appreciate your thoughts/comments. You're right, the second was very borderline, and I spent a long time debating with myself over it. The fact that there are two good references (Cincinnati bizjournal, hitconsultant, because both have paid editorial staff and these do not appear to be user contributions) containing substantial information on the subject pushed me over the edge, even though every other source is worthless. If I've misinterpreted the sources as reliable, when in fact they're not, I'd again appreciate it if you'd enlighten me. Your note on the talk page of Doc Halo is both very insightful and helpful. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't tell you that "you are wrong" on the weaker submission, only that some editors "grade harder" than others, and it seems like I "grade harder" than you. No two human beings are alike and there's no reason to expect two AFC reviewers to have exactly the same standards for accepting articles. On re-reading the songwriter's bio, I must admit that I was wrong, he meets the notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Probably if I'd done the Doc Halo review on another day, I likely would have declined it, it is that much on the edge for me. I hate reviewing these (mostly recent startup) IT ventures, they're usually crammed with "references" and it is very difficult to sort out the genuine from the PR. Forgot to thank you for the heads up regarding the main user page. I wasn't watching out for that, but of course you're right. Regarding our editor who changed his name at my request, I should be pleased, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all, but perhaps I should give fair warning that two numbers separated by a decimal is a *very* bad idea for a user name. I thought it was a brilliant idea at the time... 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User 139.190.57.95

I'm sorry i don't remember what i edited. But you remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.57.95 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you are editing without logging into an account, it is entirely likely what I reverted (an edit to Prophet on October 23, 2013) wasn't done by "you" at all. You can see what changes have been made by this IP address by following this link. If you have any further questions, let me know, I'll do my best to help. I hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo page

Thank you for promoting and helping with the Doc Halo page! As per your advice, I have changed my username and added another reference. I have also added several links within my page. What else can I do to help with the neutrality and notability concerns? 66.161.196.126 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)25.35 11/15/13

Company page creation under the name of Artelogic

Dear sir. I currently have the description part of my company page under the name of Artelogic, saved in my sandbox. Recently you declined my request for approval of this specific article. Since I am new to writting such kind of articles but I think I can handle well the English language and hence improve my article, could you please give me some advice. I would appreciate very much your help. You see I am sales person and I don't have the mentality that is required for such articles. Thank you very much in advance Kostas Healidis.--Elaris3 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Note

User talk:Glaisher#Your submission at Articles for creation: Kathleen Supové (December 10) --Glaisher [talk] 15:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

hmm. thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why have my edits been deleted twice?

Oh, please! My edits were twice removed for no good reason at all. Why is that?

I posted a comment yesterday and again today, only to see that both were removed. That is bad behaviour! If you claim to be open-minded, you should not have removed my comments.

If you don't like what I have to say, that's your prerogative, but why remove it?! What pray tell, are you afraid of? Oh my, what is your problem? There are several comments on that talk page (0.999...) that are nonsense, but none of those were removed. I suggest you put my last comments back on the Talk page - that is the right thing for you to!

John Gabriel 197.79.23.200 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr Gabriel, I did not remove your comments at all. In fact, it was this IP address (197.79.23.200) that removed the comments of others at Talk:0.999.... I merely restored them per the message I left on your talk page. [Here's the difference], so I don't understand why you are stating I removed your comments. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013/January 2014 AfC backlog drive participation

Hey, I'm guessing your name wasn't "removed" from the participant list per-say, it was more likely lost in the shuffle. The drive moved from December to January, then a new December was created and we had separate drives for December and January, then those were merged into a December/January two month drive. Thanks for adding yourself back to the list and good luck in the race for the most good reviews!  :) Technical 13 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, figured something like that. Anyway, I have no goals this time to win the "race", but it is fun to participate and see how various contributors compare, I'm a bit of a statistics nerd, and since I like helping out some on AfC, why not add my name? Appreciate your assistance and all the hard work you do at Wikipedia. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Ajax17032.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

123 Doc

Thanks for such a rapid review! I'll remove the references from the site itself. The resources from 123Doc are recommended & used by the NHS and some of the major Universities and Medical Colleges for trainee doctors, so I would have thought it was notable. Is there anything else that I'm missing before I re-submit? Thanks, Katrina

Katrina suzanne (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Katrina Suzanne. You can leave in the references from the site itself. They are reliable, they just aren't independent, and therefore don't count toward establishing notability. What you really need is a reliable source that *discusses* your article subject in a substantial manner, not just mentions it. I would not re-submit yet, until you find a couple of such sources, it will be re-declined again. I would think your best bet would be a medical journal of some type. Where does the NHS recommend it. Does the NHS give a reason for it's recommendation? That would be notable! Currently the source given is just a directory listing, which is not "substantial" information. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, that's really specific and very useful. I'll see if I can find or request some feedback about 123Doc from some of the NHS Hospitals and colleges that use the resource.

Katrina suzanne (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist

Hi and my gratitudes for your reviewing/declining my article submission, User:Paj60wiki/Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist

It's my first ever submission, so I've lots to learn--in my case about sources being independent-from or substantial-to the subject.

It seems a challenge then, even unacceptable, to have an article which is a book review, especially when it's 1) a new book, 2) a memoir book. That's frustrating to me since the author is well-known and his topics widely discussed. It's been fun for me to try so far, so I need more detailed suggestions and approaches, or even that I should simply bailout.

Thanks, Paj60wiki (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paj60wiki! Thanks for writing. I hope I will be helpful to you. I would suggest you spend at little time reading the articles at the getting started page, as well as those links that are in the welcome message I left at your own talk page. If you are trying to write a book review, you indeed may become frustrated because Wikipedia isn't the place for book reviews. It is the place for encyclopedia articles. This doesn't mean many books don't qualify to have an encyclopedia article written about them, they do, but a book must be *worthy* of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia determines this by the WP:Notability policy. If more several reliable sources discuss your book, then the book should have an encyclopedia article. If no one except bloggers have talked about the book, then Wikipedia will probably not deem it worthy of an article here. I hope that is helpful, and I most certainly hope that isn't discouraging. I hope you stick around and continue to make many positive contributions here, let me know if you have further questions, and/or can explain a particular policy in more detail. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Bradt

Hello 78.26,

I am wondering why you don't consider mountaineering club websites as reliable sources for mountaineering accomplishments? In my experience, such clubs have excellent reputations for accuracy and fact checking in a sport where inaccurate information is literally a life and death matter. One published book source in the draft article verifies that Bradt made a notable first ascent in the Grand Tetons in 1944. I see another impeccable source, A Climber's Guide to the Teton Range, verifying that. How can we help bring this draft to main space? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328! Thanks for writing and bringing this to my attention. The problem at AfC is of course I am reviewing subjects for which I have no particular expertise. (so few new articles are about the recording industry from 1877 to 1960, sigh). In general, I wouldn't consider hobby club pages to be reliable sources, but if you can ascertain these sites are reliable, then by all means they are included. Regarding the book, the information definitely should be added to the article. A source-by-source (at the time of my decline) reasoning of my decline, feel free to comment for my own education, if nothing else. The first is a local club. You deem this reliable, so ok. The second is a club video. I'm not sure how this helps demonstrate notability. The third "Local Climbing Histroy" is also a club publication, but it is reliable and establishes notability, well then the article should have been accepted as having multiple reliable sources. The fourth (Climber's Guide) I deemed a reliable source, but as used it only points to a picture of Bradt, so I didn't think it provided substantial coverage of the subject. I read "Cavers: A different breed" which doesn't provide substantial coverage on Bradt, but does mention him several times as well as confirming he was on a team that made a first ascent. When I reviewed it, I counted this as a verifiable, reliable source counting towards notability. The next is a "letter from Herb and Jan" which I still have a hard time accepting as a reliable source. links "Officers History" is not verifiable currently. 8 and nine "Archivists at Indiana University" and "personal correspondence" are original research, even if the sources themselves are impeccable. I couldn't tell if the marriage announcement was because Bradt was inherently notable, or if it was a paid placement, I thought it was the latter but I could be wrong. So of these sources, I only deemed one good for counting toward notability, but if we accept that the club information is reliable, we've got three, and the article should have been accepted for promotion. Add the additional source you found, and it isn't even close. I also see that subsequently some other good sources were added, such as the book by Rossiter. I'd like to remove the original research sources, add yours in, and by all means let's promote this! I'm also bringing this correspondence to the creator's attention. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time to respond in such detail. I agree that many of the sources are somewhat weak, but we are dealing with a beginning editor. For me, the two sources on the 1944 first ascent in the Grand Tetons, plus the best of the others, means notability (if just barely). A book describing that climb as one of the classics in one of the premier mountaineering areas of the U.S. means a lot in the context of the sport of climbing. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, beginning editors is what AfC is for, and I certainly wish this to be a positive experience for Hbradt when his article is published, and it is better than if he'd just gone it alone. There's no reason you can't promote the article yourself if you wish. If for some reason you don't want to, I'll do it myself, as long as you solemnly swear to add that source you found (just kidding). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Deal: You promote the article as an experienced AfC reviewer (which I respect greatly), and I will clean it up as an editor experienced with mountaineering topics. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Deal! Thanks for all your help and patience. Even better are the great lengths you are going through to help a new editor out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello 78.26 To 78.26 Thank you for your encouraging note. After a few days, the labor will not seem so great and I might try another. I have already linked the Seneca article to it. My inclination would be to go into a few others in order to create material that could be linked to Paul Bradt. I will learn about categories soon in order to add some. Thank you for making this happen. Hbradt (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbradt (talk • contribs)

RedEye article - non-advert talk

Hi guys,

I'm trying to complete an article surrounding a company called RedEye International,( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/RedEye_International )it is being rejected due to sounding like an advert. All help is appreciated, I've followed the guidance of other similar companies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MailChimp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverpop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VerticalResponse

The awards section & client names are only to increase credibility of the article and can be removed should they be deemed advertorial?

Lmorrisfletcher (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lmorrisfletcher. Writing about companies can be very difficult. First, you have to prove the company is notable. Second, you have to make sure the article doesn't sound promotional. Balancing the two can be frustrating, and you have my sympathies. I'd like to point out a few specific issues with your article, I hope you find them educational, and not discouraging. First, listing the companies clients isn't helpful. That makes the article more of a business directory listing, which Wikipedia is not. A related concept is that notability is not inherited, so listing all the famous companies this organization has worked with isn't helpful towards establishing notability. Second, to establish notability your sources need to be independent, reliable, and contain substantial information about the company. The Redeye home page is reliable, and contains substantial information, but is not independent of the subject. The Crunch Base and Figaro sources are directory listings. The information is provided by the company, so they are not independent. Thompson Local again has the information supplied by Redeye. The Marketing Magazine does not contain substantial information, and it reads like a press release. The Fresh Business Thinking source would be good, but it is about Tim Roe, and I don't see substantial information on Redeye. Referencing for Beginners will hopefully help you find good sources you can use. Third, get rid of the "Similar Companies" section. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Frankly, pointing out how Redeye is unique is better than placing it within the pack. Lastly, be sure your article is *about* a subject, and not *for* a subject. The article you have written is not even close to being as promotional as many that are submitted. However, the subtle tone (to me, anyway) is that "Look at all the business we do! Look at all the great companies RedEye works with!" Listing awards are good, if the awards are themselves notable (in other words, deserving of their own Wikipedia article. Listing a number of non-notable awards reads as promotional. In other words, if RedEye wins a Grammy, then that is notable, but if RedEye win's 78.26's award for greatness, listing that isn't helpful.

I've thrown a lot of Wikipedia policies at you. It is a lot to digest all at once. Don't worry, through the Articles for Creation process, you don't have to solve all of them at one time. As you work on your article, feel free to ask questions at the AfC Help Desk, there are numerous other editors who will help you out, to see if your edits are bringing the article along in the right direction. All the best, and happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bradt

Hello 78.26 (such a catchy name!),

I upheld my end of the bargain. What do you think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! This has turned into a nice little article, many thanks to you. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy new Year!

	Merry Christmas and Happy new Year!
	Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year! I've enjoyed your Wikipedia contributions--not only those of this year! Kept my promise and did look up Maurice Rocco, but everything I found, you already had as info & refs. :) We hope (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus!!

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

Hey 78.26!! May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace....

Nomination of Doc Halo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doc Halo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doc Halo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. Nomination by DGG (talk · contribs) on 27 December 2013. I am notifying you because you accepted the page at WP:WPAFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Swan House (Chelsea Embankment)

Edwardx and I got together on this article, and all is well. Thanks! Miss Ivonne (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo being considered for Deletion

Good Afternoon,

I was hoping you could help me with disputing the "article for deletion" tag that has been put on Doc Halo, since you helped get the page started. I have provided several non-press release references and will be adding more soon. I believe Doc Halo to be a valid company and worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thank you 25.35 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, adding more non-press-release coverage is the best thing you can do. Also take a look at the deletion discussion. You can't remove the tag, it has to go through the whole process. Try to find coverage over a wide geographic region, one of the current arguments is that there is only coverage in the Ohio area. The article itself still reads as promotional, and while this is not supposed to in and of itself be a reason for immediate deletion (it is cause for immediate re-write, though), it is a magnet for those of a deletionist mindset, and it is very hard to defend an article that appears to promote its subject. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)