User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

The Long Earth page

Hi! I created this page to go alongside pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_%28Pratchett_novel%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Spring, pages devoted to Pratchett's and Baxter's most recent novels. In fact, two of Baxter's later books exist only as "dead links" but I'm not enough of a Baxter fan to be able to create those pages. Pratchett, however, I know, so I thought I'd create this. It's really only a stub until more is known. As Wikipedia itself says "Newly released Discworld books regularly top The Sunday Times best-sellers list, making Pratchett the UK's best-selling author in the 1990s" I think the last 25 or so of Pratchett's books have all been number 1 best sellers - so I think The Long Earth is an important enough book to have a Wikipedia page.

Hope this explains what I'm doing!

regards Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that once the book is released, it is quite likely it will meet the notability guidelines for books. Until a book is released though, it generally does not meet the notability guidelines for books. The creation of articles on a book before a release is greatly discouraged. (See Wikipedia:NBOOK#Not yet published books) If you would like, I can accept the article for you, but there is the possibility that someone may nominate it for deletion because the book is yet to be published. Or, if you want to wait until it is closer to the release date, I can accept it for you then. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's difficult for me to judge - this is (to me) an important release; Pratchett is one of the UK's best-selling authors. I can understand the reluctance of Wikipedia to accept entries on non-existent books, but this one has an established pair of author and has got as far as having its ISBN assigned by the publisher (a major publishing house, they're part of Random). I'll accept your decision - if you want to leave it, I edit it and resubmit once I've seen a proof copy.

regards Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been contacted on Facebook by Philippa Dickinson, Pratchett's editor from Random House (I don't know how she found out about this - I thought all Wikipedia entries were "hidden" until published?) and she is, understandably I suppose, supportive of this entry becoming live. Could I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision re acceptance of this (admittedly stub) page?

Many thanks, & seasons greeting, Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I added two sources and accepted the article. Wikipedia articles are under a NOINDEX, so search engines cannot pick up the article. However, anyone doing a search using the Wikipedia search engine can easily find the submission before it is accepted. It is quite possible that she also was going to write an article submission on the book, and noticed that there was already a submission. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DJ advice

Hi AQ. Regarding User:Contaldo80, here[1] and here[2] there seems to be the genesis of a problem with yet another pot-stirring editor. I note he has a homophobic problem (easily seen if you peruse his talk). My decision now that this has played out is to walk away, but.... May I ask for advice? Would you reply at the appropriate place on my talk page? Djathinkimacowboy 15:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Since this is all concluded, you may disregard my notices above, and thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 18:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A professional question

Would you come and have a gander at my proposal[3] and lend an opinion? I'd certainly appreciate it. I need to know if I am being obtuse or am I being given a hint here. Djathinkimacowboy 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You may forget the request. Either laziness, stubbornness or obtuseness won the day and I'm abandoning the idea. Apparently they think I want to add filmographies and haven't a clue what I am actually proposing. Djathinkimacowboy 03:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph in schools

Hello,Alpha Quadrant. Recently you moved TTIS Newspaper to the Telegraph in schools.There were subpages, too.Are you a admin? If you're not, then you should be careful with articles that has subpages.I'm trying to move the subpage now.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I moved the talk subpage (singular) to the new title. I believe I have also sorted out the redirect chain that you created with the multiple page moves. The Good article nomination subpage wasn't even on the correct page then I performed the move. It should all be in the correct order now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's all right now.I'm giving you a script which may be helpful to you-a Status Checker.Paste the code in your vector.js page.

importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/statusCheck.js')

That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I already use it in the monobook skin, see User:Alpha Quadrant/common.js. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the userpage revert. "Pepper" @ 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddington Hook

Hi,

thank you for your recent post on my article submission page. I am little confused as to what steps need to be taken now to resolve the problem? could you please clarify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smith%26Lasso

thanks, Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith&Lasso (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently, all of the sources in the article appear to be affiliated with the subject (first party sources). In order to establish the organization's notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable third party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, or other media published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. Sources do not need to be online, or even in English. After you add two or three reliable sources, I should be able to accept it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Yup, I'm vaguely aware that it's all not going quite right. I was finding that adding a reject template e.g. this didn't remove the article from the to-be-reviewed list, which is why I then did this. Treating me as if very stupid, take me through what I should have done; I'd like to get it right. I'll look into the use of the tool once I know what it should be doing. (And once I understand that, I'll remedy any mess I've made. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On any given submission there is:

{{AFC submission|||ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

Immediately following the AFC submission, there is |||. In between the first two vertical bars, | and |, is the status of the submission. If the space is blank, or if it has a letter h, then the submission is pending review. If there is a letter r, then a reviewer has marked the submission as "under review" to alert other reviewers of their work. If there is a letter d or t, then the submission is declined, or not pending review. The second set of vertical bars represents the reason the submission was declined. For example, if a submission was declined for lacking reliable sources, you would replace

• {{AFC submission|||ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

with the following

• {{AFC submission |d|v|ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

Notice that the only thing you are changing is what appears between the first three vertical bars. Everything after that is the submission metadata used by the review tool. In the case you linked above, there were two pending submission templates on the page. If one template remains marked as pending, it will remain in the to be reviewed list. I hope that answered your question. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, that's clear. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for correcting three or four of them for me. I've fixed another three. All mopped up now, I hope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for helping with the project. We are always in need for more reviewers. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your merger of Pinkie Pie (MLP fan cruft)

Your merger of Pinkie Pie was a bad merge as she's the central subject of an academic philosophy paper. Unfortunately another user who claims to be unwilling to accept reliable sourcing policy deleted this source, just before you looked at the article and merged it. In future, a quick look at the history of the article can indicate if this behaviour by a third user is occurring. As your merge was a good faith one, but not optimal for the encyclopaedia as the subject of that merge has independent coverage, I've reverted the merge. Yours with thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An academic paper would be considered a reliable third party source, however, in order to establish the subject's notability additional would be needed. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You redirected threefive templates today (as far as I know), claiming that they were "deprecated" or "merged". They were not. If you have any problems with templates, take them to WP:TFD. In addition, there is a special template that needs to be used if a template is really deprecated, Template:Deprecated template. This is not the first time that you have taken unilateral steps resulting in the disturbance of templates. Please be aware that the next time will get you posted at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All I did was merge the -section templates into the main template. I added a |section parameter to each of the main templates and redirected the -section template. I then updated the documentation, and corrected the translusions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Commendable, but undiscussed. And this might not be the way to do this. These templates are in active use for a reason. I am sure of your good intentions, but there is a place to discuss this kind of thing: WP:TFD. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

TfD is for the deletion of templates. These templates do not need to be deleted. I thought the easiest way to depreciate the section templates would be just turning them into redirects. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you should know that "Tfd" stands for "Templates for discussion". We regularly discuss merges etc. When have you last read the WP:TFD page? Over 2 years ago? Debresser (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

STiki Question

Hello, there, haven't talked in a while. I've downloaded the STiki software on a different computer, but I can't remember how to get it out of the compressed zip folder. If you could help me, I would be grateful. Merry Christmas Eve Eve Eve Eve, and Warm Regards, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 15:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This Microsoft article explains how to unzip a zip file on windows. When you open a zip folder, there is an extract button on the left side. The simplest way to extract a zipped file is to simply drag and drop it onto the desktop. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. However, when I attempt to open the .jar file (sorry to keep bothering you with this) it asks me which program I should use to open it, and it gives me a choice of searching the Internet or choosing from a list of my installed programs. Which should I choose and what should I do? (Forgive me, I probably sound like a complete nincompoop right now.) Merry Christmas Eve Eve... whatever I said before. :-) Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

STiki is written in the java programming lanugage. If your computer is giving you that message, it means that you do not have java installed. You can download it from http://java.com/en/ Merry Christmas, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

I feel as if I'm losing my mind... can you tell me the link which describes how one can box up and organise one's barnstar awards? For the user page, you see. Thank you and Season's Greetings. Djathinkimacowboy 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the simplest way to organize the barnstars would be with a table. If you click on the "advanced" tab on the editing toolbar, there is a table creation wizard tool that may help you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

{{cot|say something here}} and {{cob}} should do the trick. One at the top, t'other at the foot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Heartfelt Cheers to you both. Season's Greetings. Djathinkimacowboy 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Hey! What's up? I've seen you requested speedy deletion of your userpage, what happened to you? Petrb (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem. I am just purging the old obsolete revisions. I used to use a different template for the page. As I had that deleted, the old revisions are broken and will not display well. I have no use for the revisions, so I requested speedy deletion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

149 edits in less than a minute

• 03:49, 19 December 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects ‎ (Updating submission status: accepting 71 requests)

...

• 03:49, 19 December 2011 N Wayne Molloy ‎ (Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!))

What did you use to make 149 edits in less than one minute?

-- PBS (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I used the Articles for Creation helper script. It allows a reviewer to review all active requests on Articles for Creation/Redirects at once. Once you have selected accept/decline, the script performs the action. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

I see you deleted my edit to gorrillawarefare's talk page. I was unsure of the basis for this decision and wanted to clarify a few things.

I got to the user's talkpage through an old reddit submission and I just wanted to congratulate the user. I do not know if this counts as spam, but judging by a similar conversation by a user that is in her talk page archives, I assume it is not.

I said the same thing on the other guy's talk page who changed the editing permissions as well.

Just wanted to let you know.

Cheers and have a happy holiday,

-65.9.89.77 (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed your comment because of issues in the recent past. You may well have had good intentions, but over the course of the past two weeks, there have been a number of "congratulations" comments by IPs. These comments have often turned out to be simple trolling. There have been two recent occasions were the page has been mass spammed after one seemingly innocent congratulation made by an IP editor. In order to curb it this time around, I simply removed the comment. If this was a genuine congratulations, I apologize. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

dmy → mdy. Why?

Why have you converted (twice) an entire article ("Alice") from DMY dates to MDY? The article is properly tagged with {{Use dmy dates}} and is done as such because of Avril Lavigne's strong national ties to Canada, which uses the DMY date format in compliance with WP:MOSNUM. I may just be assuming here and am completely wrong, but I see you perform hundreds of edits in a short period of time; if you are using a script which in turn uses Ohconfucius's script please bear in mind that a mass conversion of all articles to MDY without regard to its current format is not appropriate. The date conversion portion of this script is meant to make all dates consistent on the same page, not throughout Wikipedia. Please add a check that an article is not already using one date format before converting it to another (as bots are supposed to do by checking Category:Use dmy dates). If your edit is simply questioning the rationale for the article using DMY dates in the first place, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not "perform hundreds of edits in a short period of time". I am currently working on clearing Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup from August 2011. I run Reflinks to fix the references, AutoEd to fix whitespace, and then the date script to fix the dating as Reflinks uses dash format for dating (i.e. 2011-22-12). This is a semi-automated process. I am looking over each edit and making sure there are no mistakes. There is no single style on the Alice article. It is using both dmy and mdy format, so I standardized it. Had I seen the dmy tag I would have used that style, but I missed the dmy tag on that particular article. I don't care one way or another which style is used on a particular article. Unless I see a clear particular date style, I default to mdy. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the "language". As I said, I was only assuming and didn't look thoroughly at your contributions, only your most recent, which looked like a heavy amount of edits (possibly in the hundreds). However, I still suggest that your automation process take into account which format is already on the page (by looking for either the category or the template) and then define all dates according to that in order to avoid things like this in the future. Thanks for the quick response and understanding. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll make sure I am more thorough in checking for an existing date format template. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Category request

Hi Alpha Quadrant. This is a response in regards to my request for a Slovenian Roman Catholic saints category. You said: "It seems unlikely that there are enough pages to support this category. Could you show that there are a number of pages that belong to this category?"

In addition to Hemma of Gurk, Maximilian of Lorch, and Modestus (Apostle of Carantania), there is also Vergilius of Salzburg, Rupert of Salzburg, Severinus of Noricum, Anton Martin Slomsek, and Lojze Grozde. --ChristianHistory (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the issues is that this is a proposed subcategory of Category:Slovenian saints, which does not exist either. Before we can establish that a subcategory is needed, we would need to create Category:Slovenian saints and add articles to the category. If we have a sufficient number of articles (typically more than 50), then a subcategory may be warranted. If you would like, I could create Category:Slovenian saints and help you find possible articles to add to the category. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a category of Category:Slovenian saints would be fine. I also propose a category for Category:Slovak saints, which would include Andrew Zorard, Benedict of Szkalka, Bystrík, Marko Krizin, Maurus of Nitra, Pavol Peter Gojdič, Zdenka Cecília Schelingová, Basil Hopko, and a couple other pages that I'm working on translating and adding to Wikipedia. --ChristianHistory (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm also trying to come up with a category for saints who were missionaries. There are literally hundreds of articles on Irish, English, Welsh, etc. missionary saints that should be put under a missionary category distinct from non-sainted missionaries (of which there are also hundreds). I was initially thinking of a new category called Category:Missionary saints. Then I saw there is an already existing category of Category:Roman Catholic missionaries. However, that category already has over 300 articles, most of whom are not saints, but are priests from the 1500-1900's. So I was thinking that instead of a new category called Category:Missionary saints -- a sub-category could be made under Category:Roman Catholic missionaries called Category:Roman Catholic saints who were missionaries. That sub-category would include your St. Patrick's, your St. Augustine of Canterbury's, your St. Willibrord's, their companions, the Seven Founder Saints of Brittany, the Twelve Apostles of Ireland, as well as the hundreds of Irish/English/Welsh/Scottish missionary saint stubs. They all belong under a common missionary saint category. What do you think? --ChristianHistory (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I spent a little time thinking about this. All Christians could arguably be considered saints, so I am not sure how redundant it would be to Category:Christian missionaries. As creating this category would be changing over 100 articles, it might be a good idea to ask at WikiProject Christianity and see what they think. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if some people do believe in a "sainthood of all believers", such as Mormons, who consider themselves saints, it is undeniable that in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. there is a distinction between a regular Christian and a particularly holy Christian, and the latter are given the title of 'saint' to distinguish them from "ordinary" Christians. Dozens of other categories (such as all the ones dealing with Christian saints) reflect this. There would be no redundancy whatsoever between a "Catholic Missionaries" category (which contains people not canonized as saints) and a "Catholic Missionaries Who Were Saints" category which contains canonized missionaries. I will submit this to WikiProject though, thank you. --ChristianHistory (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Alpha_Quadrant, I need help

Can you assist me with something that makes me feel about as smart as a bag of hammers? How do I add something that allows people to see next to my signature my email and contribs? I can't find any assist with that to save my worthless life. Many thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Left this on my talk pp, but decided to haul it over here so as not to confuse you with all the other posts appearing on my talk in the last 24 hours. Hope you can help. Djathinkimacowboy 22:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You can create a link to your email by adding Special:EmailUser/Djathinkimacowboy to your signature in Special:Preferences. For a link to your contributions, you can use Special:Contribs/Djathinkimacowboy and add that to your signature in preferences. It might be difficult to do that though, as you would probably hit the 250 character limit before then. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, the limit! I'd forgot. Pretty sure there's no way I could do all this if I want to keep my signatuer as-is! Sorry. Cheers anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted all my garbage. I wanted to seek your counsel about a matter that is only irritating me, and wondered if you'd be open to discussion. No involvement officially, just wanted to smooth my frayed nerves. Also, to show off my new (pathetically modified) signature. Please respond on my talk. It is about an article but I will keep it all anonymous except the detail at issue. No names, editors or anything else.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Declining Category request

Hi, I noticed that you declined the category request for Missionary Saints as seen here when there was a comment saying 'Please do not close this until the discussion has concluded.' and I believe the discussion however is NOT concluded. You also denied it as it was not request for a category, though infact it was.

Cheers, JDOG555^Talk 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you notified the wrong user. I added the comment requesting that the discussion be kept open, but I did not decline it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I? Sorry about that. Cheers, JDOG555^Talk 01:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"the ten commandments"

Hi. You have flaged File:The10Commandments.png and commons:File:The10Commandments.png for deletion, and so was File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png flagged.

But notice that there seems to be a valid license for the image at commons:File:Asereth_Haddibberoth.png.

I'm not active anymore in wikimedia projects, do I'd appreciate it if you'd see if you could clean up this mess. אני ואתה (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are three images:

• File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png, uploaded 13:50, 13 April 2007 by Pinqo (talk · contribs).
• File:The10Commandments.png, uploaded 12:23, 11 April 2010 by אני ואתה (talk · contribs).
• File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png, uploaded 20:14, April 26, 2007 by Epson291 (talk · contribs), citing an external source

I tagged it for deletion, because there was no evidence of permission on the latter image. It appeared that the latter image was the original. On my first look through I had not seen File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png. Now that you pointed out the existence of that image, it appears that File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png is the original and the source cited on File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png was added much later. I have removed the deletion tags. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Turner draw.jpg

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Fma12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Relisting?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manju Qamar - you've now relisted this three times. Deletion policy is maximum of two relistings. Let it run for another week, I guess, but might a no consensus close have done the job here? Either bugging an admin to do it or just closing it as a non-admin. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I relisted because there wasn't a clear consensus one way or another. I suppose I could have closed the discussion as no consensus, but that tends to attract the "only admins should close no consensus discussions" crowd. So, considering the large backlog at AfD, I thought it best to simply relist and hope more users comment on the discussion. I was unaware of a two relist limit. I recall this discussion, but as far as I know, that discussion did not result in a relist limit. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

undo

{{Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout}}{{-}} mabdul 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand trouted. Apologies for my unintentional removal of your comment. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A small worry...

I'm uncertain if I accidentally offended you. You surely read my friendly albeit off-the-cuff post here[4]. I noted your lack of reply... but then I saw this[5] posted by Mabdul. Hopefully that 2nd post wasn't offensive, but more to the point, I hope you didn't see the two as connected.In any case my real objective was to wish you a Prosperous New Year. In any case, would you reply on my talk? Not fishing for New Year messages, just to know you are all right.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 02:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not offended by your message. I read it, and removed it because it was off topic from the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't mind personal messages, but I'd prefer them to come by email, or through IRC, as this page is generally for having Wikipedia related discussions. I apologize for not explaining the removal. I wish you the best and a happy new years, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I thank you. It will not occur again.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Karl Smidt

Hi there. Please be more careful at AFC, as the article linked above was a copy of Alfred-Karl Smidt, albeit with an incorrect name. See also WT:MILHIST#How to stop an IP editor?. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When I originally reviewed it, I had not noticed the duplicate article. I did check for copyright violations, but the only things that came up were from other Wikipedia articles, and Alfred-Karl Smidt wasn't on the search list. Given that notability was established, and the article was well sourced, I moved it to mainspace. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologize for over-assuming then. :-) It's all worked out now, though, as the IP was the man's grandson and was able to prove via email that the name given to him in recent literature is wrong. Not something you see every day. Cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sound files deleted, 'Two In Love' recently added back

Alpha Quadrant,

Please let me know if the following sound file will work now:

File:TIL from BBROCP CD, 30 second OGG sample file.ogg

All of my sound files have been eliminated due to mis-labeling/liscensing(?) I take it that it was you who had to do the editing. Before I move on to adding back any sound files and taking that time again I want make sure I have a proper example (for myself) of how this is done. I had thought (from the example I saw) I had done this correctly, it appears I was wrong and spent a great deal of time mis-labeling. Were the sound files themselves (length/quality) correct?

Thanks for your help, Jcooper1 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While the previous uploads met most of the non-free content criteria, I was concerned about their compliance with criteria 3 and 8. Musial recordings can provide useful insight there text cannot. However, if a recording is non-free content, there needs to be a strong justification for a non-free file's use. While having a recording simply to illustrate a musical group's work would be nice, there needs to be a stronger rationale.

Under criterion 8, a non-free file needs to be so significant to the article, that exclusion of the work would be detrimental for the reader. This justification is typically made in a non-free use rationale's "Purpose of use" section. Under criterion 3, a work should only use as much of the work reasonably required to assist the reader's understanding. Under Wikipedia:Music samples, a musical recording should not have more than 10% of a work, or more than 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. While this is the maximum amount that can be legally used, it does not mean that the maximum should always be used if less of the work would suffice. I believe your upload at File:TIL from BBROCP CD, 30 second OGG sample file.ogg adheres to the non-free content policy well. If you would like, I could ask an administrator to undelete the works so that you can correct the rationale and/or length. It would save you the time of reuploading the 52 files that were deleted. If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to let me know, and I would be happy to help you. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alpha_Quadrant,

I appreciate your help on this.

Well, yeah. Not having to go back and redo this would help greatly, thanks.

Under #3 I can certainly make the case, especially when it comes to the Stan Kenton Orchestra files which were eliminated. When describing music we 'borrow' words and have to rely on hearing things for ourselves (I know this from being a music educator), I can easily provide a solid case for any of those (with very good specifics). With this said I did not see the full Wiki justifications/liscensing presented for any files (looked at things that had the one tag...from what I saw) until I looked at the Beatles "Can't Buy Me Love"...that was the first one I had seen which had the multi-tagged full justification and liscencing (three fold basically). So, no, for all of mine I have to add the template I just used to be able to fully justify the way you are talking about. This is easy to do but it does take time and a bit of effort.

I know (for sure) sound files are extremely important for these pages; sound makes this come to life and does educate epecially in this day and age when much younger people are using Wikipedia. They tend to listen to non-acoustic (poorly done; not artistic) music...I am trying to educate people about some well done acoustic music recordings, especially with some pages of things that were done by younger people 30 years ago and also have been peer reviewed.

Under #8 I have to edit certain files but certainly the 30 second samples derived from 5 minute (+) cuts are fine (30 seconds = 10% of 300 seconds, 300 seconds = 5 minutes). So, yes, those uploaded files (again) would help greatly and would cut down on my work. It had taken numerous days and hours do them in the first place.

Let me know if you are able to reload any of these that were deleted.

Did the new file meet the/your criteria? Does that work as a proper model for me to follow more closely (the most important question)?

Thank you for your quick reply, Jcooper1 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that your new file does meet the criteria. It is less than 10% of the original work and it complies with all 10 of the non-free use criteria. I know that some of the previous uploads were more than 10% of the work, so I am not sure if they would be of much use, but it might be easier just shorten the files rather than starting over. I am going offline for the evening, but I would be happy to help with the corrections. I copied down the list of deleted files below. If you would like, I can ping an admin tomorrow and ask them to do the undeletes. Or, you can add {{admin help}} <request here> to this page, and an admin will stop by and fulfill the undeletion request. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

AQ,

To coin a phrase, "six of one or half dozen of another" and you have probably provided enough help at this point, thanks. As long as my 'model' works, the quality is right, and the length is good that is the hard part. I will have to take a trip back through the Audacity editing program and truncate/make the original OGG files to various sizes. To be honest, the model on the Beatles page of having the examples sitting in the info box is a far better way to go anyhow...that format is something new (to me) and is something I would have to do for certain albums regardless. I will just have to slowly do this again with the list you have provided

Thanks for you help, Jcooper1 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

How to handle an editor

Excuse my intrusion. My references were to DVdm and what I am beginning to feel is stalking on D's part. I thought I could count on D, but I don't appreciate this behaviour of stalking and reverting every little thing I edit.

Since I have nothing more than the feeling DVdm is amusing himself, or herself, I have to leave it there. It's funny the way Wikipedia allows people to just slap the hell out of one another without offering help. With actions like this, I'm starting to feel this is a waste instead of the nice hobby it once was.

Please, if nothing else, do not reply if your answer is a lecture about AGF. Because I can see AGF is nothing more than an exculpation tactic editors use when they do not merit it.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you may have overreacted in this instance. Both DVdm and EEMIV frequently edit in science and science fiction related areas. If you also edit in this area, it is quite likely you will encounter them. If either of them disagrees with one of your changes, it is likely the change will be reverted. The comment made by DVdm appears to be fairly polite. He states that the change is wrong, and cites a source. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

* * * WARNING, WP:AGF MENTIONED BELOW * * *

To add to the above, I would suggest that you try and assume that other editors have good intentions. When one of your edits is reverted, don't take it personally. Most disputes can be resolved with a simple talk page discussion without escalation. I don't think there is an evil plot on Wikipedia, where editors are planning your eventual downfall. Your attitude toward other editors has improved, but I think you need to worry less about the intentions of other editors. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you saw what was being done to Salvio giuliano (and I've been dragged into that), you would not post so glibly about how holy a place this is. In my years I've seen editors do even worse things, for no good reason at all. And excuse me, but I didn't ever say the words "planning... downfall" at any time. It amuses me to wonder exactly how they'd bring about 'my downfall'... unless you mean luring me into violating 3RR. Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add something about DVdm which you clearly refuse to acknowledge. You actually said it: DVdm "appears to be"... and that's the skill I've noted here. Everything such people do appears to be something. It appears to be something other than what it truly is. Finally, if this is at all connected with whatever was transpiring with DIREKTOR a few weeks back, I'd be extremely disappointed. Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done!

Your comments here were just a work of brilliance. I just saw them and I had to let you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Helpful hint for today

To balance things and help you understand, I offer a little rumination: this is cyberspace. No one knows who anyone is here. This is Wikipedia, so it could be there are 5 people utilising 1 username. What angers me and prompts angry posts is when people abuse the work of others- that is the summit of refusing to AGF. It is hypocritical. When I have said I have no ego that can be hurt, what I mean is, this is cyberspace.

Though a real person writes or edits nastily, how does that really hurt me?- it doesn't. But it makes Wikipedia a terrible place to try to work in peace, and here all these users are lecturing each other about contributing to the project, sounding like a bunch of cultists. Well, this has little import on the grand scale, and one day we'll all be dead. So I have learned not to express myself so much or as often. But no one is going to stop me working so long as I wish to work. Perhaps other editors might benefit from this mindset, too. Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 05:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Query, talk pages, edit summaries

There is an issue, I wondered if you'd at least think about it: you are very big on utilising talk pages, and I admire the philosophy that edit wars might not happen if editors used the talk page. I agree... so do you think edit summaries are sufficient? A correction, edit summary suffices. But I've been seeing editors refusing to even look at talk pages, and I can't really blame them. How can this be changed?Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is of course your prerogative to suddenly refuse to respond to me at all. It is saddening, and I regret it has come to this. Since you refuse to communicate what exactly it is I have done to you to make you angry, I will not trouble you further. In return I ask the same, don't trouble yourself.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{vandals' playground} 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take note that I have not edited at all in the past three days. There are times where it may take a few days before I reply. Regarding the issue you raised above, if you can't get an editor to notice a comment on the talk page, you could drop a message on the user's talk page pointing to the discussion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Summit Credit Union

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Great Wisconsin Credit Union logo.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Wisconsin Credit Union logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Khobarstreetcollapse2.jpg

Hi there. You transferred File:Khobarstreetcollapse2.jpg to Commons. I've just listed it for deletion, as it has no source, and a comment on the page in which it is used indicates that the images were not created by the uploader. Also, please make sure that files are given descriptions when they are moved over. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I moved it over because the uploader (User:Eagleamn) tagged the image with{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|photographer Eagleamn is credited}}, which implied that he created the image. When I transfered the image, I had not seen his comment on Talk:Transport in Saudi Arabia. I agree that his comment there makes his license tag questionable. A tineye search doesn't bring up any positive results, but because it was uploaded in 2006, the image may no longer be published elsewhere. In any case, the uploader has been inactive since June 6, 2006, so it is unlikely any clarification could be made. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Article - Please Help!

Hello, my name is Alex.au and you just reviewed my article about Text2Pay. I am new to Wikipedia and I struggling with writing my article. Your advise/mentoring would be much appreciated. My article has not been accepted twice because it is an "unsourced articles, or contains sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy."

I don't really understand what "Please cite reliable, third-party sources in the article. Third-party sources are needed so the information can be verified, and so the notability of the topic can be established" means.

If you could please take the time to explain this to me and give me an example that would be absolutely fantastic!!

P.S It took me nearly 15mins to work out how to contact you, haha :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.au (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex.au, the reason I declined the article was because it did not have any reliable third party sources. In order to establish the organization's notability, reliable third party sources; such as newspaper articles, magazines, books, or other media published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. You have several sources in the article right now, but they are all first party sources, meaning they were published by the organization or one of it's affiliates. The Yahoo! News article is a reprint of a official press release made by the organization. If you could add four reliable sources, then I believe that would be sufficient to establish the subjects notability. If you have any questions or need assistance, I would be more than happy to help. (by the way, you can reply to this by clicking the little [edit] button on the right.) Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha Quadrant,

Thank you for the explanation. Can you please tell me if these references are third party?

• http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/read/text2pay-enables-android-in-app-payments
• http://www.vrl-financial-news.com/cards--payments/electronic-payments-intl/issues/epi-2011/epi-291/text2pay-launch-in-app-solutut.aspx
• http://ivr.tmcnet.com/topics/ivr/articles/215467-text2pay-launches-widget-android-users-make-mobile-payments.htm
• http://www.mobilecommercedaily.com/2011/09/02/android-apps-deliver-carrier-billing-in-70-countries-via-tap2pay

Yes, all four of those sources are reliable. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha Quadrant,

I add these sources to my page and submitted it again but It was declined again due to the lack of third party sources. What can I do about this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.au (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rejection of article inclusion for "Mark Beyer"

Hello, Alpha Quadrant,

You rejected my "new article" submission for Mark Beyer, on the grounds that it lacks 3rd party sources. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, considering I used at least a half dozen existing Wiki articles as my template. My inclusion of Amazon book publishers as source material is equal to that of one "Don De Grazia" who sources Barnes and Noble (in addition, that article has been tagged for need of "verification" and "citations" since 2009; and "Bobby Z. Brite" has no sources, but "notes" which list, among other things, her Twitter acct, her home-site bio, etc; and then there is "Aimee Bender" whose article sources her two publishers (websites, merely), and her home website. I could continue with such citations until I run out of space.

Given these examples, your rejection of my "Mark Beyer" article seems a bit arbitrary. Can you explain the discrepancy in Wiki's editorial policy?

Moving forward, I've spoken with the author, Mark Beyer, and he has provided me with additional citations; namely, a recent radio interview with a Cotswolds, England, station, where his novel was set and a interview-biographical piece on another notable author's website; also, Mr Beyer is the author of dozens of children's and young adult books (of which citations I, and the author, would not want to fill up space on Wiki). Would the inclusion of these citations be sufficient to admit the article?

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, but I'm not a new editor (having 25yrs professional experience). My goals as a Wiki editor is to bring to light the names of emerging and established authors and artists from around the world, who deserve as much recognition as the Philip Roths, Julian Schnabels, and Stanislaw Lems.

Thank you for your consideration, WorldEdits — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldEdits (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello WorldEdits, I declined the article because it did not have any reliable third party sources, such as newspaper articles or online news articles. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable sources. Also, in order to establish a subject's notability, there needs to be a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. This is especially important for a biography of a living person. Wikipedia policy requires that all information in a biography of a living person be cited. If it cannot be cited, the information is removed.

There are quite a few articles that do not meet these standards. This is because logged in users can opt out of having their work reviewed first before it is in article space. Some articles were created before we had policies to address editorial issues, such as sourcing. Eventually, all of these articles will be fixed. Due to the sheer number of them though, this may take several more years. With Articles for Creation, our goal is to help new Wikipedia editors learn how to write articles that comply with policy. I could move your article to mainspace (accept it), but because it does not cite any reliable third party sources, it could be nominated for deletion. If you could add 2-4 reliable sources to the article, it would greatly assist with the verification of the information, and in establishing the subject's notability. Sources do not need to be online, or even in English. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, AQ ... I've made substantial changes to the article and have added the required citations. Please when you have the chance look at this creation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldEdits (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is now enough sourcing to establish notability. I have moved the article to the mainspace (accepted it). Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance and help, Alpha. All the best, WorldEdit — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldEdits (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, AQ ... one other thing: I noticed there's a "cite error" in the entry. Is that something I left out? I thought I'd formatted it correctly according to the cheats. The bit of reorganization you did with the coding really throws me; that's more advanced than I've been finding on pages. Can you help clear up that cite error? Thanks World Edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldEdits (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a missing / symbol in the reference code. I have added it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing an Interview

Hi, I recently wrote and article for creation that was based on a one-on-one interview with an important person. The information is factual because it came from the primary source, but I don't know what citations I can put into it so it can be accepted as an article for creation.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosintern (talk • contribs)

In order for information to be used in articles, it needs to be verifiable in published reliable sources. Information obtained directly from the subject is original research, and cannot be used to verify information. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Evo

I'm sorry about the way you got treated on that talk page, you definitely didn't deserve it. Some people have a hard time separating their opinions from themselves and have no problem getting personal when their ideas are challenged. It reminds me a study I read a while back that concluded that people associate their view of themselves with the brands that they admire most. Apple was at the top of the chain as far as people having self-assessing mental associations, and when Apple was disrespected people would take it incredibly personally. Anyway, it's a bunch of BS and I hope it didn't let it get you down, but if it did there's always Nihilism#Existential_nihilism :). N^oformation ^Talk 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. It is unfortunate how some people just can't separate their personal opinions when working on Wikipedia. There is no sense getting worked up over it, as politely asking them to act civilly is like talking to a wall. I have dealt with religious stereotyping before, and this incident is nothing new to me. I thank you for your patience and civility in the discussion. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Endless.ogg

Hey. I noticed you proposed the file I uploaded File:Endless.ogg for a speedy deletion and motivated it as 'breaking' two Non-free... rules. Its length is over 0:30 seconds because I intended to emphasis the performer's departure from the former house/rave genre with a lack of lyrics. The repetitive lines from the past recordings were replaced by meaningful lyrics while the percussion-only/auto-tune-voiced style has been replaced by more instruments and by a more natural voice, which (as in second 0:26) can reach some high notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innano1 (talk • contribs)

Hello Innano1, the reason I tagged the file for deletion was because it violates two of the non-free use criteria. In order to use a non-free file, it needs to meet all ten criteria. Criterion three requires minimal extent of use. Per WP:SAMPLE#What is the maximum length permitted?, a sound file may not exceed 10% of a work's length, nor may it exceed 30 seconds. Criterion eight requires strong contextual significance where if the file were left out, it would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I would appreciate if you could help me modify/re-upload the files from Category:Inna audio samples. I would be grateful if you could also help me upload non-free images that are not my own property. Thank you! Innano1

Thank you so much. I would appreciate if you could help me modify/re-upload the files from Category:Inna audio samples. I would be grateful if you could also help me upload non-free images that are not my own property. Thank you! Innano1 ^(talk) 21:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC+2)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hello friend thought I'd drop by to say hello. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I put more sources at Djan Madruga page. If need something more, please tell me. 186.205.25.168 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Didn't Chzz gain consensus to remove the onhold option? Also, it's no longer used and has nothing to do with the draft system... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:29pm • 03:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Back in October, I integrated userspace draft process with AfC. In order to do this, I created a separate parameter so that we could differentiate between normal submissions, and userspace drafts. The latter are not reviewed until the editor requests a review. When I set up the draft system, I reused the onhold parameter as a pending parameter in order to make the transition easier (as far a coding the review tools, bots, etc.). It has the same function as the "normal" pending template, it just tells the AfC helper script to place the article in a different decline category when declined. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks for the explanation Alpha :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:45pm • 03:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

again AFC changes...

This diff is bad! I get always prompted when I submit something and if the user adds something in the headline, the bot won't remove it. ATM the bot removed the headline as I was proposing it... mabdul 14:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any scripts enabled. When I use the button, it doesn't prompt me to enter a headline before saving. It displays the box, but it doesn't display a prompt. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You know: "force edit summary" extension ;) mabdul 21:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd see how that would affect users with that script enabled, but it is disabled by default. So it wouldn't affect IP editors, and it is fairly unlikely to affect new editors, unless they messed with their user preferences. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

T. E. Nicholas & Hwfa Môn

Hi Alpha Quadrant Many thanks for accepting my two requests yesterday, and for creating a "T. E. Nicholas" page, but it seems you created an article called "Hwfa MônRowland Williams (Hwfa Môn)" instead of one just called "Hwfa Môn". Could you please create one called "Hwfa Môn" (and maybe one without the diacritic - "Hwfa Mon")?

P.S. I thought I was actaully asking for "Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais)" to redirect to "T. E. Nicholas", and "Rowland Williams (Hwfa Môn)" to redirect to "Hwfa Môn", but it seems not!?

I have created the redirects you requested. When I accepted, it appears I accidentally put the target of the redirect and the redirect title in the same box. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the two new pages of Hwfa Môn and Hwfa Mon. As I said, I was trying to get the article about him under the title "Hwfa Môn", rather than the unwieldy and seemly unnecessarily long one that it is currently under of "Rowland Williams (Hwfa Môn)". I personally think if anyone was looking for an article on him then they would expect it to be under just "Hwfa Môn", in the same way there is one under "Hedd Wyn"" and not one for "Ellis Humphrey Evans (Hedd Wyn)". Similarly I think it would be better to have the article that is currently under "Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais)" under just "T. E. Nicholas", in the same way we have "T. E. Lawrence" and not "Thomas Edward Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)" - where on Wikipedia can I ask for such changes to be made please? (193.61.220.13 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

Requested moves is where you can request article renames. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

So I was talking to someone here about an article. Now I've never really been involved with anything like this before so what am I supposed to do? Glacialfox (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The other editor is disputing the common name of the article. The best way to handle this is to analyze the coverage in reliable third party sources to see which name is more common. If it appears a name change is needed, you should check the talk page to see if it has ever come up before. If it has been discussed before, or you can't determine the common name yourself, then it should go to requested moves. If you can determine the common name, and it is uncontroversial, then you can simply move the article yourself. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC not submitted for review

You did the machinery for AFC submissions, right? Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bridge Card. Leaving aside that the draft is not ready for review, it looks like the author went throught the step for submission, but for some reason the draft is not up for review. (My interest in the article is that I answered about the draft at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions.) —teb728 t c 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a draft AfC submission. It hasn't been submitted for review yet. If the user clicks the "click here" link, it automatically do everything for them. They just need to press the "click here" and then the save page button and it will be up for review. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read the action of the "click here" link, it adds {{SUBST:submitdraft}} to the bottom of the draft. If you look at the author's second edit to the draft, you will see the the edit did just that, but apparently it didn't automatically do everything. I can't follow how it is supposed to do everything; if I understand correctly, you created that machinery. So I hope that you can see where it went wrong. —teb728 t c 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The automatic submission process was actually developed by User:Mabdul. I found and corrected the issue. There was an unclosed reference tag preventing the substitution of the submit template. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha

You just made my day… by submitting to thyself. benzband (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I submitted and accepted several redirects. The AfC script is quite useful for the mass creation of redirects. Unfortunately, it only works on the AFC/R page. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Dawn : Travian

Hi, just trying to see if the references that I wrote edited in the article yesterday were included in the review of the article.

From NewDawn-ND — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDawn-ND (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the references you added. The problem was, the references appear to be affiliated with the subject. In order to establish the subject's notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable third party sources such as newspaper articles, magazines, books, or other media published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDawn-ND (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hamish symons

That AfC about the boy golfer wasn't a hoax, but it was a copyvio from http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/other-sport/golf/super_symons_is_the_pride_of_cams_1_2300266. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Need some start up advice

Hi Alpha_Quadrant,

I want to become a part of the review committee. I wanted to ask how can I start? I have read the "WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions" page. I would need some guideline, and some help too once I enter this review process. In the start it would be difficult for me as I am totally new to this section but with the passage of time I hope that my learning curve will become steady. Thanks!!!
Inlandmamba (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Inlandmaba, and thank you for your interest in reviewing. We are always in need of more reviewers at Articles for Creation. There is no process that you have to go through in order to start reviewing. You could even start reviewing right now by reading the articles in CAT:PEND. The process is fairly simple, you check the article for nine major issues. If you find an issue, you decline the article submission. If you can't find any issues, then you accept the article submission. I would suggest using the review script. It adds a review button to the submission pages. When you click the review button, it asks you if you want to accept the submission, decline the submission, or mark it as under review. If you click accept button, it performs all of the actions needed to accept the submission. If you were to do this manually, it would be a five step process. If you click decline, it prompts for a reason. The script is preloaded with a list of common reasons. You can use one of those, or you can use a custom rationale. If you have any questions, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Huon again

Would you take a look at this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Redirect_request:_The_permanent_way

This isn't the first time (neither with this request nor this user – but this time it seem impossible to get past this one single user who ignores Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects).

(Maybe you also remember this.)

31.16.113.231 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have created the redirect. If you'd like, you are welcome to ask here, and I would be more than happy to create them for you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Looking for a third opinion at DRN. Would you mind providing an opinion here. Racingstripes (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a poke to find further input on the following DR/N: [6]

Please feel free to weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I am currently very busy in real life, and I don't really have the time right now to mediate a dispute. From a brief analysts, it appears the dispute has been in active mediation with two other mediators for several days now, and it appears to be nearing a resolution. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henley Whalers

Dear Alpha Quadrant

I note you consider my submission re Henley Whalers does not meet the requirements of the verifiability policy. It is reassuring to come face to face with evidence of Wikipedia’s stringent efforts to sustain credibility.

I would be interested in collaborating with you to rectify any parts or aspects of the submission which require adjustment to achieve conformity.

The information had been collected from a range of believed-to-be-reliable sources (see below), and was substantially re-expressed in my own words.

Sources –

• The Henley College website (an organisation with a Wikipeda entry) – I included a link found on The Henley College website which indicates Henley Whalers provides a service to the community of Henley on Thames.

• The Henley Standard website (an organisation with a Wikipeda entry) – I included several links found on the Henley Standard website showing Henley Whalers to have participated in numerous prestigious events and to have gained various prizes.

• The Henley Standard of Friday 27th January (I omitted to refer to this one, but will be pleased to include it) refers to Henley Whalers forthcoming participation in The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Pageant.

• The latter is corroborated by statements in The Henley Whalers’ website, and by a document entitled “List of invited Vessels” published by the Pageant organisers. In my article I provided a link to this document, found on The Henley Whalers’ website. A more authoritative source exists, but the link is via Google to the official Pageant website – I was not able to make this function in Wikipedia – Are you able to assist with this?

• Other sources include the websites of various events in which Henley Whalers have participated. Their name and that of their boat “Molly”, and captioned pictures have been found in several of those websites. (eg Velalonga, Velalonga Raid, Great River Race which has a Wikipedia entry, and others) Each of these are included in my article.

In the context of the foregoing, and being a Wikipedia novice, I am unable to deduce in what respect my article fails.

Would you please clarify?

If there are other sub-standard areas, please indicate.

Thank you.

Kind regards

Pwat Pwat (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pwat, I declined the article submission because the sources appear to be affiliated with the subject of the article. In order to establish the subject's notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable third party sources; such as newspaper articles, magazines, books, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. If you add 2-4 reliable third party sources, then I can accept it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Beloya

You deproded the article saying it meets WP:NFOOTBALL criterion #2. That however, is false, as Philippine football isn't fully professional. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes? No? Maybe? Banana Fingers (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Perhaps you might be willing to notify an editor about reporting them? Maybe even talk to them first before you file a report? Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your account is less than three weeks old and may be reported to UAA. There is no requirement for the user to be informed of the report. You have stated that this is a cleanstart, and you do appear to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy. You know full well that your username is disruptive. This edit is quite pointy. You picked a username equivalent to "Hail the Great Adolf Hitler" and you are now taking offense over the fact that I filed a report. I fully intend to take this to WP:RFCN. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your characterization. The only disruption that is happening is my sincerely held religious beliefs are being threatened and the time that I would do vandalism patrol and new page patrolling is instead being spent at an internal squabble, which is very disruptive. Furthermore, how dare you compare me to Hitler! I am immediately reporting you. Please check ANI. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for religious beliefs. The editors here on this project are here to build an encyclopedia. You know full well I was comparing satan to hitler. Both satan and hitler carry the same controversy and both are often associated with evil. Which is why I reported your username in the first place. I could care less about the fact that the word "satan" is there. The problem is the word "hail", which can mean "to praise". I have a problem with "hail satan", it is no different than User:Heil Hitler. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem edit

Hi, I have just has to fix-up this edit that appears to have screwed-up reference 4 joining in several references/text. May be the script needs looking at to see what caused the problem. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason AutoEd added | instead of an |. The former is the ASCII version of the Vertical bar. They both create the same character, but evidently the Wikipedia template does not treat it the same way. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ambrose Bye

Hi, Thank you for your time. I guess I need help on what is a reliable third party source. I thought I cited some other places online where information can be found about this artist and i am drawing from these and personal knowledge to make this entry. By creating this page i am trying to establish a more complete source of information about this person who is doing a lot of important work right now and is flying under the radar. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.75.49 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I declined the article submission because it needs to have reliable sources that are also independent of the subject. Reliable sources include newspaper articles, magazines, books, television publications, and other media released by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. Sources also need to be third party, meaning that they are not released by an organization affiliated with the subject. All information in the article needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research, and may not be used. I hope that helps you. If you have any other questions, or need any assistance, I would be more than happy to assist. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blackburner

Thank you I'm working on finding magazine articles. Just so were clear. I have to buy the actual newspaper, magazine or book then cite that? I've been going to other articles and notice there were websites referenced. What newspapers are acceptable and which are not? Thank you for taking the time to help me out. I look forward to contributing more articles. Fanoflife27 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Any organization with a strong reputation for fact checking is considered reliable. I declined the article submission because it appears that the subject currently does not meet the notability guidelines for music related biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Below Radar, EP

hi. I have added the references as requested. I thought they weren't necessary as there are many other album pages that are called "stubs" and don't have references. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you.Rjfsheehan (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed many articles without proper sourcing. However, with articles for creation, we try to ensure that all accepted articles adhere to Wikipedia's basic policies. All articles should have at least one source, so we generally decline submissions that don't have any sources. Thank you for adding references, I have now accepted. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Mark Arsten's talk page.
Message added 05:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied/apologized on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sequetron

Hi, thanks for the review. I think I understand the reason for rejection, but am not sure how I can get the article verified. The article author and the sequetron creator is the same person so the majority of info on the web about it is generated by myself, apart from a few feedback comments from other users, so guess this doesn't meet your criteria for a 3rd party.

But there are other computer programs on Wiki, such as Cakewalk (sequencer) and Steinberg Cubase, so why are they any more reliable, apart from being products from real companies?

I'm obviously keen to avoid it coming across as a promotion (even though it is a product), and the aim of the article was more to define/explain how this system allows a musician to play an instrument in a totally new & unique way, irrespective of the product itself. There are a few users out there, so is there anything they can do? Or would it help if I can get it reviewed in a magazine? Hope you can give me some pointers. Many thanks, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilTipp (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The submission needs reliable third party sources; such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, online reviews, or other media released by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all information should be verifiable in reliable sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research, and may not be used. The three sources used in the article appear to be affiliated with the subject (first party sources. In order to establish the subject's notability, there needs to be sources independent of the subject (reliable third party sources). If you could add 2-4 reliable third party sources, I believe it would solve the issue. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The preload template

I reverted your changes. Did you read my edit summary? We have to change the edit filter (see WT:AFC) or otherwise all pending drafts will be caught (and get a bad message displayed)! The subst:submit was added by me/PeterSymonds. mabdul 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh by the way, see MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC and the talkpage - maybe we should do another reword. mabdul 11:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with leaving the preload with just {{subst:submit}} causes all draft submissions to be submitted as non-draft pending submissions. Thus, the draft submissions are no longer categorized correctly. So I changed the preload back to {{subst:submitdraft}}. Special:AbuseFilter/167 is only triggered if there is no template present on a new submission. If {{subst:submitdraft}} is added to an existing submission, the edit filter will not be tripped because it is never used on new submissions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohammed Atoum

Dear Alpha Quadrant,

Thank you for your suggestions, I followed them and I added alot of sources. Wish you will like my new edits, and wish you will accept my article, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon3toum (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fatal (rapper)

Really? A member of Brick Squad and the one signed under a major in Denver, Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal1er (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to demonstrate the subject's notability. It has been deleted 3 times as non-notable. The subject needs to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. Youtube and twitter are not considered reliable sources. You might wish to read the notability guidelines for music related biographies. If this person meets any of the criteria, and the information is verifiable in reliable third party sources, then I believe the article can be accepted. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Tramp & The Rock 'N' Roll Circuz (Album)

I don't create that many articles, so you'll have to help me out on this one.

Simple fact is that this is an album from Mike Tramp (who has his own Wikipedia page), who is the former singer of a multi-platinum selling band (White Lion, who have their own Wikipedia page), who then went on to form another band called Freak of Nature (who have their own Wikipedia page), and who has released several solo albums (which are listed on the artist's Wikipedia page). The album, which can be bought on Amazon, is in my hands. What exactly are you looking for, source-wise, that allows me to get this article submitted? Ultimately, it is providing additional details on an artist who is already in several places on Wikipedia?

Advice needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecashmore (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined the article submission because it appeared that the article didn't have any references. I just took a look at the article, and I see that there were references, there just wasn't a references section on the page. I have added the section, and accepted the article. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cathedral of the Pines

I have added another book source, and will look for more. I may have to drive to New Hampshire8-/ J S Ayer (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/METDAQ

Hello, Can you tell me why you declined the article about METDAQ, what is wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrew345 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined the article, because it still has a very promotion tone. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all information in articles should be written in a neutral point of view, and it should be verifiable in reliable third party sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research, and should be removed. Generally, opinions should not be used, as they are not based on fact. For example, the article says "It began as the visualization of several dedicated individuals..." This sentence is an opinion, someone can argue against the statement. Also, a "list of products" section is generally not included in Wikipedia articles. I hope that helps you. If you have any other question, or if you need any assistance, I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sig in collapsed section?

I'm sure I'm doing something stupid, but I'm not seeing how to add a sig to a collapsed section. You did so here, but when I add a sig to this, the text changes to "extended content". What am I missing?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, the template doesn't like the <span style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light "> </span> part of your signature. I'll try to correct the issue. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The template wasn't accepting the font style tag outside of the signature link, so I merged the code with the span style tag. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, should I change my sig?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You could change it to get around the issue in the future, but I believe the issue is with the template, not your signature. In the case you do change your sig, the altered code is just under 250 characters, so it should work either way. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable?

Is this new username acceptable to you? Hail no Deity in Particular (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, you were blocked for causing disruption. While your username had something to do with the block, it was not the only reason for the block. Creating another account when your previous account was blocked can be considered block evasion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fox Bronte

Hello, there is a source from a newspaper article there, which confirms everything in the article. There are lots if you just google him. The blogpost from wordpress that I used came from a very famous art magazine, but the link doesn't work as the website is flash and it redirects you to the wrong page. So I used a blog post which is pasted from there. It does say at the bottom of the wordpress blog, which maazine it was taken from. All of my sources are verified. I've only done about 5 articles for wikipedia but i know the rules. He was also on Britains got talent this year.

Thanks alot! Janek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichaels86 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined the article submission for two reasons. Firstly, I was fairly concerned about several of the sources. Youtube and Wikia are both unreliable sources, and should not be used. Like Wikipedia, Wikia is a wiki, and anyone can change the information in the articles. Because of this, wikia cannot be used. I am also unsure of this person's notability. He hasn't been the subject of much news coverage yet. In order to establish the person's notability, he needs to have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources, such as newspapers articles, magazines, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. As this is a biography of a living person, information that cannot be verified in reliable sources must be removed. I hope that helps you. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to assist you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Mule Association

Hi, This is my first submission and I am not sure what sources you are having problems with. There are three soureces: 1) Secretary of State website which can verify the organization, 2) the organizations website and 3) a published book which can be purchased on Amazon. If you tell me which source is not reliable, I will replace it. Thanks, Vic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjotten (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined the article submission because the sources appeared to be affiliated with the subject. In order to establish the subject's notability, the subject needs to have recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources; such as newspaper articles, magazines, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. The sources also need to be unaffiliated with the subject (third party). In addtion, the article needs to be written in a neutral point of view and the information included needs to be [WP:V|verifiable]]. Information that cannot be verified in reliable sources is considered original research, and should be removed. The article needs to have reliable third party sources added, and the article needs to be written in a neutral tone. I hope that helps you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not review...

Please DO NOT review an AfC, such as The Gardens at SIUe, when it has been moved to mainspace by another editor. The message at the top of the article CLEARLY STATES it is under review. It really p*sses me off and is a waste of my time sorting out edit conflicts!! Sionk (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I hadn't realized you were reviewing the submission. You didn't have it marked as under review, so I reviewed it like any other submission. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'review' box automatically appears when an AfC is moved to mainspace. For some reason you moved the article back to AfC to clean it up. It's okay, I've calmed down a bit now, I'll go away and do something more useful :) Sionk (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you change the second parameter to |r||, it marks the submission as pending review. (example) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiPatience

You have been recognized by Shearonink (talk) with the Patience & Fortitude LP as an award for your Long-Playing Patience in the Wikipedia IRC-Helpchat channel. Thanks for staying so calm and civil!

Feel free to pass some Patience on to other patient experienced Wikipedians by adding {{subst:WikiPatience}} to their talk page with whatever patient message you like.

This award is also hereby given to Alpha Quadrant for exceptional WikiPatience in all the aspects of their Wikipedia'ing. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rita Indian Tamil Playback singer

Hi how come you dont want to accept your wikipedia refrence??

you will find Rita name under Discography and under the column Co-singer

Discography

Year Song Title Film name Music Director Co-singer

Maayavi Neeya Sivi Dharan (music director) Shruthi Ravi

Megam Megam Kannamoochi Yenada Yuvan Shankar Raja Shweta Mohan

Ottrai kannale Vel (film) Yuvan Shankar Raja Rita

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

Please I have a lot of things to do here. can you look at the link Plaese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannytop123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Madam/Sir I am not a kid to play around . I have better things to do. How come you don't even want to accept your own wikipedia reference.

can you check the link below??

Discography

Year Song Title Film name Music Director Co-singer

Maayavi Neeya Sivi Dharan (music director) Shruthi Ravi

Megam Megam Kannamoochi Yenada Yuvan Shankar Raja Shweta Mohan

Ottrai kannale Vel (film) Yuvan Shankar Raja Rita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haricharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannytop123 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a self reference as it would be circular reasoning. Anyone can change a Wikipedia article, so using another Wikipedia article as a source would be equivalent to saying "It is correct because I said so". Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable in reliable third party sources. Information that cannot be verified is considered original research and may not be used. Could you please add reliable third party sources; such as newspaper articles, magazines, or other media released by an organization with a strong reputation for fact checking. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Two AfC articles have been created in this case...

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rita Indian Tamil Playback singer and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rita. Thought someone would want to know, Shearonink (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. Thanks for the assistance and pointing that out. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fox Bronte

there, i deleted the unreliable sources. I wasnt using the youtube as a reference just as a link for people to find out more, but found there's another section to put this on. I have used youtube befpre as a reference and was accepted, so didnt realise. Sorry. I've only made a handful of articles, but am getting better. Theres alot to learn. Plan to do many more articles too. It's weirdly fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichaels86 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CC

Thank you for reviewing the article. Am working on a revision, but may not be able to meet your 7 day requirement.

The revision will include numerous independent references. This is taking time to research, because the bulk of C's work as a professional actor and film maker were done before the internet existed. Even IMDB.com only has a partial listing of his credits.

Any suggestions on your part would be much appreciated.

ccjjpro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccjjpro (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arundel Partners: The Sequel Project

Hello,

I resubmitted a short article on Arundel Partners: The Sequel Project. Your review indicated that the article included non-neutral language. I believe I improved it by either making better word choices or by simply removing words or sentences.

I am surprised that a Wikipedia article had not already been written on Arundel. The case study has been influential in the academic and business worlds and I am hopeful that I can improve the article to Wikipedia's standards.

I look forward to your further review.

Thank you,

Sigfus

STAR 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebitda1000! (talk • contribs)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Alpha_Quadrant. Thank you. —Taric25 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for re-tagging those Bewitched images (for clarification); it's amazing that for some, unused ≠ orphaned. That's the thanks one gets for doing the gnome work here Skier Dude (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:Edinburghlogo.png

Hello Alpha Quadrant. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Edinburghlogo.png, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not the same file format as required for deletion via F1. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

WB

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.