User talk:Excirial/Archive 24

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Author of Citizenville Book

Hello Excirial,

My name is Catie. I just submitted an article about Citizenville, which you denied because of this: No indication that the book passes the inclusion criteria set in WP:NBOOK. Gavin Newsom, the author of the book, I believe falls under guideline 5: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

Gavin Newsom has twice been mayor of San Francisco and is now Lieutenant Governor of California. Can you give me any further information as to what more I might need to include? Does his political career not make him a notable author?

Thank you for your time and I hope you are having a nice day!

————Catie Hart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmharts (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Catie,

Unfortunately the answer to the last two questions would be no. While Gavin Newsom is notable enough for a biographic article, this does not mean that anything created or written by him is equally notable for inclusion (Notability is not inherited - being related to someone notable doesn't grant the related topic notability as well). If this would be the case every book written by a celebrity would automatically qualify for an article, not to mention anything else that might suddenly be notable due to being related.

Criteria 5 itself equally does not apply here. As the second part states: (To quality for this criteria) This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.. To put it as a jest: I doubt that there will be many college classes doing an academic analysis of Gavin Newsom. Criteria 5 is only intended for extremely well known writers such as William Shakespeare - In these cases any work written by that author tends to be analyzed and thus deemed notable.

As for what you can do for the article: Proof it is notable par the book policy trough criteria 1,2,3 or 4. Seeing as to how the book isn't even published yet i would say it is extremely difficult to near impossible for a biographical book to pass these criteria already though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Strypes

I submitted an article about Irish band the strypes and it was declined, they are a great new band from Cavan with fans like elton john who help them get a music contract and it has even been written in some online music magazines that the band don't even have a wiki page. So I decided to create one I was planing on improving it over time if it was accepted23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Kramcox (talk) and was wondering why it was declined? Thank you for reading.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Excirial&action=edit&section=new#

Hiyas there Kramcox,

If an article is declined, the decline reason is present on the article page, which equally contains some links to the policy page explaining why it was declined. In this specific case the page did not prove that the band it detailed was importent enough for encyclopedic inclusion. The previous link contains background information on the criteria that make a subject notable as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Page update for another review

Dear Excirial, Further to our last corresponding regarding the page of "Highcon Systems Ltd". Thank you for your reply and clarification. I have added secondary sources, Will very much appreciated if you can review it once again. Thank you, Ravit

Hiyas there Ravit,

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)} 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council

Hi thanks for the edit. I've removed the citation / reference to the website and reposted. Please advice if that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASWPC (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there ASWPC,

The issue with the page is not the usage of a citation or reference that points to it - instead was that the submitted article contained a word-for-word copy of another website. This, in turn, meant that the article was a copyright violation as the website in question clearly states that the content on is copyrighted under a license that is incompatible with Wikipedia (Wikipedia can only accept content published under CC-BY-SA or GDFL directly). 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, the page in question was:

• http://corporate.tourism.gov.my/mediacentre.asp?page=news_from_trade&news_id=54&subpage=archive (Marked "Copyright © 2008 Tourism Malaysia. All rights reserved ")

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 if you would be the original writer of that content the license on the page would prevent the content from being used as-is. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

John Greenway bio

I added content to better demonstrate notability and included citation to journal article. My editing skills are still clunky (one of the references appears twice), so some clean up is needed. Let me know if this does the trick. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that there is already a Wikipedia page on the Journal of American Folklore that contains a list of its former editors in chief. John Greenway is listed there, but the hyperlink with his name connects to a different John Greenway who was most certainly not an American folklorist. So once we get the new item on this John Greenway posted, then the link on the Journal's Wikipedia page can be corrected. That article appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_American_Folklore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lernerini (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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). As of current the review queue isn't to bad so it shouldn't be more then a few days before someone has a look at it - in order to arrange that i added the current revision back into the review queue. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My Page Mystifly has been deleted on content copyright issues

Hi, I had created a page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mystifly. But this has been deleted by you for breach of copyright. I apologise for that. This is the first time i was creating content on wiki and hence was not too aware of the rules. Since i was introducing a company and its product i used the content from their website. If you feel this was inappropriate then kindly give me the permission to recreate content for the same. Kindly advise and guide how do i proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipps13 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Dipps,

Under the current copyright laws any written content is automatically copyrighted by its writer, even if the writer does not explicitly assert it as being copyrighted. Because of that any content on the web can be considered copyrighted, unless specifically stated otherwise. Even so it is rarely a good idea to copy content from an external site, as it is unlikely to be written in an encyclopedic style and tone. In other words: you can use external sites as a basis for finding information, but not as a source for written content. As for what to do:

• First determine if the company is likely to be notable. If it is not notable, and article won't be kept no matter how well written.
• Then find reliable sources that back up this notability claim, and write an article based on them in your own words.
• During the entire process be wary of non neutral content or wording - advertising isn't allowed.

You may want to use the good article category to search for an example company page that has been vetted as good quality as a basis for your own. And i cannot stress enough: Very few companies are notable for encyclopedic inclusion in the first place, so if you doubt it will be notable you are extremely likely to be correct. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

AfC Buddy Counts

Hi Excirial, I am trying to figure out why AfC Buddy is counting differently than my list. Am I making a mistake somewhere? If I review an article more than once (because it has been re-submitted) am I to only count that once? Not a big deal, but am curious, as I am the only one who seems to be inflating his review count. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there seveneightdottwosix,

All reviews are counted (Or should be), including deleted and double reviews (actually all AFCBuddy does is download all edits made by an editor in a certain timeframe, and check for AFCH tags). Even so it is quite likely it can and will be off by a review or two for any editor - The editor may have missed a review, listed a review that didn't use the AFCH script or AFCBuddy might simply not detect a review correctly at times due to some form of special condition. Initially i tried to debug these missing contributions, but due to the mistake ratio being less then a percent i eventually stopped doing this since it was quite time consuming to run trough 200 edits to figure the contributer missed a review.

The reason you are the only one who's currently off isn't exactly because it only misses a review on your contributions - most of the editors are on the request list for AFCBuddy's diff generating feature by now. Since AFCBuddy is now generating that list for them it is actually comparing the contribution list against itself (And i would really be worried if that count was off!). The other 5 editors who generate their diff list manually only did a handful of reviews, so statistically taken it is unlikely AFCBuddy would miss one for them. Since you did a whole lot more you're chance of running into a miscount is simply quite a bit higher. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Key Investor Information Document (KIID)

Hi, could you send me my original article so i can review it and remove the parts that may have caused it to be rejected please? Thanks, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJosephKnight (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Benjamin. I am afraid that is a "No can do" - the added content was a copyright violation, which means that it cannot be restored for legal reasons. The page content seemed to match this page though, so you may find a large share of the article's content over there. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cardboard Castles

Hi Excirial,

I just put up my first page (Cardboard Castles) and I don't understand why it's not being accepted. The only sites I use are Watsky's official (and verified) Twitter account, his official youtube account, and his official website.

The page was denied because of a lack of 'reliable sources.'

What can I do to fix this?

Thanks for your help.

Adam fishman (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Adam,

The sources you listed are so-called primary sources, which are sources written by the subject or someone close to the subject of a page. Since primary sources are close to the subject they often have an conflict of interest which may make them biased and thus unreliable. Reliable sources are equally used to determine if a subject is notable - that is, "noteworthy" enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia. If that criteria would be based on what people would write regarding themselves we would end up with a rather useless encyclopedia.

Therefor instead of primary sources you will need secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources would - for example - be major newspapers, major news websites, larger magazines, scientific journals and so on. Besides this you may also want to have a glance at WP:NALBUMS, to see if the album could already pass the notability criteria for it as being created by a well known musician isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Neely article

Dear Excirial,

I've got copyright notice from you while trying to submit Glenn Neely article. It is a mistake. Article content goes DIRECTLY from Glenn Neely, and he PERSONALLY approved content in article. Link to timer digest PDF you've sent to me (as the reason for deletion) contain just a LITTLE part of article information. Information inside PDF is public, and free for all. I believe we can solve that mistake, just give me hints what should i do. It is very pity that you deleted whole article without deep "copyright restriction" research.

Thank you very much, Dennis signed unsigned comment for Dennis.nasarov

Hello Dennis,

Quite a few things i should comment on here.

• Best to start with the copyright issue. The PDF in question is marked with "Copyright © 2012, Timer Digest. All Rights Reserved." on the front page, which clearly asserts that the content in it is copyrighted and not compatible with the CC-BY-SA / GDFL dual license that Wikipedia uses. Note that this isn't the only copyright violation; Large parts are copied directly from http://www.neowave.com/faqs.asp, which in turn is marked "© 2013". Whether or not the copyright is owned by the subject of the article or publically availible is irrelevant - the content is simply copyrighted and therefor cannot be used directly.
• Second issue: The article is straight-up advertising. In 1983, Mr. Neely founded Elliott Wave Institute (now NEoWave, Inc.) and is internationally regarded for his work to transform Wave analysis into a logical, As a respected, innovative leader in the technical market analysis field, Due to its step-by-step, logical approach, NEoWave transformed R.N. Elliott’s intriguing theory into a comprehensive market analysis and forecasting system.. All these are examples of advertising and peacock wording, which is not allowed.
• Third issue: The article is not supported by reliable sources. What is included is a PR release, a self written text, a link to a self written book on amazon and a forum post. There are either primary sources or not deemed reliable. Any article - and especially biographies of living persons must be supported by reliable sources. Both for the sake of verifiability and the sake of notability.
• Fourth issue: You are writing on behaf of the article subject, which means that you are a COI - or a so called conflict of interest with the subject. Editing while having a COI floats somewhere between "strongly discourages" and "not allowed" as far as the respective policy goes.

To be quite blunt: The article would need a complete rewrite to be anywhere near acceptable. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye Technology Inc.

I recently submitted a page for review Hawkeye Technology Inc. It says it was deleted for copyright infringement. I am not clear on what in the article was considered copyright. I spoke with RHaworth on his talk page about this and he suggested that it wasn't a copyright violation and it should have been tagged a different way. If you could please give me some direction on why you deleted this article I would greatly appreciate it. If there is any way to get the article back I would be grateful, but I assume there is not. I would like some feedback on what I could change in order to not have deleted before I spend my time making another article only to have it deleted. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsctech (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed he sarcasm in RHaworth comment - if i were to rephrase it freely his comment states "The article shouldn't have been tagged as a copyright violation, but it should have been removed on sight for being spam". Why it wasn't tagged as such? Because i strongly believe that submissions submitted trough AFC should receive some lenience in regards to the usual general deletion rules even if they technically apply to those pages as well - and because a legal issue such as copyright violation is a more serious issue then a wikipedia content issue (One is against the law, two is merely a site-own policy) .Having said that - the article actually is a copyright violation as it literally copies several lines of text from [1] and [2] while paraphrasing a few other. Both of the linked pages explicitly state their content is copyrighted, which in turn means that copying them is a copyright violation. Also note that i didn't delete the page - RHaworth did.

As for improving the page:

• Don't copy content directly from any external source, unless it is explicitly released under a free license (CC-BY-SA or GDFL). And even then you often don't want to do so, since encyclopedic writing styles tend to differ from the ye-average text.
• Read WP:BFAQ carefully. This is not really specific to your article, but i advise doing so when writing any company-related article.
• Check if the company can pass WP:CORP.
• Check if the company can back up point 2 trough reliable sources.
• Write a basic article that is completely sourced with these reliable sources and submit it for review.

Even so i would point out that company's are only rarely notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Even taking into consideration that company related article's are quite often submitted (Which, from a marketing stance is understandable) only a fraction enters the main article space, and even fewer remain there after a couple of years. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Surrender The Fall

Hello,

Below is the link to the article I created

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

The band Surrender The Fall is signed to Rum Bum Records owned by Luis Bacard from the Bacardi Rum Family. I have added all content associated press wise from the band including adding the review from Billboard magazine which has the billboard quote.

Let me know what else you need to make the page live.

Thank You,

Rodger Reiter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgerreiter (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Rodger,

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). If you believe the article is fine now just submit it for another review (I have just done this for you). Once it is in the queue an editor will stop by and see if it is fine now - if not, there should be some different or updated feedback available after the review. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation : Vinit K Sinha

Hi Exciral,

I have gone through the copyright violation on my Afc:Vinit K Sinha. and since i am new to Wiki edit. I will make sure next time will cite the references properly. please off the ban of blanking page so that i could edit and continue to make contributions. Thanks Bmeforum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmeforum (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Bmeforum,

If a page is a copyright violation there is little else that can be done except removing it, since this is a legal issue. You can write your own page based on external sources but you cannot copy the content of that source directly or paraphrase it to closely. The best course of action would be redoing the article in your own words, and submitting that for review. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy righted work?

hi

you have declined my article as it contains copyrite work and am wondering what part of the article was copyrite. the photograph was taken from Rebeccas' press pack which was linked as were all the biography information. i have had permission from Rebecca to use all the work and she has also said she will write a forward or note to allow this work to be aired on the wiki

Regards Blade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade in exile (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems handled trough OTRS already (link Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jigfun

I've changed the block from your soft block to a spamublock as they've also used another account User:Johnhdickinson to post the same stuff. I've just warned that one, but if it acts again, I'll block it for socking. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, ill keep an eye out on the AFC space as well to see if another user would happen to submit the same content. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Marathi Artya

Hi Friend,

I will definitely submit English Article of same data !!

But how can i submit the same into Marathi OR Hindi from English.

This was the message displayed : (The submission appears to be written in Hindi. This is the English Language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English Language. Please provide a high-quality English Language translation of your submission. Otherwise, you may write it in the Hindi Wikipedia.)

Please, Can you help me with this?

Thanks !!

(Rd2792 (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

Hiyas there Rd2792,

Every language has its own Wikipedia variety, which means that (for example) the English Wikipedia only accepts English submissions and so on. A list of available Wikipedia can be found here. As of writing the Hindi Wikipedia is listed as the 41 largest Wiki, while the Marathi wiki is listed as number 70. An additional note is that each Wikipedia has its own set of rules, submission process and so on. They are often generally familiar with the English variety (Quite a few adopt the English wiki's ruleset as a baseline to build on) though this is not a general rule. Since i am not to acquainted with non-english Wikipedia's i fear i cannot be of too much assistance as far as submitting content to them goes. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Friend,

Thanks for your help...now, i was able to create the article with native language (hindi/ marathi) etc.

Once again thanks !!! Best Luck & Happy New Year!!

Regards,

(Rd2792 (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

Deleted Page- International Schools Technology Association (IntSTA)

Dear Excirial

Hi I'm Jonathan and my Wikipedia account is jmjjulius. I enjoy taking part in Wkikipedia and I agree that it is very useful. I have submitted my page about the webpage article International Schools Technology Association (IntSTA)and it says that it had been reviewed earlier today. The page is deleted due to the content's notability and referencing, however, the referencing is clearly stated, the source which is intsta.weebly.com is in the list of references. The quote stated in the content is also from the webpage and is also quoted under the association's name. Maybe if you could kindly inform me the materials needed for this, I will be very greatful of appreciation.

Thank you for your colaboration.

Best, Jonathan M. J. --Jmjjulius (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see there have been no edits from your account since the 17th, so for the moment i am assuming you are MIA. If this is not the case just give me a nudge - i'll move this question to the "first question needing a response" location then. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Excirial

Hello. We're meeting again. First of all I wanna say to you, that I understand the WP policies and guidelines and know how to review. After your message I learnt them and now I'm ready to review articles at AFC. Can I start from there where I was stopped? I mean can I join to the January Backlog elimination drive? Please answer me.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a grounds policy-wise that allows me to tell you "You cannot review any more article's", at least not without me raising this for consensus on ANI or similar first.

Even so - During my review of your reviews i posted several diffs on the #Wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, and the reaction for the reviews unanimously echo'ed the earlier message i wrote. In other words, if you are going to review more article's please review them only if you are certain that a criteria applies. Incorrect or invalid decline reasons cause more harm then good and quite frankly i prefer not spending another 1.5 hours going trough 200 or so diffs in order to reopen the worst cases for another review. Besides this i would personally be quite a bit more comfortable with this if you started reviewing again after the backlog drive is over for the simply reason that the competitive element is no longer present at that time (I still blame factor for part of the reviews) - Do note that the last line is an opinion though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For what reason is the Open Media Database not approved?

You disapproved the Open Media Database. I don't understand why. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, though often there is not an opportunity that is worth the time. The OMDB page not existing seemed to me like a significant opportunity, and it is a world known database. I have added more references to it, though it has no commercial affiliations, so there is little more than references from search engines and informational articles. If it was more complete and popular, it might possibly have a news article written about it, but you don't even see much more of that for the IMDB.

I don't see notability as an issue with the OMDB (popularity is though), so what then is lacking that would make this page worthy of adding? The IMDB is the biggest competing resource, but it is commecial, so how did they become note-worthy?

I added some more sources, and may add more if necessary (though I doubt more would be helpful to anyone). If it is this hard to add a simple third party, useful information article, I doubt I'm going risk wasting much time with future contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogbudgie (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see there have been no edits from your account since the 17th, so for the moment i am assuming you are MIA. If this is not the case just give me a nudge - i'll move this question to the "first question needing a response" location then. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability

when i first submitted the article..my article was declined. It seemed much like an advertisement was what said!! and when i resubmitted it editing evrerything that seemed like an advertisement... now you are saying..This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability how come??? please clarify. thanks Naxatrahindi (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several policies linked in the decline template itself, and those policies generally do a good job explaining their core reason in the first couple of lines. Have you read at least the first two lines in WP:CORP and the "This page in a nutshell" template on the notability page? Since your question doesn't specify anything specific to clarify any response i would give would simply rehash those 5 lines of text. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

EHL Career Club

Re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EHL Career Club: I don't need to know that you rejected it! Try telling the other guy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't blame me for that - if you substitute the AFC submission template it will add the name of the user who substituted it as the name of the submitter for the article. The AFCH script will send the rejection template to the editor in that field. So if your submitting for someone else just update the name to the original editors name afterwards. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to post messages in two places. Advice noted in case I ever do the same again. I did realise that the message on my page had been generated automatically. My message was not so much a complaint but a suggestion that you might like to notify the real author as well - not that it matters much since I have blocked them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Kulaksiz Court Cases - North Cyprus Page

Dear Excirial,

Thank you for your recent review of my short article on North Cyprus Page.

May I say that I am pleased that an editor/reviewer has left slightly more telling clues than before. Thank you for your comment.

In reply to your comment, I would have written more about situation, and given more background, but unfortunately, I was knocked back for not having provided evidence/sources to substantiate my version of events.

Therefore, I put together a small number of articles and videos and other sources, and took a sentence from each of them and quoted it in the article, in such a way as to start the article in some form. However, it has obviously not worked as it has this time been knocked back for reading like a news article.

It would be a shame for me to give up, considering, it is a compelling story which affects 3000 lives directly in a serious (life threatening way) and if you include their families and children (mainly back in the UK)the events are having a secondary affect on them.

Please, could you simply drop, one, or mabye 2 more subtle, clues, hints, indications, for me to continue improving the article.

Kind regards,

ToZero62.197.212.212 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there ToZero,

Reading the article once over i cannot help but notice that the "The Kulaksiz Court Cases" page seems to be written a writing style that is similar to a newspaper; The article is specifically focused on a single event without having to much background context. Additionally, a large share of the article is dedicated to quoting people's responses to the case itself. Encyclopedic article's tend to differ in their format - Have a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article for example. The article starts with a short lead (summary) of the subject, followed by background information and a neutral description of the event it describes.

Having stated that, i feel the article would have difficulty passing the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" criteria. The court cases as they stand are an extension of a large problem caused Greece's debt right now. There have been multiple media reports regarding this case, but the coverage seems to be very limited to a specific time period. It is quite likely that several newspapers jumped on the case, and will never report on them again. In that case the event would have little lasting notability, which would in turn means it wouldn't pass the mentioned criteria for inclusion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Excirial,

You are right about it reading like a newspaper, born out of an inability to put any form of background without it being rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence or insufficient sources. I'm sure I can do something about this.

However, where I have to disagree with you is on your observation that this has been of notability, for a specific period of time. This is not substantiated by the evidence as a variety of newspapers both in the north and the south and mainland turkey have covered the story continuously between early 2010, and today. In fact, the Kulaksiz Case took time to become established in the minds of the Turkish Cypriot community, until the public auction, when the president himself turned up. (on this point, I have literally in my possession, a number of letters sent back and forth to various parties regarding Kulaksiz, by founding President Rauf Denktas - can I use these to highlight the cases) and slowly but surely, as many other cases emerged on the island, it became apparant to the newspapers, public, and government that Kulaksiz case had become a metaphor for the abuses taking place towards elderly expats who had attempted to retire there.

The kulaksiz has grown definitely, linearly, but more probably exponentially in notariety since Asil Nadir himself ordered his newspaper Kibris, to run front news on it before the auction.

Lastly, although it has taken a long time, the Turkish Cypriot community, has slowly woken up to the realisation that there unbelievable transformation in wealth came about it as a result of over 1 billion in investment, and that slowly, as result of blackmail across builders, lawyers, government (yes government are withholding transfer of deeds until expats pay for their builders/landowners taxes who now refuse to pay them), landowners, and banks. Each one of the aforementioned has blackmailed an entire community of foreign home buyers, expats and visitors alike. Kulaksiz is without a doubt the worse case as the fraud is so apparant, and clear, with evidence of Fraud being available for anyone to see.

Kulaksiz is now a nationally recognised name, and the community are aware that a turn around in the Kulaksiz case, will represent a landmark in the turn around of injustice towards their visitors, which will in turn represent the start of the long road to economic recovery. Whilst everyone is aware that less foreigners including UK citizens can afford to buy abroad in the current climate, many understand that the economic disaster would have taken place anyway as a result of the abuses, simply on a milder scale.

All of this is totally true, all of it I can back up time an time again. The newspapers have written more about the case as it goes along, I have primary evidence of the fraud, and a number of letters between officials regarding the case.

What I suspect is that it is of no interest to anyone who doesn't live in North Cyprus. However, if I went to any single one of the many country pages, and read what was notable and recent in that country it would be news to me. Therefore, I still hold that this case is of immense notability in North Cyprus, linked metaphorically to the economic armageddon there, and should be discussed in the article, or at least in a seperate article.

I just can't find any editor who thinks it's notable, simply because they haven't personally heard of it.

ToZero (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a very quick note that i haven't forgotten this one. Problem right now is that t don't have the time to dive into the subject matter and write a decent reply - and i don't want to settle for some half-decent response either. (I hope to have time during the weekend though). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, seems this one has been waiting for a decent reply quite a bit longer than by best "estimated time to response" calculated, not even mentioning my preferred "within a few days" response time. Either way, time to write something actually related to the page in question.

I read the entire article, checked each of the supplied references and did a search for more myself but even after doing so i am still fairly pessimistic as to the notability of the event. My own search mainly seems to yield a mountain of links from the "northcyprusfreepress.com", while yielding little to no links created by other news sources. In fact, if i do a search specifically excluding "northcyprusfreepress.com" i almost immediately land in the "Forum and blogs" area, which tends to be a dead-end as far as reliable sourcing goes.

Now, if i analyze the added sourcing:

• http://northcyprusfreepress.com/law/breaking-news-brs-calls-for-kulaksiz-5-support/ - This source seems to be call for action to support the people in the court cases, which is far from neutral wording. As far as neutral and reliable sourcing goes this is not the best possible example to base an article on.
• http://www.kkg2011.com/index.php?cID=52 - Same issue as the last source really. The websites home page explicitly identifies itself as a rights group intended to aid property owners. Even i discount the possible conflict of interest in this source the group itself seems to be a very minor join effort, which would pass the size and "importance" requirement for a reliable source.
• https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=229f30d9a4dcbec2&id=229F30D9A4DCBEC2!514 - Only details the electricity usage of the buildings, and barely covers the case at all. This is - at most - some slightly related information in tabloid format (This sort of coverage often surrounds events - a war starts, you receive top level coverage, but after a while the coverage seems to change to eyewitness reports and interviews simply because there is nothing new to report.)
• The three remaining sources are somewhat more decent since they actually cover the case and offer some background information..

Even so fear the subject would have a hard time meeting the inclusion criteria for events. If we look at the notability policy for events it would only meet 1 criteria: Duration of coverage. There is no lasting effect that i could trace (If this court case were to be the basis of some landmark ruling things would be quite different); the geographic scope is limited to a very specific area (Norther Cyprus); the depth of coverage seems limited to "regular" news articles at most and the diversity of sources seems to be quite limited at 1 or 2 local newspapers.

Now, can the article subject be notable for inclusion? To be honest, i fear it won't meet the criteria no matter what changes are made simply due to the event being minor at best (Based on what i could find that is). Of course i can be wrong and i have been wrong in the past, but in those cases editors often came around with multiple sources that cannot be easily traced online without a specific search (Scientific journals, magazines, print-only newspaper article's and the like). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Excirial,

Regrding you message on my Talk Page having reviewed the Kulaksiz Cases again,.....what can I say?

You have clearly done a lot of research, a lot of reading, and sure enough you have been through the 'notability' aspect as thoroughly as ever be could expected.

I cannot ask you for any more, nor will I. It is disappointing, because these cases have destroyed the North Cyprus economy which relied on foreign home buying tourism. Nevertheless, not notable enough, is what it is, and I accept your final verdict.

Thank you for your time, and for your explicit and comprehensive review. Again, I can't ask you for any more than the review you gave.

ToZero — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToZero (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok so KUlaksiz is not notable enough to have it's own page - that's fine. However, the economy of North Cyprus section is still grossly misleading and totally inaccurate, and makes no reference to homebuying tourism, or the abuses

Please can you read this section which is the economy section. This is grossly inaccurate, and should make some mention of the huge property boom, the property abuses, the vast number of people who did not obtain title, and the subsequent collapse of the economy due to the re-migration of foreign home-buyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Northern_Cyprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToZero (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

AfC backlog drive script

Hi Excirial and thanks first of all for developing the script! However, I found two possible bugs. Here's the diff that contains both of these issues.

1. My name (The Anonymouse) gets turned into "The_Anonymouse" (adds an underscore) every time you run the script. Although the underscore isn't necessary and doesn't harm anything, I prefer my username without it.
2. ‎Pratyya Ghosh got removed from the list.

But other than those issues, it's a great script. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in both cases AFC functions as it should - instead it is the driver that took a wrong turn.

• AFCBuddy has an internal hardcoded participants list, so that i don't have to type all the names every time i run it (And i haven't bothered making it somewhat more dynamic). I added your name as The_Anonymouse for some test purpose i don't even recall and never changed it afterwards. Now, since there is really no reason to have an underscore that is now corrected for the next run.
• ‎Pratyya Ghosh is somewhat of a special case. There were some serious review quality issues for his reviews, which led to a high amount of "FAIL" re-reviews and some more fun. Back then AFCBuddy's beta version wasn't able to catch everything for the "Place reviewed reviews in a separate section" part of the program so i just removed ‎Pratyya from the users to check list. Now it seems that this had the side effect that it completely ignores Pratyya altogether from the totals and leaderboard list.

That latter part was not exactly intended, but at the time it may not even have been such a bad thing. Still, since he asked for another chance i re-added him to the list. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Strivia article rejected

Hi Excirial,

Recently you rejected my article about Strivia game. The reason is that it's non-notable.

1st of all, thank you for reviewing it.

I'm new to writing something on Wikipedia, English isn't my 1st language and even user interface confuses me sometimes. It will be awesome if you share some additional details about exactly why it was rejected: Strivia doesn't worth to have an article about it, my article isn't good enough (I failed significant coverage, reliable, etc.), my English is too bad, etc?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlexandrSoloveyko (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there OlexandrSoloveyko.

First off, welcome to Wikipedia! Trust me - the user interface will eventually grow somewhat less confusing though it could definitely use some polish here and there. As for the article: Every article must demonstrate why it is notable - that is, why it is important \ significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia the general criteria for this is the so-called general notability guideline, while there are also some more specific guidelines that deal with specific subject (For example, the notability of music related subjects or businesses. At the very basis all there policies can be summarized as "If there are multiple reliable sources of sufficient size covering the subject in detail, it is likely notable for inclusion". For example, if something received lengthy coverage in multiple major newspapers it is likely more likely meet that threshold then a subject that is only covered by a single local newspaper.

If we look specifically at the Strivia article: it details a new game that was just released. The article has no reliable sources that can back it up, and due to it being new it is quite unlikely there had already been sufficient coverage that could be used to pass this criteria. Note that most individual games tend to have a difficult time passing the notability guideline, and the absolute majority never never manages to do so (Only major "hits" such as Draw Something and similar manage to pass in most cases). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashford Handicrafts

Hello, and thanks for tagging this article for notability. 5 years later, the tag is still there. You may want to consider taking it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that is what i call blast-from-the-past! That must be one of the earliest tags i ever placed, since i had been around only 6 months back then. Either way, definitely seems non-notable by todays standards so tagged for PROD. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Gayler MBE

hi there,

we are trying to submit a page on chef Paul Gayler, however the response we got was that the text has been copied from other sources (I wrote the text and it was not taken from anywhere else). I am now unsure how to get around this. Do i need to rewrite the article? please do let me know. we are keen to get a page on Paul Gayler MBE up on Wikipedia as no information is currently available and he is one of the UK's most famous chefs.

please do let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.138.58 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it curious that you refer to yourself as "we" - i assume that you are a public relations company or similar who is representing Mr. Gayler? Though honestly that is a rhetorical question since there are several signs that you are an employee of PR firm Luchford APM - seeing that the IP address belongs to that company while they also lists Lanesborough as one of their clients.

If so, you may want to read Wikipedia's FAQ for businesses and the policy on paid editing. Equally this link might be of some interest. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of article due to copyright

Hi Excirial - I'm Alexmcdowell, and recently submitted an article on World Building to Wikipedia. I'm curious about a decision I think you made to delete the article because it used copyright material. I've cut and pasted the specific response from you below.

Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Building. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission! You can also get live chat help from experienced editors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The material I submitted was written by myself, and as far as I am aware is original. I teach a series of classes at USC Los Angeles on world building based on my design methodology and philosophy, and want to start a wikipage on my subject that the students can use to add research develop their own ideas, and build out the page as an education source. Haven't done this before, so if you can advise on how to resubmit my writing correctly it would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Alex McDowell Associate Professor of Production, IMD, iMAP Director, World Building Media Lab USC School of Cinematic Arts Los Angeles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcdowell (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Alex,

I marked the page as a copyright violation since its content seems to have been literally copied from [3]. Now seeing the above explanation (Not to mention the signature on that particular page) i think i can conclude with little doubt that you have indeed written these pages. However, copyright technically all written content is considered copyrighted unless specifically stated otherwise. Since there is no specific copyright claim or released on the page in question this defaults to "Copyrighted content" which cannot be used directly on Wikipedia (Only content specifically licenses under the CC-BY-SA / GDFL or compatible copyright licenses can be copied directly). Now even if this would not have been the case the page as is would have read like original research. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should base its article's on external reliable sources and provide an encyclopedic summary of these. Most times the easiest way to start an article is by collecting reliable sources other people wrote and afterwards summarizing there while quoting the sources for each citation. Having said the above i should mention i noticed is that there is already an article detailing Worldbuilding, which on first glance seems to be detailing the same subject as the world-building article you created. If that is the case it may be more convenient to expand or improve the existing article if possible, since the subject is already covered in a "live" article.

Another point i should comment on is the mention that you may be interested in editing the article as a class project. Now before anything else i would add the warning that editing Wikipedia as a class project is often more complex then the average essay assignment - Wikipedia article's tend to have a different structure than most essays which tends to cause a somewhat steeper learning curve. Additionally there are editors working on Wikipedia article's from around the globe so editing Wikipedia tends to result in a less controlled or stable examining / teaching environment. Now, this does by no means mean that student editing is impossible - there are multiple universities who have one time or periodic curriculum's revolving around editing Wikipedia article's. Note that this is a subject i am not to familiar with, so if you may be interested, the Wikipedia Education Outreach Program may be of interest to you. (And since i happened to have it bookmarked an example: this was what the freshman fifteen page looked like before an university course, and this is what it looked like afterwards. Nowadays (two years afterwards) the core of that article is still based on the writing from that specific course, with some updates / changes / improvements over the years of course.

Now, i hope this proves to be useful and apologies for the wall of text. Being brief has never been one of my forte's. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The AFCBuddy

Hey, how did you create the AFCBuddy? Of course you'll think me as a fool. But seriously I like programing, But don't know how to do them. So please tell me!?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiyas there Pratyya,

As with other program AFCBuddy was created using a specific programming language that defines what it should do and what it should look like. There are hundreds if not thousands of different languages, each easier or more difficult to learn and each better or worse suited for a specific task or program. Note that you really only need to know one or a few of these languages, and that (Exceptions not included) programs are mostly written in just a single language.

AFCBuddy itself is developed in VB.net which is fairly easy to learn, commonly used and more then powerful enough to write virtually any desktop application one would create as a hobby. The development IDE i use to program it is the professional edition of Microsoft Visual Studio though this is mostly because i already had that - the free Microsoft Visual Studio Express would work just as well and frankly has little to no difference in use or performance for a simple program as AFCBuddy.

Afterwards using the IDE is mostly a matter of knowing \ learning how to program something that does what you want it to do. There are many books detailing VB.net and other programming languages, and there are large amounts of code examples on the Internet that explain or demonstrate a certain feature. In AFCBuddy's case the program mostly revolves around communication with the Wikimedia API - it asks for various XML outputs listing user edits, deleted contributions and similar, then processes this data (Counting AFC reviews et cetera) and finally it creates creating several containing the leaderboard / user edits et cetera which i then post manually. (It could do this automatically, but i prefer some manual verification at times). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're the Millers page

My submission was declined again with the following comment - IMDB and Warner's own press releases are biased and not third party peer reviewed. I find it absurd that Warner's own press release describing the film's plot is a biased reference. How is the plot of unreleased movies added then?

EDIT: Nvr mind I deleted the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepte123 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems already handled, though you may want to ask the last editor who declined the article first (In this instance User:You Can Act Like A Man). I am happy to help if needed, but the last reviewer will had the most recent look at the article and should thus have the most accurate "I declined it because..." explanation. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hey I submitted a blank article by accident, but have since completed it, I'm unsure if the renewed article has been recognised. The article is titled Reclaim Love. Has it been submitted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvirasami (talk • contribs) 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is, or rather - was, successfully submitted. As long as the yellow "Waiting for review" template is on a page, it is in the submission queue. It seems that the article was accepted after review in the meantime though - so well done! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Art of Hosting and Harvesting

I was sent a message about my created page and copyright infringement. The page was at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thje_Art_of_Hosting_and_Harvesting_Conversations_that_Matter&action=edit&redlink=1 but was deleted about 5 minutes after my email. I am the author of the item that was said to be the copyright infringement. What I mean is the I authored the both the document and the wikipedia page. How should I/do proceed?

Thanks!

Hiyas there,

Due to copyright laws any written content is automatically copyrighted by default unless the creator explicitly releases it under a free license such as GDFL or CC-BY-SA (These two examples are the licenses Wikipedia uses). Unless the content is specifically released under one of these or a compatible license, the only method to use it would be rewriting the original prose. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Lovett

Hi there,

I can't seem to understand why I can't get the article reviewed successfully . You mentioned worthwhile reference point but isn't Gramophone magazine good enough as it is the number one classical magazine as well as the Royal Academy of Music and the album release mentioned? As it is reviewed in many other areas and this pianist is already mentioned on the Wikipedia list of classical pianists?

Best regards,

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleMusicMad82 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply stating that an entity wrote about a topic isn't sufficient - the references also need to be added ("Cited") in the article. Now, i could write a lot about that, but have a look at WP:REFB first. That page should cover all the basics, and is likely quite a bit more structured and to-the-point then any reply of mine. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask though! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about my article submission

Hello:

You denied one of my pages, but I never did receive an email and Wikipedia is a bit challenging for me to navigate. And so, point is I didn't see what the reason/s is in order to fix. Please let me know, I am super lost. And voicing anything in the chat room has proven to be pointless.

Thank you.

jackionvista@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackelineschultz (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Jackline,

When an article is either accepted or declined, a template will be placed on your user talk page. When you log into your account you will see an orange bar on top of your screen stating that your talk page has been edited as well. It is also possible to receive a mail when your talk page is updated, though that functionality is disabled by default (Can be set on Special:Preferences => User profile tab => E-mail options). If you enable the "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" option, enter an email adres and verify this with the verification email that is send afterwards you will receive a mail if someone updates your talk page.

As for the decline reason itself: Those are left on the article by default: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_H._Hickey (The text in the red template on top of the page). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rejected page

Hello Excirial,

I've had my article rejected twice now because it "sounds too much like an advertisement". I don't know how to change this - it has 10 references to reputable news articles and stand-alone reference points that clearly indicate it is of notable interest. It also follows the format of other articles on companies, so I don't know why this submission has been rejected again.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bellcom_Worldwide

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Kind regards, Euan

Hello there Euan,

Before anything else - if you are modelling your own article after another page it is often a good idea to select one from the good article list (Specific for businesses: Category "economics and businesses".) These article's have been checked for quality and deemed to be of good quality. Other random article's detailing companies might have issues, so you could end up modeling yours after a bad example.

As for the issues itself, let me quote a few examples:

• Varry's leadership style has been publicly recognised (Yes it is cited. But what encyclopedic value does this add to the article detailing a company? This is a line i would expect to find in a cover letter)
• As Managing Director of Bellcom Worldwide, Varry has been the driving force in transforming the business and leading it into being a boutique sales organisation. (Same as above - more personal promotion.)
• With specialised knowledge and experience' within the international call centre sector, they offer a fully intergrated outsourcing call centre service and a highly skilled mulitlingual workforce (This line is riddled with peacock wording. It is a call center - the rest are judgments on quality)
• "Clients section". Don't include one. Unless there is a specific encyclopedic reason to write about a partnership or client relation due to some important event these sections boil down to portfolio's or advertising ("We are a supplier to these large companies, and since were chosen to supply them we must be exceptional".

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Downloading CanIT

I want to download CanIT. What'll I do?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not up for download - its a closed source app that was never designed to run onto any other system (It utterly lacks any form of exception handling for example, and i went with an "If i can code a section in five minutes that is preferable over spending another 10 thinking everything trough" approach. If your just looking for a code example, huggle is open source and has a more solid programming basis. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Article documented on Artist Francis Antony Kodenkandath

Hi Excirial,

You had declined the article I had submitted "Artist Francis Antony Kodenkandath" citing usage of peacock terms and had suggested usage of the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.I have reworked and submitted the same on 5th of Feb. I hope the article is in the expected standards now. Please check and suggest.

Thank you & Regards, Jayaram Shivan--Jayaramshivan (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Jayaram,

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). I see it is already back in the review queue, so another reviewer will take a look at it (The queue is fairly bad at the moment, so it may take a while though) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Neural Based Constitutive models

Dear Sir or madam, I have started to write an article on The Neural Based Constitutive models. This subject is quite new and the article is based on my several papers and on my thesis on the Swansea University. Please can you clarify me what do you mean when you write that the material of the article is copyrighted. That will be very helpful for me. Best Regard Stefanos Drakos,PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdrakos (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Stefanos,

The article was marked as a copyright violation since its content was identical to an article in "Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering" titled "A neural network equivalent of hardening soil model of PLAXIS" (Doi: 10.1201/9781439833766.ch94) which is marked as "Copyright 2006, Taylor and Francis Group plc, london, uk". Now i am aware that Taylor and Francis is an academic publisher and this copyright will very likely refer to the magazines as opposed to the article article's published in it. Even so, under the berne convention all written texts are automatically copyrighted unless specifically released as being "free to use" which means that Wikipedia cannot accept any copied text unless they are released under the CC-BY-SA or GDFL licensing Wikipedia itself uses.

Now, i would assume that you are actually the writer of that specific article and thus are the owner of its copyright claim. Note however that i cannot verify this and thus cannot restore the article based on a request to do so (Technically taken we are both anonymous editors who opted to use a specific account name). However, if you wish to allow the use of the article in question, please see WP:DCP for the procedure that allows for this.

King regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PMWhyte/sandbox

related discussion

Hi Excirial,

I appreciate the feedback, but I am slightly confused. Not sure If I agree that the article is "advertising", but I resepct your view/synopsis. I am a freelance writer and was commissioned by this company to create a Wiki entry - I do understand what Wiki is all about. As such, I took on the goal to write about the company, but only after reviewing entries of 'like' organsations in Wiki.

At this juncture, I assumed the entry would be valid, This sentiment was based on quite a few reviews, but specifically the article on the company "Relyon" (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relyon). I would appreciate more detailed feedback, i.e. what makes this article viewed as being advertising? More basically, I need ro know whether there is any point pursuing an article for Integritie.

Appreciate your thoughts as I don't want to waste your or my time. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMWhyte (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there PMWhyte,

To be frank i am not surprised to hear that you are a freelance writer working on the behalf of a company - the article's structure and writing suggested as much (Its structure is advertorial, but the writing's quality suggest it wasn't written by a random company employee, nor is it so toe-curling spammy that i would have suspected a social media style PR firm). Having said that i would point out that editing topics one has a conflict of interest is discouraged, and that paid advocacy is especially frowned upon. Since companies and PR agencies cause massive amounts of cleanup work you will likely find a large share editors to be non-supportive at best and downright unwilling to help in any way at worst when writing a paid article.

Having said that, I can drop a few hints for the article:

• Never base any article on another random article since these can be bad examples - The Relyon article you mentioned has been tagged for removal for example. If you need an example use an article from the good article category (Link specific for businesses).
• A company article isn't a list of products the company releases. Nor should it contain lists of "Key Features" followed by an external link to the products website. External links - if relevant, belong in the external links section and never in the main article body.
• Two IBM sources (Related company, doesn't pass the independent criteria) and two other sources won't cut it as far as the notability criteria goes (Also see: WP:42)

Having said that - statistically taken the survival rate for company article's is probably hovering around 1-3% though this includes article's which were literal copy-pastes from a commercial website sans any sources and other similar varieties. Even so, only very few companies are truly notable and a fair share of is eventually while it initially slipped trough the review net. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Swamp Brothers

Hi there,

I submitted a Swamp Brothers page for your review in December 2012. I did not elaborate too much on the history of the subject matter, and was going to do so once the page was published.

You did not approve the page. I looked at a similar page for a different show called "Swamp People" and I do not see why my submission was not approved.

Can you please advise why their page was published with similar types of credits and mine was not?

thank you, Jon Ripps jbripps@aol.com jon@rippsentertainment.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.167.84 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In no specific order:

• Because it is backed a few reliable sources from several news websites, which (Unlike discovery channel) aren't directly related to the article's subject.
• Because it doesn't contain a line stating "For booking information, you can contact www.rippsentertainment.com" which is essentially linkspam.
• And quite importantly: Because the other article describes the subject matter. As i read it Swamp Brothers is a TV show, but the article was essentially a dual biography on the main characters. After reading it one wouldn't know the format of the show, when it aired, where it aired, how successful it was et cetera et cetera.

Issue one is the primary issue, though the others are quite important as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on retired pro basketball player Ryan Wetzel

Hi

I am seeking assistance on referencing subject "Ryan Wetzel" in the hopes that his article be successful when submitting. Can you please help me reference properly. All of his reference sources are below on the new and advised bottom part of the page. The information in the wiki article are found primarily on the websites 'fanbase' and facebook(in the bio album).

It denied me because of my lack in reference. All the information pertaining to the article are there I need help putting the ref numbers next to the proper areas.

Thank you Montana Basketball Legends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana Basketball Legends (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A basic and fairly simply-to-use tutorial on referencing can be found here - That page will likely be enough to get the basic referencing done. But before anything else, please read WP:42 and compare it to the provided references. I assume you will understand why i mention this page afterwards. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Saransh Goila

Hi Excirial,

This article for creation was rejected by Pratyya Ghosh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saranshgoila/sandbox

Then you had replied on it saying FAIL - That article actually has numerous notable links to support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/January_2013_Backlog_Elimination_Drive/Pratyya_Ghosh

Since then.. no action has been been taken to review it again and actually create the article. Is it possible for you to help in any way..?

Thanks a million.--Saranshgoila (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Sport Official Article

Dear Wikipedia team,

I would like to inform you that this Article “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Al_Jazeera_Sport” is official for our company Al Jazeera Sport,

Username:sankariw2

Please can you help us to make this article Live on your website (Wikipedia), much appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankariw2 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there sankariw2,

If you are referring to the article as "out company" you have a definite conflict of interest, in which case writing about it is strongly discouraged. As for the article itself - any article describing a company must meet the inclusion criteria for companies which requires multiple reliable sources backing up any written content (For a definition of a reliable source, please see WP:42. Since i don't see a specific article related question i think that is pretty much all the advice i can offer for this page.

Also note that i generally 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). I see it is already back in the review queue, so another reviewer will take a look at it (The queue is fairly bad at the moment, so it may take a while though) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ App in the Air - Track Flights and Airports / Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/App in the Air

Hello,

I want to create a page (article) about my own app (I created it with couple of other guys) - App in the Air. I'm new here, at Wiki. How do I have to avoid this misunderstanding about copyrights?

Thank in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkosholkin (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Nkosholkin,

The page was marked as a copyright violation because its content was literally copied from this page. Yes, i know that you are likely the person who wrote this page seeing the above statement, but no, that doesn't mean that the content can be used. Unless written text is specifically released under a Wikipedia compatible copyright license (CC-BY-SA or GDFL) it cannot be used directly.

Irregardless of the copyright status the page itself - in its current form - would not have been accepted either way. In order to be on Wikipedia any topic must pass the general notability guideline which in turn means that there must be multiple reliable sources (For a definition of those, see WP:42) who have written about the subject. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Restraint orders

Hi

You reviewed my draft article on restraint orders. You have suggested that a page on the topic already exists. With respect you are mistaken. My article is on 'restraint orders' which freeze the bank accounts and assets of suspected criminals who are believed to have profited from crimes such as theft, fraud, drug trafficking, etc.

The existing page refers to a different topic "restraining orders" which are orders to prevent alleged sex offenders from pursuing / contacting their victims. The names are confusingly similar - but the orders are quite different!

It was for precisely that reason that I thought it would be useful to start a wiki page on restraint orders. (I have also now edited and improved the article originally submitted and re-submitted it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidwinchUK (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Kind regards David DavidwinchUK (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Excirial , Many thanks for sorting that for me. Much appreciated! DavidwinchUK (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome of course. I did take the liberty to add two {{confusing2}} templates on the article though. Those are used in cases when there are two or more similar topics which a reader could easily confuse for the other subject. Seeing that i bumped into that issue nose-first myself i figured i might not be the only one.

Also, i must say that this page is an excellent piece of work for a new article. Since i patrol the newest AFC submissions first it is fairly rare to run into something that is f decent enough quality to accept in one go. Keep up the great work! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vignesh Wadarajan

Hi Excirial,

I will like to know how I go about to submit my entry again. It is really confusing and your help is much appreciated. Have done the necessary edits and references. Thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayathiri Mathivanan (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Gayathiri,

There will be one or more red "decline" templates on the article you submitted previously. In this red decline template you will see the text "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." The "click here" part is a hyper link that will allow you to place the page back in the review queue - just press "Save Page" in order to do so. If you did so correctly there will be a new yellow "waiting for review" template at the bottom of the page. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Excirial, I want this revision to be deleted from my talkpage and since you are around, could you please do that? Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Submission of PINK de Thierry

Dear mr Excirial,

A week ago the Wkipage on PINK the Thierry was launched. But declined for I had a list of publications to refer to but didn't connect these into footnotes linked with the texts. I have fully corrected this omission. And wait now already over a week for the launch of the page. I am aware it is very busy for you and your Wiki peers .... But we would be delighted if the page would be launched. We are referring to the page already internationally so I hope you understand why.

Thank you very much for your (i think volonteer') work.

Yours sincerely,

Donald Louw (username: Donald.louw) Donald.louw (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To the distinguished gamekeepers of Wikipedia,

We have submitted a Wikipage, an overview on the international working artist PINK de Thierry and are waiting for launch. We in Europe are very used to cope with several languages, using sources from Italy, France, Germany, Holland, the USA and more. Geography in visual arts is a special topic in the last decades in art history (unfortunately Wiki has no page on that!) and has to do with language and culture where the artist is raised in, and works in. E.g. international known Belgian artists like Raveel, Magritte, Ensor and Broodthaers have an art that is quite different from contemporary artists in the US, England, Germany, Holland or France.

We feel it as a handicap if the sources we refer to are only English written sources. For we value very much how for instance Italian (contemporary) art historians look at works of living artists from Germany or Holland. The professor in semiotics, the Italian [Umberto Eco] who has never left Bologna (Italy) can tell you much more about this. Of course we communicate a lot in English among us, Europeans, but we are very much aware that there is much more to express than only the English language can facilitate. We do NOT say that you have to stop your work on Wikipedia;on the contrary Wiki is a most useful instrument on the web and we highly respect your efforts to maintain certain (Brittannica of our time') standards. What we want is that we can refer to articles of books written in other languages than English, also on the English Wikipages.

(I want to add that anyone who wants a translation we will facilitate one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald.louw (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yours sincerely, Donald LouwDonald.louw (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Donald,

The page queue backlog is currently at about ~1200 pages, and this specific article is currently located at position 350 or so in that queue. In other words - it may take some time before the article is reviewed another time and / or created. My own reviews focus on the front of the queue - if an article has any show stopper issues such as lacking any sourcing i will immediately decline it for this reason as it would be senseless to have someone wait a week in the "regular" queue to hear something that takes half a minute to determine.

Additionally, citing non-English sources is fine though English sources are definitely preferred if available. As long as a claim is actually supported by a non-english text it can be added; though keep in mind that the actual prose must be written in English. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

vaginal acceptance trainer

hi (I use bold not to shout but to highlight :)ok )

can you please relook at this again because you will see that the vaginal acceptance trainer does exist as it is a nominee for the 2013 edison awards as new combined neurolinguitic health invented medical device for vaginismus.

also I did not mention a vaginismus link in my article because i noticed a few of them are also off track because the following are on the Vaginismus page : number 1 : botox, this link takes you to a site where after entering you have to have a password to see the website contents. http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/lwwgateway/landingpage.htm;jsessionid=RWXDKpXqhyKmXYB95LBjdwzSrLdhlV3ztD7JppRdDFTWGBPh3Y9v!369787901!181195629!8091!-1?issn=0032-1052&volume=124&issue=6&spage=455e

number 8 this link goes through to selling website, yet does not refer to a new invention as recognised by edison institute. ^ Pacik, Peter (2010). When Sex Seems Impossible. Stories of Vaginismus & How You Can Achieve Intimacy. Manchester, NH: Odyne. pp. 8–16. ISBN 978-0-9830134-0-2.

number 13 vaginal dilators - if you click on it , you get taken to http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/health/services/women/services/gynecology-and-obstetrics/services/vulvar-health-program/upload/ohsu_vaginal_dilators.pdf

but when you follow the bottom link to the websites below , it is selling football/sport physio

http://www.apta.org/ http://wwww.womenshealthapta.org/

MY DEFENSE TO ALLOW THE ARTICLE TO BE UPLOADED

I hope you will now allow the vaginal acceptance trainer to be uploaded as it exists and has been recognised by edison awards, because it is now in existence and because it exists and is so important re vaginismus and the problems women have in getting to cervical testing, its existance must be made allowed so people become a ware of something that - must be outstanding - to be recognised by edison awards. Please will you now allow it to be uploaded, this is new science in the making allow people to be made aware of it.

If the posting criteria eg V's on their sided etc etc are wrong please can you correct for me as I do not understand how to do so and are aware that you have experience I can only imagine of. But please do upload the article because if such a now marketed invention exists women should be allowed to know of such, and so for one life saved from cancer because a women can overcome vaginismus by being able to have a smear, that means another women lives and spreads the word then more lives are on their way to beating cervical cancer. I ask you permit this article for womens health alone.

Hi Excirial,

Vaginal Acceptance Trainer.

Ok, I am beat, I cannot get my head around any of this, it really is too complicated for me in my later years. I can just about manage email and tesco sainsburys groceries.

I believe I have honestly given the information to support the new finding that should be made aware to the public, I also went to see the website and have since noticed the front page has Edison Award Nominee Logo confirming existance of new patented invention which is now for sale to help women get treatment of vaginismus neurolinguisticaly ( spelling ?) so they can then have gynaecological examinations /smears regarding cervical cancer (early detection saves lives) which needs acknowledging.

PLease please please, can I bring your attention to the following listing on wiki , that being "Pavers Shoes", have no idea how long this has been listed but it clearly makes the public aware that Pavers Shoes Ltd is a retail store. This is why I am so confused, Pavers Shoes Ltd is : online shopping, high street shops, and on sky www.paversshoes.tv (which is even listed above reference - sending traffic to place to puchase shoes handbags etc etc).

I really think we should aire on the side of caution, if Pavers Shoes has been on Wiki for this long as a retailer, then the Vaginal Acceptance Trainer, should as it has a health life saving benefit be given exception to the rule clearance and uploaded. This is a break through in getting women to smears/early cervical detection - and I think that has to be good thing. It is not selling shoes or using wiki to drive traffic to sales sites, the VAT is there to help women save their life.

Based on this I truly think we have to upload it, imagine the change it will make if a women gets a smear done, cancer is detectecd early, cells removed, and months of chemo and nhs costs are saved, as is her life. I stake my whole core as a human being on this : women need to know it exists, the time the media pick it up, too many lives will have sadly been lost in the process. PLease make it known by uploading it, it is as I said, one small neurlinguistic invention acknowledged by Edison awards and now a new product to help women overcome vaginismus to get to that cervical screening. At some stage it has to be bought, but, a life saved by one purchase is priceless, let the Lord decide who survives/doesn't survive cancer, but at least let woem have a fair chance in the game of survival :- because we put it on wiki with our blessing as a mark of respect for science and ways/products that can save lives.

God Bless W/L

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

I don't do this often - or more specifically, virtually never - but i am going to say TL;DR here. I am honestly not interested in long write-ups covering the miracle workings of some random device and comparisons to some random article on shoes. Summarized for this article:

• Referring to other article's and basing your argument on that article is a WAX argument. Simply put - Other crap exists. If there is a bad page somewhere it is not a license to create another one.
• Wikipedia isn't here to promote any device, charity, person, or similar. Regardless of the subject, it must pass multiple criteria:

• The subject must be Notable. That is, important enough for encyclopedic inclusion.
• This notability must be backed up trough the use of reliable sources. For a definition of a reliable source, see WP:42.
• And finally, the article must not promote a specific product, since this is advertising.

As far as i can trace the term "vaginal acceptance trainer" is used by a single company which sells devices marketed as such. The provided references do not contain this term anywhere, so my conclusion would be that this is either an invented buzzword or a device that hasn't gained enough notability for a stand-alone article. Don't worry though - if the device works as well as claimed i am certain there will be multiple scientific medical magazines who will cover it. Once that happens, those will be quite decent sources. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)