User talk:Excirial/Archive 23

Excirial


	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Excirial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Rank Uiller article

Hi Excirial. First, I want to say thank you, for your time. And Happy New Year! I've made some changes on my article and I want to know if they meet the guidelines regarding Reliable Sources. Kind regards, Zoe. Zoepe (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Zoepe,

I might be wrong, but at first glance it would appear that the references used are the names of several expositions that art was showcased on? I fear that this doesn't fall under reliable sourcing as these references cannot be looked up by anyone (While being also of temporal nature). Since the article is a so-called BLP page, a Biography of a Living Person the requirement for sources is several notches higher than it would be for other article's to be accepted.

What you are looking for are sources such as newspapers that can confirm what is written in the article itself. There might also be coverage in other literature such as magazines that can qualify as reliable. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Page creation review for Entertainment Media Research Digital

Hi, first of all happy new year! And of course, thank you for reviewing my first (ever!) created Wikipedia page.

You have mentioned that most of the sources do not mention Entertainment Media Research. This is not true, as I specifically selected articles that specifically mention EMR. People and publications often tend to quote research but not the people who did it! The references I used all mention Entertainment Media Research.

Here's the list with more detail:

1. The Guardian Newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/13/netmusic-musicindustry "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned in paragraph 2, line 3 as well as in paragraph 6, line 4. In fact the whole article in the paper is about EMR and EMR's research.

2. Music Week: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/future-of-cd-safe-thanks-to-downloading/026964 "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned in paragraph 2, line 1 and paragraph 4, line one. Again the entire article is about EMR and the work they do.

3. Another article on Music Week: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/pirates-could-be-subscribers-claims-report/042700 "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned in paragraph 1, line one and paragraph 10, line 1. Again the entire article is about EMR and the work they do.

4. Music Tank (A serious site run by the University of Westminster who have a superb music faculty): http://www.musictank.co.uk/resources/speaker-biographies/russell-hart "Entertainment Media Research" and the CEO has earned a dedicated profile/bio page for their notable contribution of research to the music industry.

5. WPP: http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/press/default.htm?guid=%7Bb36afd70-a29f-4148-a1fd-0450c08d121e%7D "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned in paragraph 6.

6. I have included one of EMR's latest surveys as this material is used by university students for dissertations and other serious works. This is a major EMR's survey report and "Entertainment Media Research" is mentioned on page 2, page 4 and page 125 (see credits). I would have thought people on Wikipedia (particularly students and industry people) targeting the EMR page would have found this survey truly very useful.

7. Radaris: http://radaris.co.uk/p/Peter/Ruppert/ I quoted Radaris as it has a very comprehensive profile of the company and one of the major personalities behind the company. (I read the Wikipedia terms, and I understand we can't quote the official company site, hence I went for Radaris)

8. Rassami: http://www.rassami.com/snapshots.html "Entertainment Media Research" has its own section and its written about quite comprehensively. Starts on paragraph 9 from the top.

9. sk-kultur.de: http://www.sk-kultur.de/dancescreen99/english/e_pre_4e.htm - I have quoted this source because (although not very pretty), this seems like a serious site - from what I understand (I used Google translate), they work with government funded projects and subsidies and help artists with funding, research and support. I understand this is like a government/culture site, so it should be a very good reference. I quoted Peter Ruppert from this source who is the founder of EMR.

10. I also quoted Peter Ruppert's profile on Linked In as that has a very good Summery of Entertainment Media Research as well as the founder. However, I can remove this if this is deemed inappropriate.

The only mistake that I have done (just realised!) is with the reference of the Common Sense Media article, where they used "entertainment media" phrase a lot in their article and I got that confused with "Entertainment Media Research" name - I am happy to correct this by removing it.

I would've thought that most of the sources I used (including newspapers, universities and government sites) would be deemed as reputable sources. I have quoted research because that's what the company does - they provide research intelligence, and this reseach is used by academics and industry people throughout a very large portion of the world.

Like I mentioned at the beginning, this is my first post, and perhaps the referencing format is not perfect, and whatever else, but I don't mind learning how to fix that. I happy to learn how to edit Wikipedia and I would be happy to receive any guidance from you.

However, please do reconsider this submission as I have referenced reputable sources and they all mention Entertainment Media Research. The company is well known in the industry for providing insightful, useful and reputable research and universities encourage students to quote this research in their dissertations.

I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you for taking the time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marijhaa (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War

Thanks for reverting my "test" word on the above. You beat me to the revert button. I just did that because there was a confusing message about the page being semi-protected and I didn't know if I could edit it or not. So I did a tiny test (which I was going to revert if successful). Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. A semiprotected page is protected in such a way that unregistered (Editors without an account) and unconfirmed (Accounts younger then 4 days or accounts with less then 10 edits) editors cannot change the page. In case you are interested, there is a list of protection types and their restrictions here. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

AFCBuddy

78.26

Thanks for creating this script! A couple of questions. First, shouldn't anyone appearing in the "Running Total" list below the leaderboard automatically be included? Also, the script seems to have a bug. I haven't counted anyone else's, but I've reviewed 31 articles, not 21. The script changed the number on the leaderboard. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Darn it, i didn't expect people to find my tampering with the scoring in my favor so quickly! ;). It seems i forgot to tell the script that capital letters don't matter (AFCH != afch unless you explicitly state it is.). The reviews it missed are now correctly being counted.

On the other hand, it is now assuming you have 40 reviews since it counts both the actual article and the redirect page that was created by moving the page. I'll iron that issue out in a bit. Hopefully the script will be quite stable in a couple of days. Oh, and thanks for mentioning the issue - much appreciated! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And that issue is now fixed as well. One or two user month counts are still off by 1 or 2 reviews, but I'll look into that. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

SpeedReader

Yes, Why am I not on the leader board? at the time that the script ran, I had 40 reviews. Thanks, Jakob 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for relieving me with the script! Before, I was the one who had to manually update the leaderboard

It seems that you aren't using the AFC helper script to review pages. AFCBuddy detects pages by the default summary's it places when accepting or moving a page. There are a few possible solutions i can think off:

If you could review pages using the AFC helper script it would detect edits as normal (Any reason why you are not using it?). Since updating the review list is manual copy-n-paste work i could leave any old reviews there. Equally i could adjust the review count of your username in the tool, so that it would offset the reviews it cannot detect itself.
If you cannot or don't want to use the AFC Helper script for reviewing i can simply use your review list as a basis for the scoreboard (A simple count of the diffs on that page). A side effect would be that you would need to keep updating that page manually, since AFCBuddy wouldn't be able to detect any reviews from you :/ Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, since I cannot use the AFC Helper Script, see this, and this for more on that, I'll add myself manually. Thanks! --Jakob 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite unfortunate you can't use it - it is quite a handy script for reviewing. To at least reduce your workload a little bit i added a little tweak to AFCHelper. When it tries to check your accounts edits it will use an alternative procedure that counts the amount of reviews listed at January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/SpeedReader. The result of count that (Currently 56 links, just as listed) will be used when generating the scoreboard. It won't prevent you from having to keep that page up to date manually, but at the very least you shouldn't have to worry about keeping the scoreboard up to date anymore

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a ton!! That's great! Thanks again, Jakob 04:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Codexsinai

Regarding User talk:Codexsinai, I think user:Aboveallelse77 may be a related account. As on the past link, user:CFred and user:Floquenbeam had been dealing with him and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboveallelse77/Archive too. History2007 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are many people who would solemny focus on adding a specific person to the exact same set of article's either. I blocked Codexsinai for being a Duck. Thanks for mentioning that case! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

deleted page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Watch The Duck)

Hi Excirial,

I saw that you deleted my page for a copyright violation, however I did reference that the page was a copied biography off the artist's facebook site, and included the link to it in the references section. Can you advise me on how to modify the page to not be deleted? Is there a writer/editor on Wikipedia who can rearrange the format to better serve that of Wikipedia pages?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbandz (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Dbandz,

Simply mentioning that you copied content word-for-word from an external source doesn't comply with copyright laws. You can literally quote small pieces of an external source where relevant, but you cannot copy an entire page unless its license allows this (Such as when a page is licensed under CC-BY-SA). You can, however, use a page as a basis for writing your own text by paraphrasing it. Note that simply changing a word or two is not enough in that case.

Another method is simply searching a set of publications detailing your article's topic, and then writing your own page based on the information that is on those pages. While doing so you might want to have a look at the good article list as well for an example of a good page (Darren Middleton is a fairly short example that is probably easy to follow). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Article on French Connect (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/French Connect)

Hi Excirial, Happy New Year! Thank you for your feedback on my article for submission. I have taken on board your feedback and think in hindsight I placed too much emphasis on the company's own website, therefore i can see why you thought it read too much like a promotional piece. I have also looked at another trade event, the World Travel Market, and taken some pointers from their wiki page. I have removed quotes, and some other references, which although factual, could be also seen as promotional. I hope this second attempt is an improvement and welcome any further pointers if not. Best regards and thanks for your work. Artur — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexarturWalsh (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Alexartur,

The current version is a definite improvement over the old one, which was indeed quite spammy. I have taken the liberty to change a few things in the article, mostly by repairing the internal links which weren't formatted correctly. I see it is already back in the review queue as well, so i presume someone will have a look at it in the next few days (Personally i try to evade reviewing the same piece multiple times in a row, so that a fresh pair of eyes can have a look as well). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Excirial AlexarturWalsh (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/mechanical mineral conversion

Hello, Can you please explain me the reason why the article is deleted, it contains common known general information and mostly information which is based on personal experience with a pilot plant of the mentioned technology. I dont understand where it violates any copyrigths. --Alldaysun57 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Alldaysun57,

The article was removed as a copyright violation because a large section of the text in it was a literal copy of http://www.global-ecofuel.com/english/projects.html. You can use an external page as an inspiration for writing an article, but creating a word-for-word copy of a webpage text is not allowed under copyright laws. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Neon_Chemicals

the article which I have wrote concerning "Neon Chemicals" is about my company; and the content is taken from its official site http://www.neonchemicals.com. Could you help me out for this?

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

Looking forward to hear from your valued side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.31.110 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there 203.128.31.110,

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

Having said that i would equally point out that it is rarely a good idea to copy content directly, even if the license allows it. An encyclopedic text requires another structure and writing style then most other texts, and thus it is rare for these texts to be accepted as an article. I would recommend looking in the good article category for an article with a similar subject as your own, and using that as a basis for your own article. However, before spending time it is best to read WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:RS, and checking if your article can meet these policies requirements. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sainath Dukkipati

pls.review it and select it i did a lot of hardwork on this,i'm just 13 from where will i get perfect reliable sources and I even challenged my friends that i'll get it done on wikipedia sainath dukkipati is a rising star he already signed more than 18 films with the big daddy's of bollywood and he's presence in the films are kept secret until the trailers are released. Some of his films are: chennai express,dabanng 3,milan talkies,gunday,e.t.c. so pls. accept it i'm begging you guys pls. if u guys aren't satisfied atleast accept it and make it and let it be an article for 3-5 days.Pls. I'm pleading you guys pls. there are more websites on his name if you want i can post them as reliable sources to, pls. my whole article is good ony the reliable sources is a problem but i provided you guys with 2 reliable sources if u want more websites on his name i gan give Wiki Associate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.145.177 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there 122.169.145.177,

A page - and especially a page concerning a living person - can only be accepted if there are reliable sources backing up the content of that page. In this case there are simply no reliable sources in the page:

References 1 and 2 are personal sites, thus being primary sources.
References 4,6 and 7 link to Wikipedia itself - Wikipedia is a tertiary source and can never be used as a reliable source in other article's.
The rest of the references are secondary sources which are decent - weren't it for the fact that there is no mention of "Sainath Dukkipati" anywhere in those.

If i try a google search for "Sainath Dukkipati" there is literally nothing that even remotely qualify as a reliable source - so quite frankly i fear that this article is pretty much a lost cause as far as acceptability goes. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

exciral i got many reliable sources and posted few now if you want you can even do google search and once its reviewed and it becomes an article i'll add the filmography section of his after talking to the vogue magazine.Now you can view the sources and check it.Then I'll even add all the other sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.145.177 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC Script

Just wondering...When a user manually puts an article under review, can the AFC Helper Script overwrite that? This is what seems to have happened here; I put the article under review (manually, of course) looked over it. Finding that it was not written in English, I went to decline it, but found that you already had. Please don't get me wrong, I don't really care that I didn't get the point; just wondering. --Jakob 20:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can indeed do that. As long as a page has an open AFC template (With "Open" being "Not declined or accepted") it will simply override any "In review" templates and place the decline template. If a review is no longer open when someone tries to review a page, the script will report an error stating there are no open templates. Eg:

(User1 loads page) => (User2 marks as Reviewing) => (User1 declines page) => Page Declined
(User1 loads page) => (User2 declines page) => Page Declined => (User1 declines page, not having seen the new revision) => User1 receives an error.

The behavior is actually more or less as intended. If someone would mark the page as "Reviewing" they wouldn't be able to use the script to accept or decline a page afterwards if it wouldn't override in review templates. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up! --Jakob 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs

Hello,

Hope you are well. The article I submitted for The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (an academic journal) was not approved due to a lack of secondary sources. It is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Fletcher_Forum_of_World_Affairs&oldid=531394070.

However, there are several other similar academic journals which have a Wiki page but do not have secondary sources, such as:

Could you let me know how to proceed?

Thanks,

Mirza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mramic (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Mirza,

The articles you linked were made back in 2006 and 2005 respectively. Back then the policies for content were different, and the amount of manpower to check each article was lower as well which is the reason why there article's are actually around (If they were submitted trough AFC these days they would be declined using the same rationale as well). Having said that the fact that other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping more-of-the-same.

.

As for the article - you will want to add reliable sources to it that can verify the content in the article itself. These reliable sources are also used to determine if an article can be considered notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thanks for the quick reply.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting the argument for keeping more of the same - I just didn't know that the Wiki conditions for posting articles had changed, and it was more of a matter of fairness. But either way, thanks for clarifying.

I guess I'm a bit confused about how to meet the reliable sources requirement for an academic journal - it is unlikely that someone would write about the journal itself, but rather there would be articles about the articles the journal publishes. It just seems a bit unrealistic expecting academic journals to provide such sources that verify its own existence, since what interests people are the journal's articles, and not so much the journal itself. Do you have suggestions for how this can be remedied?

Thanks for your help.

Mirza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mramic (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interband Cascade laser

Thank you for approving and creating the page "Interband cascade lasers." I was wondering if you could change the title to "Interband cascade laser" (i.e. singular), but still have "en.wikipedia.../interband_cascade_lasers" redirect to the page. Thanks.

Done - The page is now at interband cascade laser, while interband cascade lasers redirects to that page. Oh, and it might be a good idea to mention this: Since your is autoconfirmed you have the userright to move pages yourself as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prince Royal Jinan

Dear, Excirial.

I find your action to deny my submission absolutely preposterous. Please, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hyoryeong . They have submitted the same way, and they were able to submit their article and I cannot? Who sets the justice in Wikipedia? I find this unfair. There is scarce amount of English information to quote from about Grand Prince Royal Jinan. If you guys want to raise the bar, then you guys need to start translating the works of Korean documents yourselves. Please, accept my article as many more of Korean Princes’ articles have been successfully submitted this way.

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotDays (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there SpotDays,

I declined the page because the article quotes Wikipedia directly. As a tertiary source Wikipedia is not a valid reference for an article to be based on. The Prince Hyoryeong has exactly the same issue, but since it was added to the mainspace directly without going trough articles for creation it was never reviewed for quality. That however, doesn't mean that it doesn't suffer from the same problem.

Having said that - References don't need to be in English to be used on the English Wiki (Only the prose in the needs to be written English). You can simply cite the references from the Korean page (Though if a good quality translation of the references exists, that is preferred for readabilities sake). The only thing that is requested as a courtesy is that non-english are cited using the citation template, with the language parameter filled in (So that editors can see the sources are in a different language without having to open them).

Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear, Excirial.

Thank you very much for your excellency. I will do my best to continue to improve the article. Since it is in the open space now, people will be able to add or edit as necessary. Thank you for taking a big step forward.

Lee, Jyong Chul.

Founder and CEO

The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party

(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)

Austin Dog Alliance

Hello. I am a volunteer for Austin Dog Alliance and created this page with their permission. You commented: "In early 2013, the Alliance will begin offering classes for youth aged 15-19 with disabilities that focus on preparing" => http://austindogalliance.org/ (Entire section is copied literally) "In addition to founding Austin Dog Alliance and leading the growth of the organization as Executive Director" => http://austindogalliance.org/training/our-training-team/ (Entire Leadership section is a very close paraphrase from the website. Lines are either identical or differ one or two words - no change in structure) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you require to allow me to use this information? Thanks! lpw 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)

Hello there Laura,

Copyright laws don't permit copying content that is marked as being copyrighted directly to Wikipedia(Nor is copying content that isn't specifically marked by a license allowed). Only when content is released specifically under a license allows this (Such as when a page is licensed under CC-BY-SA) it can be copied word for word - in other cases it is a copyright violation. You can, however, use a page as a basis for writing your own text by paraphrasing it. Note that simply changing a word or two is not enough in that case.

Having said that it is rarely a good idea to use text from an external source directly, as it is rarely written in a way that can be considered encyclopedic. The page you write had the same issue - it was not neutral in several places, and its writing and general structure also had some issues because of that (For example the Leadership section. that took up half the article - this biographical information doesn't belong in a page detailing an organisation).

What i would advice is gathering reliable sources, and writing an article based on the content of these sources in self-written prose. You may also want to have a look at the Good Article category - the article's in that category and have been checked for their quality, making them excellent examples to model an article after. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Classical Schrödinger Equation

Real, per [1]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

[2] too. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look ! I accepted the article, and it is in the main article space now. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Your" AfC

I have no idea why that notice went to you instead of the article creator (National Technological University (United States)). I see you made a couple of edits, but the AfC helperbot sent that to you instead. Since I am bot-clueless, would you take a look? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That was because i was technically the editor who placed it in the queue, and afterwards forgot to change the parameter in the template to point to the actual user. I remember i placed it in the queue for some reason, but i cannot seem to recall the specifics anymore... Ah well, in the end it worked out just fine anyway. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good info, thanks much. I've run across one situation where that might have happened to me. Now I'll know to look out for it. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Vic & Helen Show" article

Dear Excirial,

I'm asking (in good faith) in regard to my declined submission of an article dedicated to documenting a web-created sitcom, (The Vic & Helen Show.)

(At this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Vic_%26_Helen_Show)

I would first like to clarify that I am NOT the owner of said sitcom; I have been given permission by the owner (Richard Thripp) to write an unbiased and informative documentation of the series, for encyclopedic means. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is the best option there is.

I would also like to make known that I just turned 15, and am not much of a tech wiz. (My vocabulary is advanced, since my mother is an English teacher, but I digress.) I was, of course, disappointed in the rejection, especially since I had devoted at least 4 hours to writing, proofreading, and checking references for the cause.

To get to the point, I would like to kindly ask you how I was not specific in listing references. Why was this so? It is important in this case to note that there are really not several Web sources to get these references from. Given that the show being documented is relatively small, (absolutely NOT to say it isn't worth documenting,) the number of Web sources are limited to the actual website, (http://vicandhelen.com/) and the YouTube channel, (http://youtube.com/procommenter/) BOTH of which contain all information about the series, as posted by no less than the actual creator. Basically, what I am saying is that I see no reason why the references I gave did not seem credible. I am desperately asking for clarification! What could I have done better?

I would very much appreciate if you reconsider, or at least get back to me. I spent a lot of time and effort, devoted to this cause, as it is very important, and certainly noteworthy.

Thank you, very much for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you. - JTProductionsWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTProductionsWiki (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there TProductionsWiki,

In order for an article to be on Wikipedia, it must meet several policies:

The article must be sufficiently notable for a standalone article - that is, important enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion.
The article's claims to notability must also be verifiable trough the use of reliable, secondary sources.
And finally, the article must be written from a neutral point of view.

The article is indeed quite notable, but doesn't contain any real claim to notability. In cases where such a specific claim isn't present, the general notability guideline is used to verify its notability. Summarized this guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.". The only sources provided in the article are primary sources though, which aren't considered reliable or usable as far as the notability guideline goes. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what else I need

Our little museum -Glenn Martin Museum- has been around for 20 years, but never had a wiki page. I have been thinking about doing one for 2 years. So I tried. I am on the board & a volunteer and I am trying to get a wiki page for the museum. The museum shows up RED in many other wiki pages. I have cited our web page, as many other small museums do. I am not sure what else you want to see as ref to prove we are a real museum. I plan to add pictures of our planes, but I wanted to get the basics up first. Maybe my format is wrong, not sure what else you need or want. Thanks! GLM789TC (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there GLM789TC,

The situation surrounding the article is indeed a tad problematic. Policy-wise any article needs to be backed up by reliable, secondary sources so that editors can see that was is written is true. These sources aren't only used for this purpose though - they are also used to determine if a subject is sufficiently notable notable (This is, important enough for encyclopedic including). If there are no secondary sources availible whatsoever, i fear that it simply won't be capable to pass this criteria.

Having said that, the museum seems to be quite old, and it was founded quite a while before the internet really took of. It might be possible that there are some older newspapers around that covered the museum - yet aren't available online. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Urgent Admin Abuser

Dear, Wikipedia.

I am a Founder and CEO of The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party. I had some real nasty interaction with Wikipedia administrator Qwyrxian. This user is abusing administrator power to block every single Wikipedia account that I am making. Please, unblock my capability to talk to other administrators. Please, help me. Also, he is destroying my article of Grand Prince Royal Jinan. If this user is blocking me because I have multiple accounts, then this user’s account should be blocked too because this user has multiple accounts. Following is a direct quote from Qwyrxian “I have created a second account, User:Quirksian, to be used for professional presentations about editing Wikipedia. It will edit only rarely, and will not have administrator status.”

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)

Note: user was blocked by admin Gogo Dodo, who was not involved in the previous account block. Little left to do here. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jay Cardiello Entry

Hi, Excirial.

After two passes, I wanted to know specifically what I can do to meet guidelines as just about everything I put was cited from sources such as Shape Magazine, the New York Times, Daily News and Huffington Post.

Happy to make changes, but I must be missing something, and would appreciate advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHRMG (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there HHRMG,

The current problem with the article is that it is written with a clear positive bias, rather then being written in a neutral point of view. For example:

Jay was a talented athlete growing up and upon graduating from the prestigious College of William & Mary (Peacock terms)
Working with busy stars in trailers and hotel rooms presented Jay the challenge of creating exercise programs suitable for small spaces and limited time, a challenge that led to his current training model. (Promotional. "The model was made for the stars, so its the crème de la crème in quality")
he JCORE program is available on DVDs and a USB drive for at-work workouts or travel fitness. It is sold with a meal plan developed in collaboration with a registered dietician, recipes and fitness calendar. JCORE also has a range of supplements including Zero Lite, a zero-calorie metabolism boosting drink mix (Clear advertising. Especially since there is a neat link to webshop featuring the products right after it)

And i can go on for a while like this, since pretty much the entire article suffers from the above and similar issues. Simply put, the article will need a rewrite in quite a few places in order to become encyclopedic, rather than promotional Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your AFC reviews

Copied for this edit, for archival sake.

Hello Pratyya,

I noticed that Bonkers the Clown was reviewing your recent AFC contributions, and saw that he was marking a great amount of them as failed. As a result i decided to check a few myself to see what was going on, and having looked into this for a bit i cannot help but agree with his judgement.

I don't mean to be rude, but a whole lot of the reviews (The vast majority) is either declined under the incorrect category, or even plain wrong. Both bonkers and myself left commentary at your review page. May i request that you reviews those alongside the Reviewing instructions before continuing to review submissions? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to this: I went trough all the reviews on your review page, and ended up reopening 34 of them due to them being closed with an incorrect rationale. This doesn't mean that all those pages should have been accepted, but it does mean that the pages creator received an incorrect message regarding what to do with their page. This doesn't mean either that the other reviews were fine though. Some were already resubmitted for another review, others had been accepted in the meantime, and some others were a waste of time to reopen because they wouldn't be accepted anyway (even though the rationale was incorrect).

I would like to assume good faith here, but based on what i saw at least past of this seems caused by reviewing with the intent to get as many reviews as possible for the backlog drive. Summarized:

Multiple reviews were declined as "No Context", even though they had more then sufficient context to determine the subject of the article.
Multiple reviews were declined as "Too short". Stub article's are often only one line in size, and are perfectly acceptable.
Multiple reviews were declined as "The article needs to have <a plot section><a biography section>" et cetera. This is by no means required by any policy, not is it a decline reason. (For example)
You declined multiple article's with reasons that make no sense. Peters,_North_Dakota is a geographical place, not a dictionary definition. Pink champagne is a music album, not dictionary definition.
The article regarding Sergio Michel states winner of over 300 Gold Medals, winning Gold at the XXI Central American and Caribbean Games and three Bronze medals at the 2011 World Masters Athletics Championships., yet you marked him as not notable.
You accepted the "Wiebusch" article, which was a literal copy of the Tasmanian Devil article. Every source said that, every picture said that, every line except the first contained "Devil". If you had read the article, you couldn't have missed that.

I can go on like this, but i presume this would bring the point across. I hope you understand that this amount of errors is quite simply not acceptable in any way. The backlog drive is not an initiative where you can get a high score and earn a medal - it is reviewing article's that other people might have worked on for hours. AFC editors are often completely new and won't know the way around Wikipedia. Flat out declining them with an incorrect reason means that they won't know what to do with the article - best case they ask, worst case they just give up meaning we lose both a potential article and editor.

If these are honest mistakes, i would still strongly suggest that you cease reviewing AFC article's for the time being as the mistake ratio is simply to high - i hope you understand that results like these cause more harm then good. If these are caused by an "I want a medal" drive, i would ask that you spend an order of magnitude more time while reviewing an article. Mistakes are always possible (I make them as well), but any fault-to-good ratio should be reasonable. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Aire Athletic FC

Hi, You recently deleted an entire page that i created for our local football team. The reason given, that it was in breach of copyright, yet you failed to disclose what or who's copyright. I did not find a way to correct the issue, so the problem remains. Please, rather than deleting articles, give answers/help of what we can do to list the club on Wikipedia. Myself, and the rest of the team are very disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AireAthletic (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered by nosy passing admin on your talk page. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Copied-over comment: It was deleted as a copyvio of http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/aireathleticfc/a/club-history-26992.html which appears to be now unavailable. This does happen. Web pages we want to check back on disappear overnight sometimes, like this one has. Creation would have been declined later anyway, as Sunday League clubs don't meet our standards of notability. Clubs that are professional or which have been professional do meet our requirements. Sorry about that, but we don't and can't list everything here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free webspace. We are free to edit, but we also have rules and one is that if text has been published somewhere, it cannot be brought into Wikipedia (even if you wrote it) because it is copyright and we are freely licensed for anyone anywhere to use our stuff. Your text isn't free to use. Even if you licensed it, the club isn't notable enough by our standards. When you get into the professional leagues, OK, but not before. Peridon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. That is one less reply in the "Remember to explain" queue. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Panash Events

An odd one. A small part of it was a copyvio - of what looked like someone else's site. The rest ought to have been a copyvio of their own site, but it didn't look like it. So I deleted it as spam, which was unmistakeable... Peridon (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, if you find a neat promotional text, you might just as well use it i guess. Oh by the way, i personally try to evade deleting AFC related pages for anything else then legal reasons (BLP / Copyvio). The AFC pages zone is a pretty neat containment zone where pages will stick until someone approved them, so they won't end up in the mainspace where they may be missed my CSD patrols. For the same reason i don't use hardname blocks in that area. After all, if people are going to throw litter somewhere it might just as well be near a garbage dump. And who knowns, some of the initial garbage may actually turn out to be useful without ever getting in the way. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

AFCBuddy - quick question.

Copied from this talkpage Hiyas there Bonkers,

I noticed this diff which seems to be asking for AFCbuddy to generate your diffs. I also noticed you added your name to the list but removed yourself fairly soon afterwards. I was just wondering - do you want AFCBuddy to generate the diffs? Technically taken they are already generated for everyone, i am just not uploading them unless a user gives me permission to do so. If you want them automated, just give me a nudge, ill be happy to add them for you as well :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhhh. No wonder! Nudge nudge. You have my absolute permission to do so. To think I wondered why the results weren't showing.... Haha. :) Sure saves lots of time. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, ok, understood. I'll add you to the list of users then. If nothing prevents me from doing so i should be uploading a run later today. Once that is done you you should see the diffs with the new format . Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My Article

Dear Excirial,

I have took into account your suggestions for publishing my article and have updated it. Please review it when you get the chance and get back to me. Thanks.

-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanKooklan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ryan,

I placed your article in the AFC review queue for you, so that it will be listed as an article open to review for every editor. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Things i can do to improve my article so that you can accept it ?

Dear excirial

Im keshav sharma , 14 year old game developer and researcher i recently write an article of "Milisoft" but you somehow because of some reason declined it.

Sir , i want to know what is mistake done in my article , so that i can improve it.

With respect keshav sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshav2010 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there keshav.

In this particular case i fear there might not be a lot that you can do to correct the article. In order to be on Wikipedia an article must meet a few policies with the notability, verifiability and neutrality policies being the most important ones. The notability policy is, in this case, the main issue. In order to be on Wikipedia an article must demonstrate that it is important enough for a stand-alone article. This is done by quoting multiple reliable sources of sufficient size; Think major newspapers, academic works, major newswebsites, magazines and so on. Looking at the article you wrote i assume that such coverage will not exist for the website. Since the notability policy is absolutely mandatory, there is little that you can do to fix the article (Unless i am incorrect and such coverage does exist). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why all this moving around?

Just curious... :-)

I have been waiting expectantly since June 2012 for User:Mcm222 to finish his draft article "Phase-contrast X-ray imaging" so that I can link to it from Interferometry, an article of which I am principal author. So I've watched his article go from User:Mcm222/draft of article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging, then saw a history merge, then saw it moved to MediaWiki:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging and now I see it once again as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phase-contrast X-ray imaging?

Is this some sort of staging area where the article has to undergo review or something? When will the article become simply Phase-contrast X-ray imaging?

In the past, whenever I've created a new article from scratch, I just copied it straight out of my sandbox into the main article namespace. I'm sure there are reasons for the elaborate dance that I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what they are... :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In the past, whenever I've created a new article from scratch, I just copied it straight out of my sandbox into the main article namespace. I'm sure there are reasons for the elaborate dance that I'm seeing, but I can't figure out what they are... :-).

I must say, I had a good laugh over that specific line. Well, yes, there is actually a reason for that elaborate dance. When copy and pasting a page, you will lose the entire page history and past revisions of that page meaning one cannot go "back in time" to verify content against an older version. Additionally the copyright policy Wikipedia uses for content (CC-BY-SA) requires that all editors are attributed for their work. When copy pasting a page the history is lost, which essentially is a violation of the copyright license. Besides this the editor submitted the article to Wikiproject article's for creation which is a review process for article's before they are accepted. Those pages are kept in the Wikipedia talk namespace; Partially because they are neatly grouped together as opposed to being in multiple user sandboxes, and partially because some speedy deletion criteria don't apply outside the article namespace.

Now, i guess you may be thinking "But why did you laugh about that line?". Actually, the correct procedure for AFC moving is User sandbox => Wikipedia Talk namespace => (If acceptable) Article space. Now on THIS article that.... didn't go as intended. When moving it to the AFC space i accidentally copied some extra text "(Revision history)" which caused the article to land on the wrong spot. When trying to correct that i tried to do it to fast, and moved it to the mediawiki namespace. Again noticing THAT mistake i finally moved it to the right spot and merged the history.... Only to find out i forgot to restore the topmost revision after the merger which caused the article to lose its "waiting for review" template.

So yes, there IS a reason for dancing around with those article's. But in this case i ended up waltzing straight out of the window, falling into the rainwater tank and then started tangoing trough a few bushes and the cellar before ending in the dance hall where i was supposed to be all along :). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

HCS AL Gurg

Hey, Hope you are doing well. This is to ask you if can you please explain me the reason why the article have been deleted. Notice that the article contains general information and mostly information that people might like to know about the group. We believe that wikipedia have the large no. of visitors and since we didnt create a page for our group yet we thought that this will be a good idea. If you are having any concerns based on the data and the information which are written you can visit the group website "www.algurg.com". Please re-visit the article that you've rejected "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Easa_Saleh_Al_Gurg_Group_(ESAG" Thanks for your coordination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCS Al Gurg (talk • contribs) 07:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there HCS,

The page itself has not been deleted - you can still see your original submission here. The article itself, however, has been declined due to it having multiple issues.

First and foremost, the article is written as an advertisement. Lines such as One of the leading business houses in the UAE, The Group remains keen to identify and associate with global brand leaders through trading partnerships and technical collaboration and provides a unique buying experience to customers looking for appliances, electronics and telecom for their homes. coupled with all the hyper links to external pages is the posted child of a promotional page.
The second issue is that there is no clear claim of notability - that is, an indication why the company is important enough to be on Wikipedia. This claims is made trough providing multiple reliable secondary sources of sufficient size that are independent of the company itself. These sources are also used to verify the content of the article itself, so in its narrowest definition the article can only contain content that is supported by these sources.

Also, i might point out that you are a COI editor, an acronym for an editor who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter they are writing about. Editing while having a COI is strongly discouraged up to being disallowed, since the COI often causes editors to write content that isn't written from a neutral point of view. In this case the result is a clearly promotional article that is more intended for advertisement then describing the company in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RaykGlobal Page declined

Obviously I've made a mistake for submitting this same artical twice, the original one should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/RaykGlobal

As for the references, I wrote this article with a mere purpose to introduce an organization with the tag "RaykGlobal", therefore I would want to keep this article short and simple and easy to read, which led to the references to be a few. Much like this article (perhaps) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKB_Cases In the meantime I was hoping this would enrich the wiki China Business project, I would like to take more time to enhance the references in the future, but for now I deleted all the "top page references" as editer Danger informed.

Once again, thanks for all your time to edit this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A326150512 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye, when i saw it i was already thinking "This is likely an accidental extra submission of the same article". I used to reset these to draft status but i ended up receiving questions (And one very angry user) as to why their page was suddenly not up for review anymore. Is also seems there was \ is a wikiproject that specializes in article's that are marked as drafts. Sometimes people just abandon a draft without ever submitting it, even if it is promising and could likely be turned in a decent article. Having something marked as "draft" would cause more work for them. So eventually i ended up marking these as duplicates. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Declined article by Pratyya Ghosh

I was declined an entry on wikipedia and would request another review. The topic was Aylestonians RFC which is an amateur rugby union club in Leicester England. At the moment the club is the only inner city club with its own ground and is trying to continue its development as well as acknowledge its history. The club has been established since 1921 and has had players that have helped to change the game over the years. I have included extra references and made minor changes. Also I do notice that other rugby union clubs from Leicestershire have Wikipedia pages and would find it extremely unfair if we were not allowed the same. Examples are Leicester Lions and Aylestone Athletic. Aylestonians are also mention on Leicester Storms page and Aylestone Athletics. This is my first article and have taken a lot of time to research and word it so that it looks professional and contains all the relevant information, but do recognize my in experience. Thank you in advance Aaron1477 --Aaron O'Rourke (Aaron1477) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron1477 (talk • contribs)

Hiyas there Aaron,

I see that Ktr101 did a review of the article in the meantime. I do however fear that it may be difficult to get this page up no matter what (Which i preferably tell you now, rather than having you spend 5 more reviews). The notability criteria for rugby teams is fairly steep and amateur teams often have difficulty meeting them. There are some exceptions to this rule though, if a team can establish sufficient notability trough the general notability guideline. Simply put - if there are sufficient high quality secondary sources a team can be deemed notable. Additionally amateur teams are (often) considered notable if they play in the highest amateur league.

Obvious follow up question is of course why other teams do have a page. In this case the Leicester Storm team plays in the midlands premier division which (According to that article, i am no expert) is the highest amateur league. The Leicester Lions seem to be a similar case, with some sources backing things up as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/NRGLab,_Pte._Ltd.,_Singapore

Explain why this article violates copyrighted material, hence your deletion of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/NRGLab,_Pte._Ltd.,_Singapore

The company owns the material and I have been retained by the company to post this entry. What is the problem that needs to be overcome here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvansS1 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NRGLab, Pte. Ltd., Singapore. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated - and thanks for the notice as well, that saved me from writing another reply detailing the same thing. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Lola Panda page references

Hi, I've been revising the references in the Lola Panda article (recently declined) but don't want to resubmit it yet, as I want to check my facts about one of the new references.

Am I on the right track?

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

-Pertti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perttime (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Perttime,

To be honest the references still have pretty much the same problem:

Reference 1 (iphoneworld) is a PR release made by the company itself, which means it is a primary source.
Reference 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are for most part blogs or product reviews. Blogs are virtually never considered reliable sources, as anyone can own and write them. The same applies to other "personal" media such as personal websites, internet forums and just about anything that can be written and edited publicly. The only only real exceptions are blogs that are known to be published by an expert in a certain field.

Wired.com is the only website that is of substantial size to be counted as a reliable source. However, that article is a list of multiple applications a specific editor likes, which means that it won't pass the significant coverage criteria. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your careful scrutiny of AFC submissions, in particular your near-mystical ability to spot copyvio a mile off. I've just deleted a whole batch of your declined submissions, and in every single case your tagging was spot-on. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World University of Bangladesh

Dear Mr. Excirial,

Thank you for reviewing my article. But I see that you did not accepted my article about "World University of Bangladesh". Thank you for it but I just seen it that how it works. But the main thing is that This ^[1] article is executed by another person who is not responsible for any editing or showing this page to the Wikipedia. Although, on be half of this University I'm working for writing articles of contents of it. For that reason I am eagerly seeking your assistance to rewrite this article or delete this article. And please feel free to contact me or our officials to make confirmation of it.

Regards netmusha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmusha (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Netmusha,

I think there are a few important points i must raise in this specific case. First and foremost i would point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is collectively writing by a multitude of contributors. Due to this no single article is ever owned by a specific editor - any editor may start an article regarding a subject as long as it is within the respective Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, neutrality and verifiability. In effect this means that on-one has or needs authorization from an article subject to write about it, nor does working for the subject grant extended privileges over other editors.

In fact the situation is quite the opposite. Since you specifically mentioned you are editing on behalf of the subject of the article you have a so-called COI or conflict of interest. Wikipedia itself strives to provide high quality encyclopedic content and writing such content is difficult if not impossible if someone has close allegiance with the subject of the article. This was quite visible in the article you submitted, as it was a clear advertisement for the university rather then being a neutral and encyclopedic page (Besides being a copyright infringement, as it was copied straight from the universities website).

As a conclusion i would point out that that the COI policy strongly discourages editing any article one has a conflict of interest with. If the edits made are intended for promotional purposes this will eventually be seen as disruption which in turn is grounds for a block. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Itwa (Siddharth Nagar), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donut Press

Hi please could you explain why the citations contained in my draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donut Press are not adequate? The awards refered too are internationaly recognised and the sources independent. I see there are many articles with fewer and less independant sources that are published on Wiki, indeed there is an article about a similarly sized poetry press 'Penned in the margins' which is published here with fewer and less prestigious citations. I would suggest the success and unique nature of the press make it notable. If there is something amiss with the way the sources/citations have been included then please advise. Thankyou Nickondite Nickondite (talk)Nickondite (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to ask ktr101 for specifics, since he was the last person who reviewed the article. The original review i did lacked any form of sourcing, hence the article being declined for that reason.

However, if i were to take a gamble based on a quick check of the added references, i presume that this is due to (part of) the sources not covering donut press. The first two awards referenced were for books printed by Donut Press, as opposed to being about donut press itself. Notability itself is not inherited, which means that being related to something notable doesn't automatically confer notability (So being the printer / publisher for an award winning book doesn't confer notability). That leaves the Michael Marks Awards which may be notable, but i would point out that being shortlisted isn't equal to being awarded.

As for Penned in the margins i would say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The page was originally written back in 2006, and would by no means pass the AFC procedure today as is. For that reason it is equally marked for having issues. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response to my previous question, which was much more constructive, useful and informative than a response I had on the help desk! I appreciate your explaination and will continue with your points in mind. CheersNickondite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejection for Gary Orona Article

Hi Excirial,

This was my first post and I was shocked that it was rejected since it was 100% accurate. I don't know if I included the references correctly but I know that many articles use IMDB.com as well as AVN.com and in the case of Gary his shows are constantly airing on HBO/Cinemax and all of the other credits are accurate. If IMDB is not considered an accurate reference with respect to professional producers/directors then what is?

Thank you for your time I very much appreciate it.

MissTabStevens

Hello there MissTabStevens,

IMDB is - like Wikipedia - written by its users. Because of that it is not considered reliable enough to base an article on, not in the least because the content is not immutable. AVN is a decent source and claim to notability, but it only verified that the article's subject won the awards that were referenced. The rest of the article completely depended on IMDB for verification. Since the article is a BLP page, it needs to have quality source backing up what was written.

As for what is considered reliable - Sources are reliable if they are

Written by someone independent of the subject (So no paid advertorials or people who are close to the subject)
Written by an entity known for its quality (A large newspaper is more trustworthy then a blog for that reason)
Published by something of sufficient size (An article major newspaper is considered more reliable and noteworthy then an article a local newspaper that prints 10 newspapers every day).
And the converge in the source must be substantial. (Just because there is a 3 word mention in an article it doesn't mean that this is a reliable source for that subject)

And of course, the content from those sources must confirm what was written in the article itself. Especially for BLP pages one should have sources backing each line. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Adolphus Frederick Alexander Woodford

This being my first article, I want to thank you for making its acceptance brief and painless. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, though it is mostly thanks to yourself that the process was so brief and painless. The person itself is notable, the article is properly sourced and written in a neutral writing style. On top of that the formatting was equally decent, so all i really had to do was press the "accept" button on this one. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My Article

Dear Excirial< Thank you first of all for your prompt review of my submission and your thorough, topical and accurate review. Will make edits and re-submit a.s.a.p. Thank you for your work. Heligeweihe (talk)Heiligweihe

Glad to be of assistance, and best of luck (Or should i say "Skill" in this instance? :) ) with the article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Submitted Page Highcon Systems Ltd

Dear Sir, • I am contacting you since I'm having difficulties approving a page I have submitted. I have added reliable sources, and would like to ask to re-review the page. • My Wikipedia user name: ravitlevy • The page name: Highcon Systems Ltd.. • Can you kindly check the sources I have updated see if they count as reliable, or advise what would be considerate as reliable. Thanks and regards, Ravit Levy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravitlevy (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I went trough the references provided, but i fear that none of them can be classified as reliable. Three of the sources are created by the company itself, while the remaining two are created by a conference where Highcon was present (And therefor likely rented a stand). Due to this there sources are all considered to be primary sources - that is, sources close to the subject of the article. Since these sources are rarely impartial an article has to be sourced with secondary sources that are considered reliable.

As for the question: "What would be considered reliable" - Reliable sources have a few characteristics:

They are Independent of the subject.
They are written by and published by a sufficiently large entitiy that can be considered reliable.
The source is written in a neutral point of view.

Examples of such sources would be major newspapers, news websites, academic journals, widely distributed (professional) magazines and similar. What cannot be considered reliable are sources that are close to the subject of an article (Written by family, employees or paid for by the subject), sources that are published in minor sources (Personal blogs, websites and newspapers who only serve a small area) and sources which aren't neutral (Advertising and similar). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

About Articles_for_creation/PicaJet

Hi Excirial,

Thanks for so quick checking of my article:Articles_for_creation/PicaJet. I've lost the {{reflist}} when saving my previous publishing. Could you please check it again. Mike

Hiyas there Mike, I see that Huon already accepted the article and moved it into the mainspace in the meantime. I guess there is little for me to add here, seeing that it was already accepted. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nine Kinds of Naked

Hi there, and thanks for your helpful feedback. I've added reliable sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria. What do you think?

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

Thanks!

I see the article has been changed several times in the meantime, and that a few more editors reviewed the page itself. Since some time has expired (Sorry about that!) I'm not entirely certain if you're still working on the article, or if another editor already jumped in to help. If you still want me to have a look, just give me a nudge

Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Itwa (Siddharth Nagar)

what is problem in my article??? what I should do so that you accept it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiyaz Khan (SRMSCET) (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Faiyaz,

One major problem with the article is that it is - for most part - not based on reliable sources. A large share of the content of the article is not backed up by the references that were supplied for it. Since i tend to enjoy working on geographic locations i changed the article to a more wiki-friendly format and removed most of the unverifiable text.

It still is far from perfect since it heavily relies on flimsy sources, but in this shape it might be able to pass (Note the "Might"). What the article really needs is some decent quality sources that back it up further. For example, normally these types of article's can be backed up with governmental census data. I assume that there may be more sources written in another language than English as well, which can also help. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thermochron article

Dear Excirial,

You stated that the term appears to be coined by a company for a specific product. My point exactly! Their product "ibutton" is a thermochron, and they are clever enough to trademark the term thermochron. However, I believe the term is general enough to apply to any device which measures temperature and stores the information over time. Hence, the article, in encyclopedic fashion, describes the device "type". I agree that Maxim, having trademarked the term, is clever in protecting their interests. However the term will be generally available to the population at large, and I even thought it was strange that there was no such definition in the encyclopedia.

Take for example the term "computer" which describes a device which "computes." At some point, some company may have tried to trademark or copyright that term, and in today's legalistic environment, they may just be allowed to do it. I think the term "thermochron" is general enough to be relevant in any discussion over the measurement of temperature, same as the term "parachute" would be to describe skydiving, as it's derived from other words. Should we wait until the trademark expires to explain to the populous what "thermochron" means?

Thanks for your patience and review.

Best Regards, DWMoonan (DWMoonan (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC))

Hello there DWMoonan,

There is no need to wait until the trademark expires before one can create an article about a certain term. What is necessarily, however, is demonstrating that the term is used by the general populace as opposed to be a buzzword made by a single company. Take for example the Google (verb) article, which details the use of the word "Google" as a synonym for "Searching information on the internet". Google itself may be a company and still hold the trademark, but the word became so commonly used that it changed into a homonym.

So if you intend to write the article about the word as opposed to writing about the product, you would have to find reliable sources that are independent of Maxim that display that the term is used for more then just "their" range of products. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Shane Bowden review

Hi.

Thanks for reviewing my edition. I was wondering if you could help me with the article. I just revised a link about the archibald prize to link to the actual wiki page where it shows him as a finialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Archibald_Prize_2010_finalists

What else would help.

Thanks Tiam — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiamWhitfield (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Tiam,

The main problem with the article is that it is completely devoid of reliable sources that can back up the content that was written. These sources are required for any article par the inclusion criteria - However, since the article you wrote details a living person it is absolutely mantadory to back what is written in the article with these reliable sources.

As to what constitutes a reliable source: Any secondary source that is independent of the subject of the article and which was written and published by an entity of sufficient size / acclaim. Since this is quite a mouthful of text it may be easier to explain if i break it down into parts:

Secondary source: Anything not published or written by someone close to the subject (Sources written by family members, employees et cetera cannot be used)
Independent: Anything not related to the subject of the article (Advertorials, paid-for article et cetera cannot be used)
Entity of sufficient size and acclaim: Something known or expected to write correct information (Major newspapers et cetera are examples that would pass this criteria).

Wikipedia itself cannot be used to cite an article, since it is a tertiary source. Additionally, you might end up with circular referencing where article 1 cites 2, 2 cites 3 and 3 cites 1 again. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For all your various contributions. CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 05:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'll talk to you later, thanks! ;) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The_institute_for_insterstellar_studies

Dear Editor I seem to have inadvertently violated someone's copyright in developing a new page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_institute_for_insterstellar_studies&action=edit&redlink=1 As the editor who spotted this, can you enlighten me as the nature of the violation. I am preparing the page on behalf of the Institute and its executive director, Kelvin Long, and its important to me that I get this right As evidence of my previous (modest) contribution to Wikipedia please look at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Computer_Science - which I originated and has had subsequent contributions from distinguished computer scientists including - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Kirstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coulouris_(computer_scientist) Hope you can help, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jid (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there John,

The issue with this page was that it was for most a word-for-word copy of several other websites, which in turn meant it was a copyright violation since these sites didn't explicitly state that the content was released under a license compatible to Wikipedia (Such as CC-BY-SA or GDFL). Note that it is a bad idea to copy pages word for word regardless of copyright status, since websites are rarely written in an encyclopic writing style. For reference, some of the pages in question were:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=25084 (No specific copyright claim)

Note that copyright is automatically granted on written content whether asserted or not, and that the copyright status decides if content can be used on Wikipedia, regardless of who owns the copyright. So even though the i4is belongs to the article's subject the content cannot be used directly as-is. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Excirial I'll produce a new and succinct draft with zero quotation of other sites. I'll then leave it to others to expand Jid (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding info to Rank Uiller Article

Dear Excirial, Following your advice, I've included the ISSN of the periodical publication where appears reliable information regarding Rank Uiller. Please, could you review that? After that, I appreciate any word from you. Thanks. Kind regards, Zoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoepe (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Zoe.

Generally taken i try to review an article only once in a row, before allowing another reviewer to have a look at it. By doing so another editor can have a "fresh" look at the changes which tends to yield better reviews (If only due to the possibility that they spot an issue i missed or didn't comment on myself). The review queue isn't to bad so it shouldn't be more then a few days before someone has a look at it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_University_of_Bangladesh

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_University_of_Bangladesh

[1]